414

The Nation

involves ahalt and finally a retreat. Belief in that policy undid the Social Democrats in Germany, and the policy rv~llundo
thesamegroups
In England,France,
andthe UlutedStates if
theyperslst In iollowmg I t . T h e g r e a t democraclesare only
democraclesfortherulingclasses;a
vlolent struggle is inevitable;thecapitallsts wlllfight tothelast
ditch toretaintheir
property and pr~vileges; and t h a only salvation for the workers
is to be the first to strike.
M r . Stracheys logic is perhapsdifficult to answer if one
accepts his premises. But if we put the names of natlons where
heputs
those of classes,how
famillar his phrasesand
logic
of mllltarlsm. This
suddenly become! Thesearethephrases
l y e arejust
isthe logic of jingoism,alwaysandeverywhere.
andreasonable and inherently peaceful; we arecapable of disinterestednessand concession, but we areright and our enemy
is wrong, and machine-guns are the only argument that he will
understand.But supposc your enemy adopts precisely the same
positlon? Mr. Strachey is aware of thlsdanger,but
he holds
thattheCommunistsmust
winbecause
90 per cent of the
people of everycountryarethenatural
opponents of fascism."
Thls eitherfalls to accountforthe
success of fascism in GermanyandItaly,oradmitsthatthelower
middle classeswho
accept andsupport
those fascisms are very easily duped; in
be just as easily
whlchcase
onewonders
why theycannot
duped in England,France, and theUnitedStates?
If fascists
create Communlsts, Communists no less inevitably breed fascists.
might
reexamine
the
merits
of
Perhaps M r . Strachey
democracy. T r u e , he holds at one point thatthefascistsnever
have t o seize power, really; their struggle with the older forms
of the capltalrst state is just a stage battle; they seize power
pilonly in the sense that they seize I t fromundertheirown
lows. Butwe find hlm admittmgatother
points thatdemocraticpower
and thegeneralfranchise
do undermine capitalism-for
that is really why thefasclsts are so desperately
anxioustoget
rid of them!Let him not forgetthatthrough
dtmocratic methods up to 80 per cent of British inheritances are
alreadyselzed, and u p to 63 percent of the high Amerlcan
incomes. Democracy can takea
good
deal
more, I believe,
perhapsas much as it may require,before Mr. J. P. Morgan
and Mr. Owen D. Young begin getting out theirautomatics.

HENRYHAZLITT

How Great W a s Shakespeare?

By E. K. Stoll. T h eM a c milla?
Company.
On Reoditrg Shakespeare. By Logan
Pearsall
Smith.
Harcourt,BraceandCompany.
$1.50.
0 onewho is interested in contemporaryattitudes toward Shakespeare, or who supposes, perchance, that the
lastwords upon thesubjectweresaid
by Goethe or
Brandes,Bradley or Lee,should miss either of these volumes.
In the first, the most learned (and dogmatic)
of the American
scholarssums up thehard-boiled positionwhich, for a number
of years, he has been defendingthrough 3 series of truculent
studies. In the second, a cultivatedamateur,thoroughlyfamiliarwiththisas
well as other common-sense approachesto
themystery of Shakespeare,eludesthemas
best he can and
makes an often convincmgcase for the kind of idolatry against
whlch Professor Stolls worksarea
reaction. M r . Smithhas
of suchanotherchampion
of
not,perhaps,eitherthestrength
his attitude as Dover Wilson or such a powerfulsystem-buildingimaglnation as G. Wilson Knight, but he knows his Shakespeareandwilldefend
apologetically,when
he cannotdefend
aggressively, his right to read Hamlet as something more than
a curious example of Elizabethan stage conventions.

Art and Artifice in Shokespeare.

$4.

, ,

[Vol. 137, No. 3562

-

Professor Stoll, itshouldbe explained, is one of those who

believe that a study of Shakespeares t m e furnishestheonly
key to an understandlng of the plays. T o him most of the
lnterpretatrons Hhlch weremadedurlng
the nineteenth centuryand, indeed,most of theveryproblems
discovered and
solved arepure nonsense. Boththe difficulties themselvesand
thesolutions which have been offered growout of a rdiculous
tendency to apply to the dramatlststandards of which he had
neverheard
and psychological principles in which he had not
theslightestinterest.Hundreds
of thousands of wordshave
been wasted in theattempttomakeOthellospllibilityseem
convincing,and to account on psychological grounds for Hamlets delay, when all the Labored andingenious explanations are
so muchmoonshine.
T h e realexplanation of the firstd~fficulty
is merelythat by violating a law of probabllity Shakespeare
of the
preclpitated a strikingsituation;therealexplanation
therewould
second IS merely that if Hamlet hadnotdelayed,
have been no play. If you insistupon takingtoollterallythe
a daybutforall
statementthatShakespearewasnotfor
time; if you think of him as acreature above humanitywho
somehowmysteriouslyantlcipatedallsubsequentdevelopments
of intellect and sens~bility;if, in a word, and like theearly
romanticcritics, you regardhimnot
as adramatistbutasa
fact of nature, then, of course,allsorts
of unsolvable probto arise. Buttheproper
way to understand
lems aresure
Hamlet,forexample,
is nottoregard
the hero as a real
person, or even as a modern psychologlcal character. T h e
of therevenge play
proper way is toexaminethetradition
in which Hamletwaswritten,and
if you do so you will
discover thatthe technical problemwasalwaysthe
same. I t
was always the problem of keeping the thing going for five acts,
and t h e problemwas solved by Shakespeare in afashion which
if
is dramatlcallyvery effective but which willnotstandup
you attempt to analyze it psychologically. Here as everywhere
Shakespearewasinterested
in dramatic action and vivid contrasts rather than in strictverisimilitude, and s e a s Professor
Stoll is readyto prove by citatlonsfromthe
opinions of the
chief classical critics from Aristatle on down, and by examAeschylus to
ples of thepracticeofsuccessfuldramatistsfrom
Phillp Barry and Eugene ONeill-have most
of the great writers of most times. Art is artifice; it is not life.
Undoubtedlythehistoricalscholars
of whomProfessor
Stoll is abrilliantrepresentativehaveputtheiropponents
on
the defensive, just as the minute students of Shakespeares life
have put on the
defensive all those who would see in him anyof theElizabethantheater.
thingmorethanapracticalman
Inbothcases,moreover,the
answer-in so far as $here is an
answer-is simplyanappeal
tothefactthatthis
alleged business man certainly wrote supreme poetry, and that this manipulator of the tricks of a tradition has continued to fascinate the
mind of thewholeliterateworldwhileall
of his contemposunk intothe
position of mere curiosities. Unrarieshave
doubtedlyonemust
begin by grantingProfessorStoll
and his
party a greatdeal of all thattheymaintain.Shakespearecertamlywasanoftenunscrupuloustrickster,
and therearecertainly dozens of major inconsistencies or mljor outrages against
is thatthe
credulity of which the only sensiblethingtosay
for the sake
Elizabethan audience was willing to swallow them
of what they made possible. Yet there is grave danger in Ieaping to the conclusion that Shakespeare is nothing but what, in
part, he indubitably was.
Mr. Smith,forexample,referstothatbrilliantanticipation of modern crlticism, Morganns eighteenth-century essay on
Falstaff. H e pointsouthowtrue
is Morgannscontentionthat
many of Shakespearescharactersdifferfromthecharacters
of
other dramatists in that Shakespeare has managed, by incidental
touches,toendowthemwithhistoriesas
well as qualities in
additionto those necessarilyrevealed in theparticularactions

October 1 1, 19331

whichbringthemintotheplayitself.Andthis,
be it noted,
for what it suggests
isextremelyimportantbathasafactand
of Shakespearesmethod.
H e dld adoptthestageconventions;
he did oftendrawcharacterswhich
were In whole or in part
essentiallydramatlcpuppets.Buthewasseldomcontentwith
that alone. H e mayhaveviolated
psvchological probabilityin
which hetakestoprecipitatrthesltuationin
theshortcut
Othello;but
it is hardto
see howanyone
Lvho srudlesthe
wordsandbehavior
of thecentral character o f t p r Ire lrns been
placed m the srtuotron could maintain that Shakespeare was not
interested in psychology. H e adoptedtheconventions
of his
time; not seldom
he allowedhimself t o be dominated by them;
burhewasnotcontenttoremainalwaystheirslave,andin
our towardthlngs
additiontothepoetry,therearereachinps
wholly beyond theconventionsthemselves.
T h e onlyunity
of
his
plays
I S perhaps
dramatic
a
unity.
T h e only
consistent
wholetheymake
is that of aneffectlveElizabethan
play. R u t
like
all
great
artlsts
Shakespeare
could
make
the
tradition
serve his purpose; he couldtakewhatwasgiven
by anold
so use it that it becameanot
story or apopularsituationand
ur.suitablevehicleforsayingwhat
he had to say. N o r does
itseemunreasonabletosupposethatthethingwhichhaskept
h m aliveis, in largepartatleast,justthisthingwhlchdisrest of that company of practicalplaytinguisheshimfromthe
wrights of which he madeone.
A r t is artifice. B u t theartiit has,hereandthere,
fice owes its meaning to thefactthat
its pertinence
life.to
JOSEPH WOOD
KRUTCH

Robinsons W o m e n
Talifer. By EdwinArlingtonRobinson.
The Macmillan Company. $1.75.
A L I F E R is a modern love story, the first
modern love
story Robinsonhasgiven us. T h e only lovestory, one
mlght say, besldes Trlstram. For most of Robinsons
stories about men and women are really,
even when love is one
of themotifs,stories of psychologicaland ph~losoph~cal inquiry.
I n them a woman may s e t the man o r men to thinking, but once
are busywithintheir
themaincharacters(alwaysmasculine)
ownmlnds,thewomanplayssmallpart
in anythingthatmay
g u t andanalyzing
of
resultfromsuchamasculinesearchlng
values.Robmsanslongnarrarivepoemsare
all concernedwith
Robinsons
own
phdosophy,
and
this
is [)utusuallyintothe
is theinterpreter.Inthe
mouth of onemalecharacterwho
use of the interpreter Robinson and Henry James have much in
common.Never,
so f a ra s I canrecall,doesRoblnson
use a
womans mind as the sensitive lens whereon the scene and action
of a poem andthelrinnermeaningareinscribed.Obviously,
for the interprehe does not consider women the proper vehicles
tation of such speculative and synthetic philosophizing as he, the
artist,mustpresent.
Even in thisnewpoem,Talifer,reitherAltheanor
two womenwhopossessTalifer(theoutwardly
Karen,the
gloriousandsomewhatemptyhero),norTaliferhlmselfis
of interpreter.This
is givento
Dr. Quick,
allowedthepart
theirmutualfrlend.
His somewhatquixoticactionprevents
He is thephilosopherand,asusualin
emotional
disaster.
Robinsons poetry, he is a failure so far as worldly standards are
his fashlon.bothAltheaand
concerned. H e hasloved,after
of
K a r e n ; he has admired and seen through the handsome shell
Talifer. He tells Althea to wait when she must walt
or perish.
H e foreseesthatTaliferandKarenareto
be bad mates. H e
takesKarenawaywhen
she should go. H e is neithershocked
nor destroyed when Karen plays on him the very same tricks she
hasplayed on Talifer.
So Althea and Karen join the group of Robinsons women-

415

The Nation

Vivian,Gabrielle,Laramie,Agatha,Lisette,Eileen,Natalie,
andtheothers.Eventheunamesportraythem.Oneandall
they are plctures of what Robmson
conceives the feminine mind
to be. Elther they are fire, or they are water. Theyburnmen,
reflect
dlstract them from thelr natural pursuits, or they quletly
mensgentlerfaces.Theymotherand
they worship, orthey
rn this last
destroy by too muchpassion or toolittle.Alrhea,
poem, is obviouslythemother.Karen,beautiful.butvery
cod
of brain, is the frigid siren.ShehasVwianabeauty,butnone
of Vivlanspassion.SheresemblesthedarkIsolde,butlacks
that ladys depth of feellngabout love. Altheaverydefinitely
women,
resemblesthe f a i r andfalthfulIsolde.Andboththese
like so many of Robinsons, are somewhat feline: Althea is
the
domesticated PUSSY; Karen,theneuroticwlldcat.Readingthis
last poem of Robinsons convihces one again
that this poet knows
verylittleaboutthepossiblecomplexities
of women,thathis
of some
women are in tactnotrealatall,butareprojections
need In man.Theyarethereforealittletiresomeand,decidedly,they a r e painted in conventionalromantic poses. None
of them do anythlng except to answer men or to refuse to answer
of them,onefeels,arejustalittleinthe
way.
them.Most
T h e y seem t o keep
men
from
spiritual
research,
to
tame
mensleapmgimagmationsandintellects.Theyareabsolutely
worthless as fine crltics of life, as commentators upon the deeper
significance of living.
Allthis
mav be besidethepoint,butit
is anamusing
it contains, as do all
observation. Talifer is a love story, but
Robinsonspoems.somefew
fine passages of poeticphilosophy;
it is, of course,beautifullywritten.
I doubt if itisnearly
as
important a poem in Robinsons whole scheme as are Cavendars
House, T h e Glory of theNightingales,Matthiasatthe
Door. I n it Roblnsonseemstohaverried
to avold his usual
complexityofthought,seemstohavetried,as
he dld in Trislike Tristram,merelyto
tell thetaleperfectly.Talifer,
tram, presents, therefore, much
less of what is truly Robinson
the poet. T h i s we findin t h e less popularMatthlasatthe
Door
Merlin.
in and
EDALou WALTON

Rhodess Dark E m pire

Cecil Rhodes. By SarahGertrudeMillin.HarperandBroth-

ers. $3.75.
Cecil Rhodes. By J. G. Lockhart.GreatLivesSeries.
The
R4acmillanCompany.
75 cents.
Cecil Rhodrs. By WilliamPlomer.AppletonBiographies.
D.
Appleton-Century
Company.
$1.50.
H E N Stanleytraversedtheinterior
of Africahe saw
thisrichvirginland,withitsnavigableriversand
lakes,asavacuumyearning
to be tilledwithcivilization. It was in thenineties,whentheindustrlalizedOccident
wasattheheight
of itsself-assurance, its certalnty of being
themostenlightened,prosperous,powerful,andhumanesociety
everdeveloped in theworld.
O n hisreturntoEuropeStanley
could,wlthoutpersonalhypocrisy,apply
ro bothmissionaries
and commercial exploiters for help, confident that he was
workingtoupllfthumanity
in Africa, body and soul. Stanleylived
of
to see hls hopereducedtocorruptionundertheexploitation
rhe king-capitalist,Leopold
of Belgium,whohadfirstposed
before him as a stock-market Parsifal entering Africa with the
from
chivalrous motive of rescuing that dark and opulent beauty
savagery.Whilecapitalistimperialism
was devastatingAfrica,
the trembling,fever-strickenStanleysolaced
his lastyears by
laylng out on an Engl~sh farm the topography,
in miniature, of
the unspoiledcontinenthehadopened
to esploitation.
of Africa, a young tuberSomewhat later, in.another part
a fortune. A t an early age he
cular Englishman was founding