Handelingen van het Nederlandsche Philologen-congres 13

De Voorzitter dankt den Spreker voor zijn lezing en drukt de hoop uit, dat, wat er ook in de toekomst van onze biografieën moge worden, ze in elk geval goed mogen zijn. Hij geeft dan het woord aan Dr. G.A. Dudok voor zijn voordracht over:

John Galsworthy and G. Bernard Shaw compared.

The mention of these writers might suggest a comparism between them and their predecessors. When Shaw in Major Barbara refers to Samuel Butler as his worthy predecessor, because Butler calls poverty the greatest crime, he might have mentioned an earlier writer Harriet Martineau, who, in her Poor-Law Tales speaks of poverty as the greatest social evil and the root of all vice. Disraeli may be said to anticipate the sombre philosophy of Galsworthy as regards some of his opinions and theories. In Sybil Disraeli points out that the gulf between the rich and the poor is impassable. His ‘the dove and the eagle will not meet’ is a variant of Galsworthy's ‘Rich is rich and poor is poor and never the twain shall meet’

[p. 66]

in Fraternity. Again one would be tempted to compare Charles Kingsley and Galsworthy as regards the modesty, the reserve with which they criticise their fellowmen. Kingsley's frequent exclamation, ‘God! who am I that I should judge another’ finds a ready response in Galsworthy's work.

Confining our attention exclusively to Galsworthy and Shaw irrespective of any outside influence, we notice the following striking differences.

I. Difference as regards range of subject-matter. Shaw not only occupies himself with contemporary life, but also with the past (historical plays Saint Joan, Caesar and Cleopatra, The Inca of Perusalem) and the future (philosophical works Man and Superman, Back to Methuselah). Besides the scene of action is frequently laid abroad (The Devil's Disciple etc.)

Galsworthy, on the other hand, describes only contemporary life and his plays and novels invariably have an English background, with the exception of Villa Rubein, The Dark Flower, The Little Dream.

II. Difference in treatment based on difference of character.

Shaw has very pronounced, we may say, prejudiced opinions and ideas, and in order to advocate them, develops dangerous theories. Examples: his criticism of the marriage-laws and the immoral ‘notice-to-quit’ theory in The Philanderer; his treatment of poverty as a social evil and his dangerous ‘prostitution is better than poverty’ theory in Mrs. Warren's Profession.

In his attacks on persons and institutions Shaw always takes a onesided view. Galsworthy is entirely different: he is the modest, but keen observer who does not develop dangerous theories and who does not side with a definite party. Galsworthy is one of the very few sociological writers who has the gift of taking a detached view. In his work we see Galsworthy the barrister, the judicial summer-up of cases. ‘Let me try to eliminate any bias, only from an impersonal point of view, if there be such a thing, am I going to get even approximately at the truth.’ In order to look at things from different standpoints, Galsworthy creates contrastgroups (the so-called see-saw construction). In Strife the two contrast-groups are the directors of the factory and the workmen; the serious problem: a strike looked at both from the standpoint of the employer and the employee. In the Forsyte Saga the contrast-groups are the Forsytes on the one hand, Irene and Bosinney on the other, that is the contrast between materialism and art. Galsworthy is a well-balanced writer ‘le mieux equilibré’ as Chevalley calls him. Shaw is so carried away by his own thesis that he fails to enter into the point of view of other people.

III. Difference in tone. From what has been said above, one might draw the conclusion that Galsworthy is less severe than Shaw and does not cut so deep as he. This is a wrong conclusion. Shaw lashes mercilessly and yet we feel the cut less than that of Galsworthy. The reason is that there is a distinct difference in tone. Shaw gives us a good scolding, but he does it so entertainingly that we quite enjoy the experience. Shaw diverts the mind by the most amazing paradoxes, by grotesque extravaganzas, but Galsworthy is too serious and grave: there is no room for buffoonery,

[p. 67]

there is an all pervading feeling of pity and indignation. When Galsworthy holds up a picture of the indifference and the callousness of mankind (one of his favourite themes) as he does so effectively and touchingly in The Little Man, The Pigeon, Escape, Fraternity, we feel that he goes straight for the conscience and that it is not one of the characters he describes, but each of us.

This difference in tone is easily accounted for by the striking difference in character. Galsworthy impresses us as an unobtrusive, modest and reticent man, almost too reticent, and as such he makes no bid for popularity. Shaw, on the other hand, is eager to draw public attention and must bask himself in the sunshine of applause. Shaw wants his readers to be tickled by his witticisms and, in order to excite laughter he sometimes spoils the literary value of his work. Examples: the dialogue between the Maid and the Dauphin in Saint Joan (Act II) ‘Thou needs new clothes, Charlie. Why does not Queen look after thee properly’ - the meeting between Caesar and Cleopatra in Caesar and Cleopatra. It is all hopelessly absurd and historically incorrect, but the scenes are infinitely humorous. Yet, it would be unfair to dismiss the Shavian extravaganzas merely as humorous absurdities. What we are inclined at first sight to call extravaganza might prove to be keen discrimination and acute judgment. Examples: the unique interpretation of Wagner's Rhine gold in the Perfect Wagnerite, the development of Nietzchean philosophy through the quaint trio Don Juan, the Devil and the Statue in Man and Superman, not to speak of the evolutiontheories in Back to Methuselah.

In the work of Galsworthy no paradoxes, no extravaganzas, it has even been doubted if his oeuvre contains any humorous element at all. It does, but one has to look for it. Never does Galsworthy step out to force his humour upon us, rather the reverse: many of his humorous touches pass by, unobserved, unnoticed by the public at large. Galsworthy requires attentive and critical reading. Soames Forsyte wears his top-hat when the capitalists are in power, when ‘those labour chaps’ are in, he quickly changes it for a bowler hat. Galsworthy leaves to the reader to find out that Soames' hat is nothing but a kind of political barometer. This is an instance of the unobtrusive quiet Galsworthy humour. Perhaps Galsworthy is at his best in the scenes connected with the law: the dialogue between Marjorie Ferrars and her lawyer in The Silver Spoon may be given as an example of his delicate and refined humour. We cannot fail to notice that very often there is a touch of bitterness at the bottom of it all. The return of Dartie (In Chancery) and the 5th episode in Escape (the four trippers in the Ford car) may serve as illustrations.

The discussion of the pathetic element offers some difficulties. It has been said that Shaw is a satirist, a scoffer, but it must be remembered that Shaw shows himself as a man of feeling especially in the beginning and at the end of his career. We refer to his musical reviews in The Star of the years 1888-1890, and which, though seldom read, are of great importance, because they give us an entirely different aspect of the man. Who has ever read the reviews on Beethoven, Brahms, Grieg and Wagner

[p. 68]

by ‘the Stars' own captious critic’ cannot maintain that Shaw is destitute of feeling. And nobody will deny that there is a strong element of pathos in Saint Joan.

How infinitely pathetic is the situation of the Maid: her utter isolation and loneliness. Here is an example of unalloyed pathos: with touching truthfulness Shaw shows us ‘the pity of it all’.

The question rises: why is the pathetic element kept down in most plays? The answer may be that Shaw hates sentimentality, especially morbid sentimentality and the remedy against it is satire and ridicule, not pathos. Besides it would be wrong to say that the pathetic element is confined to his reviews and to Saint Joan. ‘This assertion is for too sweeping,’ said Mr. Shaw to the present writer, ‘I assure you that my feeling is always at the bottom of it.’ We must remember that Shaw's chief aim is to expose cant, humbug and hypocrisy. When this has been done, that is when the dramatist show his characters as they really are, he endears himself to them and it is then that the pathetic element comes to the fore. When Mrs. Warren is quite sincere and tells her daughter honestly, without any cant or hypocrisy why she followed her ‘profession’, we are moved, because we feel that the mother is a pitiful creature who fights and struggles to keep the love of her child, whose love she cannot bear to lose.

As regards Galsworthy's pathos we would say that it is a far less complicated question and that it makes a straight and direct appeal to the heart. Galsworthy is perhaps most pathetic when he develops one of his favourite themes: it is the innocent who have to suffer. In Loyalties it is Chloe, the wife of Dancy, who, quite ignorant of the crimes of her husband, has to suffer for his faults. In the war-sketch The Bright Side of it a German living in England and married to an Englishwoman, is punished ‘because his crime was to be born in Germany.’ Though moved with pity, Galsworthy keeps himself well under control. Only rarely does he forget himself; seldom does his passion get the upperhand. That is when he describes war-psychology; then his tone becomes almost fierce. ‘Man has domesticated his animals, but has never succeeded in domesticating himself,’ says the clergyman Edwar Pierson in Saint's Progress and cynically he adds. ‘Man must be a wild beast, you know, or the world couldn't be so awfully brutal.’

It cannot be denied that Galsworthy is more serious in his post-war novels, when grave and urgent problems such as international relations (The White Monkey), unemployment (The Silver Spoon) occupy his mind.

It is a pity that owing to lack of time interesting points (style, construction, character delineation) must be left undiscussed, but this quick survey may serve to show notable differences between Galsworthy and Shaw as regards outlook on society, tone and conception, based on striking contrasts in personality and character.

De Voorzitter dankt Dr. Dudok voor zijn interessante mededeelingen over Shaw en Galsworthy en geeft het woord aan Mej. Dra. C.R. Meibergen, die den spreker vraagt, of hij niet vindt, dat Shaw en Galsworthy van

[p. 69]

geheel verschillende dingen uitgaan. Bij Galsworthy krijgt zij het idee, dat hij zal blijven voor latere tijden, als een illustratie van de zeden en gewoonten van zijn tijd en de vernieuwing van en wijziging in het bezit, die zijn tijd gekenmerkt hebben, terwijl Shaw enkel tracht, de lachers op zijn hand te krijgen en ijdelheid zijn eigenlijk motief is. De Spreker antwoordt, dat hij als groote grief tegen Shaw heeft, dat deze zoo destructief is, het goedkoope van Shaw zit hem hierin, dat hij heelemaal niet opbouwt. Van hervormingen vindt Spreker in Shaw geen spoor. De Heer A.J.A. Hosman vraagt, of de spreker Shaw als ernstig beschouwt. Dr. Dudok antwoordt, dat hij zichzelf ook deze vraag gesteld heeft. Hij heeft Shaw zelf gevraagd, of men hem, Shaw, steeds au sérieux moet nemen. Het antwoord van Shaw was, dat hij de huwelijkstheorie in The Philanderer niet serieus gemeend had. De Spreker zegt, dat de vraag, serieus of niet serieus, voor elk werk op zichzelf moet gesteld worden.

Mej. J.J. Stempels is van oordeel, dat Shaw den moed der overtuiging mist. Hij is een subjectief man, en ook een groot dialecticus, die echter soms een probleem wel van twee kanten bekijkt. De Spreker vraagt haar een voorbeeld te geven en Mej. Stempels wijst op Mrs. Warren's Profession. Dr. Dudok vindt dit werk zeer eenzijdig, tot op het immoreele af.

De Voorzitter zegt, dat voor hem het kenmerkende verschil is, dat Galsworthy ‘Selfrespect’ heeft en Shaw noch ‘Selfrespect’, noch eerbied voor zijn eigen werk.

Daarna sluit de Voorzitter - met voldoening terugziende op den arbeid, in deze afdeeling verricht, de sprekers dank zeggend voor hun voordrachten, en de hoorders voor hun belangstelling en hun opkomst in zoo grooten getale - de sectie voor Engelsche Philologie van het dertiende Nederlandsche Philologen Congres. Hij hoopt allen over twee jaar te Amsterdam weer te zien op het volgende Congres.