AN EXAMINATION OF THE PARABOLIC NATURE OF •SUFFERING’ IN SELECTED PLAYS OF EUGENE O'NEILL, 1913-1923 Gerald L. Ratliff A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY June 1975 ii ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to explore some of the dimensions of Eugene Gladstone O’Neill's religious thought in order to come to a better understanding of his tragic vision and what would appear to he his potentially Christian impulse, The five chapters treated the evolution of O'Neill's religious thought from 1913 to 1923, and included a detailed analysis of his use of Biblical saga and prophecy in Thirst, Fog, Beyond the Horizon, and The Hairy Ape. In addition, there was an exploration of the "fragment" religious thought of O'Neill as it was revealed in lie, Where the Cross is Made, Gold, The Rope, Bound East for Cardiff, The Straw, and All God's Chillun Got Wings. The study concluded thats 1) O'Neill's use of Biblical allusion is less significant than his use of Biblical analogue, and that analogue may be operating when allusion is not evident. 2) O'Neill is centrally a Christian playwright-prophet and that it would seem to be implicit in the shape of his tragic vision and in his treatment of the Biblical concept of suffering a potentially apprehendable recognition that man's saving grace comes from his divine origin. 3) O'Neill's unique contribution to world literature is his ability to focus the Biblical doctrine of suffering upon the back­ ground of human despair and misery and to reveal in the nature of man,nakedly exposed to the primal terrors and threats to which his limited and imperfect creatureliness is subject, a gospel of hope and salvation. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Listing all of the persons who have assisted me in the direction which this dissertation has taken would be impossible, but I am forever indebted to my advisor, Dr. Allen White, and to Dr. Alma Payne, of the American Studies program, for their support and guidance. Without them, I would have had neither the interest nor the desire to complete my studies at Bowling Green State University. As both friends and mentors, they have been a constant source of inspiration. I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to the Department of Speech and to Dr. F, Lee Miesle for making it possible for me to continue my education on a fellowship; to Dr. Lois Cheney, whose understanding and compassion made me aware of what fine teaching embraces; to Dr. Norman Myers, whose love of scholarship and research re-kindled my own love of academic excellence; and to Dr. Charles Boughton, whose perceptive criticism helped me to fashion my inter­ pretation. IV CONTENTS Page PREFACE............................................................................................................. vi CHAPTER ............................................................................................................. I. EUGENE O’NEILL! PLAYWRIGHT-PROPHET .................................. 1 II. THE THEOLOGICAL PRELUDE........................................................ 22 III. THIRST AND FOGt EARLY SEEDS OF SUFFERING AS INDIVIDUAL RETRIBUTION ............................................. 50 IV. BEYOND THE HORIZON! THE FLOWERING OF SUFFERING AS ATONEMENT FORI NDIVIDUAL SIN............................... 93 V. THE HAIRY APE: SUFFERING AS AN INDICTMENT AGAINST SOCIAL INJUSTICE .............................................. 132 SUMMARY ANDC ONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... l?0 LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED........................................................................... 180 V And what place is there in me into which my God can come Even He who made heaven and earth? Is there anything in me, 0 Lord my God, that can contain Thee? Or should I not rather say, that I could not exist unless I were in Thee from whom are all things, by whom are all things, in whom are all things? Augustine vi PREFACE In a remark made to the critic Joseph Wood Krutch early in the nineteen thirties, Eugene Gladstone O'Neill pointed out what he considered to be the fundamental difference between himself and the majority of contemporary dramatists: Most modern plays are concerned with the relation between man and man, but that does not Interest me at all. I-am interested only in the relation between man and God. O'Neill, in other words, thought of himself as primarily a religious playwright and was concerned with the conscious effort to make his dramas bridge the gulf between man and God. But whereas most religious playwrights have been eager to communicate their visions and to proclaim the divinity of their inspirations, O'Neill was a dramatist who apparently concealed his spiritual impulse in biblical text. Not only is he capable of pro- I ducing pages filled with biblical allusion, but he also employs ♦ biblical text for the purpose of commenting on the religious malaise which arises when man continues to be "haunted by the God whom he has discarded."2 Although few readers may at first discern the fact, O'Neill's knowledge of the Bible is unusually extensive. In the plays selected for examination in this discussion, for example, there are allusions to or verbal echoes from at least fifteen books of the Old and New 3 Testaments and a specific mention of twenty-five biblical characters. In spite of these findings criticism has been slow to assimilate O'Neill's use of the Bible and biblical characters in an over-all perspective of his plays. Rather, O'Neill's use of biblical allusion vii and corresponding religious implication has only added to the gen­ eral difficulty of understanding his religious thought, which has characteristically been misconstrued in the past by a too literal interpretation of what is apparently parabolic thought. The disparity in those views which suggest that if O’Neill "ever heard of grace and forgiveness he did not remember them when he looked 4 into the souls of his characters," or that "in the contest between c the Devil and God he almost always found the Devil winning cut,"^ is understandable when the difficulty is considered. To begin with, there is the notable fact that where O’Neill’s biblical reference is overt and on the surface it generally comes from those characters who are quoting scripture for their own purposes, and when the reference is concealed it usually signals a religious dimension by which to interpret the suffering and despair of his characters. What is suggested in the following discussion is that biblical allusion in O’Neill’s drama is less significant than biblical analogue and that analogy may be operating when allusion Is not evident. There is also the suggestion that O’Neill utilizes biblical analogue as his thematic concordance and that he extracts from scripture those examples of liturgy, saga, and prophecy which provide religious instruction of "spiritual understanding which releases man from the petty greeds of everyday existence."^ In this respect, O’Neill’s drama resembles the prophetic "para­ bles" of Christian scripture which sought to reveal in dramatic form the saving grace that comes from man's divine origin. O'Neill himself suggests as much when he notes that his drama aims at depicting the viii "transfiguring nobility of man in as near the spiritual sense as one 7 can grasp it." That is why it is not incorrect to assume that O'Neill is centrally a "playwright-prophet" and that he achieves the greatest significance for modern thought when a perspective grounded in biblical lore is brought to bear on his dramas. Like most religious playwrights, however, O'Neill never evolved an elaborate theory of his spiritual vision. Yet In the few inter­ views and letters which are now available to scholars, especially those of the early nineteen twenties, he occasionally expresses his tragic vision. The similarity between this vision and the biblical concept of suffering, which teaches that salvation is the reward for pain greatly endured, is significant enough to make comparison both natural and instructive. In a letter to the New York Tribune, written in February of 1921, O'Neill declares that to him the tragic "is alone that significant beauty which is truth" and that suffering "is the real meaning of 8 life—and the hope." Another letter, written two years later, again expresses the "exhilarating" aspect of a "tragic nature" and suggests that suffering is an example of the "spiritual significance which life o attains." By comparing these statements with an interview given in March of 1926, in which O'Neill admits "going in heavily for the study of religion as a sort of large background for work in the future,"10 it is possible to postulate that suffering is the key element in O'Neill!s admittedly religious conception of drama. It is also possible to postulate that an examination of his early plays may shed some light ix on the religious "background." of his later plays. That is why a study of the years 1913 to 1923 is so important in revealing the spiritual impulse which later shaped O'Neill’s dramatic art and why a study of the apparent consistency of his use of biblical analogue may indicate a certain permanence in his religious views. There are, to date, no scholarly investigations which have attempted to evaluate O’Neill’s religious development during these formulative years. This fact alone is enough to warrant the organ­ izing principles which bring together the five essays that comprise this discussion. But, in a larger sense, the precedent for an examin­ ation of O’Neill’s early dramas is not a need in the area for an academic review of his work. Rather, it is a need to sketch the por­ trait of the man and the thinker; to present his beliefs on religious questions not as facts but as alternatives; and to determine what, if any, witness his early dramas make to the Christian faith.