Yeats As Playwright
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE RICE INSTITUTE YEATS AS PLAYWRIGHT by ERVIN JAMES KORGES A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Houston, Tezas May, 1955 CONTENTS Introduction i Chapter I Background, historic and dramatic 1. The political and literary revival...*. 1 2. Irish drama before the revival... 14 3. Belated movements. 17 Chapter II Dramatic theory and practice, 1884-1906 1. The 1884 plays 25 2. Changing ideals. S3 3. Plays of the 1890*s and revision 41 Chapter III Formation of a public theatre 1. The Irish Literary Theatre. ...••• 56 2. Interim....... 61 3* The Irish National Theatre................... 64 4. Beform of the theatre 69 Chapter 17 Dramatic theory and practice, 1902-1912 1* Theories. « 81 2. Flays. * • *.. 99 Chapter 7 Formation of a private theatre 1. Withdrawal.. 116 2. Discovery of the Noh 122 3. Myth and philosophy. 129 Chapter VI Dramatic theory and practice, 1912-1939 1. The theory extended .......... 133 2. Plays 141 Conclusion. 163 Appendix A Mari tain on myth 175 Appendix B Yeats as translator........................ 177 Appendix C Publication dates of Yeats*s plays......... 179 Notes 180 Bibliography. 207 Introduction The poetry of William Butler Yeats is accorded a very high place in contemporary English literature; yet his other work has been neglected. The plays are customarily passed over as an appendage to his poetry, and the prose works are almost entirely neglected, except as philosophical documents. Though the poems are constantly being examined and explicat¬ ed, the prose style is mentioned only incidentally: "one may observe in passing that the section on history in A Vision includes the finest 1 rhythmic prose written in English since that of Sir Thomas Browne." The paradox is that though Yeats* s dramatic movement, in the form of the Abbey Theatre, exerted great influence on English and American drama, his plays themselves remain outside the realm of influence and have not passed into the tradition of English drama. This may be explained in two ways, if it can be explained at all: either because he wrote one- act plays, a form that is as unfashionable as the short-story, or because he was concerned with poetic drama, a form that is as unfashionable as poetry, Yeats attached great importance to his work in and for the theatre. He wrote in the preface to Poems 1Ô99-1905 Some of my friends...do not understand why I have not been con¬ tent with lyric writing. But one can only do what one wants to do, and to me drama—and I think it has been the same with other writers—has been the search for more of manful energy, more of cheerful acceptance of whatever arises out of the logic of events, and for clear outline, instead of those outlines of ii lyric poetry that are blurred with desire and vague regret. 2 By undertaking the practice of the stage Yeats was forced to revise his art, to trim decorations that grew from lyric impulse, to cut away excess description and narration. This process can easily be seen in compari¬ sons of the early and late plays as well as in comparison of poems. As Parkinson says: "By its very nature dramatic poetry demands conflict, and through the demands of the theatre Yeats was forced to objectify the conflict that implicitly underlay the early poems.He develops the point at length, concluding that when working in dramatic verse ...he had to make his characters speak to one another, to subdue his inclination toward the rhapsodic. The same mo¬ tives compelled him to reduce the number of esoteric sym¬ bols in the poetry and to provide for those retained an elucidating context of common speech. He also learned to modulate his diction so as to be able to express several points of view and to shape his metrics to the demands of a living voice. 4 But Yeats* s adventures in the theatre were not motivated only by a de¬ sire to strengthen his poetiy by dramatic practice; he was also a part of the Irish Renaissance, and more important he sought reform of the modem stage. "As a critic," writes Moody E. Prior, Yeats sought to reveal the failings of the current drama and to trace the foundations on which a new attempt might be raised; as a poet, he experimented over a long period of time in the hopes of discovering a new means which would enable the poet to find once more his proper place in the theatre, and he brought to his task one of the unquestionably great poetic gifts of our time. 5 Prior might have added that Yeats wanted not only to trace the founda¬ tions on which a new attenpt might be raised, but to trace to the founda¬ tions, for Yeats was concerned with renewing the ancient drama of poetry, ritual, and myth. It is toward the definition of these aims of Yeats as playwright and an examination of the theories he proposed in his attenpt to achieve those aims that this thesis is written. iii It is, to say the least, disconcerting to be confronted with the great divergence of opinion on Yeats as playwright. T. R. Hem, writing in 1950, observed that "it is curious to observe the unanimity of criti- 6 cal opinion that Yeats is not a dramatist." The unanimity has broken itself in the past few years, however, and a more tempered position is being reached. Louis MacNeice had written that "Yeats was the cause of drama in other men but he does not seem to me to have been properly a dramatist. ...On the whole the poetry of the plays is less interesting, less power¬ ful, and less original than that of the lyrics, but it is always the 7 same man writing." Joseph Holloway wrote that Yeats "is more a lyric poet than a dramatist, and is never satisfied with his work for the Ô stage, but keeps eternally chopping and changing it," as though re¬ vision and correction were sinful. And A. E. Morgan stated triumphant¬ ly that "Mr. Yeats suffers as a dramatist from the defects of his merits as a poet." Morgan continues: He will be remembered as a lyrist capable of embodying in fine verse and with lovely symbolism the subtleties of his mystical thought. This quality is not wholly advantageous as a drama¬ tist; and in effect Mr. Yeats's plays are apt to be so strange in thought and so vague in expression that the meaning is difficult to grasp. 9 It is no condemnation of these plays that their form is in¬ comprehensible to the ordinary man, but it is a serious thing if they are made not of real human stuff but of the unreal imaginings of a visionary. 10 Since Morgan's time there has been some revision of our ideas of reality and of our ideas of drama, and the concept of "real human stuff" has been questioned. The theories to be discussed in the body of this thesis may give some clue for the absence of such "stuff" from some of Yeats's plays. Edmund Wilson believed that "Yeats' s plays have little dramatic iv importance because Yeats himself has little sense of drama, and we think of them primarily as a department of his poetry, with the same sort of 11 interest and beauty as the rest," whereas Joseph Hone, Yeats's bio¬ grapher, wrote that "Yeats was one of the few poets with a born drama¬ tic gift, not only in the effect and economy with which he could nail down a really dramatic theme on the barest of boards in the rarest of wards...but in the fact that he knew exactly what effect he wanted and 12 how it should be obtained." William Archer, with his realistic bias, missed the point of Yeats's work in the theatre when he wrote that "Mr. Yeats contributed one or two plays, notably The King's Threshold and the beautiful symbolic play¬ let, Kathleen-ni-Houlihan; but this first of Irish poets is scarcely a 13 born dramatist." Eglinton, on the other hand, makes such a stout de¬ fence of Yeats as playwright that he praises even the faulty early plays, such as The Land of Heart*s Desire, because in them Yeats "had already succeeded in doing what the Shakespearian dramatists longed and tried unsuccessfully to do; and he was able to do so because that 'Celtic' element which survived in Shakespeare was the element in which 14 Yeats moved with real power and understanding." T. S. Eliot, though he shows greater critical insight than either of these critics, is too preoccupied with finding a new verse form for the stage and therefore praises the late Yeats plays, though justly, vhile neglecting master- 15 pieces of the middle period written in blank verse. Yeats realized that good poetic plays could still be written in that measure, if the verse was not diluted Elizabethan and if the diction was as modern as the theatre in which it was to be spoken. In his 1951 essay on "Poetry and Drama,” Eliot wrote: V Yeats is a very different case, from Maeterlinck or Synge. A study of his development as a dramatist would show, I think, the great distance he went, and the triumph of his last plays. In his first period, he wrote plays in verse about subjects conventionally accepted as suitable for verse, in a metric which—though even at that early stage having the personal Yeats rhythm—-is not really a form of speech quite suitable for anybody except mythological kings and queens.