HASSAt THE PAVAN

THE ST. PETER'S COLLEGE REVIEW

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

EDWARD FOSTER

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

CHARLES J. HAYES ALAN G. NASSER

STAFF

WILLIAM BUTVICK, CHARLES FARBER, ROBERT FINNEGAN JOSEPH MORELL~, LEONARD NOVARRO

RICHARD K. BROWN, Moderator

Vol. 13, No. 3 Spring, 1961 THE PAVAN Spring, 1961 Vol. 13, No. 3

CONTENTS FRONTISPIECE, Bernard Hassan ...... Inside Front Cover EDITORIAL ...... 3 HAMLET AT THE PHOENIX, Paul Sullivan...... 5 POEM, William Frees ...... 9 LONE STAR DEMAGOGUE, William]. Kearns, Jr ...... 10 A BRIEF DIATRIBE, Bernard Hassan ...... 14 PHILOSOPHY AT ST. PETER'S, Alan G. Nasser ...... 19 WOULD I WERE THE WIND, Joseph F. Gagen ...... 26 GRAHAM GREENE, James P. Beggans, Jr...... 27 FATHER OF THE BRIDE, Thomas]. Fallon ...... 30 JACQUES MARITAIN, Vincent B. Consoli ...... 31 LOSS, Thomas]. Fallon ...... 36 AND DREAD THE LOSS OF HEAVEN, John Ragazzo ...... 37 IN HONOR OF PAUL VALERY, Joseph Morello ...... 39 EVOLUTION AND THEOLOGY, James Januzzi ...... 40

COMMENT WHAT NEXT, Charles ]. Hayes ...... 43 BROADWAY '60-61, Edward Ciliberti ...... 44 MODERATOR, Dr. Richard K. Brown ...... 47

Vol. 13, No. 3 Spring, 1961

2 Editorial

FTER a discreet editorial silence at the time of the second issue, once again I fill my pen to empty it upon my fellow students. At Athe outset, I wish to apologize for the proof-reading errors which marred, to some extent, the second issue. Now to begin the account of my stewardship. The appearance of several promising Sophomore and Junior writers has widened the scope of the magazine and thus prevented the formation of a clique. There were some professional anti-intellectuals who derided my promise that anyone's contributions would be seriously considered. The promise, how­ ever, has become an obvious reality to anyone with even a half-hearted interest in the magazine. A second goal at the beginning of the year was to continue to pre­ sent a diversity of offerings. I think anyone willing to page through this year's issues would agree that we have accomplished this end. My last promise concerned the exclusion of pompous, meaningless prose and unintelligible verse. We must leave the decision on the success of this effort to the reader. I realize that some of our more perceptive students wept bitter tears because of the alleged continued publication of obscure verse. Might I say that I am sure that none of these tears stained the pages of the magazine, for these men clearly had little con­ tact with it. On second thought, perhaps they had physical contact with it. Certain!y no more than that. There are those who claim that the policy opposing obscurity has left the Pavan juvenile and naive. It seems that our critics cannot decide which extreme they are going to accuse us of. I would suggest that our more sophisticated gadflies turn immediately to the articles in this issue by Messrs. Consoli, Hassan and Nasser. I am not intentionally passing over the shortcomings of the maga­ zine, but they will be the concern of next year's editors. I wish these gentlemen success and a greater amount of student cooperation than evidenced itself this year. On the subject of possible student interest, I am a sadder and wiser man than the optimistic me who editorialized in this year's fall issue.

3 To depart from the specific province of the magazine, I would like, as a graduating Senior, to compliment the college on many significant advances. Two of these outstanding achievements were the magnificent lecture program and the mature dramatic offerings shown on campus. The lecture program, arranged by Father W assmer, was an incom­ parable asset to the intellectual life of the school. The discussions involv­ ing Dr. Robert Mc Afee Brown, Dr. Will Herberg, Fr. Gustave Weigel and Fr. Augustin Leonard were exciting proof of the college's interest in the contemporary problems of the American Catholic. I am proud that these dialogues took place here, distinguishing St. Peter's as a leader in this vital and praiseworthy movement. There was even a small faction of students who almost aroused themselves to temporary interest. The Argus Eyes presented further evidence of the new look at St. Peter's. I refer, in particular, to last Fall's production, Arthur Miller's Crucible. The presentation of this play is a tribute to the intelligent atti­ tude of our administration and activity moderators. I congratulate them for not shrinking from "dangerous" ideas. Imagine the impact such plays would have if the students would go to see them. In the instances of the lecture program and the excellent plays, any deficiency was certainly due to the apathy of the student body. But this lethargy is not universal. The animated interest in these and other areas of intellectual concern displayed by a number of students encourages a sincere hope for further improvement. I would advise the dormant seg­ ment of the student body that St. Peter's is becoming a better and better place to wake up in-if they ever decide to. Now I choose to conclude my editorial term on a more pleasant note. We express our sincere appreciation to Dr. Brown, our moderato~,' for the complete cooperation he has afforded the editorial board through­ out the year. His enduring confidence in the ability and responsibility of the editors has been the greatest advantage that the magazine has en­ joyed. By understanding rather than restriction, by guidance rather than do­ mination, he has kept the Pavan truly a student publication, but one with the mature influence of a prudent man. May this remain the policy of the Pavan and may such an attitude continue to grow throughout the whole of the college. Amen. E. E. F.

4 Hamlet at the Phoenix By Paul Sullivan

''WHEN you are reading Hamlet, the action and the characters are not something which you can conceive apart from the words."1 These printed .words of A. C. Bradley echo one of the points stressed by Robert Speaight in his recent lecture on "Shakespeare in The Theatre" at St. Peter's College. Mr. Speaight, a noted British actor, author, and critic began his talk with the observation the Bard's works should be seen before they are read for much of their real value is lost in the reading. He also called at­ tention to the fact that Shakespeare wrote for the contemporary theatre and, in view of this, any modern production of his works should seriously take into account three things. First, production devices such as scenery and lighting were almost unknown in the Elizabethean theatre. Second, Shake­ speare's intended audience was for the most part rowdy and illiterate but it was abundant with imagination. Last, the production of Shakespeare is primarily a question of speaking--of interpretation and emphasis. It is in the light of these remarks by Mr. Speaight that I will consider the Phoenix Theatre production of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Before taking up the actual production of the play, let us look briefly at the character of Hamlet. Two notable theories have been advanced on this topic. A. C. Bradley's Melancholy Dane theory views Hamlet as being in a psychotic state and incapable of action. John Dover Wilson claims Hamlet to be a man of action, capable of action but with a good reason for delaying in his action.2 Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, the first version of which was called Hamlet's Revenge, "was doubtless closer to the melo­ drama dear to the age than to the psychological tragedy famous today."3 Hamlet is not a study in psychology but rather it is Hamlet carrying out the request of his father's ghost for revenge. Shakespeare himself must have conceived Hamlet as being melan­ choly, for he is still deep in mourning for his father and he is irate because of his mother's hasty marriage to Claudius. Hamlet, as created by Shakes­ peare, is an Elizabethean, not a medieval Dane; and is typical of the Renaissance ideal of the educated gentlemen with a philosophic approach

5 to life. In the introduction to Hamlet it is stated: "A part of Hamlet's agony results from the very fact that he has a keen and alert mind that sees the implication of any potential action."4 Thus Hamlet's uncertainty that Clau­ dius murdered his father, the desire to spare his mother further grief, or the fear of punishment might have given Hamlet strong enough reason for not taking immediate action. The production at the Phoenix follows the theory that Hamlet is a man of action. A large part of the audience arrived just minutes before the opening. There was much scurrying and confusion in getting seated. The alarums sounded, the curtain rose, and most of the .first scene was played to a not quite settled audience. The setting was sombre and simple. It consisted of a double row of pillars on each side of the stage closing in upon a wide stairway at the top of which was a raised platform extending the width of the stage. The only changes in this arrangement were made in the addition of tapestries for Gertrude's bedroom and the opening of the trap door for Ophelia's grave. Other variations were achieved by changes in lighting and props, also by the presence of soldiers and attendants with banners; lances and lanterns. The utter simplicity of these settings show this pro­ duction to be an exception to the theory of "an amazing Shakespearean spectacle"5 where over emphasis is put on illumination, scenery, and so forth. Although lighting is used extensively, the prudent use of it compli­ ments dramatic effect. The costumes were also elaborate but then that is typical of Shakespeare. Hamlet's retort to the king, ''a little more than kin, and less than kind" and his .first soliloquy ( "O that this too too solid flesh would melt" and "Frailty, thy name is woman!", I, ii) are splendidly interpreted by Donald Madden. His inflection and well timed pauses convey all the bitter­ ness that a man could have for the hasty marriage of his mother to her late husband's brother. In Scene three Laertes, about to leave for studies in Paris, warns Ophelia, his sister, that Hamlet's advances are not sincere. Polonius enters and gives Laertes some .final advice about his conduct abroad. This is one of the .first instances in this play in which Shakespeare has his characters philosophizing on various popular topics. Note also that Hamlet's "To be or not to be .." (III, i) is not an internal conflict about committing suicide but rather a philosophic discussion on whether it is better to bear one's troubles or commit suicide. The purpose of this soliloquy may very well

6 be to show Hamlet as a scholar and intellectual and not the madman that some might think him to be. 6 Scene five is where Hamlet learns from the Ghost of his father's murder by Claudius and of the incest in the royal household. He is bid to "bear it not," however he is to spare his mother to heaven. Hamlet thinks that the Ghost may be a spirit from hell but yet resolves to give his fulf. attention to his revenge. The costume of the Ghost is very outstanding. He is dressed in green tinted armour and his face is covered over with a mask of lighter color. The Ghost, dressed as described, must by the in­ flection of his voice give an impression of remoteness from earthly affairs. Claudius becomes suspicious of Hamlet's actions and sends for Rosen­ crantz and Guildenstern to spy on him. Polonius, thinking Hamlet's mad­ ness due to Ophelia's apparent rejection of him as her lover, suggests that a meeting of the two be observed. Hamlet enters and greets Polonius as a "fishmonger." This word causes laughter in the audience. They consider it amusing that a man of Polonius' status be greeted so lowly. If they only were familiar with Elizabethean English and could fully understand Ham­ let's intended pun, how much more they would have laughed! "Fishmon­ ger" is a name given to a procurer for a house of prostitution. He also calls him "honest" which meant chaste. Hamlet is mocking the old man to cover up his own plans and to repay him for keeping his daughter guarded. Another very good instance of the effectiveness of the pun is in the scene where Hamlet and Ophelia are being watched by the others (III, i). Ophelia returns some gifts from Hamlet and he takes it to mean that her love for him has ended. He becomes enraged and the two characters begin a discourse on her "honesty" and beauty. Madden gives a serious interpreta­ tion to the words of Hamlet whereas Joyce Ebert speaks Ophelia's lines with all the innocence of a maid. In closing, Hamlet, in his rage, says to Ophelia, "Get thee to a nunnery!" (line 147) This is another pun for the Elizabethean audience understood a nunnery to be a house of prostitution as well as a convent. It is significant to the action and characteristic of Hamlet that he uses "wordplay in moments of extreme excitment".7 In his soliloquy at the end of Act II Hamlet plans his course of action. Mr. Madden gives an excellent portrayal of Hamlet in his rage and makes the speech meaningful with emotion. The players, contrasted with the others by their very bright costumes, present their play within a play as they were directed by Hamlet. Shakespeare takes this opportunity to ex-

7 press his own ideas on drama and acting through the words of Hamlet. During the play Claudius is busy talking but he does manage to recognize the plot. He leaves the scene in anger. Having been summoned to his mother's room, he is on his way there when he comes across Claudius praying. He is repenting for his offence but cannot do so completely because he is still in possession of his wicked prizes. Hamlet, the philosopher, passes up this ideal situation for killing his father's murderer for fear of sending him to heaven. He passes on to to his mother's room. In this scene ( III, iv) Hamlet kills Polonius and shows his mother how wrong she was to reject her loyal husband for his more wicked broth­ er. At this moment the Ghost appears. The method of presenting this ap­ parition is a device proper to the modern stage and it is to be worthily noted that it is probably the best device employed in this production by the Phoenix Theatre. The Ghost was standing behind the tapestries in Ger­ trude's room and at the proper moment a spotlight is focused on him, thus making the figure visible on the other side to the audience. When the Ghost had reminded Hamlet of his task and charged him to comfort his mother, his exit was effected by removing the spotlight. The fifth scene of Act Four gives Joyce Ebert her chance to shine. This scene portrays Ophelia's madness before the King and Queen. The sweet high voice of Miss Ebert gives a lightened contrast to the serious action of the play and is very refreshing to the audience. This scene paves the way for Ophelia's death before scene seven. On learning of his father's death Laertes returns to Denmark. When told that the deed was done by Hamlet he plots with Claudius for revenge. These two men proceed in their plans firm of purpose and eager for action. A duel is arranged between Hamlet and Laertes. Madden, as the unsuspect­ ing Hamlet, is enraged to learn of the foul methods used to try to bring about his death. He is stabbed. Catching Laertes off guard, he runs him through and leaps up to the King whom he not only stabs but also poisons with the drink by which his mother had meanwhile met her death. Hamlet with his dying breath charges his ever faithful friend Horatio to tell Fortinbras what has happened for it is he who will likely be given the crown. These words are spoken with the relief that the revenge has been carried out and that all is again well in Denmark. Hamlet is borne in military procession to rest in triumph.

8 In closing let me say that Ray Reinhart deserves special mention for his just and fine playing of Horatio, Hamlet's friend. Also to be noted for their fine performance are John Heffernan, who gave a humorous Polo­ nius, Alexander Scourby for his cunning Claudius, and Patricia Falkenhain for her warmhearted Gertrude. Peter Wingate is to be congratulated for his simple yet imaginative scenery and costumes as is Joan Larkey for her very effective lighting. With Hamlet Director Stuart Vaughan has added another success to his many past accomplishments. Here's hoping that in the future Mr. Vaughan and the Phoenix will continue to bring us good dramatic works in such superior productions.

FOOTNOTES 1. A. C. Bradley, Oxford Lectures on Poetry (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1950), p. 15. 2. A. C. Bradley, Lectures on Shakespearean Tragedy (London, 1924) and John Dover Wilson, What Happens in Hamlet 3. Clara Longworth DeChambrun, Shakespeare:A Portrait Restored (London: Hollis and Carter, 1957). p. 77. 4. Louis B. Wright (ed.) , Hamlet (New York: Washington Square Press Inc., 1961 ) , introduction. 5. Bradley, Lectures on Poetry, p. 389. 6. G. B. Harrison, Shakespeare's Tragedies (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1951), p. 100. 7. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, p. 151

Poem By William Frees

a candle flickered softly, calling someone to warm, calling like a throbbing child, waiting to be born-dose to the flame I wandered, dose its arms embraced me round, but as I drank its sweet breath in the more it melted down

9 Lone Star Demagogue By William ]. Kearns} Jr.

T HAS been alleged that the "shortest way to ruin a country is to give power to demagogues."1 Nevertheless, there are many people who in­ Isist that true progress can be registered only when a political dema- gogue is in power. It would certainly not be difficult to locate citizens of Louisiana who would be elated at the prospect of another Huey Long in power, or residents of Jersey City who would eagerly welcome the advent of another Frank Hague. One man normally classified as a demagogue was the late James Edward Ferguson, onetime Governor of Texas, the famous Lone Star State. Was Governor Ferguson benificial to the welfare of his state? In fact, was the label of demagogue justified? Webster concluded that demagogue might be defined as a person who attempts to incite the people by oratorical appeals to the emotions, in order to achieve his own selfish ends. A second meaning cited by Webster is etymological and is derived from the Greek: "a leader of the common people."2 In view of these two meanings, can a responsible historian or political scientist classify Governor Ferguson as a demagogue? Let us examine some of the historical facts in an attempt to answer this question. James E. Ferguson was born on the final day of August in 1871 in the town of Salado, Bell County, Texas. He was the son of a Methodist minister (as were many of the early twentieth century political figures in Texas). Jim spent the early part of his life in various endeavors on the Pacific Coast and in the Rocky Mountain Region. He had little for­ mal education, but, he did become acquainted with the problems of the common man through his activities as teamster, miner, and manual laborer. Upon his return to the Lone Star State, he served on bridge­ building crews for the railroads and eventually rose to the exalted posi­ tion of crew foreman. In 1897, "Farmer Jim" gained admission to the Texas bar and established practice in Belton. Two years later he married a young lady who would later become another legendary figure in the political history of Texas, by serving as the first woman Governor of the State, Miriam Amanda Wallace.

10 After a decade in Belton, the Fergusons moved to Temple, Texas, where Jim's law practice continued to prosper and where he was quite instrumental in organizing the Temple State Bank. Although Jim was active in local civic affairs, little is heard from him for the next few years. When he next made an appearance, however, it would be in such a manner that Texas would not soon forget the man they alluded to as "Farmer Jim." It was in November of 1913 that James E. Ferguson announced his candidacy for the governorship of Texas on a businessman's platform. (It has seemed that virtually all candidates for Governor of Texas make the pledge to institute a true businessman's form of administration for the government of the Lone Star State. Since all candidates make this pledge, it is reasonable to assume that it is either impossible to accom­ plish this goal, or Texas politicians just don't keep their promises. The reader may take his choice.) Jim's foremost difficulty was that he was little known outside of his own locality. In fact, many citizens interpreted his announced candidacy as an incredible hoax. (One point of paramount importance to an understanding of Texas politics is that the only meaningful campaign in the state is that waged for the Democratic nomination. The person who receives the nomination is assured election in the general election.) There were a multitude of political issues, but only two were of any great importance or magnitude. First and foremost was the prohibi­ tion issue. Secondly, Jim's plan for the Tenant Farmers was a vital issue. The Ferguson Platform declared that there was no place in the Governmental Program for liquor legislation of any kind, and pledged the candidate, if elected, to veto all measures dealing in any way with the liquor question. It favored improvement of the educational system of the state, and especially the rural schools.3 The prohibitionists supported Thomas H. Ball and referred to them­ selves as "Progressive Prohibition Democrats." The anti-prohibitionists had scheduled a convention under the name of "Constructive Demo­ crats." They were unable to agree upon a candidate because Ferguson's disciples would not render their support to any other aspirant and had bolted the convention. Ferguson himself had denounced the convention as "undemocratic" and had refused to attend or participate in the deliber­ ations. 4

11 A prominent Democrat, former Senator Joseph Bailey, supported Ball, but this was not especially helpful, since Ball presented a seeming contradiction on the prohibition issue. He endorsed prohibition for the State of Texas, but questioned the wisdom of a national constitutional amendment on the issue. Ferguson on the other hand appealed to the common people and to those who were opposed to prohibition. This was especially shown in those counties of Texas which possessed a majority of citizens with Ger­ man ancestory. They provided Ferguson with his most enthusiastic sup­ port and with his famous <(vest-pocket" vote. The only real rival to the prohibition issue was Ferguson's tenant farm plank. He demanded legislation to prohibit the rent from exceeding more than one-third of the grain and one-fourth of the cotton produced on the farm. Here again, former Senator Bailey assailed Ferguson, in that he branded this plan as socialistic in nature. Here also was a most unusual situation in this particular campaign. Ferguson supported the program of President Wilson and thus favored the majority of the pro­ gressive reforms. Nevertheless, the national and state leaders of the Dem­ ocratic Party and the majority of the Progressives assisted Ball in the primary campaign. 5 President Woodrow Wilson, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, Postmaster General Albert S. Burleson and Secretary of Agricul­ ture David F. Houston all announced their support of Ball. Ferguson's response to this move was to severely criticise the leaders of the party and the Federal officials for violating the principle of States' rights and the doctrine of local self-government. However, he did persevere in his support of the Wilson Administration. From the results of the election it would appear that this move was quite ineffective, since Ball received only 191,558 votes to 237,062 for Ferguson.6 A highly esteemed political scientist analyzed the campaign of 1914 in this manner: Like Roosevelt, he thought best in a crowd; and like Byran, he radiated confidence. There was real enthusiasm for Ferguson during the campaign, though the prohibitionists could not quite reconcile his disregard for the wishes of the divinity on the liquor question with his especially enthusiastic support of the other ten commandents. 7

12 In his first message to the Texas legislature, Jim Ferguson presented many constructive suggestions, in addition to his proposal for the tenant farmers. Among others, he proposed: legislation protecting and limiting child labor, legislation prohibiting pools, combinations and trusts, efforts to attract investors to Texas, laws providing liberal appropriations for education and enabling new highways to be built with convict labor, and legislation reforming the state judiciary. As a consequence of the man­ date that Jim received in the general election, the legislature reacted favorably and a noteworthy amount of constructive legislation resulted. The lawmakers passed bills requiring compulsory school attendance and establishing rural high schools. Moreover, they approved the Farm Ten­ ant Bill. Finally, a law was enacted to provide $1,000,000 in aid to Ru­ ral Schools over a two year period. Did Jim Ferguson fit the specifications of a demagogue? Could it be charged that one who accomplished so much for the people of the state, and who obviously commanded their support, desired power ex­ clusively for his own selfish purpose? What man who has desired elective office has not also desired the glory and prominence which accompanies that office. James Edward Ferguson could easily have been classified as a demagogue, if as a yardstick one relied upon the second definition, i.e., a leader of the people. However, if this definition was accepted it would certainly include such men as William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roose­ velt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisen­ hower as demagogues. The choice should be determined by the reader, but, in many respects the latter definition appeared the most precise and appropriate for James E. Ferguson.

1. Reinhold H. Luthin, American Demagogues, Twentieth Century (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1954), p. viii. 2. Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1958), p. 309. 3. Prank Carter Adams, Texas Democracy, A Centennial History of Politics and Personalities of the Democratic Party, 1836-1936 (Austin: Democratic Historical Association 1937) Vol. 1, p. 382. 4. Ibid. p. 381. 5. Seth Shepard McKay, Texas Politics, 1906-1944; with special reference to the German Counties (Lubbock; Texas Tech Press, 1952), p. 54. 6. Ibid p. 56. 7. Cortez A. M. Ewing, "The Impeachment of James E. Ferguson," Political Science Quarterly, (June, 1933), p. 184.

13 The scholar who actually does little other than welter in a sea of books­ the average philologist may handle two hundred a day-finally loses com­ plete! y the ability to think for himself. He cannot think unless he has a book in his hands. When he thinks, he responds to a stimulus (a thought he has read) -and finally all he does is react. The scholar devotes all his energy to affirming or denying or criticizing matter which has already been thought out-he no longer thinks himself . . . In him the instinct of self­ defense has decayed, otherwise he would defend himself against books. The scholar is a decadent. Ecce Homo. To our scholars, strange! y enough, even the most pressing question does not occur: to what end is their work ... useful? Surely not to earn a living or hunt for positions of honour? The Birth of Tragedy

Bus-Queues and Tea Rooms: A Brief Diatribe By Bernard]. Hassan "What a comfort my classical education is in bus-queues and tea rooms." So spoke John Mortimer's famous lawyer who had not had a case in 40 years. The deluded gentleman had been conditioned from child­ hood to believe in the polite but implausible middle-class fiction of the natural superiority of the Latin classics. We have lately seen in this magazine an impassioned defense of the classics-those sandbags we shore against the ruin of learning-against the insidious encroachments of science. Though it is probably a case of tilting with windmills too deeply embedded in prejudice to move, I would like to joust a little with both camps. Everyone has heard ad nauseam the Commencement Day Cliches: the liberal arts are liberators and education means to lead out ( of ignorance, we presume). These truths, whose repetition by affluent alumni or ponder­ ous professors has dulled them into platitudes, are intoned every year with such an air of discovery and awe that they are passing into ritual. These truths being accepted, why each year do more students ask to be enchained by the tedious Tacitus, the :flatulent Horace and the monumentally insipid

14 Cicero? If these men wish to be moles burrowing in a blind discipline, then they are pathetic, but they have chosen well. But, if their studies are to have any teleological significance-and indeed they must, if it is to be an education-then they could not have chosen worse than classics. These remarks you may regard as those of a Philistine, if such will make you more comfortable. Certainly, this is not the orthodox position for a student of the liberal arts, but I think it is defensible. First, some general remarks on Latin. We can readily dispose of the classic arguments in favour of Latin. It is thought to be a good discipline for the mind. Absurd. It is weak and slovenly compared to the discipline needed for advanced calculus, Chinese ideograms or Icelandic metrics. Who proposes these? What is more, the very idea of discipline suggests that the mind is being disciplined for some­ thing, but it is never suggested what this is. The discipline of Latin as such is no better than anything else. Latin is held to have had strong influence on our language, but so also have Sanskirt and Saxon, which are not noticeably stressed. Why not be consistent? If you are going to turn out assembly-line philologists, be thorough. Several centuries ago, before the fragmentation of learning, there was real point to classical studies. Latin was still a semi-living tongue through which people could communicate. Familiarity with the language opened a vital realm of thought, all learned work being done in the inter­ national tongue, which was better structured and developed than the vulgar tongues. The approach was philosophical. Grammar was not stressed but presumed. Today even the good (i.e., post-classical, with the exception of Ovid and Catullus) Latin writers are seen, never as sources of valuable informa­ tion, but rather as indefatigable storehouses of grammatical complexities to titillate the Alexandrian soul of the pedant. Latin's real excellence lies in its having been the medium of the liturgy, of the Christian philosophers such as Augustine, Abelard and Aquinas, and of the medieval poets. Yet today, no self-respecting classicist considers these writers as worthy of men­ tion, let alone protracted study. Cardinal Bembo, the archetype of the classicist, was dispensed from reading the breviary because of its non­ Ciceronian grammar. He refused to read the Pauline epistles, "lest he corrupt his own style."

15 The problem has been furthur compounded. When classicism was striving for its very existence at the end of the last century, struggling with the Hydra of science, it was decided to fight fire with fire. That is, the classics made use of the scientific methods, thereby hoping to make itself palatable to a rising generation of positivists. Consequently, these studies now lie within the farcical realms of that heavy-handed eccentri­ city, German scholarship, which way of thinking represents the triumph of the critical notions of Hippolyte Taine. Taine's ideas, carried to their inevitable, absurd conclusions, will not permit of anything being seen "between the lines", as it were. Everything to him is physical; it's all in black and white. So, there can be no real problems in literature other than that of stabilizing texts.

There is now living in this country a universally respected European scholar of Latin, who is the epitome of this cul-de-sac. When it was dis­ covered that he had an unusual facility with Latin, he was sent to Heidel­ berg to study. Brain-washed, he quickly learned to adhere utterly to the Germanic system of scholarship. Now, though he is an astonishing source of information, he is sterile, all possibility of spontaneous intuition or fruitful synthetic judgment having been enstrangled by his professors. As a pompous rhetorician once wrote: Ab uno, disce omnes. This case is rendered doubly tragic by the man's other interest. Using his formidable training in research, he has unearthed much information about Michelan­ gelo that may die with him. The slight bit he has revealed has raised big problems, but, having been taught that creativity is verboten to a philo­ logist, he refuses to publish any more. His lifework is the stabilization of the text of an unknown 4th century poet.

Does literary excellence lie in the symbol or in that which is sym­ bolized? The question resolves itself to a single problem of value: Is gram­ matical information the ultimate quest or is wisdom? If it is wisdom, and you can elect nothing else, Latin is nothing more than a tool. Should it therefore be dropped from the curriculum? By no means. But, let us see it in a reasonable light. Latin is very nice as a bit of finesse or as a minor propaedeutic to significant studies, but it is hopelessly out of place as the major study. A study which can't ask even vaguely significant questions is hardly much help when we are looking for ultimate answers, as we must. Let us throw off that English public school attitude which equates classics-consciousness with class-consciousness, and makes of conspicuous

16 waste of time a social virture. Let us despise the preciosity which gives us such monstrosities as Winne Ille Pu. It will be noticed that all these remarks were predicated of Latin, not Greek, which is a different case altogether. To begin with, Greek never was a stultified, marmoreal language; it was-and is-warm, living, infinitely supple. In form, it is enormously superior to Latin; in content, there is, of course, no comparison possible. Latin of the classical period is a language of doddering old men, but not so Greek. Plato said in the Timaeus: «You Greeks are always youths; there are no old men in Hellas, for you are all young in spirit. It is precisely this spirit which it the keynote of Greek excellence." C. M. Bowra has told us that the secret of Greek genius was Intellect (which we have in abundance) plus Passion and Energy, both of which are totally opposed to the spirit of modern classical studies. Counting iota-subscripts in Homer is scarcely the flowering of this concept. It was proposed in this magazine that the worldly classicist" would save the world. Why is this impossible? Nietzsche divided Greek culture into the Dionysian and the Apollon­ ian elements, the Dionysian being the anarchic forces, the Apollonian, the passionate Intellect. Of this, Walter Kauffman wrote: "Only the Apol­ lonian power of the Greeks was able to control this destructive disease, to harness the Dionysian flood, and to use it creatively." None can deny the strong Dionysian element present in our modern culture: the dark violence, the formlessness, the blind rage of all who have not sold their smug souls into the slavery of security. Yet the classics would refine out of us all our abilities to direct this force to greatness, and teach us rather to plunge into a history of the use of the genitive plural in Greek lyric poetry. There Intellect abounds, but where are Passion and Energy? Let the scientist take no pleasure in this attack as he usually does, for the scientist is as bad as the classicist in smugly believing himself to have the ultimate answers. Science has long accused the student of the arts of dwelling in an ivory tower, not realizing that science dwells in a leaden cellar. Science treats its inquiries as part of a self-contained system which bears little relation to common life or the needs of action. Granted, we need the information that science can offer us, but the scientist does no more than gather the information. He does not know what it means. The

17 stereotype of the "mad" (i. e., unrealistic) scientist is not without strong basis in fact. Science, with the possible exception of biology, has no concern with value or meaning. Still, we are offered a lot of palaver about the comfort of knowing that 2 plus 2 eternally equal 4. What value is all the know­ ledge of the workings of the physical-mathematical world if not at least partially from a metaphysical vantage? The knowledge that 2 and 2 are 4 can't change a man's life, but the discovery of a Supreme Force operative in the cosmos must, otherwise, the man may literally be a damned fool. Science of its very nature is analytic, never synthetic, but it is only in the synthetic judgment that we can make great discoveries. We desper­ ately need a way of seeing which will unite the information of science with the perceptions of art and philosophy, that which Elizabeth Sewell has termed the Orphic Vision. This is the only possible solution. No single discipline can approach this Orphic Vision. Consider for a moment this analogy: Take reality as a full circle, and the human mind a point somewhere outside. One can never hope to encompass the whole circle, but we can describe an arc upon it, encompassing reality to varying degrees. The arc described is measured by information, understanding and perception fused into a single way of seeing. It is humbling to realize that, even working in this manner, we cannot hope to encompass the poet's single grain of sand. All of the above statements are but facets of a single problem, which is especially prevalent in Jesuit schools: What is the relation of the discur­ sive to the non-discursive way of knowing? Only a small part of our know­ ledge comes from the discursive, which fact is largely ignored in the West. In Jesuit schools specifically, while discursive thinking is taught at its very highest levels, with few exceptions the non-discursive is ignored and con­ sequently unused by the greatest part of the faculty and student body. This leaves an incompletely developed personality and much potential know­ ledge unused. Science and the classics are the greatest offenders in believ­ ing that, given enough time, everything could be covered in a seminar. Kierkegaard wrote: "And now even if this is something which can­ not be represented in art, let it be your comfort as it is mine that the highest and most beautiful things in life are not to be heard about, nor read about, nor seen but, if one will may be lived."

18 The State of Philosophy at St. Peter's College By Alan G. Nass er

HE Philosophy courses at St. Peter's comprise twenty-four of the ouc; Thundred and thirty six credits required for graduation. One might therefore expect them to play a dominant role in the intellectual development of the Petrean. I am afraid that they do, but not, I am sure, in the way intended by the Department of Philosophy. The situation demands consideration on the part of both the faculty and the students. I have taken the liberty to propose five suggestions which may point out basic weaknesses on both sides of the desk. Expansiom on each suggestion follow. Pretentious comments on Metaphysics and Ethics are also included, with the hope that they will stimulate the student to further investigation. 1 ) A consideration of existential situations should complement the essentialism of Aristotelian-Thomistic Philosophy. 2) The history of Philosophy should be the backdrop of the pre­ scribed course of Scholastic Philosophy. 3) Extensive reading should include some of the works of both Maritain and Gilson, as well as other perceptive authors in the Scholastic tradition. Textbooks might be chosen which present the Thomistic position in the light of its foundation in the basic, unshakable principles of sound Realistic philosophy. Naive, dry texts which piously call to the student's attention principles ultimately based on theological faith should be shunned, if only for the sake of avoiding the resentment that they instill in the already sceptical student. 4) The philosophical problems of modern science should be con­ sidered and related to problems in Thomism. 5 ) The original writings of Aquinas, rather than interpretations, should be the student's text. 1 ) Lord Bacon has said of Scholasticism that it "brings forth indeed, cobwebs of learning, admirable for the fineness of thread and work, but of no substance or profit."1 This is an attack leveled time and time again by those who would deny the intellect its primary right, the con-

19 quest of being-being not for its own sake, but for the ultimate sake of Being. Nevertheless it is an attack more easily leveled against a philo­ sophy almost totally devoid of existential situation. This weakness, inherent in textbook Scholasticism, is not intrinsic to Thomism but is justly imputed to the System by those who know it only through the dubious interpretation of t

20 Maritain. Gilson's analysis of the history of Medieval philosophy and its central position in the scope of philosophy in general are no less stimu­ lating than his remarkable organization and exposition of the thought of such minds as Augustine and Aquinas. For clarity, Gilson is unri­ valled. Maritain, of course, is more the philosopher than the historian. His penetrating insights into the vital meaning of Thomism for the man of today are a joy, though sometimes rather difficult. One hopes, with such excellent material available, that the student will be referred to some of it, either in connection with the subject mat­ ter of a particular course or for his personal edification through outside reading. Stimulation plays an important role in the awakening of the student's hunger for philosophy and these men should stimulate even the most apathetic undergraduate. 4) One hundred years ago, scientists were certain that by the turn of the century they would have discovered all there is to know concerning the laws the behavior of the physical universe. Today, they sing a differ­ ent song. Modern scientists entertain grave doubts regarding the validity and adequacy of the present scientific method. There are too many prob­ lems that scientists have avoided in the past for fear of introducing ufacile explanations." with "undesirable philosophic implications." Ironically enough, the tremendous bounds by which the scientific scheme has advanced in· the past century have forced the moderns to consider inevitable philosophic problems. ·Hence the philosophical treat­ ises of such eminent scientists as Sir Arthur Eddington, Alfred North Whitehead, Sir James Jeans, and even the arch anti-philosopher Julian Huxley. That is not to say that modern scientists en masse have returned to the truths of the synthesis of Aquinas. I merely wish to point out that they, in spite of the nineteenth-century straggling of thinkers like Bert­ rand Russell and Julian Huxley, are quick to admit that the traditional problems of the origin of the universe, the problem of the will and the nature of the vital principle are being pressed with greater urgency upon modern science by the very nature of its discoveries. Regarding the origin of the universe, an eminent British scientist has this to say: · One of the least disputable laws of physical science states that the universe is steadily running down. The energy of the universe ... is steadily assuming a less available form ... and ... ·it was more highly organized yesterday than it is today. Following the process

21 backwards we find a more and more highly organized universe. This backward tracing in time cannot be continued indefinitely. Organization cannot, as it were, mount up and up without limit. There is a definite maximum, and this maximum must have been in existence a finite time ago. And it is impossible that this state of perfect organization could have been evolved from some less perfect state. Nor is it possible that the universe could have per• sisted for eternity in that state of perfect organization and then suddenly, a finite time ago, have begun to pursue its present path. Thus the accepted laws of nature lead us to a definite beginning of the universe in time. We are to suppose, on this reasoning, that, at some particular moment in the past, a perfectly organized uni­ verse sprang suddenly into being, and has steadily become more and more degraded ever since. 6 This is by no means an air-tight proof for the existence of a Prime Mover, for most scientists would be quick to reply that the tightening up of a presently limited scientific method would solve, in purely physical terms, this apparent problem. Nevertheless, it would be an extremely interesting and challenging intellectual endeavor to relate this scientific stumbling-block to the metaphysical analysis of the nature of the uni­ verse and rejection of the possibility of an infinite series of moved movers. The field of biology offers no less a temptation to the metaphysidan: What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a belief in the occurrence of "spontaneous genera­ tion" ... But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it be­ came an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible con­ clusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult to accept.1 Perhaps one of the most philosophically fertile and provoking aspects of modern science is this: Many of the questions that seem to us quite fundamental have not been met. What, for instance makes us regard a living organism as a whole, and not merely the sum of its parts? What does this vague notion of "wholeness" or "individuality" really amount to? Even if every bodily activity of the animal was explained in terms of physical and chemical changes, we should still feel that one

22 question was unanswered unless what appears as the purposive orde-r of those changes also accounted for. But "purpose" is not yet a scientific notion. It is not employed in the physical and chemical sciences, and the majority of biologists or, at least, of physiologists, are reluctant to introduce any ideas which have not been found necessary in those sciences. This is doubtless an excellent procedure so far as certain limited classes of problems are concerned, but also seems to lead to the consequence that the most obvious and fundamental problems of biology are not even approached . . . we have the feeling that the primary concepts used by biologists are · inadequate to their most important problems. The great theory of natural selection, for example, when studied in detail, is full of lacunae. Instead of the natural and ready assent one gives to a demonstration in physics, for example, one has to make a really immense effort to believe, even for a moment, that the whole evolu­ tion of living forms on this planet has come about by "random variations" and the struggle for existence. It does not in the least explain the most obvious fact about the whole process, that is, the upward tendency of living things.8 The above is a problem of great concern to modern biologists, and Mascall tells us that even Julian Huxley lately admits that the traditional evolutionary theory ( if scientific evolutionary theory may be called tradi­ tional) has led scientists up and down blind alleys for years.9 I do not mean to use these facts as a philosophical bludgeon with which to pommel scientifically inclined thinkers. I do wish to point out that this problem of the purposive order in nature should be recognized by philosophy professors as a scientific problem as well as a Scholastic point of departure. When this fact is revealed to the student I am sure that he would en joy and profit from relating the scientific enigma to St. Thomas' s analysis of Final Causality in nature or to de Chardin's theory of "point­ Omega." What had previously been a hazy, elusive, abstract metaphysical puzzle would become a vital question in the concrete. It seems that any serious, speculative or scientific investigation, either of man or the natural world about him, reaches a point of advance be­ yond which lies an apparently unanswerable dilemma. Physics, chemistry, and psychology all reach their apex in philosophy. The scientists may re­ linquish their slide rules, scales and pointer readings and each pursue his respective field through its apogee, but only at the risk of venturing far beyond the limits of that field. On the other hand, he may rest satisfied 23 with his knowledge of secondary causes and sense-perceivable phenomena and resign himself to a position of agnosticism regarding primary causes and first principles. Perhaps it was science's desire to pursue the former alternative coupled with its unwillingness to relinquish its tools that gave birth to that freak child, logical Positivism. 5) There is no doubt that the Rev. Nobody's interpretation of St. Thomas does justice to the Doctor's general train of thought, but I think it is safe to say that it never reflects his sobriety, his wealth of experience or his genial wisdom. I am afraid that professors of philosophy have forgotten that St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Cajetan and Francisco Suarez are three dis­ tinct persons. To use Aquinas's terminology, two are contingent, only one is necessary. The student could not help but profit from a return (more likely an initial turn) to the original writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. A definite step in the right direction would be to make Anton Pegis's Basic Writings of Thomas Aquinas a required text for the entire course in Scho­ lastic philosophy. After three years, something is bound to rub off.

METAPHYSICS "O Physics!" Newton once exclaimed, ''preserve me from meta­ physics!" Such was the naive wish of a great scientist who never dreamed that physics would be revolutionized at the expense of some of the theories dearest to his heart. Perhaps the cause of greatest chagrin to old Isaac would be the increased popularity of metaphysically inclined tho~ght a­ mong the greatest of the modern scientists ( e. g. Jeans and Whitehead) . This too, precisely because of advances which have shed new light upon the knowledge of the universe. Commenting on the ability of physics to save the sane thinker from the trappings of metaphysics, Will Durant can only groan, "alas, it cannot any more."10 Of course, the perennial wailers never cease to bemoan any hint that modern science is turning towards metaphysical speculation. Bertrand Russell,_recently referred to as "the ancient patri~ch of all hand-wringers everywhere" and "a professional searcher after lost causes for a donkey's years" adamantly refuses to admit that physics is every day moving farther and farther from , its formed y deterministic Rosition. Even in one of his earlier works, when he vague! y suspected his scientific consorts of "meta­ physical chicanery," he severely criticized Alfred North Whitehead for his analysis of Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty and his ideas on causality.11 Will Durant, perhaps St. Peter's most illustrious alumnus,

24 launches a bitter diatribe against contemporary atomic theory and sneer­ ingly refers to "the new Scholasticism of science."12 In spite of the greatest attempt in certain quarters to discourage meta­ physical thought, man will always seek to reunite the intellect with its formal object, being as being. That the intellect sees is a truism central to any philosophy worthy of the name, and it is the abandonment of this fact since the end of the fourteenth century that has turned modern philosophy from philosophy's own reward-the meaning and value of existence. For some reason, modern philosophers have preferred to attribute to God, or to the senses, or to pointer-readings, a sham substitute for that activity which is proper to man's intellect, the intuitive grasping of the nature of the es­ sence of existents. As for the intellects virual a-priori possession of first principles they have, for the most part, rejected it. ABANDON FAITH, ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE When we encounter in a student antipathy towards the Ethics course at St. Peter's, it invariably stems from one of two sources. Either the student is reacting against what he feels are theological values being passed off as philosophical, or decrying the presumptuously "rational" treatment of prob­ lems which for the Catholic can only be met on theological grounds. I sup­ pose I can classify myself in the latter category. The problem is a difficult one. One must remember that Ethics; as it appears,.in the St. Peter's College Bulletin, is philosophy, not theology. The presence of non-Catholic students in class complicates matters further. Considering these factors, a theological approach would be unfair. On the other hand, many students feel that as a Catholic institution, St. Peter's College should be expected to offer to the lay student some­ thing along the lines of a speculative theology of the Christian's existential situation. The Christian concept of man demands more than a purely philo­ sophical investigation of morality. Man is a unique composition of body and soul, capable not only of natural reasoning, but also of the possession of supernatural grace. If we shall. isolate one of the proper aspects of man to the exclusion of the- other, the other will invariably suffer. In a purely philosophical morality, Grace is the stumbling block. Rational schemata 1 and maxims do well in the speculative order, but in the existential situation they too often dissolve - "The strongest oaths are straw to the fire i' the blood."13 Jacques Maritain states the case well: In the actual condition of human nature, a purely philo­ sophical moral science would not be capable of making a man

25 LIVE WELL, and would not form a true practical science. For all its claim to be a science-knowledge organized under principles and adequate to its object-it would not be truly practical. It would be a practical science which was not really practical-and for this reason illusory. A purely philosophical moral philosophy would only provide us with a system of ends, of rules, and of achieved virtue (perfectae virtutes). This system would be doubtless good in itself, but it would be merely a theoretical system, designed to es­ tablish in a state of goodness a separated essence, a creature of pos­ sibility, a human being other than man as we know him.14

NOTES 1. Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning, iv, 5. 2. John Wild, The Challenge of Existentia/,ism, Indiana University Press, 1955 3. Will Durant, The Story 'of Philosophy, Garden City Publishing Co., New York, 1933. Preface to the Second Edition. 4. Ibid. p. 106 5. William Barrett, Irrational Man, Garden City Publishing Co., Doubleday, New York, 1958 6. J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science, The Viking Press, New York, 1933 7. Ibid. p. 94 B. Ibid. p. 125 9. Mascall, The Importance of Being Human, Columbia University Press, New York, 1958 10. Will Durant, The Mansions of Philosophy, Simon and Schuster Inc., New York, 1929 11. :t:r!nd Russell, Mysticism and Logic, Garden City Publishing Co., Doubleday, New York, 1957 12. Will Durant, The Mansions of Philosophy, p. 66 13. Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Harper & Bros., New York, 1960 p. 131 14. Jacques Maritain, Science and Wisdom, Geoffrey Bles: The Centenary Press, London, 1944 p. 163

~ Would I Were The Wind By ] oseph F. Gagen

Would I were the wind So I might meet you Passing, Breast-bared, Breathing, Drawing me Within. -translation of an anonymous Greek couplet. 26 Graham Greene and Modern Morality By James P. Beggans, Jr.

In the review given by the New Y o-rk Times to Graham Greene's latest book, it was stated that his policy of portraying sexual guilt as a method of achieving wisdom and adultery as the way to salvation, still holds true. But let it be noted that when Greene treats of the struggle of the soul in relation to sin, he is f 01;ced to bring his purpose home through the area most familiar to us. By this I mean, the cultural environ­ ment which regards the worst sins as those of the flesh. To fully understand Greene's position, I propose that we view him from four angles. That is to say, in his attempts to: 1. Restate the traditional doctrine on the malice of various sins; - 2. Pierce the hypocritical facade that envelopes modern society; 3. Show the conflict between sin and the noble emotions that ac­ company it; 4. And, finally, emphasize that through sin is the realization of God's mercy. The following novels of Graham Greene will illustrate these points: A. A Burnt-Out Case B. The Power and the Glory C. The End of the Affair D. The Heart of the Matter E. Brighton Rock (Now listed as an entertainment) 1. When we talk of sin nowadays, we generally mean those sins con­ cerning sex. There are very good reasons for this. Primarily, we are still under the influence of Manichaean dualism. But also responsible is the attitude of modern society that any means of success are good, or, at least, morally neutral. Thus, because the only clear-cut guilt seems to fall on sins of the flesh, the intuitive conclusion is that they are the worst form of sin. Perhaps this is why some people are astounded to find the adul­ terers, Paolo and Francesca, in only the first circle of Dante's Hell. Yet traditional doctrine sets the guilt of the sin by the extent of its malice.

27 Since sins of sex are merely giving in to natural inclinations they are less culpable than, say, treason. After all, Judas occupies the very pit of the Inferno with Satan. Let us take two of the above novels and see what Greene has to say on the subject. In The Power and the Glory, the nameless priest is not only an alcoholic, but has had a child by a local woman. His op­ ponent, the Communist soldier, neither drinks nor has anything to do with women. Prescinding from the question of the efficacy of the priest's acts, it is evident that, by current standards, the priest is a damned sinner. And even though the lieutenant is a Communist, we might say he is a good man. But what happens is that Greene, by showing the inherent goodness of the priest, raises our perspective to the point where we can see how such a man can be saved and the other lost. The youthful gangster, Pinkie, really provides the definitive state­ ment. In Brighton Rock Greene presents a character who embodies evil. Yet to Pinkie, sex is a horrible "Saturday night exercise." He only mar­ ries as an expedient. Throughout the entire book, this abhorrence is emphasized. Is not Graham Greene trying to say that physical love, illicit or not, is an approach to Supreme Love and necessarily digusting to a discipline of the devil? 2. Whether we like it or not, we are surrounded by the effects of Pur­ itanism. Any direct references to the acts of elimination or procreation are taboo. There are not even common words in the English language for them. This, of course, is still one more reason why carnal sins are castigated. Philip Wylie has said that in matters of sex Americans are technically ''insane." For, with all our reticence, we live in a morally "open" society. Graham Greene uses an interesting technique to expose this. Let us refer once more to The Fower and the Glory. Near the end of the book, the priest is imprisoned for carrying forbidden liquor. He spends the night in a crowded cell, which we are inclined to think represents the world. In one dark corner, there is a couple engaged in the act of sexual intercourse. And near the priest sits a pious old woman who keeps demanding that a stop be put to it. What is important to note, is that the reader soon becomes annoyed at this woman. The reason is simple: up to this point Greene has shown that salvation depends on higher ideals; that sins of the flesh may even lead to an appreciation of a higher

28 Love. So this woman becomes an embodiment of the rules-keeping, sim-· ple Christian, who in all probability will get to heaven, though in a lower rank. But, of course, Greene is only parodying the normal reaction of the average reader through this character; and it is this sudden reali­ zation that you too could be speaking those words that gives one an idea of Greene's tremendous insight into the relation of the soul to God. Yet one important point must be stated here. Graham Greene is always a Catholic author, and, as such, this attack on the lukewarm is directed against Catholics in particular. It is only when we meet the figure of "Ida" in Brighton Rock that we recognize his attitude toward Protestantism. To Greene, this representative of Protestant culture is the figure of amorphousness. Superstition and a societal sense of Justice, com­ bined in the belief that things must always be set right at any cost, make up her character. To her, lack of sin corresponds to lack of hurt. And the order and facade of society must be preserved in this harmless pur­ suit of pleasure. 3. This third point contains the thread which stretches through all of the so-called Catholic novels. In Greene's latest book, A Burnt-Out Case, the chief character, Querry, was a Catholic architect who refused to prac­ tice his religion. Until the moment came when he no longer believed, his state was enjoyable. Then, in the depths of rejection, he discovered a pursuing God. For, to Greene, God is closest to the heart and mind of man when he is excluded from his soul. In The End of the Affair, we have the subtlest of all Greene's des­ criptions of the soul caught between the pleasure of sin and the eternal yearning for God. The love that Sarah expresses for Bendrix, the devo­ tion to her husband, combine to drive her towards the source of Love. Even the atheist helps her along the road to salvation. Of course, one of Greene's favorite themes finds a place in this novel. That is the effect of the imprint of Baptism, the gift of the Faith. He states again and again that once one has been given over to God, the soul unerringly tries to find its way back. Even sin, which is a pri­ vation, reveals the hiding places of the Almighty. 4. The Heart of the Matter proved to be a very controversial novel for Graham Greene. When questioned about the suicide of Scobie at the end of the book, he simply explained that in The Power and the Glory, he had written of a man who went to heaven; in Brighton Rock, of one

29 who went to hell; and in this novel, of a man who went to purgatory. The reason Scobie was technically "saved" is that, at the moment of death (or as Greene said in Brighton Rock, "between the stirrup and the ground."), he trusted in God's mercy. His fault was that he couldn't love, only pity. It was pity that put him in his quandry and pity that al­ most damned him. But pity is so close to love that it is almost its most horrible distortion. And in the end, love overcame it. It is true that Graham Greene has no wish to be patronized as a Catholic author, nor for his work to be identified as such. He has been criticized and lauded by Catholics and many Protestants. It has been said that his work is crowded with contradictions that distort true Catholic doctrine. Yet this much, at the very least, must be said: a new genre has been created by this man. Never before has a novel with the theme of a searching soul been such a popular and literary success as have been the many works of Graham Greene.

Father of the Bride By Thomas ]. Fall on

Ah-what sweet grief remembrance brings: A thousand dimly shadowed things­ A face reveals, On moonlight stroll; A church bell peals And takes its toll; A baby smiles; The doorbell rings; A lad beguiles; The choir sings, And here I stand! Quick, little one, Come, take my hand! They've just begun! They've just begun ... Come, little one, . . . A thousand dimly shadowed things Ah-what sweet grief remembrance brings.

30 The Political Philosophy of Jacques Maritain

Vincent B. Consoli

S LATE as 1944 the standard charge against Thomism was that it Asought by means of subversive logic to convince human society to re­ gress into an obsolete medievalism. In that year G. G. Coulton published an account against Jacques Maritain's humanism and stated at the very outset that "M. Jacques Maritain is perhaps the most distinguished and influential of the neo-Thomists who would fain take us back to the Medieval School­ men."1 "Maritain," Coulton later complained. "copies his chosen master only too well." And as late as 1948 Maritain had to once again repeat him­ self, this time with a little more sharpness: "I am not a neo-Thomist. All in all, I would rather be a paleo-Thomist ... I am, or at least I hope I am, a Thomist. For more than thirty years I have remarked how difficult it is to persuade our contemporaries not to confuse the philosopher's faculty of invention with the ingenuity that inspires the art of the dress designer."2 This may appear to be just another instance of quibbling over names and labels, what philosopher's indulge in and justify as an occupational hazard. But Maritain, I believe, is seriously pointing to the basic miscon­ ception most of us have when we approach the study of Thomism. Maritain neither merely "copies" St. Thomas nor does he add anything substantially "new." The great core of all his work, except perhaps in the :field of aes­ thetics (Creative Intuition in Art and Poetry)) consists in the elucidation and further development of Thomas' most basic concepts and their appli­ cation to modern problems. The political philosophy of Jacques Maritian, so far as I am able to define it, is a perfect example of his Thomism. It is based on St. Thomas' concept of the person, and further depends on the distinction between per­ son and individual, the relations of each to society and their implications with respect to freedom, authority and equality. Now it goes without saying that these are very modern problems, and modern in a sense which means they are problems always with us. Maritain has recognized 31 in St. Thomas' work certain principles which he declares possess a univer­ sal validity and which are very much relevant to these ((modern" problems. At this level Maritain is justified in contending he is a Thomist and not a neo-Thomist, and on this level, I believe, he should be made immune from any charge of anti-modern medievalism. At the beginning of a little, compact book, The Person and the Com­ mon Good, Maritain asks the question that puzzles most of us: ((Does society exist for each one of us, or does each one of us exist for society? "3 Maritain searches through this problem by way of an apparent contra­ diction: Man, in all he is and has, belongs as a part to the community, and man, in all he is and has, is an independent whole referred to God. - Maritain has derived this paradox from St. Thomas." For, since one man, is a part of the community, each man, in all that he is and has, belongs to the community; just as a part, in all that it is, belongs to the whole. Man is not ordained to the body politic according to all that he is and has . . . But all that man is, and can, and has, must be referred to God. Maritain illustrates this same paradox by pointing to the "good runner who while he engages the whole of himself in the race does not by reason of all the functions or all the :finalities of his being. "5 At the source of this view is the recognition of man in the light of the doubleness of his nature. By virtue of his material physical nature he bears a relative! y definite shape, height, weight, thickness and he somehow realizes in himself a oneness, a hanging together of all his parts and an awareness that he is not someone else, that no one can be standing where he is standing at the moment. But along with this recognition of his indi­ viduality he soon becomes conscious of its precarious unity. He discovers that at one time in life he is this shape, height, weight and thickness and at another time he is not. He soon discovers that while he is standing here at this particular moment, he can so easily be displaced by another indi­ vidual. He thus finds that his nature is variable and relative to space and time and subject to certain laws of the physical world. He feels no self­ mastery, except the whimsy of one which comes and goes, and he is aware gradually of a certain sluggishness, a fading of his liveliness, a constant disintegration of his body. Yet, he maintains a certain dignity and is conscious of a super-existence which comes by way of loving and

32 thinking, and he is capable of a freedom which makes him independent and superior to not only his own physical, material nature but all material reality. This special manner of existence he believes is heightened by its analogous relation to God, the Trinity and the Incarnation. In this view, then, the individual is but .(tthe shadow of true person­ ality." But in the Thomistic concept the human being is at the same time wholly individual and wholly personal, they constitute one reality. While the person and individual are distinct, they are inseparable. While a bigger man may wish to stand where I am standing and seek to displace me with a shove, I can persuade him, (tmove" him, to another spot. While I must require physical sense satisfaction, I must also think and love. And while I seek to perfect reason and virtue I require the cooperation of others. Society is a dialogue of spiritual action as well as physical movement. Man's sense and moral perfection require the organization of society whose end by virtue of man's double nature is the good of the social body as the com­ mon good of human persons. The common good is therefore common to both the whole and the parts, the person and the individual, into which it flows back and which in turn must benefit it. ((The common good directs itself to the persons as persons and directs the persons as individuals to itself."6 That is, the individual is for society, but society is for the person. The implications of this concept of the person and the common good may be viewed briefly in Maritain's comments on freedom, equality and authority. Freedom, it has been noted, is proper to man's intellectual being. Spirit is the root of personality and the notion of personality thereby in­ volves that of totality and independence. Maritain distinguishes, however, between two kinds of freedom. While there is a substantial distinction between the two, the freedom of spontaneity supposes the existence of the freedom of choice. However, the freedom of choice is not an end in itself, and among the many paradoxes St. Thomas supplies us with in this con­ nection, that we choose in order, ultimately, not to have to choose is not the least of them is what we choose. Freedom of choice, Maritain writes in Scholasticism and Politics, while freer than the freedom of spontaneity in the human person, since it is not only free from constraint, but also from necessity, is less perfect since it is itself ordained to freedom of autonomy and expansion which constitutes the dynamism of freedom for Maritain and is most directly and immediately concerned with political philosophy. 33 Freedom of spontaneity does not transcend, as does freedom of choice, necessity and determinism. It implies, however, the absence of constraint. "It is the power of acting in virtue of one's own interior in­ clination and without undergoing compulsion imposed by an exterior agent."8 Freedom of spontaneity admits of degrees corresponding to the levels of being. At the degree located in a spiritual nature ( God and man) it is more properly spoken of as freedom of independence. Here, on the level of the human person, freedom does not consist merely of natural inclination, but of being what one makes oneself to be, of perfection and expansion, and presupposes and depends upon the existence and exercise of free will. Of all the beings on earth only the human person is master of itself, being whole and independent. In God, personality and freedom of independence are one and the same, as His Essence and Existence are one and the same; He is Pure Act, absolute perfection, "subsistent Free­ dom of Autonomy." In the human person the freedom of independence is dynamic and expanding. Yet it cannot be but caught up with the doubleness of man's nature. The human personality is "inflicted," says Maritain, with a trans­ cendental element whose aspirations cannot be fulfilled on earth, and tend toward the "conquest of freedom" ( to which the freedom of choice is ordained) and it is "inflicted" by the burdens of material nature, with all the attendant miseries and servitudes we know and feel so well. The dynamism of freedom consists in those demands and the accomplishment of their satisfaction made by the human personality in its conquest of freedom. Since these "inflictions" are centered in the human soul and in human society, the remedies involved are spiritual and social in form. Man's freedom means love and civic fraternity and voluntary conformity to the just laws of order in social life. The superhuman freedom, the thirst for "transnatural" perfection, whose claim we have no proper right to, means that ineffable transforming union with God. The end of social and civil life is to free the human person from the servitudes of nature in order that he might properly progress and achieve the fullness of this greater spiritual autonomy. In the true Christian political society - which is, if it can be at all summarized in four words, personalist, communal, pluralist and theocentric - the notions of equality and authority flow from the concept of the person just as naturally as freedom.

34 "Every man," quotes Maritain from Cajetan, "is a man by his essence, but no man is man by essence." It is equality in essence which unites men in rational nature, and the term "unity of mankind" is the truest name for equality in nature among men. 8 According to St. Thomas two effects of unity are equality and multiplicity. Paradoxically, multiplicity or in­ equality must :flow from equality. "The true philosophy of equality," writes Maritain, "does not suppress inequalities, but bases them indeed on equal­ ity, as something more fundamental, and turns them, by virture of justice, into an equality concerned with the use and fruition of the common good."9 Authority has its source in God, but the particular holders of polit­ ical authority possess it by virtue of the passage of this right through the people. Authority, for Maritain, is the right to direct and command and to be obeyed by others. Power is simply force used to oblige others to obey. Authority without power is inefficacious; power without authority is iniquitous. Nevertheless, it is authority which possesses the primary importance.10 The presence and exercise of authority in the political community is a natural necessity. In so far as the political community is a whole it must have the subordination of the parts which are directed for the concern and the unity of the whole. A political whole without sub­ ordination of its parts is "open anarchy" which results from the sup­ pression of authority and power or in "masked anarchy" - the liberal democratic community - wherein there exists a suppression of authority for the preservation of power in order that each man be, as Pope Leo expressed it, "a law unto himself." It is simply the deification of the individual. The aim of authority is the common good of human persons in pursuit, as independent men, of their "conquest of freedom." All this abstract formulation, and probably nothing lingers in our minds to trouble us after we are done with it. Many of us believe meta­ physical speculation to be another name for the precarious peace that is veiled by obsurity and confusion. More than likely, the philosopher does often turn the hazard of his profession into the balm of illusion, but this is unfortunately true of us all. As Waldemar Gurian rightly observed in The Maritain Volume of the T homist, Maritain's political philosophy can be realized fully if it is studied not only in its most philosophical statement but also in its connection with historical and temporal movements. I have restricted this essay the way I have because I believe it may serve as a helpful introduction for those who find the 35 abstract difficult or who are temperamentally impatient with it; it may enable some to become acquainted with Maritain's historical criticism and interested in his other works. He is one of the most perceptive and rep­ resentative of our Catholic thinkers today and while he enjoys a large audience, he deserves a more respectful audience among Catholic college students.

1. G. G. Coulton, "The Historical Background of Maritain's Humanism," Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. IV, Oct., 1944, pp. 415-434. 2. Jacques Maritain, Existence and the Existent, trans. L. Galantiere and G. Phelan, Image Books (Doubleday), N. Y., 1956, p. 11. (1948) 3. Maritain, The Person and the Common Good, trans. John J. Fitzgerald, N. Y., Scribner's and Sons, 1947, p. 1. 4. Summa Theologica, Q. 96, Art. 4, respondeo. Pegis, Basic Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, N. Y., Random House, Vol. II, p. 795. Summa Theologica, Q. 21, Art .4, ad. 3. Pegis, Basic Writings, Vol. II, p. 365. 5. The Person and the Common Good, pp. 61-62. 6. ibid. p. 66. 7. Scholasticism and Politics, trans., edit. Mortimer Adler, London, Geoffrey Bies: The Centenary Press, 1945, p. 112. 8. The Social t1nd Political Philosophy of ]. Maritain-Selected Readings, trans. Evans and Ward, p. 67. 9. Ransoming the Time, Scribner's and Sons, N. Y., 1941, p. 2. 10. Scholasticism and Politics, pp. 73-74.

Loss By Thomas Fallon

I stand alone and echo silent whys And those around me smile and think it odd. They do no wrong; for something in me dies Which they can neither see nor hear the sighs. But man is lonely when there's only God.

36 And Dread The Loss O:f Heaven

By John Ragazzo

HE eerie green glow of a hidden moon set it off from the rest of the night. From where I stood, it looked like a crude statue, a carving Tof a great black beast. It was dead, and yet the penetrating blackness which covered everything gave it a suppleness and strength that made it seem capable of springing to life. Motionless, confident in its power, it was content just to sit there, a mountain of blackness. I felt my way through the thick growth of bushes which encircled the mountain at its base. With each step, I saw it in greater detail. There was something strange in the way its twisted frame arched skyward, something ominous. It reminded me of a sleeping demon, one of those black spirits that huddle close to the ground by day, and move only under the protection of night. I played with these strange thoughts, and my mind gave them life. I saw the demon uncurl from its protective ball, and stretch its mam­ mouth limbs. Two great ribbed wings fanned the air, causing ancient trees to strain at their roots. The earth shivered under every move it made. He turned his head slowly, stiff from a long sleep, and I could see every muscle in his huge neck strain and :flex. His clasped hands came over his head in some sort of diabolical ritual honoring the night, then fell to his sides. Gleaming green eyes scanned the world of darkness, the only world they ever knew, and saw nothing but the beloved black. Tired once again, he slouched, and curled back into his timeless sleep. My dream was over. Throughout it all, I never took my eyes off the mountain for fear that I would lose it in the darkness and not be able to find it again. I moved closer. It was enormous, stretching in either direction for as far as I could see. My eyes lifted, anxiously drinking in every detail. I came to the cliffs, fang-like instruments of death which boasted of more than one foolish victim. I looked higher, higher until I saw the peak, but only 37 very dimly. Something ripped inside me. I felt my skin tingle and my heart begin to pound with excitement. Some inner force, which I can only explain as either fear or madness, filled me with a fanatical desire, a desire to climb the mountain. For a second, my mind fell back into the world of fantasy, and it was truly hard for me to believe that this thing before me could not move. But since it could not come to me, I would go to it. I had to conquer it, to touch the peak. The first two hundred yards of my progress were quick and steady, but then the mountain began to fight back. It was as if I were climbing on the back of a sleeping giant, and suddenly woke it with a misplaced step. Now I felt its anger. I was struggling to go even a few feet at a time. My back and fingers ached. Each foot I gained cost me an agony of pain. I had to rest. I searched frantically for some place to stop, a cave or ledge, but there was none. It was then that I noticed. On the whole mountain, from its broad base to its spindling heights, nothing grew. Not one piece of green life was visible, not a tree, or vine, or weed, nothing. Something here choked life, something black and evil. I de­ cided to turn back. For one thing I am grateful, and that is how much easier it is to climb down a mountain than to climb up. With the strength of fear, I carried myself down at a pace, I am sure, I could not normally maintain. I stumbled and fell. Somehow I forced myself off the ground and, with my last wave of strength, I started to run.

38 In Honor of Paul Valery

By Joseph Morello

We sat and waited for the moon To pass a line drawn in the sky, Blue light traveled down to almost white, Alone in what we take to be the sky; Sirius, Cygnus, and Calliope, Like names, washed out by light; Or gems or rhombs or crystallines The sea leaves on the sand That disappear with night. Activity must start with definition But ware the darkness of the moon In the mirror of your Mind, Cold and naked in the glass; Uneased tuning leads to moon's madness And things unheard of in the courts of men Since fool Merlin, or wise Ben Who put the Tigris in an onyx cup. We sat and waited for the moon To pass a line drawn in the sky And in procession move beyond our ken, Though cold the light That came through emptiness To scatter on this sea.

39 Evolution and Theology By James Januzzi

HARLES DARWIN'S "The Origin of Species" has had a far ranging Cinfluence on modern thought. The main statement of his book, evolution by natural selection, has become a shiboleth, justifying human behavior in business, law, medicine, politics, etc. His scholarly tome has sparked many pious denunciations and has been instrumental in defining Christian thought by means of apologetics. Let us inquire into the thoughts that in the past, and even now, are stimulating thinkers. The scientific theory of evolution postulates life as an ever-dynamic process involving continous genetic change. New species of organisms come into being by a direct descent from older existing organisms. In most if not all cases, if the new organism continues to exist, it is more complex and better adapted to its environment than its ancestor. In this context, "organism" applies to all organic life and not only human beings. The theory of evolution can be stated thus: within any group of living be­ ings, there arise variations which are due to chance. The continued existence of these non-directive variations, however, is protected by natural selection. That is, if after a variation has come into being and it is found unable to cope with its environment, it will pass out of existence. Since it is axiomatic that species desire, and indeed must, procreate as many offspring as pos­ sible, there is a continuous struggle which arises for life. And the organism best suited to its environment survives. Natural selection does not of itself explain how species come into being. Rather it is a negative norm which guides species to maturity. It is the test which "separates the men from the boys." The reason why species are similar and why they vary is the study of Genetics. All problems con­ .:erning specific relations have not as yet been solved. As a result, although evolution of the human body has been considered an established fact by educated men, scientists are still attempting to fill in the gaps of an 11.dequate explanation of the how, why, when and where. Since the theory of evolution differs from the account of creation in Genesis, it has often been a source of anxiety for the piously uninitiated. The book of Genesis gives two explanations for man's existence, both stating that God created him. This Scriptual account of creation does not

40 refer to the soul alone but to the body also, since, in both renditions, con­ crete mention is made of man's body, and in one of them sexual differenti­ ation is mentioned. Thus one can see a conflict between science and theology. This conflict is more apparent than real, however, if one keeps in mind that the natural sciences are empirical and directed towards the dis­ covery of concrete fact. They attempt to put into an intelligible order the mysteries of this material world. Theology, on the other hand, deals with Revelation, Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Since natural science as well as theology deals with man, some apparent conflict is inevitable due to the aspects under which each discipline studies man. It must be remembered that a literal interpretation of the Bible should not be required, since it is a literary work, full of literary forms, written to be understood by a no­ madic, uneducated people. The Bible is just not equipped to render a rigorous, scientific explanation of creation, nor is science able to give to creation its religious significance. I do not here intend to say that the Genesis story of creation is a myth or folk tale. The Church has the right and duty to define the validity of Scripture, and this definition is accepted. The Church has, therefore, the right to oppose scientific positions that are theologically erroneous. In general, she has followed the rule of St. Augustine, in that the Bible has been taken literally unless reason or neccessity have decreed otherwise. Science and theology are seen by the Church to have their own 1'aison d'etre, and each is given sway over its own specific field. A problem arises when one attempts to learn just what the Church and science say. At the turn of the century there had as yet been no pronouncement from the Church concerning evolution, and this silence threw many Catho­ lics into perplexity. Finally, in 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission came out with a statement. Attempting to shun modernism, it went to the other extreme of fundamentalism, stating that historical facts in Scripture were true, while recognizing the literary character of the book. God was the ultimate Creator, and man had a fallen nature. Thus the thinking Catholic was satisfied, while the Catholic scientist still tried to draw light from the abstruse statements of 1909. Help was forthcoming, but it took 32 years to arrive. In an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Pius XII did not exclude the possibility of bodily evolution. He stated that man was not the son of a brute, since some Divine intervention was necessary in order to render the

41 evolved organism :fit to receive a soul. When a human being is conceived the embryo is :fit to receive a soul because the parents convey to it the nature they possess, one that has a soul. If Adam evolved from a higher ape, his body had to be prepared for his soul. Eve, who was given by God to stand at the side of Adam, came from Adam's side. Finally, man is en­ dowed by God with a rational and spiritual soul, making him more than an educated ape. In 1950, in the encyclical rrHumani Generis", Pius XII states that evolution is not contrary to Catholic doctrine, if the Catholic maintains that evolution takes place within previously existing matter and that God alone creates the soul. Concerning the question of whether men lived before Adam and Eve, these men would have had to be at the time that God made Adam a man. Adam is confirmed the ancestor of the entire hu­ man race. E. L. Mascall, an Anglican bishop, has a different view. Since he does not recognize the Council of Trent's definition of original sin as propa­ gated by carnal generation, he may say that God could have created many races of men with a metaphysical tie such that the sin of one race would involve all the others. He admits that anthropologists favor the theory that all men come from the same common stock. The proof of evolution comes from anthropology. Various skeletal remains have been discovered in different parts of the world. An interesting fact is, that as the structure of the present human is approached, there is a marked increase in the size of the brain, ranging from 45 0-600cc for the Anthropoid apes to 15 5 0cc for the average European. But despite the fact that man seems to have evolved, some scientists feel that he is the oldest of them all and that other forms are degenerate humans. Adam by his sin lost original justice and all future men are des­ tined to remain in conflict with nature. If sin is also an occasion for physical degradation, it is not hard to believe that some humans regressed in their development. The conflict can be logically resolved by considering many lines of ancestors, running adjacent to each other, finally converging at Adam, from whom springs a similar pattern of divergent racial lines. If the last sentence of Darwin's book were called to mind when inter­ preters of it declare that they have found justification for the present day materialistic attitude, their minds would no doubt be changed: "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers having originally been breathed by the Creator ..."

42 Comment

WHAT NEXT?

OR sixteen years I have been educated in predominantly white schools Fwith friendly atmospheres. I have been rather lucky, racial bigotry has not made a deep impression on me because I have experienced little of it, but I have experienced it. Those around me have been very patient and tolerant but what happens when I leave this world of equality and travel a few miles north, south, east or west? Many of my Negro friends attend colleges in the north and south and they have been exposed, more than I have, to the irrational and inhumane side of American life. This exposure has left them bitter, con­ fused and somewhat cynical about the progress being made in the field of race relations. These students are asking themselves and everyone around them, Why? Why are we intelligent persons, citizens of this nation, willing and able to make a contribution to its betterment, why are we given only token acceptance? Today every intelligent and discerning Negro is highly concerned about the state of this racial problem. The American Negro is not interested in copying white customs or being accepted into their institutions. What the intelligent and self-re­ specting Negro desires is the recognition of American Negro culture and its contribution to our American heritage and an acceptance of this culture as equal to that of the whites. Many well meaning people have stated that the reason the Negro hasn't contributed significantly to American culture is because they have been suppressed and have not been able to contribute. To this statement I agree but only in a small way. Many Negroes have contributed a great deal to American culture not only in Music but in Science, Art, Literature and History. Negroes have served faithfully in the United States Army from the time of the Revolutionary war. Negro poets like Claude McKay, Langston Hughes and Paul Lawrence Dunbar are never mentioned in anthologies of American poets, yet these men have true grace and form in their poetry. Except for the Civil War, Negroes are very seldom men­ tioned, if at all, in American history texts. These slights to a race have

43 a saddening effect on those Negroes who are proud of their race. It is important for Negroes as well as for whites to become aware of these contributions and to acknowledge them. What is needed are more scholar­ ly and readable books on the Negro and his contributions to democracy. In due time there will be some. But my purpose here is not to write a small history of the American Negro but to deal with the problems facing those thousands of Negroes who, like my-self, will graduate this June. We believe in justice, we have faith in the American way but does the American way and those who control it have faith in us? Are they willing to give us a chance to prove ourselves or do they want us to stay in our place and be "good children." Many of my Negro friends are, as I have said before, bitter and pessimistic, I must confess I feel similarly. For although progress is being made we still have a long way to go. So I can only sit back and ask, What next? C. J. H.

BROADWAY '60-'61 What kind of season was it? A season like most seasons; filled with those events which bring both palpitations and aches to the hearts of show biz people. There was the electrified, tense atmosphere backstage on opening nights and the suspense laden air at the cast parties as the members of the company anxiously waited for the first editions to hit the streets. For some, the first edition blew the lid off the party; the show was a success. Others, like Arabs, began to fold up their tents and steal away into the night. They got bad reviews. The Broadway scene was not without its quirks. Tad Mosel's All the Way Home, surnamed The Miracle of 44th Street, which by all the standards, namely the reviews, should have closed in a week, was sur­ prised to find the public clamoring for tickets. The producers obliged and the show is still running. Another, a musical ( obviously Camelot), was a flop in everything but its propaganda, presale and pagentry. Au- 44 thored by Lerner and Loewe, starring Julie (My Fair Lady) Andrews and Richard Burton, with Moss Hart directing, such a show was bound to be a success. The presale seemed to indicate that the public felt the same way. Yet a very typical comment is John McClain's, rrcamelot is the most beautiful show in the world." Happily, though, some shows did come out on top. In Becket, Broad­ way had a top-notch import which was definitly a two man show. Laurence Olivier and Anthony Quinn reached striking proportions as the protagan­ ists, Thomas A (Becket and Henry II of England. Becket, with its pagentry, was the highlight of the dramas this season. Another import is close behind it. A Taste of Honey is now holding forth on Broadway after a ten month run in London. The play, which has in its cast of characters a prostitute mother in conflict with her daughter who is with child by a Negro sailor, has introduced Joan Plowright to' the New York audience. The young English actress has performed re­ markably well in leading an excellent cast. The Octoroon, at the Phoenix, was a revival of an old play by Dion Boucieault. Under the direction of the Phoenix's own Stuart Vaughan and featuring several of his regulars, such as John Heffernen, the drama of slavery in the Old South proved to be tiring in some of its melodramatic moments. Still, a Phoenix production is not always to be taken so lightly. Mr. Vaughan, the permanent director of the theatre, is extremely talented. With his capabilities running from Shakespeare to such things as O cto­ roon, he has produced a rarity in New York - a theatre which is notable for its consistent excellence. An evening at the Phoenix is almost certain to be a pleasant one. More recently, the Phoenix company produced Shakespeare's Hamlet. Again, as in the past, the Bard fared very well in Mr. Vaughan's capable hands. It was pleasant to see Donald Madden, of Hotspur fame, portray the t(Melonchol y Dane" so well. A new play, The Devil's Advocate, is holding forth at the Billy Rose Theatre. It is a very strong play described by the Pauw Wow as full of powerful scenes, powerfully acted. Leading a well versed cast is Leo Genn in the role of a dying priest assigned the task of compiling the case against the beatification of one Giacomo Nerone, played by Edward Mulhare. The play has been adapted and directed by Dore Schary.

45 Soon after the close of Toys in the Attic, Jason Robards, Jr. was back on Broadway. This time it was iri a comedy, Big Fish, Little Fish. The variety of roles given to Mr. Robards and his excellent handling of them insures his continued success on Broadway. This particular play is a very big and broad comedy which presents a certain amount of cynicism to the playgoers. It portrays a group of parasite intellectuals ( Little Fish) , flocking about a true but dishonored intellectual ( The Big Fish) . The play is ably directed by the veteran Sir John Gielgud of Shakespeare fame. Comedy, in general, fared poorly this season. Mixed with music to produce the ever popular musical comedy, however, it sold fast. The only straight comedy to survive has been Ionesco's Rhinoceros and Ira Levin's Critics Choice. Ionesco's play is his usual criticism of society and the audience, although they are viewing snapshots of themselves, delight in their own antics. Eli Wallach and Zero Mostel, who looks like a rhinoceros in the first place, carry off their roles well. An earlier presentation, Brendan Behan's Hostage was as well received as the au­ thor's own numerous appearances. Without a doubt, however, the best seller on Broadway this season, as for the past few seasons, has been the musical comedy. Heading the list this season is Phil Silvers' Do Re Mi. Starring "The Top Banana" and Nancy Walker, this show really goes all out for an evening of fun. Tenderloin, which recently ended its run, was also a richly endowed show. It dealt with a bit of the history of little old New York, 'way back when we had our own Sin Strip. Maurice Evans, as a reform - but not Puritan­ minded minister cleaned up our town and provided some good enter­ tainment while doing it. As for Lucille Ball and Wildcat, let it suffice to quote the ad and say "Broadway loves Lucy." Irma La Douce, a French product, is also doing very well. The star of the show, Elizabeth Seal, has had a particuarly strong impact on the audiences who find her really delightful. The hold-overs from the last season are continuing to make their mark. Mary Martin in The Sound of Music and My Fair Lady will probably remain for some time on the Great White Way. Paddy Chay­ efsky's The Tenth Man as well as The Miracle Worker are two wonder­ fully emotional and well acted dramas which can also be expected to prolong their runs. Although not really not a Broadway theatre, The City Center has

46 contributed much to the success of the season. Late in '60 a series of Gilbert and Sullivan operattas were produced. The series was undoubtedly one of great delight to the many in the area. The annual ballet pro­ gram was· presented at Christmas and in the Spring. The Christmas program contained some of the repetory of the New York City Ballet Company but the emphasis was on The Nutcracker Suite. The Spring program, featuring Jacques D'Ambroise, Melissa Hayden and Allegra Kent, was a more balanced blend, containing such ballets as Medea, The Firebird, Swan Lake and a series of Pas de Deux and Pas de Trois. A new ballet which was added to their collection was a Swedish modernistic one entitled Electronics. In the months after the New Year, The City Center played host to the Deutsches Schauspeilhaus with their production of Goethe's Faust and the Comedie Francaise.

This was Broadway for the '60 - '61 season. It was, in fact still is, a good season. Many of the best sellers are holdovers from last season. Most of these are musicals. About a dozen or so are new shows which opened this season. Most of these should close at seasons end; a few may carry on. In all the Great White Way can boast of almost twenty five good shows which will finish out the season. After that - well that's fodder for Broadway '61 - '62.

INCIPIT COMMENTARIUS MODERATORIS The moderator, according to the immemorial custom inaugurated three years ago, takes this opportunity to comment on the year's accom­ plishments; noting first however that he has been to a great extent anti­ cipated by the editorial observations in the front of this issue. He wishes to express his considerable satisfaction at the quality and quantity of verse­ above average in both respects-in the three issues, from contributors too numerous for individual mention especially deserved by the editor himself along with such as Messrs. Butvick, Beggans and Fallon; it will be some­ thing of a mark to shoot at. He would also note with pleasure the achieve­ ment of the editor's stated aim, namely the wide variety of contributions­ comprising critical, philosophical, political-philosophical, political-historical and political-polemical ( unfortunately arousing response but not instiga­ ing any reply in kind) along with science and scientific history as well as informal essays ranging from Mr. Beggans on classical education to the

47 ••mood" pieces by Mr. Fallon and Mr. Ragazzo ( the latter a welcome genre we hope to see more of )-reflecting the scope of the students' intellectual and artistic interests; and with especial pleasure the several innovations such as Mr. Sullivian's "reports in depth" of current stage and television activities and Mr. Hassen's 0 frontispieces". And he will conclude with con­ gratulations and thanks to the staff members who have done their respec­ tive bits with dispatch and to the editors whose efforts are largely responsi­ ble for the quality of the magazine and whose unfailing energy and deter­ mination enabled us to almost make every deadline.

48