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.