Das Englische Theater und Bert Brecht: Die Dramen von W. H. Auden, John Osborne, John Arden in ihrer Beziehung zum Epischen Theater von Bert Brecht und den Gemeinsamen Elizabethanischen Quellen by Margrit Hahnloser-Ingold (review)

1971 BOOK REVIEWS 357 DAS ENGLISCHE THEATER UND BERT BRECHT: DIE DRAMEN VON W. H. A UDEN, JOHN OSBORNE, JOHN ARDEN IN IHRER BEZIEHUNG ZUM EPISCHEN THEATER VON BERT BRECHT UND DEN GEMEINSA· MEN ELIZABETHANISCHEN QUELLEN, by Margrit Hahnloser-Ingold. Bern, Switzerland: Francke Verlag, 1970. 281 pages. This book is intelligent, in spite of the ungainly features imposed by its genre -the doctoral dissertation, in whose background hover such hoary questions as: How much background material should I supply? How many critics should I quote? Should I translate quotations? Inevitably, then, there is too much background material, there are too many critics and quotations, and judicious detachment makes laborious reading. Nevertheless, the book is intelligent because it does not force its thesis. Brecht critics have studied the history of his dependence on English theater, from Edward II to Coriolanus, and recent reviewers have assumed the dependence of contemporary English theater on Brecht. Margrit Hahnloser-Ingold summarizes the findings of the former group (but not summarily enough), and she devotes the body of her book to the latter and subject, as seen in the plays of Auden, Osborne, and Arden. Actually, then, she is concerned with drama rather than theater, though her sensitivity to theater enriches her drama criticism. Unlike the several reviewers she quotes, and in spite of the astigmatic lens of doctoral research, she does not fall easy prey to the influence syndrome. She takes Auden at his word: "As regards [Brecht's] influence upon the plays Mr. Isherwood and I wrote together, I don't think there was any. Such German influence as there was came from German Caberet. If there are aspects of the plays which remind the reader of German expressionist drama, this is an accidentthe real influences were the English Mystery or Miracle plays of the middle ages." Following this hint, she examines Auden's five plays of the 1930's for such medieval techniques as verse, pageantry, farce. But Auden grafted these devices on to a political rather than religious center. Unlike the oblique Brechtian political parable, Auden's political plays are naively direct. Moving forward some two decades, Margrit Hahnloser-Ingold analyzes ten plays by John Osborne, from Epitaph for George Dillon to A Patriot For Me. Unlike Auden, Osborne has neither confirmed nor dep.ied Brecht's influence. Certainly his first success, Look Back in Anger produced in 1956, is an old-fashioned, well-made play. But the year of Osborne's success was also the year the Berliner Ensemble visited London, and it was the year in which Osborne played the WaterCarrier in an English production of The Good Woman of Setzchuan. In the postAnger plays, Brechtian techniques are frequent-loose sequence of scenes, schematic scenic design, projections, direct address of actor to audience, songs, narrators . In spite of these techniques, however, Margrit Hahnloser-Ingold argues con· vincingly that Osborne's dramaturgy is basically unBrechtian, since it is psychological , emotional, and anarchically individualist. In probably the most complete analysis to date of the works of John Arden, she traces a few Brechtian techniques-verse interludes, estranging songs, direct address to the audience. She quotes from Arden's 1960 comment on Brecht: "I read an article on Brecht in the New Statesman. Although the author seemed to think he was describing something very novel and revolutionary, I immediately recognized what he was talking about. I did not know much about Brecht's theories then: I suspected, as I still do suspect, that he had few that had not been held intuitively by the Elizabethans. His revolution was to be able to put them into practice in his own theatre." Like Brecht himself, then, Arden drew 358 MODERN DRAMA December upon the Elizabethans, and both playwrights sought a comparable variety of tone and technique. Margrit Hahnloser-Ingold believes that both playwrights write parables (a word she confusingly interchanges with allegories), and that both delineate their characters socially rather than psychologically. Thus, she feels that Arden is Brecht's heir in a more profound sense than Osborne. And her book thereby acquires a neat progression from Brecht's non-influence on Auden, to his merely technical influence on Osborne, to a deeper affinity with...