In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

I THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ANDRE GIDE'S OEDIPUS Andre Gide's theater may be defined at the outset as the projection of an inner state of dialogue. To Gide a work of art is born out of spiritual conflict. Similarly, all moral reform and self-criticism discloses itself as the resolution of mental and emotional struggle. Gide's mind has justly been described as "the theater of an incessant drama." Accordingly his plays may be validly considered as faithful reflections of the tension between psychological extremes. They reveal and crystallize the reconciliation of intellect and desire,. of the symbolic world of abstract ideas and the sensuous world of nature. In his play Oedipus, for example, we perceive the clash between Hebraic (Tiresias) and Hellenic (Oedipus) cultures. resulting ultimately in the affirmation of classic precision and romantic vitality of style. Such an atmosphere of conflict, to Gide, is really a sign of complete, mature creativity. As the natural medium for inner conflict, the dialogue form of the drama exemplifies Gide's approach to moral problems. By means of an analytic, psychological method, external events and outward gestures function primarily as symbolic media for projecting the emotions, thoughts, and motivations of the protagonists. In effect, the protagonists become identified with the antithetical elements of an inner dialogue. Since drama implies character, the basic experience of conflict, which is essentially moral in nature. serves as the starting point for Gide's self-searching idealism. It is also the initial stage of Gide's evolution from mystical and destructive disquiet to constructive, human, and realistic moral philosophy; from the anarchy in Saul and Candaules to the harmony of inner being in Philoctetes, and chiefly in Oedipus.1 Confronted by the moral anarchy of the times, by the "dissociation of sensibility" that afflicts modern consciousuness, Gide voices out a need for a renaissance in the theater. He is primarily opposed to the naturalistic tendency of the French theater in the years preceding the first world war. In 1904 he wrote his important manifesto "The Evolution of the Theater." In it he attacked the tranches de vie school of Zola, the bourgeois realism of the "thesis" play. Whereas 1 See Andre Gide, My Theater, tr. Jackson Mathews (New York, 1952); Two Legends, tr. John Russell (New York, 1950). 422 1965 SIGNIFICANCE OF GIDE'S Oedipus 423 the realistic theater attempts to create an illusion of real life, dis~ cussing social and political problems of the moment, Gide lays emphasis on the purely literary qualities and on the psychological complexity of the drama. What the popular taste demands, says Gide, is the exposition of ideas that would be sympathetic to their thinking . Consequently, argument has triumphed over the poetic or evocative technique of character portrayal; thus, the actor has been stripped of his mask. In an idealistic reaction to objectivism, Gide espouses Racine's view that dramatic characters are to be appraised outside the perspective of everyday life. All attention must be focused on the spiritual drama of the hero. If the theater is to guide, not follow, popular morality, if it is to change the basic character of man, it must fashion heroic figures and present new ideals for the liberation and development of the individual. To Gide, the concept of morality is nothing else but a subjective problem. To clarify this problem of moral self-integration, Gide proposes self-manifestation as the ideal end, and the inner dialogue of selfcriticism as the means. Catharsis is achieved when the inner conflict is externalized in dramatic form. Instead of attending to the surface phenomena as the paramount consideration, Gide concentrates on the fundamental motivations which make up the essence of the individual. Pursuing a psychological analysis of human nature, he ignores objective facts in order to penetrate more deeply to the moral conflict in the self. From this viewpoint the external vicissitudes of Saul and Candaules (in the corresponding plays) are comprehended as manifestations of an internal anarchy. In this connection, whatever ideas are supposed to be allegorized or imaged in the plays must be evaluated fundamentally as being functions of the temperament of the protagonists. From the conflict of moral extremes, Gide moves on and arrives...

pdf

Share