Tragic Method and Tragic Theology: Evil in Contemporary Drama and Religious Thought by Larry D. Bouchard (review)

Reviews275 the phallic and ithyphallic Mercury on certain herms is supposed to dissipate those doubts. After the Mercurial flights of imagination in Part II it is a relief to come down in Part III to the solid and interesting presentation of the varying ways in which Mercutio has been treated in adaptations, promptbooks , and performances from the Restoration to our own times. In this final section of the book the author also attempts to situate his critical position in relation to current trends in criticism. He sees Mercutio as "a particular kind of poststructuralist and postmodernist entity" (p. 195), and, with regard to feminism, while disagreeing politely with some of the conclusions of Adelman and Kahn, sees Mercutio's stance as "postfeminist rather than antifeminist" (p. 198). EUGENE M. WAITH Yale University Larry D. Bouchard. Tragic Method and Tragic Theology: Evil in Contemporary Drama and Religious Thought. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989. Pp. ? + 284. $24.95. This challenging study explores a perennial philosophical dilemma— the problem of evil in the world—by closely examining the work of three recent playwrights in the context of modern theological inquiry. The dramatists examined are Rolf Hochhuth (The Deputy), Robert Lowell (The Old Glory), and Peter Shaffer (Equus, Amadeus); but primarily this is not a book about the theater. The true subject of this study is the incomprehensible spectacle of human suffering on the stage of history. The datum of evil always has posed a difficulty for religious faith. That God, a superior universal entity, exists is a proposition that may be doubted or affirmed but in either case does not depend on direct observation. The problem arises when one posits a deity who is held to be omnipotent, benevolent, and involved in human affairs. For the twentieth century, that specific claim has placed increasing strains on credulity. Professor Bouchard, who teaches Religious Studies at the University of Virginia, writes sympathetically on this subject, exploring in some detail the views of Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, and Paul Ricoeur. His ultimate contention is that theology must embrace the tragic if it is to remain credible in the modern era, while, conversely, those playwrights who grapple with theological ambiguity—which is to say, those who haven't altogether scorned religious speculation—deserve respect. Various efforts have been made over the centuries to square theodicy with observation. Why do the innocent suffer along with the guilty? It has been said that God permits evil in the world to test us. But what comfort can there be for the torturer's victim in the knowledge that his persecutor has demonstrated the existence of free will? Calvin's scheme implies that God foresees (and hence allows) sin, a disturbing concept. The Deist solution was to propose that God exists but stands apart from his creation. But a God who fails to act is not benevolent, whereas a God who cannot act is limited. The postulation of a separate principle of evil in the world similarly places a constraint on God's omnipotence. Alexander 276Comparative Drama Pope suggested that what we think is evil really isn't ("Whatever is, is Right"), but the literate world has hooted at that proposal since Voltaire. An unassailable argument is to acknowledge evil and to state with sincere humility that God's motives are inscrutable or that he works in mysterious ways: that explanation squares with observation. Others, though, have surmised that God is cruel (De Sade) or dead (Nietzsche). Those explanations square with observation, too. Absent the attempt to find meaning in every instance of human suffering, the "problem" of evil disappears. One observes that nature is impersonal, that humans are given to violence, that accidents happen, and so forth. According to Gilbert Murray, the earliest Greek view of nature was similarly matter-of-fact and heterogeneous, and from it tragedy arose. The subsequent Olympian view brought difficulties: "To make the elements of a nature religion human is inevitably to make them vicious. There is no great harm in worshipping a thunderstorm. . . . But when you worship an imaginary quasi-human being who throws the lightning, you are in a dilemma . . . you have to invent reasons for his wrath against the people...