Revenire Cuprins

THE SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA IN ROMANIAN CRITICISM Prof. univ. dr. Aurel Curtui Universitatea “1 Decembrie 1918” Alba Iulia

The paper deals with the Romanian critical interpretations of the Shakespearean drama. It lays special stress on the meaning and value of these interpretations. Four centuries have passed with a constant and diversified interest in Shakespeare’s masterpiece. Shakespeare’s critical posterity has led to a most sensational evolution and its aesthetic value has given rise to fertile conclusions some of which are contradictory. Many critical interpretations were more relevant by their intensity and their exegesis. Owing to the romantic aesthetic period, for instance, Goethe1 in the Sturn and Drang period, in his Apprenticeship of Wilhelm Meister makes an analytic study of the characters in Hamlet. The Danish prince coordinates ethical and philosophical complexes finally finding himself in the impossibility of carrying out the obligation insured. Goethe’s viewpoint concerning Hamlet’s character had a strong influence on the European exegesis including our own. The Shakespearean approach to the Greek drama was, as a matter of fact, a response against the French classical drama which occasioned Lessing to note that “After Sophocles’s Oedip, no other play in the world could have more impact upon our passions except Othello, King Lear, Hamlet etc.”2. Similarly, Herder considers that the Shakespearean drama as well as that of Sophocles are of similar origin deriving from the folklore of the two nations, a straight artistic expression of their spiritual life. In the critic’s opinion Shakespeare is “the best master” just because “he is always devoted to reality”. Each play is distinguished by an individuality and a well shaped artistic universe, and Hamlet seems to the German critic a play full of “local flavour”, “of a deep preservation of truth”, in which the reader who searches “a mere theatrical moment” finds “a wide range of dialogues normally connected”3. While Friedrick Schlegel is shoked by the English poet’s mastery evoking “the depths of all passions and to present with profound genuineness the human vulgar nature, as it really is”. And in this respect Hamlet embodies “that life’s concept painful and skeptical and tough” which individualizes the main hero and “gives Hamlet the very enigmatic note”4. Shakespeare’s work was thus responding to the romantic demand of embodying in an artistic work all aspects of reality in a perfect structure and modality of expression, so thoroughly commented on by Hegel. The analysis of Hamlet, for instance, undertaken by the German aestheticist, through its comments on the Shakespearean tragic and conflict opened the large series of philosophical interpretations of the masterpiece within the framework of which some prominent personalities of the European aesthetics such as Taine, Brandes, Bielinski, Croce etc. are relevant. This appreciation of the Shakespearean drama will be massively extended and diversified in other European cultures as well. Writers and critics alike of most varied convictions

254

and descending looked for confirmation of their own artistic aspirations and truths in the Shakespearean drama which offered answers to many aesthetic and theoretical problems of the time. The large amount of debates and romantic attitudes with their own shades prove that the Shakespearean drama was placed in the centre of romantic art as the most perfect image of the poetic creative spirit being regarded together with Faust as one of the most representative works of the epoch. However, the critical reception manifests itself in different and diversified manner in their directions too. Samuel Coleridge5 and especially William Hazlitt6 are the beginners of the psychological criticism of the Shakespearean drama illustrated at the end of the last century by Edward Dowden7 and A.C.Bradley.8 Another ultimate trend manifested itself especially in the Victorian age and which identifies the greatness of the Shakespearean hero with that of a philosophic moralist who studies and discerns the sides of human conduct in terms of life and death. For A.C.Swinburne, Hamlet, for instance, is a teacher of morality” more a satirist than a philosopher”9. While the erudite academic investigations displayed the moral weakness and exaggerated pessimism of the hero as rendered by E.K.Chambers,10 E.Wilson Knight.11 Criticism in our century could not accept the romantic hamletian characterization which attempted to give the Danish prince a real existence. Finally T.S.Eliot handles the poetic Hamletian language in dealing with critical research concerned with style, poetical images, symbolical interpretations, etc. Such interpretations among which we find ideas from Freud, E.Jones are generally simplified. It is certain that almost all literary currents have tried to create a Hamlet who was “romantic”, “realist”, “symbolist”, “existentialist” and even pathologically created by psychoanalitical criticism. Shakespeare’s masterpiece by its many meanings led to be adopted in a large number of literary schools, which nowadays gave rise to a broad exegesis. We may say that no classical work has ever been presented so vividly in cultural periods as the tragedy of the unhappy Danish prince. There are various writers and critics among people who are attracted by the Shakespearean masterpiece which leads to a creative stimulant and of course to a moral immanent. Considered from this point of view the Romanian hamletian exegesis nearly corresponds with our own literary and aesthetic contributions so that critical receptions of the work in Romanian culture leads to a close relationship with the great European culture in the literary ideas. From this point of view it is significant that at the beginning of our last century translations are frequently from Voltaire, Hugo, Coleridge, Goethe, La Harpe prove to be great European resonances in the classical and romantic epoque. The names of modern critics Taine, Brandes, Matthew Arnold, Faguet, Brunentier are strongly mentioned. Such receptive critical efforts to Shakespeare finds itself in the aesthetic thought of the time. Thus Hamlet begins to be more and more from many points of view considering purely aesthetic approaches as well as other suggestions determine the interest in the drama. 1. Ideas about the Drama and the Art of the Performance It has become axiomatic that the profound aesthetic and inimitable structure of the Shakespearean drama has become a model of evolution of the drama on a European and universal level. We take it for granted that whether we accept it or not the modern drama is closely related to the work of the English poet and that the modern drama is definitely related to the work of the English poet. Many of the universal brilliant dramatic works were created either by the negation of the Shakespearean dramatic principles or, in most frequent cases through the recreation in their spirit, by a permanent confrontation of their value. Consequently, the Shakespearean drama often

255

played, in the concept of the authors, a role of catalyst, converted into a literary and aesthetic ideal, it embodied one of the current tendencies of modern drama.12 It is thus natural that in an early literature like ours which had for a long time the obsession of the theatre, the Shakespearean work to be placed at the very top. Nothing else did Eminescu do when in 1870 raised the problem of the National Theatre program. The Romanian drama in a permanent tendency of renewal and emancipation followed with an increased interest the Shakespearean work and especially the great tragedies. So much more as Romanian criticism brought in the efforts of the investigation of this drama elements of pure originality. The whole process of affirmation and recognition of the novelty of the Shakespearean work naturally derives from its own artistic value, from the unusual art of setting forth the themes and human relationships asserted and validated by their own significance from one epoch to another. By the deepening of the individual life of the personages up to the profound feelings from the depth of the human mind, Shakespearean tragedy endeavoured to revive the whole epoch of the English Renaissance. And from this point of view it integrated in the conception of the modern drama which tended towards a similar objective, namely the description of life in its whole, complex contradiction and variety. In this respect the Shakespearean tragedy, a powerful and profound dramatic expression of life becomes a model of the genre for the Romanian writer, a key pattern of any dramatic construction, a standard changed more and more often into one of the terms of any comparison. As we have seen in the previous chapter Romanian writers read, studied and largely commented on Shakespeare’s dramatic works, they have passed through this habitual education, which obviously left traces of the most fertile. Eminescu’s theatrical criticism, for example, proves the influence of Shakespeare’s aesthetic and ethical ideas. The Romanian poet integrated the Shakespearean theatre into the modern vision of art, into the general movement of ideas in our dramatic culture relating him to sensitivity and taste of his age. Many of Eminescu’s observations that he sets forth in a series of dramatic reviews13 prove his interest for the means through which one may give the dramatic work a new life, by creating a stronger symbiosis between the dramatic work and the spectator. They often obey the law of the unity of impression in stage interpretation, as a matter of fact the aim of a work of art is no other than to produce a unique impression. Therefore the idea of evaluating the drama through a just distribution of the roles, by a special care towards an all the more condesed general interpretation seems to Eminescu as an essential element in the art of performance. The staging of Hamlet by Rossi and his company in 1878 offered Eminescu the occasion to note that theatre must be directed towards an interpretative art in which the truth and the common place must be dominating. “A play, and particularly one of Shakespeare’s – the poet asserts is a work of art, in which all of the characters are so important that they deserve to be performed by great artist…” Therefore Eminescu notices that “There is too much of a difference between Rossi and his company so that in order to set forth the unity of the Shakespearean conception we should take off much of Rossi or to add much to see the company”.14 The renewed meaning of the observation concerning the psychology of the central character by its relation to the rest of the personages and its integration in the substance of the drama was consequently a necessity which appeared as superior principle of the interactive art. For Eminescu the Shakespearean heroes require complex determination while the task of those who act them must be done in the spirit of the Shakespearean text in order “to see Shakespeare performed as he naturally is”. So Eminescu’s criticism becomes stricter and stricter from the standpoint of interpretative art hoping it to be natural and realistic in complete agreement with the concrete significance of the text. In this respect Eminescu’s comments sums up in a real “aesthetics” of the stage of interpretation not missing the advice given by Hamlet in Act III, scene 2.

256

Like Hamlet, Eminescu demands the actors to give up the extremes in acting as much as possible. He hates “affected speech and false pronunciation” urging to “decent measure in speech and gesture”.15 Comments of this kind made by other prominent artistic personalities such as Al.Davila, Ioan Slavici, B.St.Delavrancea, Vasile Alecsandri will shape a new art of interpretation and of the usage of dramatic text. Significant are in this respect Ioan Luca Caragiale’s comments which deserve special attention. They display the Romanian playwright’s careful meditation on the deeply innovational and significance of the Shakespearean drama. He is surprised by the realism of Shakespeare’s drama and urgently demands its brushing up of romantic meaning with which it got in Romanian culture. Caragiale speaks about the English author as a master whom he follows, in one way or another, in the way of conceiving drama and from whom he really learned many of the modern stage means (the use of the clown – see the drunken citizen). Caragiale notes with sparkling penetration that “the Great Brit” is a profound dramatist of human nature, a skillful master of the dramatic creation. Thus the concept about drama in our own literature enriches its content with certain sides and features by the Shakespearean drama. Still in 1885 Caragiale makes a precise delimitation between the Shakespearean tragedy and the works of the romantic writers, especially Hugo and Schiller showing the clear superiority of the English author. What impresses the Romanian dramatist is the unity between stage form and the dramatic content in Hamlet. The dramatic tension of the action dramatic shifting, the rhythm of the dialogue, dramatic atmosphere and structure, the development of conflicts are all basic elements embodied in a dense human content. In Caragiale’s conception the dramatic works provide their value by lively depicting of intense life, through the background it reflects. “Hamlet is a Shakespearean figure full of truth who unlike romantic heroes who embody a typical false product of a literary school” who no theatre can escape from forgetfulness. On the same occasion Caragiale appreciates the hero’s human dignity especially preoccupied to find out the truth and to show his “disrespect for human meannesses”. Eminescu whose critical observations about the Danish Prince deal with acting interpretation Caragiale argues in favour of natural dramatic development of the Shakespearean character. In his view the main shortcoming of Ruy Blas lies in his linear psychological structure which cannot assure him a stage success similar to that of Hamlet. According to Caragiale Hamlet in Manolescu’s interpretation fully demonstrated the idea that the dramatic works ensure their value trough dramatic force and the life content they embody. It is worth maintaining Caragiale’s plea for realist orientation in both stage interpretation as well as in the process of dramatic creativity. In art, maintains Caragiale, important is not only the form, with all its brightness and perfection but the life the valuable work can make lively though the noble thought of inspiration, through artistic meditation able to stir up sensitivity. In this respect the Romanian writer catches on the Shakespearean craftsmanship in its concrete and revealing details. He thus sets forth this realistic requirement at the basis of the dramatic art and connected with Hamlet who seemed to him of a deep and convincing humanity. It is not therefore incidental that in the theoretical guidances in the problems of drama Caragiale sets definitely forth the criterion of human and artistic values of the Shakespearean drama. Alongside Eminescu and Caragiale the Shakespearean work holds the interest of other writers and critics of the age. Thus for Al.Davila prominent playwright and an intellectual “with good taste and artistic authority” as the poet Tudor Arghezi called him, the vigour of the Shakespearean verb suggested in a more complex manner the “psychology of Hamlet” and the artistic quality of the tragedy. In Davila’s opinion the characters created by Shakespeare are not essentially the embodiment of common passions or of a vice, as frequently it was stated in the epoch but the artistic embodiment of certain complex human prototypes. The Romanian writer points out the

257

utmost role of life’s meaning existing in drama exemplifying with Hamlet whose character is one “of depth and of unusual psychological complexity”, the Danish Prince embodying through his charming and complex personality “all, but absolutely all of the human passions”. The Romanian dramatist admires Shakespeare’s simplicity, vigour, alternation and subtlety of the dramatic construction in his work. Which gives creation above all efficiency is its permanent topicality, the value of lasting in time. Shakespeare brilliantly represents for Davila the capacity of genius writer to create everlasting universal types. Writing “To show the world how a man should be” – our writer says – “Shakespeare, the genius contrasts Hamlet (the deep thinker) with Fortinbras (man of action). The latter would have punished Claudius without any hesitation.”16 Davila’s comments are focused particularly on the ethical aspects of the tragedy. The Shakespearean character seems to him endowed with complex features. The chief merit of the author of Hamlet must be looked for in his quality of “a deep knowledge of humanity” and consequently in his practice of selecting from life the beautiful and human truth. In this way the Romanian playwright realizes that the Shakespearean drama is the outcome of an artistic process of discerning human reality. It has characters who do not act instinctively but on the basis of a lucid and laborious process of working out phenomena; a human prototype towards which contemporary dramatic art strove. As time went on theoretical considerations about the dramatic art of Shakespeare became denser and serious fully engaging such prestigious writers as L.Rebreanu, G.Topârceanu, T.Arghezi, V.Eftimiu whose observations through their original depth and character display new facets of the English writer’s creation. The artistic quality of the Shakespearean drama, its construction and dramatic conflict together with personages whose experience and quality disclose general human truths with a permanent character are but a few major aspects our writers are interested in. Liviu Rebreanu’s concepts on drama and the art of performance, for instance, display a constant praise and admiration towards the author of Hamlet whose creation imposes criteria of genuine value. Rebreanu’s observations sum up a thorough and competent analysis of Hamlet. They are disclosed in the significance of the conflictual interpretation of the drama. Hamlet seems to the Romanian writer “…a modern man. A man like us. A man whom mediation hinders to fulfill. A man of scruples. A man who weighs each of his steps and gestures, each word…”17 The Shakespearean hero in this interpretation gradually displays his fascinating and complex nature caused by the eternal inner struggle. Like Caragiale, Rebreanu emphasizes the originality of the interior structure of the personage; the process of artistic individualization represents for Rebreanu the essential quality of the Shakespearean craftsmanship. It is in the concept of the Romanian writer – the greatest idea, the unshakable tendency, an individualization which the writer never proclaims by the sound of a trumpet but it results from the whole of his work depicted and experienced by all of his characters”.18 The shaping of the Shakespearean drama occurs according to the structural conduct of the central character in relation to whom the rest of the dramatic elements are defined such as action, conflict etc. The value of Shakespeare’s major work rests not so much in its complex typology as in its harmony in construction: “Each of Shakespeare’s personage – Rebreanu says – gravitates around a fixed point out of which start all of his deeds and thoughts”. In other words the psychology and the responses of the dramatic character derive from a fundamental ethical feature out of the rest of the features of the moral physiognomy are explained and understood. Rebreanu is a sensitive and gifted spirit evidently inclined to display the complex characters in Hamlet. In Victor Eftimiu’s view Shakespeare presents the unattainable complexity of human nature in his work. His heroes have a powerful individuality which is not emphasized only through their unusual psychological structure but also by an increased and shaded intensity of developing affective states of mind. Therefore, they are so close to us, we understand them so well that we are moved by their deeds. Of special interest are also George Topârceanu’s opinions on Shakespearean

258

drama. “Hamlet – the Romanian poet asserts – embodies more life that a living human being…eternal synthetic features through which a large category of present-day people can reorganize their features”.19 As we can see the tradition of an interesting interpretation of Shakespearean drama is well preserved throughout certain decades. Significant are in this respect Tudor Arghezi’s apreciations. “One who has not seen Hamlet – the Romanian poet says – passed on his street an ignorant. Hamlet is indeed an old friend of the Bucharest theatre-goers”.20 The originality of Arghezi’s vision is visible in the evaluation of theatrical interpretations. The dramatic feeling of the Romanian poet displays deeper meanings than other commentators of the epoch. As we can see the interpretations are formulated in the perspective of a staging or theatrical aesthetics. Shakespeare becomes in these decades the prototype of the most accomplished artistic achievement, of profound aesthetic emotion. Tudor Vianu, a broad-minded critic and aestheticist calls attention to the necessity of a more careful displaying of the Shakespearean truth, of an interpretation in a new spirit. In such an approach Shakespeare’s drama “should be modernized” while the personages ”would have gained in” depth and reality. At the same time Camil Petrescu, dramatist and critic of high value pleaded for a theatre of knowledge. Both his theoretical approach as well as his definition of drama are based on the principle of a perfect balance between feeling and expression. The demonstration of such ideas frequently appealed Shakespeare ‘s theatre. Camil Petrescu’s comments on this drama prove a thorough assimilation of the Shakespearean creation. In his opinion, for example, Hamlet is a model of absolute drama. Since – the Romanian playwright asserts Shakespeare’s drama is, essentially everything that worried the intellectuals of the world so far, even in its highest philosophy: the question of Knowledge, of soul”21 And the critic goes on “Never, in any work, and may be neither in reality superior people were tormented by frightful problems and more tortured than Shakespeare’s heroes”.22 In Camil Petrescu’s opinion Hamlet is the drama of lucidity of mankind consciousness, of the difficulty to discern out of 2 concrete multitude the truth: “The whole of Hamlet’s doubt facing truth, death and life, is the doubt of mankind facing the little it gets from the unknown”.23 In Modalitatea estetică a teatrului (The Aesthetic Modality of the Theatre) Camil Petrescu often employs Hamlet’s example in order to support his theoretical ideas. Thus talking about the dramatic character he makes it clear that one of the essential conditions it has to fulfill is “an interior conflict”, the dispute tendencies in its psychological structure, a considerable requirement for expressing the genuine human nature. In Shakespeare’s masterpiece “this interior conflict exists in its most perfect form”. Camil Petrescu thus concludes that the value of a dramatic work rests first of all on its internal artistic virtues. 2. Towards a Systematic Criticism In the last decades of the 19th century the reception of the Shakespearean drama gets into a new and superior stage. Now more and more consistently this creation is talked about as about something fully assimilated in our culture able to stirr new critical opinions meant to contribute to the improvement of literary and theatrical life. The Shakespearean work is more and more the objective of special critical investigations, his name is often invoked in general debates on literature and culture. Our critical spirit now finds out a theoretical and methodological substantiation through Titu Maiorescu and C. Dobrogeanu-Gherea shaping itself as an autonomous part of Romanian literature.

259

Early attracted by the Shakespearean drama Titu Maiorescu will make of this a model of literary creation in his theoretical comments. Although he has not written systematic studies on Shakespeare his incidental references reflect through their density the impact of the Shakespearean creation in the critical conscience of a remarkable personality of the age. In some of his works the name of Shakespeare is often called upon as example in sustaining and developing certain aesthetic and critical ideas. The important debate on morality in art in The Comedies of Mr. Caragiale is illustrative in this respect. Titu Maiorescu defends the Romanian writes against the charge of imorality by providing an example from Shakespeare’s work “Ophelia loves Hamlet. Does she do anything wrong by doing this ?” Like Caragiale, Maiorescu demonstrated through Hamlet that vivid literary works live not through the tendencies they embody but through the way these tendencies act upon the spirit.

Notes and References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

I.W.Goethe, “Anii de ucenicie ai lui Wilhelm Meister, 1759”, in Shakespeare şi opera lui. Culegere de texte critice (traducere de M.Isbăşescu, E.L.U., Buc., p.308) W.Schlegel, “Scrisori despre literatura cea nouă, 1759” in “Shakespeare şi opera lui. Culegere de texte critice”, E.L.U., Buc., 1964, p. 285 J.G.Herder, “Despre maniera şi arta germană, 1773”, in “Shakespeare şi opera lui. Culegere de texte critice”, E.L.U., Buc., 1964, p. 293 E. Schlegel, “Istoria literaturii vechi şi noi, 1812” in “Shakespeare şi opera lui. Culegere de texte critice”, E.L.U., Buc., 1964, p. 303 “Hamlet” in “Lectures on Shakespeare”, London, 1930, p. 135-156 “Hamlet” in “The round Table, Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays”, London, 1960,p. 232-237 “The first and Second Tragedy: Romeo and Juliet”; “Hamlet” in “Shakespeare: A Critical of His Mind and Art”, London (f.a), p. 95-162 “Lecture III, Shakespeare’s Tragic Period - Hamlet”, in “Shakespeare’s Tragedy”, London, 1926, p. 79-174 “A Study of Shakespeare” in “Readings on the Character of Hamlet, 1661-1947”, Compiled from Over Three Hundred Sources by Claude C.H.Williamson, London, 1950, p. 562 “Hamlet” in “Shakespeare. A Survey”, Penguin Books, 1964, p.142-149 “The Embassay of Death: An Essay on Hamlet”, in “The Wheel of Fire. Interpretations of Shakespearean Tragedy with Three New Essays”, London, 1962, p. 17-47 C.S.Checkley, op., cit., p. 147 C.S.Checkley, op., cit., p. 146-147 “Shakespeare în România”, London, J.M.Dent and Sons Ltd., 1931, p.38-42 Maria Moscu, “Eminescu şi Shakespeare”, in Flacăra, Buc., 1964, nr. 11, p.6-8 “Eminescu şi Shakespeare” in “Studii de literatură universală şi comparată”, Ed. Academiei, Buc., 1963, p.565-567 op. cit., p.25-38 “Momentul Eminescu”, op. cit., p.81-104 “Student la Viena” (1869-1872), in “Viaţa lui Eminescu”, Buc., E.P.L. 1969, p.128

260

20. “The Shakespearean Inspiration in the Romanian Poetry”, in Romanian Review, Bucharest, 1967, nr.2, p. 88 21. “Literatorul”, 1880, anul I, p.403-404 22. Ibidem, p.404 23. “Contemporanul” 1886-1887, p.29