0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
184 visualizzazioni102 pagine
Journal of American Drama and Theatre welcomes submissions. Aim is to promote research on American playwrights, plays, and theatre. Manuscripts should be prepared in conformity with the Chicago Manual of Style.
Journal of American Drama and Theatre welcomes submissions. Aim is to promote research on American playwrights, plays, and theatre. Manuscripts should be prepared in conformity with the Chicago Manual of Style.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formati disponibili
Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
Journal of American Drama and Theatre welcomes submissions. Aim is to promote research on American playwrights, plays, and theatre. Manuscripts should be prepared in conformity with the Chicago Manual of Style.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formati disponibili
Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
Volume 11, Number 2 Spring 1999 Editor: Vera Mowry Roberts Co-Editor: jane Bowers Managing Editor: Lars Myers Editorial Assistant: Robert C. Roarty Editorial Coordinator: Susan Tenneriello Circulation Manager: Susan Tenneriello Circulation Assistants: Melissa Gaspar Bruce Kirle Edwin Wilson, Director (ENTER FOR ADVANCED STUDY OF THEATRE ARTS THE GRADUATE SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY CENTER OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Stephen Archer Ruby Cohn Ed ito rial Board Bruce A. McConachie Margaret Wi I kerson Don B. Wilmeth Felicia Londre The journal of American Drama and Theatre welcomes submissions. Our aim is to promote research on American playwrights, plays, and theatre, and to encourage a more enlightened understanding of our I iterary and theatrical heritage. Manuscripts should be prepared in conformity with The Chicago Manual of Style, using footnotes (rather than endnotes). Hard copies should be submitted in duplicate. We request that articles be submitted on disk as well (3.5" floppy). We prefer the articles to be in WordPerfect for Windows format (versions 5.1 and 6.0), but most word processor formats (Mac and PC) are accepted. Windows 95 formats are not accepted at this time. Submissions will not be returned unless accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Please allow three to four months for a decision. Our distinguished Editorial Board will constitute the jury of selection. Address editorial inquiries and manuscript submissions to the Editors, jADT, Ph.D. Program in Theatre, CUNY Graduate Center, 33 West 42 Street, New York, New York 10036-8099. We can also be reached by e-mail at: jadtjour@email.gc.cuny.edu Please visit out web site at: http://web.gsuc.cuny.edu/casta CASTA Publications are supported by generous grants from the Lucille lortel Chair in Theatre and the Sidney E. Cohn Chair in Tneatre Studies in the Ph.D. Program in Theatre at the City University of New York. CAST A Copyright 1999 The journal of American Drama and Theatre (ISSN 1 044-937X) is a member of CELJ and is three times a year, in the Winter, Spring, and Fall. Subscriptions are $12.00 for each calendar year. Foreign subscriptions require an additional $6.00 for postage. Inquire of CASTA, CUNY Graduate School, 33 West 42 Street, New York, New York 10036-8099. THE jOURNAL OF AMERICAN DRAMA AND THEATRE Volume 11, Number 2 Spring 1999 Contents WALTER j. MESERVE, Malice, Ignorance, and Good Intentions: The Struggle for Stability in the American Theatre during the 1850s 1 THERESA jOETTE MAY, (Re)placing Lillian Hellman: Her Masculine Legend and Feminine Difference 17 RICHARD E. KRAMER, The Lost Premiere of Tennessee Williams's Eccentricities of a Nightingale 42 CYNTHIA D. SMITH, "Emasculating Tom, Dick, and Harry": Representations of Masculinity in Susan Glaspell's The Verge 60 ROBERT ji-SONG Ku, "Beware of Tourists if You Look Chinese" and Other Survival Tactics in the American Theatre: The Asian(cy) of Display in Frank Chin's The Year of the Dragon 78 CONTRIBUTORS 93 journal of American Drama and Theatre 11 (Spring 1999} Mal ice, Ignorance, and Good Intentions: The Struggle for Stability in the American Theatre during the 1850s 1 VVALTERJ. ~ S R V The summer of 1850 was extremely hot in New York City, with the result that many people were reluctant to attend the theatre. For the American actor, however, as well as the American theatre and the American drama, the year started out rather well. The Second Annual Festival of the American Dramatic Fund. Association at the Astor Place Opera House was described as a brilliant affair with all of the appropriate people devoting an evening to support the actors and the actresses who "amuse and sometimes instruct and humanize." 2 In January at London's Olympic Theatre Anna Cora Mowatt's Fashion (1845) provoked some interesting reactions. The Daily News called it "an extremely clever work"; the Sun declared that Fashion would "take its place by the side of the best English comedies." On the other hand, when Farmer Trueman entered the New York drawing room in muddy boots, Mr. jenkins of the Morning Post was deeply offended, exclaiming loudly that "the characters were blackguards and imposters and immediately left the house." (2 February 1850: 600) It must also be reported that in New York after good wine, good food and ready speeches by james Brady, john Brougham, Mordecai Noah and james Wallack at the American Dramatic Fund Association meeting in April 1850 those present toasted the President of the United States, Sheridan Knowles, "the Press" and "The Drama." (4 Apri I 1850: 1 08) It would be a long time before American actors in an American play would truly impress the English, and there would be many hot summers in New York before actors and actresses would realize the support so optimistically promised by the 1 From the author's Echoes of the Public Voice: the Drama of the American People from 1850 to 1890 (in progress), to be published by Feedback Theatrebooks. 2 [n.a.], The Spirit of the Times (24 january 1850): 564. Subsequent references will be cited parenthetically in the text with date and page. 2 MESERVE event at the Astor Place Opera House. Recognition for American playwrights would require an even longer passage of time. One aspect of the public diversion at mid-century was the continuing publication of opinions on actors, plays and the theatre in general. The old argument over the utility and propriety of dramatic performances was revived in August 1852 by Harper's Monthly Magazine which threw down the gauntlet with the statement that "the virtues of the stage are not Christian virtues 11 while supporting its views with a quotation from Seneca: "Nothing is so destructive to good morals as mere amusements, or the indolent waste of time in public spectacles. 113 With the obvious current emphasis upon amusements and spectacles-the bread and butter of mid-nineteenth century American theatre-Harper' s position seemed unassailable but, of course, differing opinions immediately poured forth from the pens of eager defenders of the profession. Before the end of August the New York Home journal had declared itself on the side of "Reform in the Theatres." Accepting theatres as "fixed facts 11 and assuming that a portion of the population "cannot be argued out of their liking," although "the theatre, at present, is grievously at fault," the writer for the Home journal recommended doing away with afterpieces, sending audiences home earlier and emphasizing the play, "not the actor, or the scene painter or the property-room, but the play." (21 August 1852: 321) It seemed a novel idea. "Acorn," the pseudonym of a Boston theatre reviewer named James Oakes who seldom passed up an opportunity to speak his mind, clearly and sensibly, on any theatre subject, stoutly defended the influence of a well-regulated theatre, as "most assuredly conducive to the good and moral atmosphere of any metro pol is." In early 1853 he wrote, I am well aware there is, and always will be, a set of bigoted, croaking religious demagogues who are everlastingly prating about the demoralizing effects of theatrical entertainments; but, I will venture to assertt that in five cases out of seven you will find such persons actuated either by selfish motives, personal interests, hypocrisy, or entire ignorance of the good influences to be derived from the proper representation of the creations of our dramatic writers. (26 February 1853: 17) Soon others would "venture to assert" themselves until many of the weaknesses of the theatre were paraded before the public as critics professed to illuminate the resources of this allegedly wasteful and 3 [n.a.], "Editor's Table," Harper's Monthly 5 (August 1852): 406-11 . American Theatre During the 1850s 3 destructive social institution. The writer of "Miscellany and Gossip" in The Literary World, ridiculed the "starring system." 4 A reporter for The Spirit of the Times (heretofore Spirit) suggested that one theatre box should be reserved for actors who by watching their peers on stage could "improve and elevate" the style of their own acting. (1 April 1854: 74) "Acorn" condemned the system of com pi imentary benefits which allowed managers to advertise benefits for "fire associations" or "some charitable institution" and promote sales through the efforts of individuals who do not know "that they are being made ticket sellers for the purpose of putting a dollar in the manager's pocket, while the object that claims their sympathy and assistance receives but fifty cents, or nearly in that ratio." (26 February 1853: 17) Other opinions appeared in "Originality in Dramatic Writing" (7 Apri I 1855: 89) and "Foreign and American Critics" (12 january 1855: 569), in which the tendency of disappointed dramatists to fold themselves in "our glorious flag" was exposed. The author of "The Theatre and Its Enemies" condemned society rather than the theatre. "When a fearful and demoralizing spirit has overspread, the face of society," why not allow a man to seek "oblivion from the evils which oppress him in an art able to assist in elevating the low moral standard?" "Cities must have places of social amusement," this writer contended, "and the question should be, with all good men, 'How shall dramatic art be purified from much dross that has corrupted it, as well as journal ism, politics, and even religion in these days?' " (28 February 1857: 25) A long essay in The journal of Psychological Medicine condemned the theatre for losing confidence in itself because there is now " scarcely a subject lying out of the beaten domestic track which it dares to handle. " (24 November 1860: 502) In phrases that epitomize the weakened condition of American drama during the 1850s the writer bearded playwrights who refused to meddle with politics, religion or "great questions which may be agitating the public soul." It [the drama] goes at a jog-trot pace, the embodiment of a common-place respectability, which, in its eagerness to offend no susceptibilities, to awaken no antagonisms, to pass beyond no established formula of thought and speech, becomes pre- eminently tame, servile, humdrum, harmless, and contemptible. For a large percent of the plays produced in American during the decade-whether English, European or American-the writer caught the 4 [n.a.], " Miscellany and Gossip," The Literary World, 3 September 1853, p. 92. 4 MESERVE spirit of the theatre. A reformer, he was not concerned with the reality of the theatre or of the times, nor were other idealists such as George Henry Boker, who, perhaps wisely, left the theatre when his plays did not receive the response he desired. Another critic discovered the secret of the "degraded state of the drama" in the puerile efforts of managers to outdo each other in producing "tinsel and trash . ... We can never have actors and actresses and, properly speaking we can never have audiences, while the present deplorable condition of the stage exists." (24 January 1857: 583) As they had always done-and always would do-critics talked of "The Decline of the Drama"-complaining that audiences wanted only to be amused while both "English and Amer ican play writers have clumsily imitated from the French." (13 November 1858: 473) This steadily increasing debt to the French was readily acknowledged by both critics and playwrights. While deploring the French melodrama as "more in the light of a spectacle than a play," with its " vulgar elements of noise, such as gunpowder, thunder, lightning, " and gladiatorial exhibitions, English and American playwrights were unrelenting in their imitations. No one illustrates this point better than the American actor-playwright Harry Watkins in Nature's Nobleman, the Mechanic; or, the Ships' Carpenter of New York. Here, Hopkins Crayon, Esq., an American literary aspirant, explains matters to a Mr. Furleigh: CRAYON: Talk of dramas-you went to the theatre-of course? How I should like to see a French play! FURLEIGH: Be satisfied, Sir; you have seen a hundred. CRAYON: Eh? FURLEIGH: Almost all the neat, interesting dramas of the day are French in scene and origin. CRAYON: Yes, the scene laid in France. FURLEIGH: And the plot made there also. English playwrights are arrant thieves, and we are the receivers. We go to the theatres, not to see our own character and social life portrayed but to witness the obsolete peculiarities of wigged brigands and square skirted counts. CRAYON: I am sure I have done my best. I wrote a naive comedy, but because there were eight scenes in the last act, the manager said that it was fitter for the closet. I sent a tragedy for the Forrest p r i z ~ I felt sure that my Christian Knight would come off American Theatre During the 1850s 5 conqueror, but somehow or other the infidel committee had more faith in Mohamet. 5 Crayon refers in his final speech to Mohammed which George H. Miles submitted to one of Edwin Forrest's contests. Although the contest judges could not choose a winner from the eighty plays submitted, Forrest paid Miles the prize of $1000 but did not perform the play. Watkins, always a belligerent defender of American actors and play- wrights, appealed to American pride at a time when antiforeign feeling was politically popular and pointedly criticized the affected preference of America's literary elite and theatre managers for European models if not European authors. Seemingly attacked for what he did and the way he did it as well as for his association within a suspect institution, the playwright was also caught up in the controversy regarding the control or ownership of the play he wrote. At mid-century it was generally accepted that an actor or manager assumed complete control of a play which he paid a dramatist to write. Barney Williams, the Irish actor, presumed that his "exclusive rights" by virtue of paying for a play protected him not only from pilfering but from imitation of his "peculiar style of performance." "It is time," a critic asserted, "for the sake of authors, actors, and the public, that this system of literary plunder was restrained by legislative interfer- ence." (31 May 1856: 192) Actors who disregarded this convention were taken to task, such as the time Mr. Neafie was chastised for acting the role of Jack Cade in a play of that title written by Judge Robert Conrad for Edwin Forrest. (3 May 1856: 183) The dramatist, of course, was not part of the issue in this instance; he was merely the paid supplier, but this critic was aware of the playwright's situation and went on to praise Congress for the bill it was then considering which would protect the dramatist from marauders. To this critic such a law would help build a national drama and "be an inducement for the man of mind to enter the field of dramatic literature"-an issue that bothered many cultured Americans. Complaints rising from a lack of copyright protection had been real and costly, whether from the view of the playwright who wrote the play or from the actor who purchased the play. As the bill was debated in Congress, theatre critics looked forward enthusiastically to a national drama, to that time when authors could secure to themselves the right of stage representation of their own plays. It was a logical progression of 5 Quoted in Perley Isaac Reed, "The Realistic Presentation of American Characters in Native American Plays Prior to Eighteen Seventy," Ohio State University Bulletin 22, 26 (May 1918): 126. 6 MESERVE thought for the mercantile-minded individual who understood pre-Civil War competition as well as corruption and saw an element of fairness in the legislation, even as he compared, with a condescending tone-as he would for years to come-the consequences of physical effort versus intellectual exercise. "There is a law to protect the property of the merchant from the hands of predators, and why not extend to the playwright the same protection for his property, although it be the coinage of the brain?" (3 May 1856: 133) Others agreed, although for d ifferent reasons. "N.O. Delta," writing about "Dramatic Art," for the Spirit in early 1857 placed the reason for the poverty of popular theatres, where "the majority of the educated think only of going there to kill time," squarely on "the want of a national theatre." (24 January 1857: 598) Perhaps the new law would stimulate a new a drama. Clearly there was renewed hope. Most of America's major writers from John Neal in the 1820s onward had complained about the lack of copyright protection. Both Robert Montgomery Bird and George Henry Boker had, in fact, recently tried to persuade Congress to create a bill giving dramatists both performance and publication control of their work. All such advocates had been ineffective, however, until Dion Boucicault, with some self-serving motivation, added his voice and reputation to the argument. On 18 August 1856 a copyright law was passed giving the playwright "the sole right to print and publish" a play as well as "the sole right to act, perform, or represent the same. " 6 To this event "Acorn" responded with the enthusiasm of one who had frequently pleaded the dramatist's cause, regretting only that the penalty for piracy was not five hundred dollars rather than one hundred dollars for the first offense. Now, he hoped for "a permanent and responsible national drama," liberal prizes that would "induce men of the finest minds and most brilliant intellects to enter the field of dramatic I iterature," and freedom from the foreign trash of England, France and Germany that flooded the stage. In an expansive mood, "Acorn" described the person who elevates the dignity of the stage as a "public benefactor" and declared a moral national drama as essential to the happiness, morality and well being of a community as the influence of the pulpit. (6 September 1856: 349) He was also "a strong advocate for the encouragement of native talent." When Boston opened a new theatre in 1854 under the management of Thomas Barry, "Acorn" hoped that Barry would "give preference to American artists, providing they can 6 Copyright Enactment of the United States, Washington, 1906, 43. American Theatre During the 1850s 7 be found possessing equal talent to that of a foreign import." (1 April 1854: 74) Some dramatists were quick to take advantage of the new copyright law. "The first entries in the State Of Ohio under the new law for the protection of Dramatic authors, have been made by Chas. M. Barras, Esq., Mr. B. having copyrighted The Hypochondriac and The Modern Saint." (1 October 1856: 420) Such an option for these two new and evidently popular plays was indicative of the shrewd man whose spectacle of The Black Crook ten years later would place him in all theatre history books. The first arrest, according to the Spirit, took place in Boston and involved the Howard Athenaeum and a play called Rose; or, the Career of an Actress, acted by F. S. Chanfrau and Miss Albertine, which Boucicault claimed was a copy of his Violet; or, the Life of an Actress. (6 December 1856: 516) Whether the new copyright law promoted national drama of substance, as some critics argued it would, however, is surely open to question. A score of years would pass before "men of the finest minds," or those with a literary bent, were attracted to the theatre, but a national drama was an issue of some significance in mid-century America and would become increasingly important to both literary and theatre people as America developed politically and culturally. For the intrepid playwright there were in New York at mid-century a half-dozen substantial theatres-the Broadway, Burton's Theatre, the Bowery, the National, Brougham's Lyceum and the Olympic. Within two years Brougham's management would fail as would the Olympic, but Wallack's Lyceum would start up in 1852, to be joined the following year by Barnum's American Museum and, as the decade progressed, by Laura Keene's Theatre, Brougham's Bowery, the Chatham Street Theatre and N iblo's Garden. These were, of course, only the major establishments whose activities were faithfully recorded, with varying amounts of pride and censure, by reviewers whose language reveals the prevailing attitudes. "The lessees," confided a reviewer in the fall of 1852, "of our theatres, concert rooms, and panoramas-the lecturers, male and female, and fifty other places of public amusement in this city, have been exceedingly prosperous throughout the past week." New York, according to this writer, was "'the best theatrical town' in this country and is hardly exceeded by Paris itself." (27 November 1852: 492) Four years later, in early 1856, reviewers for the Spirit made similar statements concerning the popularity of theatre and the "immense profit [going] to the managers of our various places of amusement." (5 january 1856: 564) Theatres clearly existed mainly to amuse. As theatre managers and house playwrights of mid-century America attempted to satisfy their patrons with appropriate amusements, however, 8 MESERVE reviewers and theatre commentators persisted in arguing the social value of comedy and tragedy, extolling the actor's art, pleading for new plays or becoming embroiled in their own arguments. Does comedy or tragedy have "more claim upon the public regard"? Should one laugh and grow fat on the spoils of wit or be exhilarated by the noble senti- ments that tragic heroism awakens? (19 Apri I 1851 : 1 08) Although the moral lessons resulting from the tumult of passions evoked by tragedy were considered valuable for society, there was also a strong feeling that tragedy could not match the "good to mankind that the sister art of comedy has effected" with its "picture of real life" in distinct and advantageous contrast to the "blind satire" that permeated Greek comedy. (16 April 1859: 111) In such ways did commentators judge their theatre against past traditions and in the light of present material advances. With such assessments did they find value in melodrama and its means of "analyzing wholesome instruction to the masses," quite in spite of its past reputation for representing "the stage run mad" and the current argument that melodrama was a "corporeal invasion. of the realms of wit, fancy and poetry ... affording proof of the degeneracy of our nature." (26 March 1857: 75) Serious, sentimental, witty or satirical, playwrights and theatre critics were seldom naive. They were very much aware of the unreliability of current criticism of theatrical performances. As one writer pointed out in 1855, "it has become too much a custom with the press to 'puff' theatres and performances or allow managers to do so, rather than criticize kindly and fairly, but strongly." (17 March 1855: 50) This critic also rebelled agai nst "the custom of many of our managers to think nothing but transatlantic ability was worthy of encouragement;" he wanted to "foster and cherish our own countrymen" whom he considered victims of such bias for the past twenty-five years. james Oakes ("Acorn") of Boston condemned the "brainless penny-a-liner" with petty feelings and personal prejudices who never reads what he pretends to dictate about, although "his comprehension would be too obtuse to understand it," and consequently destroys the work of both actors and playwrights. (30 October 1858: 445) If malice and ignorance from within condemned the drama, so also did good intentions. It was, for example, common practice for some newspapers to announce that a play had been successful when the opposite was true, and there were those who approved such actions "done purely from good feelings toward the parties interested, and for the purpose of lending aid and encouragement to those whose exertions merit success." (24 April 1858: 121) Although there might well have been legitimate reasons during this period-careless and indifferent acting, rowdy audiences or slipshod productions-that a playwright might American Theatre During the 1850s 9 have deserved better than he received, this accepted critical practice quickly became an irritant to critics who wanted a vital American drama that could compete in the world market. Until the Panic of 1857 became a challenge for all theatre managers, theatre in New York during the 1850's was a mixed adventure among a multitude of amusements, but the actors always dominated the scene. "My deer Sur," wrote one critic in 1852, "Since mi airwal phrom Kaliferny I have taken a turn or too at the Theaturs, and find they are pretty much the same old two-and-sickspennys they oriways was." He mentions "Homas S. Tamblin," "Wemes Jallack," "Milly Bitchell" from the old "Lampwick Theatur, " "Chank Fanfraw," and the "Chateman Bildress"-all of whom were doing well. Forrest, ever popular, at the Broadway, drors like a Large Horse. He did Hamlet, the Norweegian, the uther nite ... and I thort as the aktor took the skull in hand, commencing with the well known wurds, 'Alas, poor Varick-street,' and then arsks it (the skull) 'where be your jobes and jests now'-1 thort to myself, how wood you like to know when you have 'muffled orf this cortal moid,' that sum Leeding Tragedian wood be feeling your hed peace, and then toss it orf to the 'Property Man,' to be piled up with a lot of wids, cudgets, Blunderbussess, Rusty Swords, pump-handels, and pitch-forks-and the Lines of the Immortal Bard, akkured to me, 'To what dooble Bass uses may we kum.' (13 November 1852: 461) Forrest remained extremely popular, but there were those who already anticipated his passing and saw in young Edwin Booth an actor who would "shed light upon the drama, and elevate the dramatic taste of our city." (2 May 1857: 133) As a further challenge to playwrights the places of amusement in New York City featured not only the efforts of major actors and actresses in traditional and contemporary plays but a tremendous amount of variety entertainment ranging from the Bateman Children, the numerous minstrel shows such as Christy and Wood's Minstrels, burlesques, the Wood and Marsh children, the farces of Mr. and Mrs. Barney Williams, the Ravels in pantomime and ballet, the songs of Jenny Lind and the antics of Lola Montez, a variety of dog shows, Irish, Dutch and Yankee farces, operas, concerts, lectures and amateur entertainments. These entertainments describe the New York theatre during the 1850s, and generally speaking, theatre across America. As a report on the activity taking place at the National Theatre in the spring of 1857 suggests, such were the opportunities open to the theatregoer. 10 MESERVE Manager Purdy has exceeded himself this week in the extraordi- nary attractions he has offered. On St. Patrick's Day his programme included the sterling old drama of Brian Borihme, a new burlesque written expressly for this house called Clam-eel, a hornpipe by Miss Adelaide Price-a pretty dancer and a pretty young lady-the pantomime of the Four Lovers, and the comedietta of Wilful Murder. On Wednesday was presented the new drama of Mary's Dream, Clam-eel, The Magic Barrel and Hole in the Wall . This is a fair sample of what can be had at Purdy's for 50 or 25 cents any evening in the week. (21 March 1857: 72) If New York audiences at mid-century were fascinated by all shades of novelty, they still cheered Edwin Forrest-whose divorce suit from Catharine Sinclair, filed in February 1850 on the grounds that "his wife had committed criminal acts inconsistent with the dignity and purity of the marriage state," made newspaper headlines. (23 March 1850: 51) On his return to the Broadway Theatre in the fall of 1851 after an absence of two years, he was hailed as occupying "the first place among American artists." (20 September 1851: 392) Boston also championed Mr. Forrest. Gleason's Pictorial, the Drawing-Room Companion, Devoted to Literature, Arts, Amusements, News. etc. displayed a picture of Forrest as the Gladiator on its front page on November 29, 1851, and described him as "the true Roscius of the stage." Two years later Daniel D. Kelley of East Boston was reported to be building a dipper ship to be called the Edwin Forrest and "to be launched on or about the 1 7th of the present month [September 1853], and is to bear on her bow, as a figure- head, Mr. Forrest as the Gladiator." (17 September 1853: 361) Writing of a performance in Boston, James Oakes gave Forrest his enthusiastic support. "I know of no tragedian on the English stage, at the present time, who will at all compare with him as a truthful interpreter of the immortal Shakespeare's loftiest and most sublime creations." (2 December 1854: 504) There is no doubt that Forrest was an inspiration to many Americans as well as an object of adoration. He did much for the early growth of American theatre. For those who could separate his professional career from his private life he promoted the acceptance of theatrical entertainment at a time when much of society in America was questioning its value. Unfortunately, he did very little for the cause of the American dramatists for reasons bearing both on his own disposition and the attitude of theatregoers toward theatrical art. A number of American dramatists provided Forrest with appropriate vehicles for his success, among them his one-time dose friend Robert Montgomery Bird whose American Theatre During the 1850s 11 play The Gladiator reached its 1000th performance in 1853 with Forrest in the leading role. Audiences, however, drew distinct lines between the art of the playwright and the art of the actor. Perhaps it was both human and consistent with the times that Forrest did not try to change such opinions. On one occasion when Forrest appeared at the final curtai n of The Gladiator in obedience to the call of the house, "his first words were an expression of thanks in behalf of Dr. Bird, the author, but there arose immediately a storm of hisses, and, taking his cue from the demonstra- tion, he returned thanks for himself amidst a loud burst of applause." (21 April 1855: 120) Bird, already honored as a member of the English Dramatic Author's Society, had died the previous year (1854), largely unrecognized by American theatregoers. The American theatre, however, was beginning to change during the 1850s, and after a diminished activity during the Civil War, a new approach to the American theatrical enterprise would appear. This change was also true of American drama. William Mitchell retired from the theatre in 1852. Thomas S. Hamblin, a man who genuinely promoted American dramatists during his tenure as manager of various Bowery theatres, died in 1853. At least two thousand people watched the sixty carriages in his funeral procession, as two horses, draped in black, pulled the hearse carrying the coffin "covered with black velvet." (15 january 1853: 576) Sol Smith died the same year, William Burton in 1860. The Wallack dynasty was beginning to change heads as Edwin Forrest and Charlotte Cushman, giants of the period, enjoyed the final energies of their popularity. Such prolific playwrights as Joseph S. Jones and Silas Steele were past their prime by the late 1850s along with Cornelius Matthews whose vision had once earned him the title of "Father of American Drama." As patterns began to change in the production of American plays, two opposing views of the theatre that seem inherent in its existence became more noticeable-the romance and the reality-each promoted or lamented from within the institution itself and from without. During the 1850s, for example, a number of articles appeared in the Spirit emphasizing the romance and glamor of the theatre. "Leaves from the Common-Place Book of an Old Stager" described briefly the painfully secured but attainable goals of the actor. (12 July 1851: 243) " The Model Actor" was treated with good natured satire, and actresses, although described in agreeable terms, were warned of the consequences of their choice. (21 August 1852: 317; 7 March 1857: 37) It was even argued that many actors and actresses " have reached the very longest period of the duration of human life." (17 July 1858: 69) On the more realistic side, there were numerous references "to intemperance-to which the existing character of the life induces too 12 MESERVE many of the profession." 7 Harry Watkins's journal is filled with the sad details of suicides, violence and drunkenness: "It is the oft repeated tale [of the death of A. A. Adam, once a popular actor]: too long an associa- tion with John Barleycorn. . . . Oh, this curse of drunkenness in my profession!" 8 In Louisville an actor named Bridges committed suicide by cutting his throat: "His fatal drunkenness had destroyed all confidence in him." 9 Still, theatre in America existed in its pursuit of amusement and escape-in its worship of novelty, its adoration of English tradition and in its excesses that foreshadowed the coming generations. In Washington in early December 1855, the National Theatre celebrated a Carnival of Thespis and Dramatic Festival, "the Centennial Anniversary of the Establishment of Drama in America." Mr. and Mrs. Barney Williams appeared in The Irish Lion at the Baltimore Museum in the early evening, took a special train to Washington and acted in The Happy Man and In and Out of Place at the National Theatre. "A limited number of guests will accompany the party," recorded the Spirit: "Certificates, admitting them to the Museum, furnishing carriage hire both ways, fare to Washington and back, admitting holder to the National Theatre, are but two dollars." (8 December 1855: 505) Earlier in the decade, 1852, James William Wallack had made his debut in London as Macbeth at the Standard Theatre. (27 March 1852: 61) McKean Buchanan, an American tragedian, made his London debut at the Marylebone Theater that same year in the character of Giles Overeach and was praised in the Morning Advertiser, 25 May 1852, as "undoubtedly one of the best actors America has yet exported." (31 July 1852: 288) Josh Silsbee, "the delineator of the eccentricities of the Yankee character," was toasted throughout his 1852 tour in London and the English provinces. (27 March 1852: 61) The Spirit quoted the Liverpool Times which declared Silsbee the best commedian [sic] America has ever sent to England. He appeared as the rough, homely, and rustic Yankee, overflowing with a fund of broad, unctuous humor, while his walk, his accent, his look and dancing, are irresistibly comic, and totally 7 Maud and Otis Skinner, One Man in His Time, the Adventures of H. Watkins, Strolling Player, from His journal (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1938), 99. 8 Ibid., 110. 9 Ibid., 157. American Theatre During the 1850s unlike anything we ever saw before, either on or off the stage, although, doubtless, true to nature. (1 December 1852: 565) 13 Back in America the following year, Silsbee met some resistance from critics who found that whatever was praiseworthy in his Yankee, although accepted by the English, "to whom all such monstrosities are ever agreeable," was submerged by his coarseness of style and frequency of giving vent to oaths. (August 1853: 324) Along the eastern seaboard playwrights and managers tried to save a struggling theatre which ebbed and flowed in a continuing battle for stability among a population sometimes concerned with spiritual needs, more often determinedly striving for success on a materialistic level and always arguing social and political values. Early in the eventful war (22 October 1862) William C. McCready, the celebrated English actor, wrote to a friend in America: Does not the train of circumstances lead us to condemn the Jeffersonian policy, as opposed to the views of Hamilton, Washington, Adams and that party?-Would it not have been likely to prevent this segregation, if the government had been maintained a little more above the people, and not so accessible to second, and third-rate men? 10 Currently involved in that "train of circumstances," the theatre could only endure the consequent problems. Bostonians supported the Boston Museum which boasted an active stock company during the 1850s, as well as the National Theatre which opened in 1852. Phi I adelphia had three first-rate theatres-the Walnut Street, the Chestnut Street and the Arch Street-that maintained accept- able entertainment. The Providence Museum burned in the fall of 1853 and was replaced by the Forbes Theatre which fell victim to the financial Panic of 1857. That same year the Spirit congratulated the citizens of Worcester, Massachusetts on the opening of their new theatre. (14 February 1857: 7) The opening of a new theatre in Albany, New York four years previously had caused some excitement when the new manager, Madame de Marguerittes, experienced some difficulty in wresting control from the previous manager, a Mr. Preston, who surreptitiously entered the theatre with a gang of his associates: "Madame de Marguerittes, being apprised of the event, hastened to the spot and, at the head of the pol ice force, battered down the stage door and took 10 William C. McCready, " Letter." Collection of J. Peter Coulson. 14 MESERVE possession." (22 January 1853: 583) Managing a theatre was not an easy career. Further west, the Eagle Street Theatre in Buffalo, New York was completely destroyed by fire, in 1852, "leaving nought but the walls to mark the spot. .. . The fire is no doubt the work of an incendiary." (15 May 1852: 156) In Baltimore John T. Ford, manager of the Halliday Street Theatre, sent a fiery letter to the Spirit complaining of the "malicious misstatements and an undisguised perversion of the truth" by the Spirit's correspondent who, he stated, misrepresented "the affairs of the establishment under my control" by underestimating the popularity of Edwin Forrest and the size of the audience that awaited Forrest's performance each night despite the "snow storm and the counter- attraction of one week's excellent sleighing." (26 January 1856: 600) Through the pages of the Spirt of the Times various correspondents kept readers generally aware of theatre activity across the country. In Chicago in the middle of the 1850s there were "two well organized companies: the Chicago Theatre under the direction of Percy Marshall who had taken over John Rice's company, and Amphitheatre," run by Lerie J. North, which in 1857 looked forward to performances by "Mrs. Shaw, Davenport and young Booth." (18 April 1857: 1 09) This situation would change in November 1857 when McVicker's Theatre opened its doors for a series of successful seasons until it fell in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Milwaukee could boast of three theatres in 1858-one English and two German. (4 December 1858: 507) In his book on theatre in Minnesota, Frank M. Whiting described this decade as "The Booming Fifties." 11 "Amusements are scarce articles here," wrote one correspondent in an essay on "Theatricals in Ohio," while acknowledging a strol l ing band of Ethiopian minstrels which provided a "chaste and unique entertain- ment" and the moderate efforts of " Shires' National Troupe," managed by " an enterprising, gentleman of Cincinnati ." (15 April 1854: 99) With its newly developing theatrical tradition, Cincinnati celebrated a "Grand Amateur Dramatic Festival" at its National Theatre on 16 February 1855, all for "the benefit of the poor." (3 March 1855: 26) Songs, orchestral product ions, excerpts from Hamlet, The Merchant of Venice and The Iron Chest preceded a solo on the bugle by H. Menter, a Dutch-English ballad with a hand-organ accompaniment by Mr. Charles Barras and a perfor- mance of Bombastes Furioso. The following year Cincinnatians planned a new People's Theatre for which the Spirit provided a detailed descrip- 11 Frank M. Whiting, Minnesota Theatre: From Old Fort Snelling to the Guthrie (St. Paul, MN: Pogo Press, 1988), 3-19. American Theatre During the 1850s 15 tion. Much emphasis, it seems, was always placed on the democratic "People's" and the patriotic "National," with I ittle avowed enthusiasm for plays by Americans or about Americans! Down South, theatre in Mobile started the second half of the century with the "promise of success" from an able stock company managed by R. L. Place of the American Theatre in New Orleans where Ben De Bar took over the St. Charles Theatre from Noah Ludlow and Sol Smith in 1853 and monopolized theatrical activity there until 1861. Before the Civil War De Bar also played summer seasons in St. Louis where he purchased a theatre in 1855. (19 january 1850: 566) His mid-decade competition in New Orleans, the Gaiety, under the management of Dion Boucicault, who produced mainly his own plays, was not successful. By 1850 California was on the minds of many Americans. As eager as any to take advantage of new found wealth, theatre people trouped to the Golden West. During the 1850s two major theatres were built (and rebuilt): in 1850 the jenny Lind Theatre, which burned twice before the builders replaced the wooden construction with stone, and the Metropol- itan Theatre in 1853. Both attracted America's most celebrated actors and actresses. At the American, in 1852, the Tong Hooktong Dramatic Company ("a company of Celestial dramatists, lately imported from the flowery kingdom"), performed Chinese operas in Chinese and "met with much success, having perfect jams, at three times the usual amount entree." (1 December 1852: 507) It was at this same theatre the following year after a performance of Nathania! H. Bannister's Putnam, the Iron Son of '76 that, while the hero was leading his "famous steed out with him and making his acknowledgments to the audience in a few remarks, the noble charger was guilty of an indiscretion." (12 March 1853: 38) In the fall of 1854 Californians "greatly deplored" the "sudden departure of Miss Laura Keene for Australia" after her brief management of the I ittle Union Theatre. (16 September 1854: 362) It was described as another of her "circulating fits"-she having abruptly left james Wallack in New York in 1852 and a Baltimore theatre the following year. Immediately, the Union Theatre became the People's Theatre and remained successful, while at the Metropolitan Mr. and Mrs. Barney Williams became an "unmistakable hit," creating the kind of publicity that immediately drew actors to California. On their first appearance, "thirty-three hundred dollars were taken in at the door!" (4 November 1854: 446) The theatrical future looked exceptionally bright, and the newly refurbished American Theatre, under A. J. Neafie's management, was impressive. The foreground of the drop-curtain represented "a bronze figure of Washington standing on a pedestal, while overhead hangs in _16 MESERVE massive folds the flag of our country; in the background is the bay of San Francisco, with the entrance through the Golden Gate, the surface of the water being dotted with sailing craft. Above all is the coat of arms of the State of California and the United States." (13 january 1855: 566) Before another month passed, however, the Spirit's correspondent announced "Theatricals at a Discount," and predicted that "the general depression of business throughout the state" along with the abundance of visiting stars and the "enormous rates" they demanded would destroy any expectations for a healthy drama and opera. (24 February 1855: 14) In june, 1855 critic "Col. jeemes Pipes of Pipesville, California" [pseudonym of Stephen Massett] declared that "theatricals are dead, dead, dead." (16 June 1855: 212) Living was expensive in California; prices and salaries were high, and actors and actresses of exceedingly moderate abilities disappointed audiences while driving managers toward bankruptcy. (24 May 1856: 172) The Metropolitan Theatre was closed half the time. Only under the management of Laura Keene, "with her handsome legs and beautiful person," could the American Theatre continue its prosperous venture. (30 June 1856: 235) Theatre in California was as much a gamble as life anywhere in the Golden State, as much a gamble as theatre anywhere across the nation. There were the same comments everywhere-moral questions, theatre and society, the star system, foreigners in the theatre, the lack of good plays, a need for exciting spectacles, effective entertainments-and the same disasters that followed players and their theatres. On 7 june 1856, the Spirit announced from California: "The People's Theatre is no more!" Fire! There were heavy losses to actors and to those who owned nearby houses, and there was the gloomy conclusion: "The whole was the work of some malicious person. There is no insurance." (7 June 1856: 212) That metaphor for theatre and drama in mid-nineteenth century America-"There is no insurance"-holds true for most Western theatre and drama. It was the constant challenge-from critics, audiences, theatre managers, reformers, acts of God and man-made events-that created opportunities for, by and large, journeymen playwrights who at this time would play second-fiddle to actors and animal acts. Interrupted by events surrounding the Civil War major dramatists such as john Brougham and Dian Boucicault would leave for England. By the late 1860s theatre managers, theatre critics and the playwrights-perhaps showing evidence of the "man of mind"-would begin to change in their skills, attitudes and approaches to what they did and how they did it. In the American theatre there would not be another decade like the 1850s. Journal of American Drama and Theatre 11 (Spring 1999) (Re)placing Lillian Hellman: Her Masculine Legend and Feminine Difference THERESA JOETTE MAY Old paint on canvas, as it ages, sometimes becomes transparent. When that happens it is possible, in some pictures, to see the original lines .... That is called pentimento because the painter "repented" .. . the old conception, replaced by a l t ~ r choice, is a way of seeing and then seeing again. -Lillian Hellman, Pentimento 1 I know what you are thinking: all we need is another paper on Lillian Hellman. However, the paint has aged on the lfgrand dame of American letters," 2 and now we may be better able to see the original I i nes, to uncover some of the forces at work during the double arc of Hellman's legendary career. We may meet a woman who even Hellman confesses she lfdid not know very well," appearing from under the surface-most image. 3 This paper is a historiographic review of the phenomenon of Lillian Hellman, and inquires into her experience as a woman. Can we locate a trace of the woman's voice amidst the polyphony of constructed Li II ians? Or is it submerged, silenced, by the very forces that gave her persona so much cultural clout? And perhaps more importantly, who will claim the story of Lillian Hellman, who will her story serve? Few figures in American theatre history can be used to illustrate a liberal feminist position as readily as Lillian Hellman. She arrived on Broadway in 1934 with her first hit play, earned and maintained a place in the male canon of Ameri can dramatic literature through four decades of subsequent work, was lavished with numerous awards and honorary degrees, and for a time rivaled the names of O'Neill, Williams and Miller 1 Lillian Hellman, Pentimento, (New York: Little, Brown & Company, 1973), 1. 2 Annette Grant, "Lively Lady, " Newsweek 73, 89 (30 june 1969): 9. 3 Lillian Hellman, "On Reading Again," in Three (New York: Farrar, Straus, 1955), 9. 18 MAY in the pantheon of modern American drama. And she made a lot of money doing it. In 1975 Hellman was the National Newspaper Association's "most influential woman," and younger women thought " if Lilly can do it, I can do it!" 4 She was the quintessential example of a woman making it in a man's world. For almost a half-century Lillian Hellman was anthologized more than, and to the exclusion of, other American women playwrights. Artists such as Rachel Crothers, Susan Glaspell, and Sophie Treadwell were as popular in their own time as Hellman was i n hers. But when Hellman came on the scene, her name eclipsed many women playwrights who had preceded her. The male canon had found its token woman. Lill ian Hellman fell out of fashion in the early 1980s partly as a result of the backlash against Scoundrel Time. Her memoir about her experi- ence before the House Un-American Activities Committee had angered many anti-Communist liberals who felt her representation of the McCarthy era was both dishonest and malicious. In addition, Hellman's achievement as a playwright has been put in perspective by feminist scholars who have revived and re-instated into the canon many American women playwrights of the early twentieth century. Rarely anthologized now, her plays are characterized at best as well-made social dramas; more often, as melodramas. 5 During her lifetime, however, Lillian Hellman rose to stardom twice, and she was able to stay in the public eye for nearly a half-century. The period from The Children's Hour in 1936 through a succession of hit plays in the 1940s composes one arc of her success. After Autumn Carden in 1951, however, it seemed to some that Hellman' s career as a dramatist had seen its best days. When Toys in the Attic appeared in 1960, Hellman had not written a play in nine years. Hellman's appear- ance before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1952, or Dashiell Hammett's time served for contempt in 1951 followed by his protracted ill health following his release from jail, or even the release of information by Khrushchev about the Stalin era, might have had something to do with her non-productivity during those years. However, 4 William Wright, Lillian Hellman: the Image, the Woman (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986), 481. 5 For example, compare The Harcourt Brace Anthology of Drama, 2nd edition, W. B. Worthen, ed. (Harcourt Brace & Company, 1996), and The Bedford Anthology of Drama, 3rd edition, Lee A Jacobus, ed. (Bedford Books, 1988), both of which have plays by Susan Glaspelf and none by Hellman, with The Modern Theatre, Robert W. Corrigan, ed. (New York: Macmillian Company, 1964), which incl udes Hellman as the sole woman playwright of the twentieth century United States. Lillian Hellman 19 nothing in her memoirs suggests that these factors damaged her creativity as a playwright. After Hammett's death in 1961, and increasingly swept up in the rising tide of radicalism of the 1960s, Hellman secured a second rise to celebrity status-not as a playwright, but as a memoirist. As an old radical herself, Hellman's image and her story served the New Left and the 1970s women's movement. True, her success as a playwright had entitled her to tell her personal story, but it was the telling of that story, not her plays, that promoted her to celebrity status. After publication of Unfinished Woman in 1969, and then Pentimento in 1973, Hellman became a kind of oracle to be consulted about everything from Watergate and women's liberation to turtle soup. When her fall from grace occurred after publication of Scoundrel Time in 1976, critical discourse about Lillian Hellman took on the appearance of a literary food fight. Some writers, who had helped construct Hellman as a symbol of integrity in previous years, defended her against those calling her a liar; while others, baffled and betrayed, defected from her camp. Historicizing Lillian Hellman, therefore, is a messy business. It becomes impossible to separate the person from the culturally produced and commodified persona of Lillian Hellman. Hellman herself warns us that the "real woman" may have never existed. The drinking, the affairs, the rages, the trips to Russia, along with the books she tater wrote about it all, blur the real into the represented woman. The response of the literary establishment to the Hellman phenomenon has run the gamut from overblown praise to spiteful sniping. Lillian Hellman has been "our most promising playwright," for Marvin Felheim; 6 and was "one of the most distinguished dramatists of our century" according to New York Times' Stanley Young. 7 On the other hand, Hellman has been " apocry- phal," according to Martha Gellhorn; 8 a "bad writer, over rated, dishonest," for Mary McCarthy; 9 and "the ugl iest of them all," in the 6 Marvin Felheim, "The Autumn Garden: Mechanics and Dialects, " in Critical Essa ys on Lillian Hellman, Mark W. Estrin, ed. (Boston: G.K. Hall & Company, 1989), 49. 7 Stanley Young, " An Unfinished Woman," New York Times, 29 June 1969, sec. " Book Review," p. 8. 8 Martha Gellhorn, "Close Encounters of the Apocryphal Kind," in Critical Essays on Lillian Hellman, 175. 9 Mary McCarthy quoted from the Di ck Cavett Show, 25 j anuary 1980. See, Carl Rollyson, Lillian Hellman: Her Legend and Her Legacy (New York: St. Martin 's Press, 1988), 512. 20 MAY view of William F. Buckley. 10 In historicizing Hellman, the intersection of the playwright, the woman, and the myth becomes so problematic that one is forced to examine the legend of Lillian Hellman as a cultural product. Hellman biographers, Carl Rollyson and William Wright, character- ize Hellman's memoirs as performative. Indeed, the Hellman persona often appears constructed, well-made, like her plays. She knew that almost all controversy is good for business. Rollyson claims Hellman "made a theatre of her life." 11 For example, while some critics thought it beneath a I iterary giant to pose in a mink coat advertisement with the headline, "Nothing Becomes a Legend More," and receive the coat as remuneration, Hellman replied, "why the hell not!" 12 She participated, with gusto, in the commodification of her own image. Hellman biographers and critics, however, have not addressed the mutually constructive dynamic among Hellman, her public and her critics-a dynamic in which all three agents vied for authority, and none have had the last word. I will not attempt to sift through this maelstrom, sorting "truth" from "story." Hellman's biographers and critics have navigated that quagmire sufficiently already. It may be more important, rather, to look for what was at stake for Hellman in writing plays and memoirs, than to determine, once and for all, the "facts" of the matter of Lillian Hellman. The impulse for my project here begins at the end of Hellman's career, with publication of her final memoir, Maybe. In June 1980, Brown, Little and Company (Hellman's publisher) took out a full-page ad in the New York Times in which a photo of Hellman appeared with a caption that touted her latest memoir as "enigmatic" and "revealingly intimate." The image of Hellman is at best vulnerable, at worst pathetic, as if to say "look what became of the legend!" Maybe-an eloquently bumbling little book-may help us understand the price Hellman paid for legendary status. First, however, and in order to illuminate Maybe, it is useful to map the making and the un-making of that legend. The double arc of Hellman's career-as playwright and memoirist- requires a two-fold inquiry. In order uncover a sense of Hellman's experience as a woman coping with patriarchal forces, I place Hellman 10 William F. Buckley, Jr., "Scoundrel Time: Who Is the Ugliest of them All?," National Review 29, 101 (20 January 1977): 77. 11 Rollyson, 429. 12 Alfred Kazin, "The legend of lillian Hellman," in Critical Essays on Lillian Hellman, 174. Lillian Hellman 21 and her plays in the context of what Susan Harris Smith has called the "masculinization of American theatre'' in the early and middle twentieth century. 13 .In American Drama: the Bastard Art (1997), Smith reveals the political aspects of this aesthetic process. Thus, she helps us deconstruct the patriarchal era which is credited with Lillian Hellman's success. The dictates of "masculinization" informed not only reception of Hellman's work, but the construction of Hellman herself in the public and private arenas of her I ife. I posit that what Rollyson has called "the theatre of [Hellman's] life" was a collaboration, one in which we participate even now. In this light, Hellman's memoirs become, not only a process of collaboration with the construction of her own public image, but a process of taking her life back, finding her voice, sorting her self from the woman who wrote "manly" plays. Yet, Hellman tells us that even she was never successful in this regard. The best she is able to find is a scent-a sense-of self. Then, in order make sense of Maybe, I place all of Hellman's memoirs in the context of the theorizing about the art of autobiography occurring at the time Hellman wrote each of them. I am not claiming that Hellman was necessarily aware of the contemporane- ous development of autobiography theory; however, the shifting notions of what an autobiography is or should be informed the critical climate Hellman was writing into each time she wrote a memoir. The Masculinization of Lillian Hellman Susan Harris Smith maps the forces at work just prior to and during the period when Lillian Hellman took stage. Smith characterizes the period from approximately 1911 through the "birth" of American drama in the work of Eugene O'Neill as the masculine reclaiming of an over-feminized theatrical marketplace. Smith's narrative helps set the scene for the role Hellman would play, and the purposes she would serve, in the development of the "manly art of playwrighting" and, ultimately, the codification of the canon of American dramatic literature. In the years following the Civil War women had become a "civilizing" force to be reckoned with. The abolitionist movement, followed by the 1890 victory for compulsory schooling, established women as an increasingly effective cultural/political force. Women's groups worked for literacy, morality, and culture. By 1910 "civic minded women" and "academic men" were hatching a strategy to institutionalize "high art" 13 Susan Harri s Smith, American Drama: the Bastard Art (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 57-113. 22 MAY in the name of morality and "self improvement." Founded in 1910, the Drama League undertook to promote a "high standard" of American theatre. The League successfully expanded the theatre-going audiences and increased the production, publication, and reading of "good" drama. The League also initiated connections between the theatre and higher education. Within the organization, according to Smith, "men were the figureheads, the women did the work." 14 Smith notes that Clayton Hamilton was unreserved in his regard for women's power in the theatre. Hamilton "claimed that 'the destiny of our drama has lain for a long time in the hands of women ... in fact, the theatre is to-day the one great public institution in which 'votes for women' is the rule." ' 15 A decade later, however, the rhetoric had changed. A process of "masculinization" attempted to recover from a "weak" and "feminized" state and to throw off the shackles of "romanticism" and /'sentimentality" that marred nineteenth century drama. Smith underscores this effort as a calculated, carefully constructed reclaiming of theatre as a male domain: The rhetoric of masculinity and vitality was a communicative strategy designed to discount others as enfeebled; science was equated with objectivity and the search for truth, and left any unscientific enterprise behind ... pejoratively associated with femininity and untempered emotions. 16 By the 1920s the architects of a new masculine American drama begged for a theatre free from the dictates of "feminine fancy" and the "strangle- hold of petticoats" in which "manly virtues were preferred." 17 The discourse of masculinity infused literary circles as well as other professions. Lawyers, architects, and other professionals sought to "legitimize" their fields by demonstrating "scientific" methods. The rise of the American university "claimed science as both its goal and domain" as professionals endeavored to "defeminize" in order to be "adequate to the university's demands." 18 With the advent of the "manly art of 14 Smith, 84. 15 Clayton Hamilton, "Organizing an Audience," in Conversations on American Drama (New York: Macmillian, 1924), 163-64, quoted in Smith, 85. Ellipses hers. 16 Smith, 103. 17 Ibid., 104. 18 Elizabeth Renker, "Resistance and Change: The Rise of American Literature Studies," American Literature 64, 2 (1992) : 347, quoted in Smith, 104. Lillian Hellman 23 playwrighting" and the 11 Well made play," the American theatre, which had been 11 gendered, degendered and regendered" since its beginnings, could reclaim its creative, essentially masculine" prove- nance.19 National identity was at stake in the process of breathing new and "virile" life into American drama. The 11 Connection of drama to 'feminine' and 'foreign"' was marked as the root cause of American drama's impotence abroad and at home. "American drama" would have to be forged as both "native" and "universal" in order to earn a place in the world canon. '"Greatness' was thus locked to masculinity," while an impenetrable male logic conflated notions of" American" and "manly" with "legitimate" and 11 great." 20 These qualities, in turn, became the fundamental identifiers of the "new," "mature" American drama born in the person of Eugene O'Neill. Enter Lillian Hellman. As a young and presumably ambitious woman, knocking back drinks with the best of them at Bani & Liveright parties, we must speculate that Hellman's creative and professional ambitions were forged within earshot of the communicative strategy of the masculinization of American Theatre. Whether a conscious calculation, or as some biographers have posited, Hellman fell under the tutelage of masculine forces like Dashiell Hammett/ 1 her early creative impulses were surely immersed in the rhetoric and excitement of the years when American drama had finally come into its own. 22 As Hellman developed an ear for how to become part of it, both her work and her persona would disassociate from women dramatists of the past, and 19 lbid., 104-105. Here Smith examine a "misogynistic and xenophobic" passage from Charles and Mary Beard's The Rise of American Civilization (New York: Macmillian, 1934), and an excerpt from Henry Arthur Jones' "The Aims and Duties of a National Theatre," in Foundations of a National Drama (New York: George H. Doran, 1913), in which the rhetoric of the masculinizing forces is parti cularly strong. 20 Ibid., 1 OS. 21 Any discussion of the emergence of Lillian Hel lman must also situate her in the context of 1930s politics and the American communist party of that period. It would be interesting to examine the connecti on between Hellman's politics and her "masculinization," particularly in light of the men who played important roles in her artist ic and political development. She may have been "a rebel " from childhood, as Pentimento asks us to believe; however, being a radical, even a communist, may have a connection to the necessity of constructing herself within a male-dominated world. William Wright leans in this direction. See, Chapters 6 and 7 of Lillian Hellman: The Woman, The Image. 22 The "maturation" of Ameri can drama has been regularly linked to O'Neill's Beyond the Horizon, which appeared in December 1920. Smith, 98. 24 MAY embody the valorized notions of "virility," "brutality" and "unsentimental ity." Indeed, Hellman's work seemed to answer the complaints which had been levied at "feminine" drama (and against female dramatists) almost blow for blow: If women could not produce plays with the necessary "virility" or "courage," Hellman's Children's Hour was "straight forward and driving" according to Brooks Atkinson, and "bravely written" for Robert Benchley. 23 If "women could not handle the 'largeness of topic,"' Watch on the Rhine would take on Nazism. If women were "incapable of 'strictness in treatment/" leaving their plot constructions "deficient/' 24 Little Foxes was noted for "brilliant construction ... like a Chinese box, each piece fitting precisely with the next/' according to John Malcolm Brinnin. 25 If "young ladies' literature soon dies" owing to the "gaps in her equipment," as Charles and Mary Beard posited/ 6 then Hellman's writing was "sure and pointed" according to New Yorker's Margaret Case Harriman, and would prove lasting. 27 Writing "like a man" entitled her to be counted part of the American drama that John Gassner's 1952 "Answer to the New Critics" described as "masculine, buoyant, hard-driving and uninhibited." 28 Lillian Hellman was the exception that proved the rule: a woman can write a good play, even a "great" play, though most women can not and have not. It would not be enough, however, for Hellman's plays to be "hard-driving/' she would have to perform masculinity in her person as well. The masculinization of Hellman's image, which began at the start of her career, and continues into current discourse, is a process of marking. It lays claim to her work, her success, and her life. As early as 1941, after three successful plays, the personality and "true nature" of "Miss Lilly of New Orleans" was the subject of an "in depth" article by Margaret Case Harriman for New Yorker. "She's the kind of girl who can take the 23 Wright, 96. 24 Brander Mathews, A Book About the Theatre (New York: Scribner, 1916), 117, quoted in Smith, 105. 25 Wright, 149. 26 Charles and Mary Beard, quoted in Smith, 105. 27 Margaret Case Harriman, "'Miss Lily of New Orleans' Lillian Hellman," in Critical Essays, 219. Originally pub I ished as "Profile," New Yorker (8 November 1941 ), [n.p.]. 26 John Gassner, "An Answer to the New Critics," Theatre Arts 36 (1952): 59-61, quoted in Smith 108. Lillian Hellman 25 tops off bottles with her teeth," Harriman writes, quoting from a 1934 review of Children's Hour. 29 The bottle cap trope followed Hellman into her later years. The masculinization of Hellman's image married her identity to various male icons of popular culture. She was "a female super-literate Humphry Bogart" according to New Republic's joseph Epstein. 3 For Margaret Case Harriman, Lillian Hellman's face bore a "curious resemblance to .. . George Washington." 31 Perhaps the most striking example of Hellman's masculine construction is the oft employed identification of Hellman with Hemingway. And Hellman herself is the source of this trope. In Unfinished Woman she tells a story of Ernest bringing the proofs of To Have and Have Not to her hotel room one evening, while they were both in Spain. Hellman claimed that Hemingway made a pass at her; in response she quipped that his manuscript was missing a piece. In "Close Encounters of the Apocryphal Kind," Martha Gellhorn claims that this encounter could not have taken place, since Hellman and Hemingway were not in Spain at the same time. 32 The incident seems to have been invented by Hellman in order to put her name on the same page as Hemingway's. The trick worked. Scholars then and since have been invested in this particular masculine construction of Hellman. As recently as 1994 in American Drama: 1940-1960, Thomas P. Adler illustrates his own investment in a "Hemingwayesque" Lillian Hellman. He writes: Hellman remained her own woman, using the stage, however impersonal the plays might seem at times, to impress on audiences her personal belief in the Hemingwayesque virtues of courage, honesty, loyalty, and decency, as well as to set forth certain strongly held convictions ... 33 Was it "Hemingwayesque virtuesn which compelled her ferocious attack on the anti-Communist left in Scoundrel Time? "Loyalty" which 29 Harriman, 219. 30 joseph Epstein, " No Punches Pulled, " New Republic 161, 27 (26 July 1969): 27. 31 Harriman, 220. 32 Gellhorn, 1 75-190. 33 Thomas P. Adler, "Lillian Hellman: The Conscience of the Culture," in American Drama: 1940-1960 (New York: Maxwell Macmillan, 1994), 61. 26 MAY service" when he was a lover of two years with whom she contemplated marriage? Was it "honesty" which prompted her to pass off Muriel Gardiner's life story as her own flesh-and-blood friend "Julia" when she and Gardiner had never met? 34 Was it "decency" which prompted Hellman's suit against Mary McCarthy? Are "strongly held convictions," about Stalin for instance, "manly virtues?" Adler has continued to masculinize Hellman, a decade after her death, by using one super-male construction to shore up another. In addition, he has appropriated and masculinized virtues that might otherwise be attributed to both sexes of homo-sapiens and some canines. Understanding the workings of power and ideology as a force at work from the inside-out, as well as outside-in helps us put Lillian Hellman's life-long collaboration in the masculinization of her own image into perspective. Masculine subjectivity is so deeply ingrained that it not only permeates how women represent themselves externally, but also how they conceive of themselves internally. In Feminist Spectator as Critic, Jill Dolan invokes materialist feminists Judith Newton and Deborah Rosenfelt in this regard: Ideology ... is not a set of deliberate distortions imposed on us from above, but a complex and contradictory system of represen- tations (discourse, images, myths) through which we experience ourselves in relation to each other and to the social structures in which we live. Ideology is a system of representation through which we experience ourselves as well . 35 So we must ask, for example, if Hellman's own linking of herself to Hemingway was a response to an already existing requirement for continued success? If the masculine theatre of her working years prescribed only one subject, then she must become that subject; if only men are canonized, she must become and remain one of the guys. The masculinization of Hellman has subjected her to a double standard in literary history. Although Hellman cast herself, and was cast by journalists, in a masculine image, her public appeal was predicated on 34 Many believe that the "real" Julia was Muriel Gardener, and that Hellman appropriated the detail of her life and passed them off as those of her childhood friend, "Julia" There are dissenting opinions which identify other options for the possible Julia, however the consensus remains that Hellman did not, personally, know the woman on whom she modeled the character of Julia. See al so, Alexander Cockburn, "Who Was Julla, " in Critical Essays on Lillian Hellman, 190. 35 Jill Dolan, The Feminist Spectator as Critic (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), 16. Lillian Hellman 27 by journalists, in a masculine image, her public appeal was predicated on her difference. Regardless of Hellman's success, the public was never allowed to forget she was a woman. That difference set in motion a discourse of titillation from the start of her career. Margaret Case Harriman's 1941 New Yorker "Profile" of Hellman is full of the gender tropes that would fol low the Hellman persona for forty more years. "Miss Lilly" of New Orleans, as Harriman calls her, is "more often mild than not and ... genuinely feminine." While crediting Hellman with "the kind of intellectual indignation that must be sexless," Harriman makes much of "Miss Lilly's" feminine qualities, such as Hellman's poor sense of direction and her "helplessness in the face of geography and physics." Harriman also begins the masculinization of Hellman's anger. Lillian's temper has a "gentfemanly quality of never being unintentionally rude to anyone," while "she can sometimes hit below the belt." 36 For the rest of her life, Hellman's rage would be de-feminized in a similar manner. In addition, the New Yorker article drives a wedge between Hellman and the possibility of female colleagues and friends. Lillian Hellman, writes Harriman, is an "independent woman," and "has more men friends than girl friends" because she "likes to gamble with men for manly stakes." Harriman notes, however, that Miss Lilly is not condescending to members of the female sex and " is fond of a number of women and likes to send them unexpected and interesting presents, half a proscuito ham or a silver bowl for mixing New Orleans cafe diable." 37 In other words, Hellman treats her female friends as any gentleman would. Under this literary double-standard, Lillian Hellman's plays were " good" because they were "masculine," yet "Miss Lilly's" "femininity" continually provided journalistic juice. In the same vein, while Hellman's canonization denied her sexual difference on the one hand, journalists made much of her sexual promiscuity on the other. The construction of Hellman's sexuality as a form of male desire served to separate Hellman from other women, and other women writers, while it laid claim to that desire for heterosexual men. Her "sexually aggressive" traits were masculinized, yet her difference embodied the fulfjllment of male fantasy-a woman so sexed that even Hemingway returned to the lobby of a Paris hotel in 1937, "looking disheveled and explained the lipstick on his collar with 'Lillian Hellman was up there and she's the 36 Harriman, 220. 37 Ibid., 219-229. 28 MAY most extraordinary female I' ve ever met!"' 38 It seems that to compete- with men in the marketplace of the theatre, she had to match their boldness in the bedroom. The Token Woman in the Male Canon J iII Dol an has observed that there is a danger when a female playwright is accepted into the male canon. Rather than establishing a "precedent for women playwrights to follow" it reinforces "the male precedent the canon has already set." The hegemonic function of the canon not only serves to exclude women in the past, but by "limiting the visible number of women playwrights" it precludes women's entrance in the future. 39 More importantly, by controlling the mapping of influence, it causes ruptures and discontinuities in the connections women might otherwise make with other women within the history of their profession. Tracy C. Davis notes that canonization is a political process in which the "possession of power by those in command of the approved form" is redoubled by valorizing the best examples of its ideology. 40 It simultaneously erases examples of forms inconsistent with its aim. As Susan Harris Smith has pointed out, the dominant ideology in the American theatre of Hellman's years was naturalized as the very definition of "great" drama. The movement to masculinize American theatre, while it put Lillian Hellman center stage, successfully obliterated the achievement and contributions of pre-Hellman women dramatists. Susan Harris Smith observes that: the standard anthologies of American drama [1918-1986] ... have long been gendered male. The links in the chain that stretches from Godfrey to Tyler to O' Neill to Williams to Miller to Albee to Shepard and Mamet are all male. Harold Bloom in Esquire (September 1994) allows nine male playwrights . . . into his canonized list. This gendering is not just the work of literary critics at large; recent historians of the drama, though certainly 38 Wright, 326. 39 Dolan, 20. 40 Tracy C. Davis, "Questi6ns for a Feminist Methodology in Theatre History, " in Interpreting the Theatrical Past, Thomas Postlewait and Bruce A. McConachie, eds. (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1989), 67. Lillian Hellman obliged to obey the facts of a dominant male presence, have done little to redress the historical imbalance. 41 29 Hellman's is a litany of male identification and lineage: she is "Chekhovian" for jacob Adler, 42 and "lbsenite" for Mark Estrin, who also notes that Hellman has been "compared to the 'high tradition' of Sophocles" by Stark Young, and "heir to Strindberg" for Joseph Wood Krutch. 43 juxtaposing Lillian Hellman with the great men of modern drama provides her some historical status; it also separates her from other women playwrights, and thus interrupts whatever chain of influence might otherwise be constructed among Hellman and her female predecessors. Susan Harris Smith points out that in "C.W.E. Bigsby's three-volume history, A Critical Introduction to Twentieth-Century American Drama (1985), one volume of which is devoted entirely to Williams, Miller, and Albee ... only two complete chapters to women; one is to Lillian Hellman, the other is on women's theatre." 44 Hellman's elevated status, however, still does not compensate for her difference. At least for Bigsby, she remains a one-chapter playwright. Lillian Hellman has indicated no influence, nor do any of her critics or biographers posit that she has any debt to the women who wrote, produced and directed before her. It is as if she sprung fully formed from the forehead of Zeus. Indeed, this mythology was part of the "masculine" strategy for the future, which sought to disassociate itself with the "feminine" past. Yvonne Shaffer's American Women Playwrights 1900-1950 reinstates into literary memory a number of women playwrights of the early and mid-twentieth century. "Although most of these playwrights are nearly forgotten, their work had a major 41 Smith, 106. Smith notes the pattern of canonization since the beginning of the " masculinization" of American theatre: "In forty-five anthologies of American drama complied between 1918 and 1986, from Quinn and Moses to Jacobus and Gassner, eleven collections had no plays by women at all and fourteen included only one. Of the 740 plays anthologized, only 90 were by women and many of those were one-acts and/or from the regional theatre movement of the twenties and thirties." 42 Jacob Adler, "Miss Hellman's Two Sisters," in Critical Essays on Lillian Hellman, 43. 43 Estrin in Critical Essays on Lillian Hellman., 3, 12. 44 Smith, 106. 30 MAY impact on the American theatre," Shaffer writes. 45 Rachel Crothers, Susan Glaspell, Sophie Treadwell, and others wrote plays which "broke with formulae and challenged the accepted conventions of a largely realistic, male-dominated theatre," plays which were (like Hellman's) concerned with social justice and issues well beyond the drawing room and bed room. 46 It would seem to make sense to connect Hellman to women playwrights of the past; or to show how she has influenced women playwrights of today. Yet, in his Introduction to Critical Essays on Lillian Hellman (1989), Mark Estrin encourages studies which "speculate on Hellman's possible influence on such contemporary forces in the American theatre as David Rabe or Sam Shepard." 47 Even though Marsha Norman has claimed Hellman's influence, Estrin's narrative seems to indicate that not only did Lillian Hellman emerge without any literary mothers, her own progeny are all men. Mastering the "manly art of playwrighting" set Hellman apart from Crothers, Glaspell, Treadwell and Zoe Akins in the minds of (primarily male) critics and scholars. Hellman none-the-less stepped into success on the heels of the women who had careers in commercial theatre in the early part of the century. Hellman is heir to women playwrights who, until recently, have been effectively dismissed, not only because her style and subjects reflect the work of some of these individuals, but simply because they were there . . Women were not absent. They were present, vital, courageous, uninhibited and innovative forces in the American theatre that Hellman (and Eugene O'Neill) inherited. Placing Hellman within a lineage of women dramatists, with an eye to deconstruct why she has been plucked from that lineage, is a vital piece of research still to be done. Ironically however, Hellman's work has not escaped the gendered critique leveled at the women playwrights who preceded her. Even with the successes of Children's Hour, Little Foxes, and Watch on the Rhine, some critics claimed the plays were merely "melodramas." 48 Katherine Lederer's 1979 book on Hellman attempts to rescue Hellman's work from that fatal label. Lederer cites Hellman's "ironic vision" and begs that 45 Yvonne Shaffer, American Women Playwrights 1900-1950 (New York: Peter Lang, 1995), 7. 46 Ibid., 2. 47 Estrin, 9. 48 Wright, 325-327. See also, Estrin's Introduction to Critical Essays on Lillian Hellman for a discussion of Hellman .and melodrama. Lillian Hellman 31 critics transcend "genre classification." 49 "Melodrama" continues to be a gendered genre, however, and the label has served to marginalize Hellman's work. Lillian Hellman's drama has been dismissed on still two other counts. In fact, as time passes, Hellman's work becomes subject to almost all of the criticisms-such as moralizing-that were leveled at the "feminized" drama of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. For example, although Thomas P. Adler has praised Hellman as "Hemingwayesque," he demotes her from the canon of "great" American dramatists to that of "moralist" and reduces her "hits" to mere "representative" works of "social drama. 5 Further, while Hellman has been lauded for her masterful dramatic construction, Adler turns her expertise into a deficit, claiming she demonstrates an "excessive reliance on well-made dramatic structure." 51 In addition, while the patriarchal realism . of her contemporaries demanded her "unsentimental" writing, Hellman has been accused of having "a lack of compassion for her characters." 52 One wonders, if it were not for her memoirs, whether Hellman's name would have gone the way of Glaspell's and Crothers'. If not for the runaway successes of An Unfinished Woman and Pentimento, would Hellman have survived as the token woman in the male canon? Reinventing Her Self: the Hellman Memoirs It was iro!liC, perhaps, that after Toys in the Attic, and at a time when the civil rights movement and later the women's movement of the 1970s might have provided Hellman with rich source material for drama, she stopped w r i t ~ n plays. He11man's memoirs begin to break step with the very patriarchal forces which had enshrined her. In these works of para-fiction she makes little mention of her life in the theatre or her politics. Some critics were aggravated by certain "omissionsu in An Unfinished Woman, as if writing about the theatre was a debt she owed for previously garnered approval. Not writing about writing plays was received as a direct insult by many in the world of American theatre. "It is close to stubborn affectation to pass by so much," Harpers' Robert 49 Katherine Lederer, Lillian Helfman (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1979), 138. 50 Adler, 43. 51 Estrin, 10. 52 Ibid., 13 . . 32 MAY Kotlowitz complained. 53 New York Times' Stanley Young noted a "studied evasiveness." 54 Where there is silence, however, Tracy C. Davis reminds us, there may also be some mechanism of silencing. Or, at least we must hear the silence itself as a statement. In " Questions for a Feminist Methodology in Theatre History," Davis urges us to examine the silences: [T]he interpretation of published autobiographies is . . . problematic, in part due to women's reluctance to discuss the machinations of invisible professional forces, (such as patriarchal exclusion and sexual coercion) and to mention delicate personal matters relat ing to romantic liaisons and the female life cycle. 55 In Hellman' s memoirs, and particularly in their silences, we begin to find evidence of subtle forces and " delicate" topics. Ultimately, Hellman's memoi rs must be seen as "performance vehicles" through which Hellman was able to say and/or not say her self. Curiously, when all four memoirs are taken together they demonstrate the way in which postmodern/post-structural thought has informed theorizing about autobiography writing. The Hellman memoirs form a map from her initial search for a cohesive sense of self in An Unfinished Woman, to one composed of many voices and relationships in Pentimento, then to the primacy of the text and confounding of historical " truth" in Scoundrel Time, and fi nally towards a deconstruction of the self into the mere possibility of existence-the scent of a self-in Maybe. Hellman's memoirs have served as central sites for scholars of autobiography in recent decades, and indeed, helped re-define autobiographical writing. The critical acclaim her memoirs received provided a kind of insurance against being dismissed from the canon. Mark Estrin notes that, prior to An Unfinished Woman, "Hellman [was] the subject of an astonishingly small number of book-length studies devoted exclusively to her work. 56 The sound bites which accompanied publication of An Unfinished Woman substantially reinforced both her publ ic persona and her stature as a playwright. Best Sellers noted "a strong and determi ned 53 Robert Kotlowitz, " Rebel as Writer," Harpers 238, 87 Uune 1969): 87. 54 Young, New York Times, 29 June 1969: p. 8. 55 Davis, 64. 56 Estrin, 31 . Lillian Hellman 33 unwilling to con [her]self ... tough yet generous, honest yet reticent." 59 Hellman herself posited, during a 1974 Bill Moyer's interview, that the reception of her first two memoirs reflected the public's need for heroes. likewise, Rollyson notes that "by 1976, there was a reading public primed for anything that had Lillian Hellman as a heroine." 60 With each new memoir her pubic jmage grew and so did the rankling among cultural forces that had laid claim to that image. After the second wave of criticism of Scoundrel Time, in which she was accused of lying and misrepresenting herself and others, An Unfinished Woman was revisited and probed for the "facts" she claimed not to have fooled with. Pentimento was subsequently discredited by research into the veracity of "Julia." In a kind of positivist barrage to discredit Hellman, many of the people who appear as characters in the story got out their own dusty personal records, train schedules, diaries, and correspon- dence. The sometimes ludicrous sometimes vicious debate over the veracity of her memoirs, in which Hellman, her critics, and her friends participated, ended in an public absurdist performance in which Hellman sued Mary McCarthy and PBS after McCarthy called Hellman "a liar" on the Dick Cavett Show. 61 After Hellman's death, the investigations into the veracity of Scoundrel Time and Pentimento continued with biographers Wright and Rollyson making much of the ''implausibility" of various episodes, and gathering primary and secondary sources to prove or disprove everything from whether or not Hellman staged the first anti-segregation demonstra- tion at ten years old by making her nanny Sophronia sit in the front of the bus, or whether or not the Russian officer who loved American fiction actually existed, to whether painter Stephen Greene's company in Rome in 1953 constituted the correct use of the word "alone" for Lillian Hellman. Hellman's own collaboration in the project of her masculinization notwithstanding, her four memoirs became a process of taking her life back. Within what Jill Dolan has identified as the "male cultural, social, sexual, political, and intellectual discourse," 62 Hellman's memoirs are a kind of performative struggle for authority over her own image. Accord- ing to theorist Jeanne Braham, in Crucial Conversations: Interpreting 59 Epstein, 27. 60 Rollyson, 481. 61 Ibid., 512-528. 62 Dolan, 3. 34 MAY back. Within what Jill Dolan has identified as the "male cultural, social, sexual, political, and intellectual discourse," 62 Hellman's memoirs are a kind of performative struggle for authority over her own image. According to theorist Jeanne Braham, in Crucial Conversations: Interpreting Contemporary American Literary Autobiographies by Women, "the female autobiographer deploys language to convey the feeling of being cut off from language." 63 Hellman's autobiographies are not so much an attempt to put language around historical events, but to lay claim, through language, to her self. Autobiography studies have mapped a continually shifting notion of the self over the last forty years. This field of study examines the tension between self and community, and between authorial license and historical responsibility. Autobiography theory also examines the mutually constructive relationship between identity and language, and between private life and public image. Contemporary autobiography theory grew up in the late 1950s and early 1960s, concurrent with the anti-positivist critique of history, and the philosophical/social/political upheaval of the 1960s. 64 Autobiography theory follows the significant trends in contemporary theory occurring over the past several decades. These shifts illuminate each of Hellman's memoirs in turn. In "Autobiography and the Cultural Moment," James Olney notes that until the nineteenth century, autobiography, like history, was a I iterary art. Writing history and writing a I ife-story were conceived as similar impulses. In the late nineteenth century, historians joined in the academy-wide embrace of scientific method; history was re-conceived as a "scientific" search for the "laws of historical development." 65 Because autobiography was a key component of history in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was dragged into history's I iaison with science in the early twentieth century and expected to conform to the rules of objectivity, analytical inquiry, and documented evidence. Autobiography as an exact science soon caused havoc, and by the 1950s it was re-classified as an "existential act," and re-positioned within the domain of humanistic philosophy. Indeed, the rise of significant theorizing about & 2 Dolan, 3. &J jeanne Braham, Crucial Conversations: Interpreting Contemporary American Literary Autobiographies by Women {New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia Universi ty, 1995), 42. & 4 Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob, Telling the Truth About History (New York: W.W. Norton, 1994), 199. &S Ibid. , 52. Lillian Hellman 35 autobiography during this period helped drive a wedge between its former parents, history and science. james Olney tell us that, as a new genre apart from literature and history, in the late 1950s autobiography was defined as the struggle to reconstitute the scattered pieces of individual life into a cohesive whole. The autobiographical act was conceived as an attempt "to reconstitute [one's]self" and to construct a "special unity and identity across time." 66 Furthermore, many argued that the author "half discovers, half creates" a "deeper truth" than simple " adherence to historical and factual truth." 67 Shortly, it became clear to theorists that this "special unity," this "identity," is, after all, whether discovered or imposed, a matter of design. By the mid-1960s the unwieldy genre of autobiography was re-positioned once again as a quasi-creative act. An Unfinished Woman begins chronologically, constructing an identity that emerges over time. Then mid-book Hellman sets the reader down amidst theoretical misgivings. The last three chapters are portraits of significant people in Hellman's life. This later part of the book can be taken as an illustration that there is no singular, stable, Hellman identity, but rather that a sense of identity is formed, as if by composite, out of her relationship with other people. Contemporaneously, theorists had posited that the autobiographical impulse was not simply the need to find a unifying self, but the discovery of multiple voices within one self. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as a result of this new emphasis on multiplicity, the genre of autobiography became central to emerging fields of study, such as Women's Studies, African American Studies, Native American Studies, Gay/Lesbian Studies. As expressions of personal experience, unique culture, and diverse perspectives, and as documents of the contributions of marginalized groups to mainstream culture, autobiographies often served as primary texts for Black History or Women's History courses. Olney notes that, "[a]utobiography-the story of a distinctive culture written by individual characters from within-offers a privileged access to an experience." 68 As a literary form complete with its own body of criticism, autobiography provided leverage as marginalized groups began to claim and reclaim their place 66 james Olney, " Autobiography and the Cultural Moment," in Autobiography: Essays Critical and Theoretical, james Olney, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 11 . See also, James Olney, Metaphors of the Self: the Meaning of Autobiography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), for a history of autobiography theory and the modern notion_ of the self. 67 Ibid., 11. 68 Ibid., 8. 36 MAY in history. In this model, a "sense" of history was provided by multi-voiced collections of individual experiential accounts. It made sense that Hellman's next memoir would abandon the effort to find a "unified self" in favor of a multi-voiced identity .. Pentimento appeared in 1973 as a series of portraits from which the reader might draw a sense of Lillian Hellman. Like a demonstration of contemporaneous autobiography theory, the book seems to posit that a person is a composite of experiences, and identity is, at best, a web of relationships. No sooner had autobiography begun to provide these "alternate histories," than theorizing shifted again. What bothered some scholars was the tendency for particular autobi.ographies to become the " definitive book" on such-and-such an experience, or for certain key individuals to represent, for example, the "woman's experience" or the " Latino experience." This tendency to centralize certain narratives as representative of the " truth" hearkened back to history's search for laws, patterns, and essences. James Olney has noted the complications that bothered theorists of autobiography in the early 1970s: [there was a] rather naYve threefold assumption about the writing of an autobiography: first that [it] could signify the course of a lifetime; second, that the autobiographer could narrate his life [bios] in a manner at least approaching an objective historical account . . . and third, that there was nothing problematic about the autos, no agonizing questions of identity, self-definition, self-existence, or self-deception. 69 It seemed clear to theorists that writers of autobiography were engaged in a process of self-definition, even self-invention, that tended to include, from time to time, the invention of certain events or situations in their life narrative. In other words, autobiography sometimes includes, of necessity, lying. In the late 1970s and early 1980s emphasis turned from bios to autos, from an accounting of a life to the emergence of a self, but with the added consideration of the "third element": the text. The text, theorists posited, has a life of its own, one that complicates both the writing and reading of autobiography. In this model , the act of writing is irrevocably tied up with, and fundamental to the construction of identity; language is the vessel of the emerging self. "It is through that act [of writing] that the self and the life, complexly intertwined and entangled, take on a certain form, assume a particular shape and image, and endl essly reflect back and forth between themselves as between two 69 Ibid., 22-23. Lillian Hellman 37 self that was not really in existence in the beginning is in the end merely a matter of text and had nothing whatever to do with an authorizing author. The self, then, is a fiction and so is the life ... " 71 Ultimately, the text not only has life beyond the self, but in lieu of the self. Many critics claimed that Scoundrel Time, which appeared in 1976, is pure fiction. It is, nonetheless, a performance of the power of a text to take on a life of its own. Responses to Scoundrel Time came in two waves. Initially, and perhaps without considered reflection, many critics praised the book's narrative power. Writing for the New York Times; Maureen Howard commented that Scoundrel Time was "intricately and elegantly conceived," and "compelling, quite wonderful to read." Howard predicted that Scoundrel Time would be popular reading "on the beaches" that summer of 1976. 72 . A good read or no, others were outraged and offended by it. S(;oundrel Time was received as a personal attack by many liberal intellectuals, and consequently, precipitated attacks on the veracity of Hellman's other books. Discrediting Hellman became a public project. Hilton Kramer, writing in the New York Times, claimed that Scoundrel Time is "one of the most poisonous and dishonest testaments ever written by an American author." 73 The debate over Scoundrel Time produced unlikely liaisons between the anti-communist left and the intellectual right. William F. Buckley, Jr. blasted the book not only for its "historical inaccuracies," but for its omissions and moral one-up-man- ship. In Scoundrel Time, Hellman makes light of the holocaust of the Stalin years; she is vague about her own politics; she unjustly attacks the anti-Communist left; it would appear as if she and Hammett were two of the very few courageous and decent people to come before the House Un-American Activities Committee. "[S]he should be ashamed of this awful book," Buckley concludes. 74 Likewise, Sidney Hook of New York University charged in Encounter that Scoundrel Time "seems to have duped a generation of critics devoid of historical memory and critical common sense.fl 75 Ironically, the bombshell of Scoundrel Time 71 Ibid., 23. 72 Maureen Howard, "Scoundrel Time," New York Times, 25 April 1976, sec. "Book Review," p. 2. 73 Rollyson, 499. 74 Buckley, 106. 75 Sidney Hook, "LiHian Hellman's Scoundrel Time.'' ,Encounter 48, 82 (February 1977): 83. 38 MAY duped a generation of critics devoid of historical memory and critical common sense." 75 Ironically, the bombshell of Scoundrel Time motivated critics to probe all three of Hellman's memoirs for their "facts." After 1977, it was "open season on Lillian Hellman." 76 Scoundrel Time turned autobiography theory back on itself. Whether Hellman was historically ill-informed and politically na'fve, or deliberately malicious and deceptive, or all of the above, Scoundrel Time confounds the notion of historical "truth," and scrambles distinctions between her remembered personal experience, her historical responsibility, and her political agenda. Many critics fled back to a nineteenth century definition of autobiography as a historical science in order to combat what seemed to many as an unjustified attack that, according to Sidney Hook, amounted to "an act of political obscenity." 77 Hellman attempted to hide behind a vague notion of personal truth. Her defense was, "that's the way I saw it." She claimed, "I do not want to write about my historical conclusions-it's not my game." 78 Yet, precisely because Scoundrel Time was written as a memoir and not a novel, it throws into question the very theories that have been used to defend it. In Scoundrel Time Hellman constructs herself as a historic figure. Based on her account, she was a heroine fighting boldly and alone, "betrayed . . . by American intellectuals" who found patriotism "an easy refuge."? 9 By its genre Hellman's self-coalescing, . quasi-creative, autobiographical text is an historical and historicizing act. Moreover, as response demonstrated, Scoundrel Time was not merely an account of the past (fictional, malicious or otherwise); it was itself an action in present time. Ironically, the furor forced even Mary McCarthy, one of autobiography's early theorists, into a positivist corner. In Memories of a Catholic Girlhood, first published in 1946, McCarthy was one of the first to claim that autobiography should be understood as a personal expression, rather than an exact science. In her introduction, "To the Reader," McCarthy cautions, "there are cases where I am not 75 Sidney Hook, "Lillian Hellman's Scoundrel Time," Encounter 48, 82 (February 1977): 83. 76 Walter Clemons, "Memories Tricks," Newsweek 95, 76 (2 june 1980): 76. Although this is from Clemons's review of Maybe, he was describing a condition of discourse about Hellman that had begun with publication of Scoundrel Time. 77 Hook, 91. 78 Hellman, Scoundrel Time, 41. 79 Howard, New York Times, 10 June 1976, [n.p.) Li 11 ian Hellman 39 sure myself whether I am making some things up." 80 Suing McCarthy was a stunning act of irony on Hellman's part, one that forced Mary McCarthy to dissect Hellman's "truth" from her "I ies" in a series of formal depositions. 81 Conclusion: Maybe Hellman's self-reflexive Maybe appeared in 1981, at a time when, according to Olney, theorists had "dissolved the self into a text and then out of the text into thin air" and thus "announced the end of autobiography." 8 2 Olney o ~ e r v e s that: ; it is not that the self is altogether a fiction or a delusion and every emanation of it a deconstructable text, but that its ability to say " 1'; in a written text and to have any authority for that assertion has been of late so thoroughly compromised philosophically and linguistically and so thoroughly complicated literally that the very basis on which a traditional autobiography might be commenced has simply been worn away ... Is it all past tense, then, both with autobiography and criticism of it-.the former a mere stuttering and the latter no more than a babbling . about stuttering? 83
Hellman's Maybe, called by. some a "non-memoir," appeared in 1981, and if there ever was a babbling, stuttering book, this is one. It is a book which deconstructs itself. Its author cannot find her "1." Instead, the " I" is split between two women-the self and the "other. " The trope of two women, femal e doubles, which Hellman employs in several works, appears for the last time in Maybe. Fifty years earlier, in Children's Hour, it takes the form of Martha and Karen, and in that rendering of the double, the "other" must commit suicide. Some theorists posit that the character of Julia in Pentimento is also an 80 Mary McCarthy, "To the Reader," Memories of a Catholic Girlhood (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company 1957), 4. Many of the foundat ional notions used by theorists of autobiography appear in this introduction. See also, Timothy Dow Adams, Telling Lies in American Autobiography (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990), 85-120. 81 Rollyson, 516-528. 8 2 Olney, 22. 83 Ibid., 22-23 . 40 MAY incarnation of the beloved other, the self that Hellman wanted to become. Julia too is destroyed, not by her own hand, but by the (masculine) Nazis. The scene is particular in .its description that Julia's face-her identity-is destroyed. 84 The same double that she betrayed, killed off, or sold off in her plays returns in Maybe, and to some extent sets Hellman's mind at ease about being a woman. In this memoir, a sometime (male) lover remarks to Hellman that she "smells funny." 85 For years after the incident she is obsessed with her bodily odor and how to get rid of it. She bathes several times a day, trying to wash away the scent of herself. She meets an old friend-Sarah-who discloses that she slept with the same fellow years ago, and he told her the same thing. Hellman is much relieved; perhaps the man was simply being cruel. After this encounter, she does not see Sarah for many years; occasionally she hears about her, or believes she sees her on the street, but they do not speak. Ultimately, she is never sure if she knew Sarah at all, or even if she existed. Lillian Hellman's life-long collaboration in the masculinization of her persona was, perhaps, an effort to wash the "woman" from her skin. In Maybe, Hellman finally admits that she is part of a class, and that she shares an experience of a misogynistic, patriarchal culture with other women. Maybe is a haunting tale in which Hellman pursues her other self-the illusive, silent, seldom glimpsed Sarah, who provides comfort at a time when Hellman is obsessed with the sign of her difference. Holly Hughes has stated that "women only get two choices, good girl or bad girl. I'd rather be a bad girl." 86 Lillian Hellman's case is somewhat more complex. As a good girl she played by the rules, wrote well-made plays, and she was rewarded with the patriarchy's highest honors. However, being a good girl also meant she had to be a bad 84 Several theorists posit this idea of Julia as another "self" for Hellman, and some would like to believe a romantic connection which Hellman must resist by destroying the woman she desires. See, for example, Adams, 121-166. 85 Rollyson and Wright only perpetuate the issue of Hellman' s body odor by actually trying to historicize it! They make no observation that the whole issue could be a metaphor for the sexism she may have felt in life. Timothy Dow Adams is one of the few criti cs to recognized the character of Alex as a misogynist. Assumptions about smell have long been part of culturally imbedded oppression and othering of women, and persons of difference. In Maybe, Hellman spends the entire book like a blood hound on the scent of the cruel white male who told her she "smelled funny. " Clearly, this man was a stinker himself. 86 Holly Hughes, "World Without End," excerpted from " Sphinxes without Secrets: Women Performance Artists Speak Out," Outspoken Video Productions, 1994. Lillian Hellman 41 girl-drinking, raging, schlepping to the Russian front, throwing up on opening night, lopping the heads off turtles, and appearing as sexually promiscuous as a man. Hellman's sexuality and her rage became part of her commodified image. Her temper was rarely interpreted as feminine rage, but as a kind of masculinized "integrity." 87 Until the mid-1980s, Hellman's presence as token woman in the canon deflected criticisms of exclusivity and bias, while preserving the male hierarchy. Hellman's success became a foil which protected and shored up the male-identified American theatre for over five decades. It is useful to reclaim the story of this woman who made the most of a double bind. Lillian Hellman was a perpetual self dissembler. Though Hellman's plays reinscribe the status quo, there are disjunctures between her dramas and her life that eat away at those norms. Even the cultural commodification of her image, works against itself. Maybe is a memoir that begins to speak about Hellman's experience of her difference. It is, perhaps, the strongest piece of evi.dence we have to inform our understanding of Lillian Hellman as an American woman playwright. It provides a kind of pentimento effect as the Legend of Lillian Hellman fades. For those who read Maybe, there is no guarantee that Hel.lman-the-woman is speaking, no guarantee of a " voice." There is a scent-a sense-that makes the search for Miss Lilly worth taking from time to time, however. 87 See, for example, Robert Brustein, "Epilogue to Anger," in Critical Essays on Lillian Hellman, 260. Journal of American Drama and Theatre 11 (Spring 1999) The Lost Premiere of Tennessee Williams's Eccentricities of a N ightinga/e RICHARD E. KRAMER From 10 to 28 October 1967, Tennessee Williams's Eccentricities of a Nightingale was presented at the two-year-old Yvonne Arnaud Theatre in Guildford, Surrey, about thirty miles outside London. The production, directed by Philip Wiseman, an American who works in England, and starring Sian Phi II ips as Alma Winemiller opposite Kevin Colson's John Buchanan, Jr., was declared the "world premiere" of Williams's new version of the story of the Winemillers and the Buchanans of Glorious Hill, Mississippi. 1 Seven months later, the Theatre Society of Long Island announced the presentation from 14 to 26 May 1968 of the "American premiere" of Eccentricities at the Mineola Theatre. 2 The second of four plays in the inaugural eight-week season of Long Island's first all-professional repertory company," this Eccentricities, also dubbed the play's "New York premiere," 3 starred the original Stella Kowalski, Kim Hunter, as Alma, with Ed Flanders as John and James Broderick as the Rev. Winemiller. The director was Edwin Sherin, who later directed the 1976 production at Buffalo's Studio Arena Theatre that went on to Broadway. 1 [n.a.], "Tennessee Williams premiere," Stage and Television Today (London) 12 October 1967, p. 23; Ronald Bryden, "Theatre: Sir Winston as a German Everyman," Observer (London), 15 October 1967, p. 24; Sean Day-Lewis, "'Nightingale' on song but play is flat," Daily Telegraph (London), 11 October 1967, p. 17; Thomas Quinn Curtiss, "Theater: World Premiere for an Early Williams Play," International Herald Tribune, 14-15 October 1967, p. 6. 2 Mineola Theatre, Theatre Society of Long Island, "New Tennessee Williams Play to Premiere at Mineola Playhouse," press release, 3 May 1968. 3 Mineola Theatre, Theatre Society of Long Island, "L. I. 'Star Repertory' Season Hailed by L. I. Leaders," press release, 14 March 1968; "Repertory Company is Set for Mineola," Newsday (Garden City, NY), 24 January 1968, sec. A, p. 3; Mineola Theatre, Theatre Society of Long Island, "Tennessee Williams Premiere Will Take Place on L. 1.," press release, 10 May 1968. Eccentricities of a Nightingale 43 The problem with these proud pronouncements is that they were plain wrong. This was not an incidence of reinterpretation or spin; both the British and Long Island producers were simply flat-out overlooking three previous U.S. productions of The Eccentricities of a Nightingale, all quite professionally mounted and duly recorded in local newspapers. Furthermore, because of the publicity from the theatres and the press coverage of the two productions, the errors have become a permanent part of the historical record. In a 1965 announcement in London's Daily Telegraph of the prospective British production, Ronald Hastings emphasized that Williams's Eccentricities would be "the first play by this author to have its opening performance in Britain." 4 The British and international press went on to designate the Guildford Eccentricities, which International Herald Tribune critic Thomas Quinn Curtiss further erroneously identified as "the first draft of ... Summer and Smoke" and incorrectly predicted would go on to London's West End "before long,'' 5 as its "world premiere." The local paper, the Surrey Advertiser and County Times, even described Eccentricities as "a hitherto unstaged play by one of the greater American playwrights of the century." 6 Then, while acknowledging the earlier British presentation, the Theatre Society of Long Island also asserted in a press release that Eccentricities "has never been professionally produced in the U.S." 7 These assertions, too, became the record, as Long Island's own Newsday reported that the show was Eccentricities' U.S. debut, and jerry Tallmer of the New York Post wrote that Williams attended opening night "when, at long last, at the Mineola Theater, L.l., 'Nightingale' received its American premiere." 8 4 Ronald Hastings, "Plays and Players: Unviolent Williams," Daily Telegraph (London), 23 October 1965, p. 11. 5 Curtiss, p. 6. 6 j. W. P., "Acting of real quality," Surrey Advertiser and County Times (Guildford, Eng.), 14 October 1967, p. 8. The announcement of the theatre's season one week earlier in the Advertiser also referred to Eccentricities as a "World Premiere." 7 Mineola Theatre, Theatre Society of Long l51and, "Rockefeller and Kennedy Endorse Reper-tory Theatre on Long Island," press release, 19 April 1968; Mineola Theatre, press release, 3 May 1968; Mineola Theatre, press release, 10 May 1968. 8 Leo Seligsohn, "On the Isle: Williams' Nightingale Soars rnfrequently, " Newsday (Garden City, NY), 15 May 1968, sec. A, page 2; Jerry Tallmer, "Across the footlights: Williams vs. Williams," New York Post, 16 May 1968, p. 58. 44 KRAMER Once on the record for future writers or producers to look up, such statements simply become "The Facts." In Contemporary Authors, for instance, Williams's 1990 profile states that the first production of Eccentricities-noted only under Summer and Smoke, as a revision of that play-was in Washington, D.C., in 1966. 9 An earlier profile reports an unspecified "summer-stock tour" in 1964, and records a production at the "Guildford Theatre, London" in the fall of 1967. 10 Aside from its publication with Summer and Smoke, the play is not otherwise men- tioned in these lengthy profiles; not even the television or Broadway productions in 1976 are noted. Even when the 1976 Buffalo production that moved on to Broadway was reviewed by the Wall Street journal, critic Edwin Wilson asserted that Betsy Palmer had "performed in the first stage version" of Eccentricitie? when she played Alma in the sum- mer-stock tour that became the Studio Arena's one hundredth production. 11 Someone who knows that the play had been published in 1964 and suspects that a production had been mounted that year would still have a very difficult time locating even the spare New York Times coverage of the event. The Times calls itself "the paper of record," but looking up Tennessee Wi I Iiams or The Eccentricities of a Nightingale in the 1964 volume of the New York Times Index, under either books or theatre, reveals nothing. All three pieces that year are buried under the entry for the producing theatre, making the record easy to miss unless the researcher already knows a great deal of the actual history. No other U.S. newspaper has indexes going that far back, and such usual sources as the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature do not reveal any articles on either the production or the publication of the text. It is little wonder, then, that many have missed this significant little event. Because many chronologies of Williams's life and work do not even include Eccentricities, this factual confusion is seldom addressed. Indeed, Eccentricities, which Williams considered a new play rather than 9 W. Kenneth Holditch, "Williams, Tennessee," in Contemporary Authors, James G. Lesniak, ed., New Revision Series, vol. 31 (Detroit: Gale Research, 1990), 461. 10 [n.a.J, "Williams, Tennessee," in Contemporary Authors, Barbara Harte and Carolyn Riley, eds., First Revision, vols. S-8 (Detroit: Gale Research, 1969), 1254. Readers should note that this record is even internally inaccurate: the theatre was named the Yvonne Arnaud, and it was in Guildford, Surrey, not London. 11 Edwin Wilson, "Shufflin' Off to Buffalo-And Points West," Wall Street journal, 13 October 1976, p. 20; Studio Arena Theatre, "Betsy Palmer Opens Studio Arena's 12th Season in Tennessee Williams' The Eccentricities of a Nightingale," Press release, 27 September 1976. Eccentricities of a Nightingale 45 a revision of Summer and Smoke, 12 has generally flown under the radar of most Williams chroniclers and biographers. Even when the actual premiere is correctly identified, the writer does not mention, let alone refute, the other claims, so the error is not even acknowledged, much less laid to rest. There are, however, records that document the actual chronology of the birth of The Eccentricities of a Nightingale. Summer and Smoke, whose premiere was successfully presented by Margo jones's Theatre '47 in Dallas on 8 july 1947, had received devastatingly bad reviews in New York and closed on 1 January 1949. Having sailed for Gibraltar in December 1948 with his long-time lover, Frank Merlo, and his friend, writer-composer Paul Bowles, Williams was in Fez, Morocco, when he received the telegram announcing the clos ing. 13 He was devastated and bitter, but the character of Alma Winemiller was indelibly printed on his soul. She "seemed to exist somewhere in my being," he wrote, 14 and later, during rehearsals for the Broadway premiere of Eccentricities, Williams candidly acknowledged, "Look, lJ:n Alma." 15 Alma had actually first appeared earlier in 1947 as the main character of Williams's short story, 11 The Yellow Bird," originally published that June in Town and Country magazine. 16 She was named Alma Tutwiler then; Williams had first used the name Winemiller in another story, "One Arm," written between 1942 and 1945. Unable to shake her, even after the rejection of her latest incarnation, the 12 Tennessee Williams, "Author's Note," The Eccentricities of a Nightingale and Summer and Smoke: Two Plays By Tennessee Williams (New York: New Directions, 1964), 4. 13 Tennessee Williams, Memoirs (New York: Bantam Books, 1975), 200-202. 14 Ibid., 139. 15 Donald Spoto, The Kindness of Strangers: The Life of Tennessee Williams (Boston: Little, Brown, 1985), 353. Literary analysts will point out that the character of Alma Winemiller also contains elements of both WiUiams's mother, Edwina, who in her youth had been called a nightingale (see page 347), and his beloved sister, Rose. Ironically, Betsy Palmer, the actress who played Alma on Broadway, was also quoted as declaring, " I feel like I am Alma." (Marne Dimock, "Betsy Palmer Talks About Who She Is and Who She's Been," Courier-Express Magazine [Buffalo, NY], 17 October 1976, p. 16.) 16 Tennessee Williams, "The Yellow Bird," Town and Country Uune 1947): 40-41 1 102-03. 46 KRAMER playwright, one of whose friends came to call him "Tenacity" Williams, 17 determined to create a new play for the Nightingale of the Delta to inhabit. After closing on Broadway, Summer and Smoke had a meager production record until its reputation was resuscitated by the historic Off-Broadway revival in 1952. 18 There was a summer-stock run (22-27 August 1949) at the Mountain Playhouse in jennertown, Pennsylvania, whose only historical significance seems to be that it is believed to be the first summer-stock performance to include blind actors. 19 In 1950, the Portuguese-language premiere, 0 Anjo de Pedra (The angel of stone), opened at the Teatro Brasiliero de Comedia, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and in October of that year a tour of the Western states went out with film stars Dorothy McGuire and John Ireland as the would-be lovers and Una Merkel as Mrs. Winemiller. Williams, who seldom let a script alone even after it was published, continued to rewrite Summer and Smoke and in the summer of 1951, while on one of his many retreats to Rome, completed a new version. Letters Williams wrote between january and September 1951 to producer Cheryl Crawford and agent Audrey Wood attest to this. At the beginning of 1951, Williams wrote Crawford, who was producing The Rose Tattoo on Broadway at the time, "tam still working on the new 'Summer'. It has turned into a totally new play, even the conception of the characters is different," 20 and in June, he wrote: I am doing a completeJ new version, even changing the title as it now takes place in winter, and I think I have a straight, 17 Lyle Leverich on "Tennessee Williams: Wounded Genius," Paul Budline, wr. and dir., Edward Herrmann, narr., Paul Budline Productions, Biography, A&E Television Networks, 1998. 18 This famous production, credited with establishing Off-Broadway as a venue for serious drama, opened on 24 April 1952 at the Circle in the Square on Sheridan Square in Greenwich Village, New York City. Directed by jose Quintero, it starred Geraldine Page-founding both their careers and the reputation of Circle in the Square, and reviving those of Williams and Summer and Smoke-and used as its script, not the Broadway version, but the longer "literary" text. A resounding critical success, the production closed 19 April 1953 after 356 performances. 19 J. P. Shanley, "2 Blind Actresses in Summer Stock," New York Times, 9 August 1949, p. 21. 20 TennesseeWilliams, "LettertoCheryl Crawford, " (Rome, c. 1 January 1951), Typescript signed by Williams, Billy Rose Theatre Collection, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts. Punctuation is original. Eccentricities of a Nightingale clean dramatic line for the first time, without the cloudy metaphysics and the melodrama that spoiled the original production. 21 47 Williams was even contemplating returning the new version to the United States with "a big star like Peggy Ashcroft" or Margaret Sui Iavan, whom, apparently, Crawford had suggested. 22 By August, he was writing to Wood that he had completed a draft of the new script, which he was still calling Summer and Smoke, 23 and by September, he must have finished the revision because he wrote Crawford that he did not know which version the London company would present, "the new or old one." He added, "I prefer the new one." 24 He rushed off to London where a production of Summer and Smoke was in preparation by producer H. M. Tennant. Met at the airport by his friend Maria Britneva (later Lady St. Just), who was playing Rosemary in the production, he arrived too late to substitute the new script for the one "already deep into rehearsals," 25 under the direction of Peter Glenville who, ten years later, would direct the film version. Williams insisted that the script Britneva "put safely away," was The Eccentricities of a Nightingale-though that title did not appear until later correspondence-and that it did not resurface for "some 10 or 15 years." 26 A typescript of Eccentricities in the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts' Billy Rose Theatre Collection bears the date 20 June 1961, and letters to Robert MacGregor and Jay Laugh I in at New Directions, Williams's publisher, indicate that he was working again on 21 Tennessee Williams, "Letter to Cheryl Crawford," (Rome, 14 June 1951), Typescript signed by Williams, Billy Rose Collection, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts. Emphasis is original. 22 Ibid., (c. 1 January 1951, 14 June 1951). 23 Tennessee Williams, "Letter to Audrey Wood," (london, 23 August 1951), Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, University of Texas, Austin. 24 Tennessee Williams, "Letter to Cheryl Crawford," (Copenhagen, 8 September 1951), Manuscript in Williams's hand, Billy Rose Collection, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts. 25 Tennessee Williams, ' " I Have Rewritten a Play For Artistic Purity,"' New York Times, 21 November 1976, sec. II, pp. 1, 5. 16 Ibid. 48 KRAMER the new play, now under its present title, in 1963 and 1964.27 Except for a subtitle-The Sun That Warms the Dark (A very odd little play)-the typescript is nearly identical to the 1964 published text. 28 It would certainly be in keeping with his practice for Wil liams to have reworked even his new play over a decade, making additional changes to the characters and situation. 29 It is on record, to be sure, that Williams had begun Summer and Smoke, originally entitled A Chart of Anatomy, in St. Louis as early as February or March 1944. 30 He continued to work on it in Mexico in 1945-where he went to recuperate from one of a series of cataract operations-in New Orleans; in Taos, New Mexico; on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, in 1946-where he shared a cottage with Carson McCullers while she dramatized her novel, The Member of the Wedding-and on until well after its successful Dallas premiere. 31 A 27 Tennessee Williams, The Eccentricities of a Nightingale, or The Sun That Warms the Dark (A very odd little play), Typescript, 20 June 1961, Billy Rose Theatre Collection, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts; Tennessee Wil liams, "Letter to Robert MacGregor," (Key West, FL, 27 March 1963), Harvard Theatre Collection, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; Tennessee Will iams, "Letter to Jay Laughlin and Robert MacGregor, " (Key West, 6 May 1963), Harvard Theatre Collection; Tennessee Williams, "Letter to Robert MacGregor, " (8 April 1964), Harvard Theatre Collection; Tennessee Williams, "Letter to Robert MacGregor," (Key West, FL, 1 June 1964), Harvard Theatre Collection. The author has found no evidence that Williams focused on Eccentricities, under either its old or new title, between 1951 and 1961. Apparently Britneva, or perhaps someone else, did keep the script hidden away during the intervening decade. 28 An identical typescript is in the New Direct ions archive, but it has been marked for typesetting. Though no dialogue changes are indicated, the stage directions have been edited for reading clarity and other, non-performance aspects of the script have been standardized for pub I ication. The one change from the Library for the Performing Arts copy is that the play's subtitle has been crossed out, indi cating that it never again appeared on any version of the play. 29 For a brief discussion of one such possible change, proceeding from Williams' s Freudian psychoanalysis, see the author's " Summer and Smoke and The Eccentricities of a Nightingale" in Tennessee Williams: A Guide to Research and Performance, Phil ip C. Kolin, ed. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998), 86. 30 Ronald Hayman, Tennessee Williams: Everyone Else Is an Audience (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), 93. 3 1 Edwina Wi lliams and Lucy Freeman, Remember Me To Tom (New York: G. P. Putnam' s Sons, 1963), 194; Hayman, 93; Audrey Wood with Max Wilk, Represented by Audrey Wood (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1981 ), 148. The Theatre '47 premiere ran at the Gulf Oil Theatre in Dallas until 19 July 1947 (plus two additional performances on 2 and 10 August). Eccentricities of a Nightingale 49 typescript of Summer and Smoke in the Billy Rose Collection i.s labeled "Rome Version (March 1948)" and hand-annotated "Produced by Margo jones at the Music Box Theatre, 6 October, 1948." 32 If he reworked a "successful" script for four years, why not a "failed" one for a decade? It is not inconsistent, surely, and he did, indeed, furnish typed additions to the script of Eccentricities for a 1979 New Jersey production, three years after the Broadway outing. 33 Even if Williams did not see the revision of Summer and Smoke for a decade after 1951, he clearly worked over the new play between at least 1961 and the performance in 1964. In any event, publication of The Eccentricities of a Nightingale in a single volume with Summer and Smoke was scheduled by New Directions for October 1964. 34 The New York Times' June 1964 announcement of the forthcoming publication also noted that the new play would receive its premiere later in the month in Nyack, New York/ 5 but in a February 1965 review of the new text, eight months after the premiere had closed, long-time New York theatre critic George Freedley, also the first Curator of the New York Public Library's Theatre Collection since 1938, noted that his "own researching shows" that Eccentricities 32 Tennessee Williams, Summer and Smoke, Typescript, Rome Version, March 1948, Billy Rose Theatre Collection, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts. 33 The author was a member of the cast of this revival, presented by BergenStage (5-28 October 1979), a now-defunct professional company in the New York suburb of Teaneck, New jersey. Uoseph Catinella, "Stage: 'Nightingale' and 'Tobacco Road,"' New York Times, 14 October 1979, sec. 11, p. 16-17; Peter Wynne, '"Eccentricities' : Fine opener at Bergenstage [sic]," The Record (Hackensack, NJ), 8 October 1979, sec. A, p. 16. The typed changes were supplied as "sides" through Williams's agent and may not exist anywhere except in the collections of participants who, like the author, kept their scripts. Neither Williams's publishers (New Directions. for the "literary" edition and Dramatists Play Service for the "acting" edition) nor any of his current or past agents had any knowledge of these changes and additions. 34 Doris Funnye and Rose Arny, comp., "Author Index", s.v. "Williams, T.," and "Title Index," s.v. "Eccentricities of a Nightingale & Summer and Smoke," in "FaU Book Index, 1964," Publishers Weekly 186, 9 (31 August 1964). According to copyright records, the text was released on 31 December 1964; according to New Directions' records, the text was released on 12 February 1965 (George W. Crandell, Tennessee Williams: A Descriptive Bibliography (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995), 235). Publication on 12 February 1965 is confirmed by "New Books Today," New York Times, 12 February 1965, p. 26. 35 Sam Zolotow, "Publication Ends for Theater Arts: Williams in New Version," New York Times, 2 june 1964, p. 30. so KRAMER "has not been seen on any stage." 36 The New York Times announced the imminent premiere on 2 June 1964, something over three weeks before it opened, and the New York Herald Tribune gave full coverage to the opening on the day of the performance. 37 Edie Adams, the widow of Ernie Kovacs and already an accomplished star of television (The Ernie Kovacs Show, 1952-53, 1956; Here's Edie/The Edie Adams Show, 1963-64) and musical comedy (Wonderful Town, 1953; Li'l Abner, 1956), was to play Alma Winemiller in the summer-stock production directed by George Keathley at Bruce Becker's Tappan Zee Playhouse. Eight years earlier, Keathley, a friend and fellow Key West resident, had directed The Enemy: Time, 38 Williams's one-act version of Sweet Bird of Youth, at Studio M, the theatre Keathley ran in Coral Gables, Florida. That production starred Alan Mixon, who played John in the premiere of The Eccentricities of a Nightingale. 39 Local coverage began three days before the opening with an announcement in the Rockland County journal-News of Adams's impending appearance on the Nyack stage, though the paper made its own mistake by stating that Eccentricities would be Adams's "east coast stage debut." 40 That certainly had occurred at least on 25 February 1953 at Broadway's Winter Garden Theatre when she opened as Eileen opposite Rosalind Russell's Ruth in Wonderful Town, the Leonard Bernstein-Betty Comden-Adolph Green adaptation of Joseph Fields and Jerome Chodorov's My Sister Eileen. The premiere of Eccentricities was seen as such a major event in Nyack, in fact, that "Miss Adams and the cast, subscribers, New York and local celebrities" were bidden by engraved invitation to a "Special Buffet" at the elegantly appointed restaurant of Nyack's St. George Hotel on Burd Street after the debut performance. Proclaiming, "Many top celebrities have been invited to 36 George Freedley, "2 Versions of Play by Williams," Morning Telegraph (New York), 17 February 1965, p. 2. 37 Zolotow, p. 30; Stuart W. Little, "Rewritten 'Summer and Smoke' Makes Bow Tonight at Nyack," New York Herald Tribune, 25 June 1964, p. 8. 38 Pub I ished in The Theatre 1, 3 (March 1959): 14-17. 39 Mixon had so impressed Willfams that the playwright sent the young Floridian to his own agent, Audrey Wood, who convinced the actor to move to New York . . He would go on to play many Williams roles both before and after John Buchanan, Jr. 40 [n.a.], "Well-Known T.V. Star: Edie Adams Opens Nyack's T. Z. In Wil)iams Play This Thursday," Rockland County journal-News (Nyack, NY), 22 June 1964, p. 13. Eccentricities of a Nightingale 51 the opening," the journal-News noted that after all other opening nights, the "meet-the-cast party" would be at the YMCA. 41 The journal-News made much of Adams's "returning to her home area"-she had grown up in nearby Tenafly, New Jersey, and attended New York City's juilliard School of Music-and her original intention to become, like Alma Winemiller, a music teacher. Adams, for her part, saw the production as an opportunity to stretch her dramatic muscles. In an interview a few weeks before the opening, she acknowledged, " I had to fight to get away from the dumb blond parts. And I did. I was the ingenue and dumb blond so long that nobody thought I could do anything else." 42 Adams declared, "This one's for me .... It's a rewrite, all on the girl. You're on stage expounding for two and half hours." She suspended her busy schedule of "singing, dancing and frothy musicals" to do the production, which the paper still called Summer and Smoke, as "part of her education as an actress." Explaining that working on stage, especially in material like Eccentricities, was necessary to establish a reputation and talent for serious acting, Adams observed that "if I wanted to do summer stock shows and make money I could do that. ... But I wouldn't be proving anything. I'd just be away from home." 43 Pre-opening announcements and festive plans, of course, are not proof that a performance actually took place. Neither are press releases or program bookiets, all of which can be pubHshed and distributed before a performance which, due to various circumstances, does not occur. This, we shall see, was the basis for the claim made by both the subsequent British and Long Island productions. For the opening of a new play by one of America' s most renowned and respected playwrights, The Eccentricities of a Nightingale received scant critical attention outside Nyack. The New York Herald Tribune, while reporting that Adams had no plans to perform the show anywhere else-it was not a tour as the 1969 Contemporary Authors chronology recorded-had suggested that "she has not ruled out c arrying the play further at a future date." 44 The Herald Tribune later stated categorically 41 Ibid. 42 United Press International, " Summer and Smoke: Dramat ic Stint for Edie Adams," Morning Telegraph (New York), 5 June 1964, p. 2. 43 John S. Wilson, " Edie Adams Trains at Waldorf Not for Money, but Personality," New York Times, 10 April 1964, p. 28; United Press International, " Summer and Smoke, " p. 2. 44 little, p. 8. 52 KRAMER that the summer production had been a "pre-Broadway test." 45 Nonetheless, though the New York Times and the Herald Tribune had both announced the performances, neither reviewed the opening on Thursday, 25 June 1964. (Ironically, both papers covered the closing.) In fact, the only New York City paper which did review the Tappan Zee Playhouse production was the New York World-Telegram and Sun. After quoting Williams's statement-composed at the time of the play's pub I ication and restated in nearly every program and most production reviews-that the playwright thought that Eccentricities was a new play and better than Summer and Smoke, critic Norman Nadel complained that "Summer and Smoke never looked better than it does in comparison with this revision" and that Williams " has made Alma and the play more, rather than less melodramatic." He blamed "backstage blundering" for "a production that ranged from indifferent to catastrophic," specifically citing miscues in Clifford Ammon's lighting that caused inappropriate laughter among the spectators when lights went on or off at the wrong times, destroying "what might have been moving moments." Though he praised "some excellent supporting performances," particularly Alan Mixon's, Nadel went on, finally, to conclude that casting Adams was a "conspicuous error" and that All Miss Adams has done is to superimpose patterned eccen- tricities on a kooky and rather pitiful young woman who, toward the end of the play, abruptly becomes as overtly sexy as a TV actress doing cigar commercials. Alma in this new version is neither as complex nor as sensitive a character as Williams wrote for "Summer and Smoke," but her complexity and sensitivity go far beyond Miss Adams' ability to communi- cate them more than momentarily. 46 Nadel's cigar-commercial gibe was a reference to Adams's appear- ances as television's skimpily-costumed "Muriel Cigar girl" from 1962 until 1976. 4 7 He summed up his assessment of both the play and the 45 Little, p. 8; [n.a.], "The Area: Smoke Closes 'Smoke,"' New York Herald Tribune, 28 July 1964, sec. I, p. 28. 46 Norman Nadel, "The Theater: Indifferent New Williams Play Gets Botched-Up Showing," New York World-Telegram and Sun, 27 June 1964, p. 19. 47 Suzanne Adelson, "Life After Kovacs? Edie Adams Finds an Even Nuttier World of Her Own," People (3 May 1982): 68, 73. Eccentricities of a Nightingale 53 performance by proclaiming, "Subtlety and tenderness have been sacrificed all along the line." 48 Nyack's own Rockland County journal-News touted the "excite- ment" of seeing "variations on a familar [sic] theme" in Williams's new version of Summer and Smoke with the "added fillip" of "a new play, still in try-out." Critic Mariruth Campbell, citing part of the subtitle in the production's program, confirmed that Eccentricities was, indeed, "a very odd little play." The Nyack production was, in fact, the only one that ever carried the subtitle as it appears on the title page of the Billy Rose Collection's typescript. This suggests that director Keathley worked from this typescript or one like it, while subsequent productions were based on the published text, which did not bear the subtitle. Campbell did object that the play was "over-long" and noted, "Unfortunately the on-stage figures moving scenery [in full view of the spectators] amused the audience, breaking the continuity of mood for which Williams aimed." She praised Patricia Nielsen's set in general, however, and attributed the lighting and staging style-"no curtain, changes in lighting to designate scene changes," among other ele- ments-to "ancient oriental stage techniques." Campbell, in contrast to Nadel, pronounced Adams's performance "splendid," and applauded the rest of the cast who, she wrote, "[a]ll worked valiantly to breathe life" into the play. Campbell did criticize them, though, because "[m]any of the most important line[s] never were clearly heard." Blaming some of the "dreariness" on Keathley and the company, she complained, "In real life, words spoken under great stress may be without force, may be whispers; in the theater, those same wor[d]s must be in 'stage whispers', reaching the last row." 49 The ten-day run of The Eccentricities of a Nightingale, which launched the 1964 summer season at the Tappan Zee Playhouse, was scheduled to close on Saturday, 4 July. Sadly, early in the morning of Saturday, 27 june, just two days after the opening, a fire broke out in the theatre. Discovered just before three o'clock in the morning by Bob Olson, the Tappan Zee's house manager, the fire damaged the backstage 48 Nadel, p. 19. 49 Mariruth Campbell, "The County Stage: Edie Adams Scores at TZ In Summer Opening," Rockland County journal-News (Nyack, NY), 26 june 1964, p. 27. This passage contained several typographicat errors which the author has corrected here. The idiosyncrati c punctuation remains, however. 54 KRAMER dressing rooms. 50 Separated from the backstage area-originally a nineteenth-century livery stable to which the theatre had been added in 1903-by a thick brick wall, the auditorium suffered mostly water and smoke damage. The fire singed the edge of a stage drape and local firefighters-125 in all-cut into the theatre's roof in order to contain it. While the journal-News stated that neither the props nor the lighting instruments were damaged, the New York Times reported that the blaze destroyed props and costumes. In its report on the fire, whose origin was not determined, the Times quoted some prescient lines from the script's last scene: Alma: Where did the fire come from? john: No one has ever been able to answer that question. 51 Ironically, since the text of Eccentricities had not yet been published at the time of this report, someone associated with the Times seems to have been present at a performance, barring a pirated copy of the script, in order to have noted these lines. Apparently, the Times did not deem the production worthy of a published review, despite Williams's prominence and the intimations that the Tappan Zee production had been a Broad- way try-out. Along with his own assertion that no production of Eccentricities had been staged by the time of the play's publication, George Freedley's Morning Telegraph book review in February 1965 ~ s o quoted Williams as stating that there had as yet been no production of the play, but that statement had been part of his original "Author's Note" for the published edition, prepared in May 1964, before the premiere. In it, Williams wrote, "This radically different version of the play has never been produced." 52 This statement, which become part of the text's description in New Directions' advance catalogue, was circulated with review copies of the book. It was amended in August 1964, however, prior to publication and after the stage debut had occurred, to include the words "on Broadway," and that is how it appears in the 1964 published text 50 Virginia Parkhurst, "Theater Closed By Fire," Rockland County journal-News (Nyack, NY), 27 June 1964, pp. 1-2. 51 [n.a.], "Backstage Fire Halts Season at Tappan Zee," New York Times, 2 July 1964, p. 28. 52 Tennessee Williams, "Author's Note," Typescript, c. 8 May 1964, New Directions, New York; Tennessee Williams, "Letter to Robert MacGregor," (8 May 1964), New Directions; Robert MacGregor, "Letter to Audrey Wood," (8 May 1964), New Directions. Eccentricities of a Nightingale 55 and all subsequent editions. 53 Apparently Freedley, despite his critical and curatorial credentials, accepted Williams's advance statement as still valid in February 1965, overlooking the fact that a production had occurred in the meantime. Williams's amendment to his Author's Note in August 1964 certainly indicates that he would not have denied the following February a production that had been staged a scant eight months earlier. Furthermore, according to Adams, Williams had planned to come to Nyack from Key West to see the performance, 5 4 so he is unlikely to have said such a thing any time after, say, April 1964 when a brief profile of Adams in the New York Times mentioned that she planned to appear in the new play. 55 He would surely have the scheduled presentation by early June when the Times announced it in conjunction with the text's publication. 56 Unhappily, the Saturday morning fire having truncated the run, Williams did not make it north to see his new play on Tuesday, 30 June, as he had plannedP Both the British and Long Island producers gave the same justification for their claim that they were staging premieres of The Eccentricities of a Nightingale. Ronald Hastings, for example, reported in London's Daily Telegraph that "on what should have been the opening night of ' Eccentricities,' the [Tappan Zee Playhouse] building burned down, so the play has never been performed." 58 Then, in May 1968, the Theatre Society of Long Island declared that the "production scheduled for the Tappan Zee Playhouse in Nyack was cancelled [sic] when the theatre burned down two summers ago." 59 The Theatre Society of Long Island's assertion even had the time-frame wrong: the fire had been nearly four years earlier, of course, not two. 53 Robert MacGregor, " Note to 'OF/JF," ' Typescript, (9 August 1964), New Directions. Oddly, this amended wording was not changed for the publication of the acting script after the Broadway premi ere, though the Note bears the parenthetic comment, "Written prior to Broadway production." (Tennessee Williams, The Eccentricities of a Nightingale [New York: Dramatists Play Service, 1977], 5). 54 Little, p. 8. 55 .J. S. Wilson, p. 28. The press was still calling the play Summer and Smoke, however. 56 Zolotow, p. 30. 57 [n.a.], " The Area: Smoke Closes 'Smoke,"' sec. I, p. 28. 58 Hastings, p. 11 . 59 Mineola Theatre, " press release," 3 May 1968. 56 KRAMER None of the published reports of the fire and the closing of the theatre indicated that the theatre had "burned down," or that Eccentrici- ties had failed to get on the stage. Becker, who had gone to New York City with his wife and co-producer, Honey Waldman, after the second performance of Eccentricities to meet with Hermione Gingold's agent regarding the actress's mid-August appearance at the Playhouse in Arthur Kopit's Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mamma's Hung You in the Closet and I'm Fee/in' So Sad, believed he could reopen the Playhouse in two weeks or less. 60 On Monday, 6 July, ten days after the fire closed it down, the Tappan Zee Playhouse did, in fact, reopen, using trailers behind the theatre as temporary dressing rooms. Becker had broken a hole in the 14-inch theatre wall to give the actors access to them, but because he could not disrupt the theatre's summer schedule, the production that reopened the theatre was Preston Sturges's screwball comedy, Strictly Dishonorable, starring Cesar Romero. 61 Eleven years later, after several fires severely damaged it in the early 1970s, the historic Tappan Zee did close its doors for good, however; 62 In her opening-night review, Campbell, too, quoted ironic lines from the play: "The fire has gone out, nothing will revive it." 63 The Eccentricities of a Nightingale's premiere production stood at two performances. Still, it was a fully union-accredited, professional production of the first performance of a new play. Duly recorded in press reviews, both locally in the jour- nal-News and in New York City in the World-Telegram and Sun, and in after-the-fact reports of its closing in the journal-News, the New York Times, and the New York Herald Tribune, the Nyack Eccentricities fulfills all the requirements for an official world, American, and New York premiere, denying the 1967 Guildford and 1968 Mineola productions the right to claim those titles. The Guildford show, of course, remains the British premiere, but the Theatre Society of Long Island mounted merely one of several revivals in the 1960s. Furthermore, even if we discount the Tappan Zee Playhouse production somehow-and there seems no valid reason to do so-there were at least two productions between the ones at Nyack and Guildford 60 Parkhurst, 1. 61 [n.a.], "Tappan Zee Playhouse Uses Trailers as Dressing Rooms," New York Times, 7 July 1964, p. 23. 62 [n.a.], "Restored Nyack Theater Named for Helen Hayes," New York Times, 30 September 1989, p. 13; Alvin Klein, "Crace and Clorie in Nyack," New York Times (Westchester Edition), 22 March 1998, sec. 13, p. 1. 63 Campbell, p. 27. Eccentricities of a Nightingale 57 which would have earned the designation of premiere. First, on 20 April 1966-a year and a half before the production in Guildford and a little less than two years before the one in Mineola-Eccentricities opened at the Washington Theater Club in the District of Columbia as "the major city premiere," 64 which it was. This production, which ran until 15 May, can arguably be written off as a semi-professional staging. The director was the Theater Club's artistic director, Davey Marlin-Jones, later the theatre and film critic for WUSA-TV (formerly WTOP), the CBS-affiliate in the District, and the only name in the cast that might be generally recognized today was john Hillerman. 65 Principally a television actor, Hillerman, who played Vernon, the would-be poet in Alma's literary circle, is best known as the British major-domo of the Honolulu estate in the 1980s detective series, Magnum, P.l. It was a light-weight produc- tion, perhaps, but the one that followed is not so easily dismissed. Between 13 january and 5 February 1967, the Goodman Theatre in Chicago presented its revival of The Eccentricities of a Nightingale, nine months before the British premiere and 15 months before the Long Island revival. The Goodman, a long-established regional repertory theatre and one of this country's most highly regarded professional companies, surely cannot be ignored in a play's production history. In addition, the Goodman's production of Eccentricities included a curious historical footnote-possibly even a unique occurrence. Directed by Bella Itkin, the cast included Lee Richardson as john. 66 Richardson, who in 1952 went by the name Lee Richard, played the same character in the landmark Circle in the Square production of Summer and Smoke. The next significant productions of Eccentricities after 1968 did not . occur unti I the end of the 1970s, starting with its "Theatre in America" telecast on the Public Broadcasting Service's "Great Performances" on 16 june 1976 with Blythe Danner and Frank Langella in the leads and the belated Broadway premiere which opened at the Morosco Theatre with Betsy Palmer and David Selby on 23 November 1976. On 15 February 1979, the German premiere (and so far the only foreign-language production on record) opened under the title Die exzentrische Nachtigal/ 64 Davey Marlin-Jones, "Statement from the Director," program, Washington Theater Club. 65 fmerson Beauchamp, "Another Rewrite Job By Tennessee Williams," Evening Star (Washington, DC), 22 April 1966, sec. D, p. 14; Geoffrey A. Wolff, " At Theater Club: New Williams Play Is Well Produced," Washington Post, 22 April 1966, sec. D, p. 15. 66 Thomas Willis, "Williams' New Play Sexless," Chicago Tribune, 14 January 1967, sec. 1, p. 13. 58 KRAMER (The eccentric nightingale) at the now-closed Kammerspiele in DUsseldorf. Two productions in October that year, one by BergenStage in Teaneck, New jersey, and the other by the Westchester Regional Theater in Harrison, New York, are the latest documented professional stagings. The Broadway premiere had something of a curious history itself. Betsy Palmer and David Selby headed the cast of a summer-stock production of Eccentricities, appearing at such theatres as the Ogunquit Playhouse in Maine (19-24 July 1976), the Falmouth Playhouse on Cape Cod, Massachusetts (9-14 August), and the Pocono Playhouse in Mountainhome, Pennsylvania (17-21 August). Originally directed by jeffrey Chambers, this production had problems with its design, direction, and some of the supporting cast. 67 Neal Du Brock, Executive Director of the Studio Arena Theatre in Buffalo, took over for the last month of the tour. "The play was being buried under props and scenery," Du Brock complained of the summer-stock show. 68 He repackaged the production with the same stars but replaced half the cast and remounted the production at the Studio Arena from 8 October to 6 November 1976. Du Brock brought in Edwin Sherin to replace Chambers and a Broadway-quality design team to redo Michael Sharp's sets and Clifford Capone's costumes. When he turned the direction over to Sherin, who had previously directed Claire Bloom in a successful 1974 London revival of A Streetcar Named Desire, Du Brock ordered, "[T]hrow it all out and do it on an empty stage." 69 The producer wanted "to let the actors speak and not have all that other stuff cluttering things up/' and the result, both in terms of William Ritman's set and Theoni V. Aldredge's costumes, was a spare, almost minimalist production. Sherin, harking back to his 1968 attempt on Long Island, averred, "I think some vibrations are set off, and the play's effects are felt years and years later." 70 He came to Buffalo, he said, to take up the challenge of a play he had "failed to ignite the first time around." "It's bothered me ever since," Sherin admitted. "But now it's exactly the way I wanted to do it." Williams, who attended rehearsals and opening night in Buffalo, is reported to have "loved this concept." 67 Edwin Wilson, p. 20. 68 Doug Smith, "Studio's 'Nightingale' Uncluttered: In The Spotlight," Buffalo Courier-Express, 24 Oct. 1976, p. 27. 69 Roberta Plutzik, "Betsy Palmer Returning to Star in 'Eccentricities,"' Buffalo Courier-Express, 20 August 1976: p. 8. 70 H. C., "Candid Director Sherin Waiting For the 'All-Encompassing Play," Buffalo Evening News, 7 October 1976, sec. 2, p. 26. Eccentricities of a Nightingale 59 Critics in Buffalo apparently agreed/ 1 though the New York press found the production "skimpy." 72 The Broadway production closed on 12 December after only eight previews and 12 regular performances. The record, then, is unambiguous: The Eccentricities of a Nightingale premiered on 25 June 1964 at the Tappan Zee Playhouse in Nyack, New York. This was incontrovertibly the New York, American, and world premiere. The production mounted at the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre in Guildford in October 1967 was the British premiere. Intervening and subsequent U.S. productions, regardless of quality or other distinctions, 73 were merely revivals or narrowly-defined premi eres. 71 E. Wilson; Roberta Plutzik, "Studio Arena Review: Williams' Rewrite Well Performed," Buffalo Courier-Express, 9 October 1976, p. 16; John Dwyer, "The Studio Arena: ' Eccentricities' Excels; Betsy Tops Fine Cast," Buffalo Evening News, 9 October 1976, sec. C, p. 10. 72 Clive Barnes, "Stage: Williams' s 'Eccentricities,"' New York Times, 24 November 1976, p. 23; Martin Gottfried, ' " Eccentricities' and Frustrations," New York Post, 24 November 1976, p. 24. 73 There were a few singularities among some of these revivals. On 15 April 1977 a production of Eccentricities opened in Williams's hometown at the Greene Street Theatre in Key West ([n.a.], "'Eccentricities' Opens At Greene St.: Wi ll iams' Play Excellent & Overdue," Key West Citizen, 17 April 1977, p. 7) . Wi lliams attended the openir)g performance and gave it his own favorable review (Tennessee Williams, "I Am Widely .Regarded as the Ghost of a Wr.it.er.," New York i/iir:nes, '8 May 1977, sec. 2, pp. 3, 20) . For a productiorn '(2u-Z9 October 1978) at the nineteenth- century Bardavon Opera House :in P.o:CJglnkeepsie, New York, the Collingwood Repertory Company co.rnmissioned the Original Suite from The Eccentricities of a Nightingale from composer Joseph !Bertolozz i (Jeffrey Borak, "A new theater group is in town: .. . and the play., '!Eccentricities, "' Poughkeepsie journal, 20 October 1978, p. 2; Jeffrey Borak, " Risks outrun accomplishments in ' Eccentricit ies of Nightingale,"' Poughkeepsie Journal, 28 Qctober 1978, p. 9). The score, in manuscript, is in the collection of the American Music Center in New York City. The above-mentioned 1979 revival by BergenStage incorporated not only material cut from the official acting edition of the text, but typed additions supplied by Williams, himself. journal of American Drama and Theatre 11 (Spring 1999) "Emasculating Tom, Dick, and Harry": Representations of Masculinity in Susan Glaspell's The Verge CYNTHIA 0. SMITH Linda Ben-Zvi begins the article "'Murder She Wrote': The Genesis of Susan Glaspell's Trifles" with an eloquent explanation of society's fascination with women who kill men. Women killing somebody else, especially when that somebody is male, has fascinated criminologists, lawyers, psychologists, and writers. Fascinated and frightened them . . . . Women who kill evoke fear because they challenge societal constructs of femininity-passivity, restraint, and nurture-thus the rush to isolate and label the female offender, to cauterize the act. Her behavior must be aberrant, or crazed, if it is to be explicable. And explicable it must be; her crime cannot be seen as societally-driven if the cultural stereotypes are to remain unchallenged. 1 This explanation, if lifted from the analysis of Trifles, easily applies to the murderous actions of Claire Archer in Glaspell's The Verge. The physical act of murder which ends The Verge clearly provides the same hint of fear and fascination as Minnie Foster Wright's crime against her husband, especially since Claire strangles the one man she truly loves in what begins as a moment of passion. However, Claire' s more subtle forms of murder throughout the text force the reader or audience member to question the playwright's political and social intentions. Critics and scholars tend to romanticize Claire's final violent act as an expression of freedom, a gift of life, or as a gesture symbolic of women's fight for individuality and freedom from male oppression. Unfortunately, few scholars acknowledge Claire's manipulative and harsh 1 Linda Ben-Zvi, '"Murder She Wrote' : The Genesis of Susan Glaspell's Trifles/ ' in Susan Claspe/1: Essays on Her Theater and Fiction, ed. Linda Ben-Zvi (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), 19. The Verge 61 treatment of the male characters from the first lines of the play to the last. If striving for a feminist viewpoint, Glaspell falls short because she emasculates the male characters so that they seem to have no gender identity. Even her choice of names, Tom, Dick, and Harry, presents men as two-dimensional stereotypes. While not negating the female protagonist's emergence as an individual and as a woman attempting to break free of oppression, a careful study of the text reveals that Glaspell constructs the male characters not as agents of their own fates but as objects of Claire's wrath and victims of her seemingly selfish actions. juxtaposed w ith historical trends in concepts of American manhood leading up to the play's premiere in 1921, the masculinities represented in Anthony, Dick, Harry, and Tom merit re-examination as do the means by which Claire renders each of the men ineffective and powerless in her interactions with them. Glaspell's reductive treatment of male gender identities undermines the feminist goals of the text, which remain as relevant for modern readers as for Glaspell's contemporaries. In order to fully appreciate Glaspell's attempt at de-essentializing the feminine roles assigned to women through Claire's uninhibited nature, one must evaluate the male identities within this text as possible hindrances to that attempt. Despite the efforts of feminist and gender theorists such as Judith Butler to acknowledge the constructed nature of gender identity for both males and females, scholars of masculinity and manhood recognize the frequent neglect of men's gender identities in the realm of feminist studies and writings. Although men are viewed as the oppressors, scholars must remember when approaching a text such as The Verge that men also suffer victimization under the dictates of gender roles and sexuality. Michael Kimmel's Manhood in America covers the history of manhood and of masculinities in American culture while addressing the importance of recognizing that the gender of both males and females is similarly constructed under the pressures of society. 2 Kimmel begins his study with this observation made by historian Thomas Lacqueur, "Woman alone seems to have 'gender' since the category itself is defined as that aspect of social relations based on difference between the sexes in which the standard has always been man." 3 In other words, according to Lacqueur, man is the unnamed gender; standards of masculinity are linked to our notions about what human beings should be like. An 2 Michael Kimmel, Manhood in America (New York: The Free Press, 1996). 3 Thomas Lacqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Creeks to Freud (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 22. 62 SMITH examination of the male characters in The Verge can reveal the extent to which masculinity is also a marked gender. Approaching this text by means of the male characters requires a thorough understanding of masculinities and manhood and the forces which have created masculine gender roles. Kimmel defines masculinity, as a constantly changing collection of meanings that we construct through our relationships with ourselves, with each other, and with our world. Manhood is neither static nor timeless; it is historical. Manhood is not the manifestation of an inner essence; it is socially constructed. Manhood does not bubble up to consciousness from our biological makeup; it is created in culture. Manhood means different things at different times to different people. We come to know what it means to be a man in our culture by setting our definitions in opposition to a set of 'others'-racial minorities, sexual minorities, and above all, women. 4 Kimmel also offers a slightly different perspective of masculinity than that provided by many feminist scholars: "Masculinity, we were told, was defined by the drive for power, for domination, for control. .. . Manhood is less about the drive for domination and more about the fear of others dominating us, having power or control over us." 5 According to Kimmel's studies, the fear of domination stems largely from interaction with other men, which he identifies as the basis for homophobia. Kimmel's theory of the connection between homophobia and masculinity serves as an important foundation for studying the gender relationships in The Verge. Kimmel views masculinity as a homosocial enactment which renders men susceptible to comparison with other men in defining their masculinities. 6 "Masculinity defined through homosocial interaction contains many parts, including the camaraderie, fellowship, and intimacy often celebrated in male culture. It also includes homophobia. . . . Homophobia is the fear of other men-that other men will unmask us, emasculate us, reveal to us and the world that 4 MichaelS. Kimmel , " Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity," in Theorizing Masculinities, eds. Harry Brad and Michael Kaufman (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publ ications, Inc., 1994), 120. 5 Kimmel, Manhood in America, 6. 6 lbid., 7. The Verge 63 we do not measure up, are not real men . . . . " 7 In developing this view of homophobia, Kimmel asserts the importance of other men's judgment and approval of one's actions. To admit weakness, to admit frailty or fragility, is to be seen as a wimp, a sissy, not a real man. But seen by whom? Other men: We are under the constant careful scrutiny of other men. Other men watch us, rank us, grant our acceptance into the realm of manhood. Manhood is demonstrated for other men' s approval. It is other men who evaluate the performance. 8 Throughout the text, Claire continually compares Tom, Dick, and Harry and encourages them to compete for her approval. As discussed in the following pages, their masculinities fall subject to Claire's manipulation of their relationships to her and to each other, playing upon this sense of homophobia. A brief look into the history of American masculinity and into the changes in feminism which directly affect the period in which the play premiered contextualizes the positions of the four men within society and in relationship to Claire as a woman. In his book, The Changing Definition of Masculinity, Clyde W. Franklin designates two distinct periods: "The Strenuous Life (1861-1919) and "The Companionate Providing Period" (1920-1965). During the " Strenuous Life Period," separate spheres still remained for men and women; however, women started the move into the public sphere, threatening the positions of men within society. Also during this period, the definition of masculinity focused on being the antithesis of the feminine rather than the childish, and these differences established the beginning of the of femininity in the American culture. In the "Companionate Providing Period," romance marked relationships between men and women, just as it does those between Claire and the three men, and the country witnessed a decrease in age differences between couples. Labeling the man as the provider identified masculinity during this era and encouraged more aggressive, competitive behavior among men in the public sphere. 9 An element of this period highly relevant to Claire's 7 fbid., 8. 8 Kimmel, "Masculinity as Homophobia;" 128. 9 Clyde W. Franklin, II, The Changing Definition of Masculinity (New York: Plenum Press, 1984), 7-8. 64 SMITH exchanges with Dick and Tom is the perception of sex as recreational, whether premarital or extramarital. Not only did manhood undergo several changes during these two periods but as Liza Nelligan observes, feminism experienced an increase in momentum and stronger objectives. Nelligan points out that The Verge was produced in 1921, less than five years after Trifles, yet the intervening years had seen monumental historical events that had profound impacts on the expression and interpretation of feminism in the early 1920s: World War I, the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and the corresponding backlash (the 'Red Scare') in the United States all contributed to feminism's entrance into a period of metamorphosis with a promise of boundless possibility for change . . .. With the vote finally won feminists were in a position to formulate comprehensive strategies addressing the economic, political, and psychological boundaries that impeded women's ability to move freely within the social system. 10 Women desired additional freedoms and autonomy, which Glaspell demonstrates in her construction of Claire. The influence of these varied cultural shifts upon Glaspell's writing emerges in the relationships of the characters and in the ways Claire fights to obtain her freedom through manipulation. Evaluating Claire's relationship with each of the four male characters in the text reveals the shortcoming of previous studies: the lack of attention given to the male characters as individuals and as important figures in the text. Many scholars simply dismiss the three major male characters as the cardboard cut-outs Glaspell has seemingly intended them to be. Veronica Makowsky observes, Glaspell is not unproblematically presenting Claire as a monster of egotism since the men who surround her, the representative Tom, Dick, and Harry, do not seem worthy of much serious attention. Her husband Harry just wants a wife who wi II be the I ife of the party so he tries to fit her horticultural experiments into a suitably feminine paradigm .... Her lover Dick just wants his ego boosted by a beautiful woman who befongs to another man; he dismisses her experiments as 'merely the excess of a 10 Liza Maeve Nelligan, "'The Haunting Beauty from the Life We've Left': A Contextual Reading of Trifles and The Verge," in Susan G/aspe/1: Essays on Her Theater and Fiction, 90-91. The Verge particularly rich temperament'. The man who does understand her experiments, the ironically named explorer Tom Edgeworthy, is unwilling to risk the challenge of an experimental relationship with Claire; he is about to run away on his next journey to avoid exploring his own or Claire's inner space. When he offers to keep Claire 'safe' she is momentarily lured, but then shoots him. 11 65 Makowsky falls into the trap of many other scholars who view the males as mere stereotypical representations and exhibits the typical lack of interest in these characters when she claims Claire shoots Tom rather than strangling him. In this view, each of the male characters represents a different masculinity and a different position within Claire's life which most scholars simply label as husband, lover, and confidant, while Anthony disappears completely from the criticisms of the text. By evaluating Anthony, Dick, Harry, and Tom in the context of the dramatic action, we can see that the play depicts more than Claire's struggle for autonomy. It also addresses the degradation and emasculation suffered by each man. Anthony, although usually overlooked, occupies an important position in the play. He emerges as the only male who avoids conflict with Claire; however, Glaspell depicts Anthony as entirely submissive to Claire's every wish and command. His complete obedience and allegiance to Claire are demonstrated clearly throughout the text but displayed most pointedly in the opening scene and in the closing scene. As the play begins, Anthony appears alone on the stage in the greenhouse answering a late night call from Claire and then reappears at a later time in the morning. Glaspell's stage directions emphasize his subservience to Claire: (ANTHONY is at work preparing soil-mixing, sifting. . . . The buzzer sounds. He starts to answer the telephone, remembers something, halts and listens sharply. It does not buzz once long and three short. Then he returns to his work. The buzzer goes on and on in impatient jerks which mount in anger. Several times 11 Veronica Makowsky, Susan Glaspell's Century of American Women: A Critical Interpretation of Her Work (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 79. 66 SMITH ANTHONY is almost compelled by this insistence, but the thing that holds him back is stronge;Y 2 The thing that holds him back is his desire to keep the telephone line clear for Claire's call. HARRY .... Now, what do you mean, Anthony, by not answering the phone when I buzz for you? ANTHONY. Miss Claire-Mrs. Archer told me not to. HARRY. Told you not to answer me? ANTHONY. Not you especially-nobody but her. HARRY. Well, I like her nerve-and yours. ANTHONY. You see, she thought it took my mind from my work to be interrupted when I'm out here. And so it does. So she buzzes once long and-Well, she buzzes her way, and all other buzzing-(59) Similar . instances occur throughout the text displaying Anthony's obedience to Claire's demands and his refusal to help anyone other than her. He never contradicts Claire or acts independently from her control and influence. Even when she has murdered Tom, Anthony tries to take the blame, "I did it. Don't you see? I didn't want so many around. Not-what this place is for." (58) Glaspell notes in the first description of Anthony that he is "a rugged man past middle life.'' (1 00) He is a hired servant or employee of Claire's, definitely not a participant in the social rankings of the other three men, and thus his submission is based on his social class in comparison to other males as much as it is a result of Claire's domination of him. In part, Claire controls Anthony through his masculinity, gaining his allegiance by giving him a power the other men do not have: the surveillance and supervision of the greenhouse. As Kimmel notes, "The hegemonic definition of manhood is a man in power, a man with power, and a man of power. We equate manhood with being strong, successful, capable, rei iable, in control. The very definitions of manhood we have developed in our culture maintain that power that some men have over other men and that men have over women." 13 In The Verge, Anthony has no power of his own; therefore, according to Kimmel's "hegemonic 12 Susan Glaspell, "The Verge," in Plays by Susan C/aspe/1, ed. C. W. E. Bigsby (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 58. All subsequent citations from this text will be noted parenthetically in the text. 13 Kimmel, "Masculinity as Homophobia," 125. The Verge 67 definition" of American manhood, his limited, secondary power, dependent on a woman, is a sign of his lack of requisite masculinity. Glaspell provides another example of weak, ineffective manhood in her representation of Richard Demming, or Dick. Dick functions as Claire's sexual companion and provides Claire's adulterous adventure, one which she continually uses to taunt her husband and thereby intimidate Dick. Even in front of her husband, Claire refers to her affair with Dick, enjoying the risk of arousing Harry's anger with no regard to the consequences for Dick. CLAIRE. (with no ill-nature) I care nothing about your ease. Or about Dick's ease. DICK. And no doubt that's what makes you so fascinating a hostess. CLAIRE. Was I a fascinating hostess last night, Dick? (softly sings) 'Oh, night of love'- (from the Barcarole of 'Tales of Hoffman') HARRY. We've got to have salt. (He starts for the door. CLAIRE slips in ahead of him, locks it, takes the key. He marches off, right.) CLAIRE. (calling after him) That end's always locked. DICK. Claire darling, I wish you wouldn't say those startling things. You do get away with it, but I confess it gives me a shock-and really, it's unwise. (62) Dick proves to be ineffective in convincing Claire to be silent on the subject of their involvement, and finally, Claire pushes Dick into conflict with Harry when she takes refuge in her lover's embrace in the last scene of Act Two. Harry's realization of the affair initiates a battle to prove masculinity in which Dick fails to assert his "manhood" by hiding behind Claire when faced with Harry's revolver. Claire interrupts Harry's pursuit of Dick in the greenhouse, easily taking controi of the revolver from her husband. Dick's dependence on Claire's adoration to define his masculinity surfaces under her careless disregard for words in defending his life. CLAIRE. To make yourself ridiculous? If I ran out and hid my head in the mud, would you think you had to shoot the mud? DICK. (stung out of fear) That's pretty cruel! CLAIRE. We11, would you rather be shot? HARRY. So you just said it to protect him! CLAIRE. I change it to grass. (nodding to DICK) Grass. If I hid my face in the grass, would you have to burn the grass? (94) 68 SMITH Claire is obviously unconcerned for Dick's feelings or for Harry's distress at this moment. She manipulates the situation, preventing both men from expressing their feelings or frustration by dominating the confrontation with her own sarcasm. In summarizing the studies of Joseph Pleck, Clyde Franklin notes that women have two types of power over men, one of which is expressive power, as seen in this example with Claire. Masculine identity in American society dictates that men display no emotion; therefore, males tend to vicariously express their emotions through women, depending upon them for emotional vitality, thereby allowing the women this expressive power. 14 Dick allows Claire to define the tone of his fear and frustration throughout the text with her sarcasm and lack of emotional intimacy, thus rendering him emotionally and mentally impotent in his interactions with Claire, Harry, and Tom. Claire relegates Dick to a position of mere sexual virility, using him for her own efforts to escape from the mundane and to manipulate the expressive power she holds over him. The text reveals that Claire's initial attraction to Dick stems from his efforts to create art using lines that make "nothing," that is, rejecting form, just as Claire attempts to do with her plants. Dick's artistic rejection of form, however, serves only as the initial attraction and allows Claire to lose interest when he fails to display the same abandon of convention in his psychological and emotional states. Dick's artistic individuality fades into the background in his affair with Claire, leaving him dependent upon her for all expression and approval. In many ways, Dick serves as Claire's catalyst for provoking emotion and passion in her husband Harry. Unlike Anthony and Dick, Harry attempts to control Claire through his position as her husband. Using Dr. Emmons, Adelaide, Elizabeth, and his concept of domestic responsibility to entice Claire's submission and conventionality, Harry embodies the oppression that Claire struggles against so vehemently. Harry's masculine identity depends upon his possession of his wife and his ability to protect that claim. Harry's actions exemplify the view that "women themselves often serve as a kind of currency that men use to improve their ranking with other men." 15 In order to display his wife, Harry repeatedly urges Claire to behave as a proper wife should, warning her against certain language and against appearing too serious or disturbed. Harry even ignores her remarks about Dick by simply reprimanding her for inappropriate jokes. 14 Franklin, 13. 15 Kimmel, Manhood in America, 7. The Verge 69 CLAIRE. (gaily) Careful, Dick. Aren't you indiscreet? Harry will be suspecting that I am your latest strumpet. HARRY. Claire! What language you use! A person knowing you only by certain moments could never be made to believe you are a refined woman. (64) Harry's discomfort with Claire's language parallels his uneasiness with her horticultural experimentation. HARRY. But it's growing on her. I sometimes wonder if all this (indicating the place around him) is a good thing. It would be all right if she'd just do what she did in the beginning-make the flowers as good as possible of their kind. That's an awfully nice thing for a woman to do-raise flowers. But there's something about this-changing things into other things-putting things together and making queer new things. (65) Claire's fascination with her work threatens Harry's position within the domestic and public sphere. His wife assumes a profession that replaces her home with the greenhouse, a stance symbolically represented in Claire's channeling all heat from the house out to the plants. By enlisting the support of Dr. Emmons and Adelaide, Harry displays his distress caused by Claire's behavior and the struggle he faces with her assertion of autonomy. Michael Kaufman makes an observation about the relationship between men and feminism that Glaspell demonstrates in the relationship between Claire and Harry. The rise of feminism has shifted the balance between men's power and men's pain. In societies and eras in which men's social power went largely unchallenged, men's power so outweighed men's pain that the existence of this pain could remain buried, even nonexistent. When you rule the roost, call the shots, and are closer to God, there is not a lot of room left for pain, at least for pain that appears to be linked to the practices of masculinity. But with the rise of modern feminism, the fulcrum between men's power and men's pain has been undergoing a rapid shift. This is particularly true in cultures where the definition of n ~ s power had already moved away from tight control over the home and tight mohopolies in the realm of work. 16 16 Michael Kaufman, "Men, Feminism, and Men's Contradictory Experiences of Power," in Theorizing Masculinities, 154. 70 SMITH Harry hopes to re-initiate Claire into the sphere of domesticity through the persuasion of her sister and the psychologist; however, his attempts to pull Claire back into his influence and realm of power creates a backlash that forces Harry to prove his manhood. In her distress over the confrontation with Harry, Adelaide, and Dr. Emmons, Claire rushes into Dick's embrace, choosing not to disguise her physical involvement with him. Harry's position as her companionate spouse faces the threat of destruction at the hands of another male. Claire's action seems to exemplify the second type of power that women possess over men, "masculinity-validating power." Franklin explains: Because few men accept self-definitions of masculinity from other men, according to Pleck ... most men depend on women to tell them emotionally that they are members of the masculine gender. Pleck feels, by the way, that most women only pretend for men, realizing that this is a need that men have. At any rate, women assuming submissive roles for men often do so only to make men feel good. Women also sometimes refuse to accept their submissive roles in an effort to make men feel bad. The mere fact that women often determine whether men feel masculine or non-masculine attests to the power that women have over men . 17 From this perspective, Claire turns for protection and security to Dick rather than her husband, displacing Harry from his position as the protector and provider. Presenting Dick as the physical threat to Harry's manhood, Claire inadvertently forces Harry to resort to his only remaining device, violence. "Violence is often the single most evident marker of manhood. Rather it is the willingness to fight, the desire to fight. .. . As adolescents, we learn that our peers are a kind of gender police, constantly threatening to unmask us as feminine, as sissies." 18 In the company of other males, such as Dr. Emmons, Tom, and even Anthony, the need for Harry to defend his power and masculinity against the threat of Dick' s physical intimacy with Claire encourages the Act Three chase into the greenhouse with the revolver. Harry never fully commits an act of violence against Dick, largely due to Claire's crippling emasculation of her husband, but he nonetheless demonstrates the willingness to fight and defend his 17 Franklin, 13. 18 Kimmel, "Masculinity as Homophobia," 132. The Verge 71 position. Claire devalues Harry's act of manhood when she acknowledges that even his rage of passion is worthless in her esteem and pales in comparison to her creation of Breath of Life. Once the plant appears, Harry no longer occupies a position within Claire's life, and he loses any grasp he held on their marriage. Claire finally breaks free from the oppression represented by her husband and domesticity; however, Claire's agency in achieving this freedom destroys the one human being she truly loves, Tom Edgeworthy. Tom shares Claire's sense of adventure and her need to escape into freedom. Glaspell constructs Tom as the pioneer and the man searching for new frontiers. Tom's plans throughout the text revolve around his decision to leave permanently and reach out to experience his own freedom in a new place. In many ways Tom fits the description of one type of male identified by E. Anthony Rotundo in American Manhood-the "existential hero." Rotundo states, Another strategy for establishing a relationship between male passion and modern life is represented by the "existential hero. " This ideal grows out of a belief that there is, in fact, no proper place for true masculine impulse within modern society. The hero who lives by this belief is suspicious of authority, wary of women, and disgusted with corrupt civilization. If he would be true to the purity of his male passions and principles, he must-and can only-live at the margins of society. 19 Tom's desire to move outside of American society and to escape into his own idea of freedom can be seen as characteristic of the existential hero; however, Tom has a tragic flaw. He refuses to associate Claire with the constraints of society and sees her as the embodiment of the freedom he hopes to attain. In this respect, Glaspell's construction of Tom's masculinity eliminates the suspicion of women and their sphere that usually characterizes the existential hero. In fact, Tom's complete trust in Claire's ideals make him the strongest version of masculinity within the text. Tom is Claire's confidant and the only man she trusts to help preserve her ideals of freedom and experimentation. Tom defends Claire's actions in Act One and attempts to help Harry understand her. TOM. Let her be herseiL Can't you see she's troubled? 19 E. Anthony Rotundo, American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era (New York: Basic Books, 1993), 286. 72 SMITH HARRY. Well, what is there to trouble Claire? Now I ask you. It seems to me she has everything. TOM. She's left so-open. Too exposed. . . . Please don't be annoyed with me. I'm doing my best at saying it. You see Claire isn't hardened into one of those forms she talks about. She's too-aware. Always pulled toward what could be-tormented by the lost adventure .... HARRY. Claire was the best fun a woman could be. Is yet-at times. TOM. Let her be-at times. As much as she can and will. She does need that. Don't keep her from it by making her feel you're holding her in it. Above all, don't try to stop what she's doing here. If she can do it with plants, perhaps she won't have to do it with herself. HARRY. Do what? TOM. (/ow, after a pause) Break up what exists. Open the door to destruction in the hope of-a door on the far side of destruction. (71) Unfortunately, Tom's understanding and connection with Claire ultimately enable her to destroy him. After Claire's initial confrontation with Harry and Adelaide, Tom comes to her rescue in the tower and brings the argument to an end. In their isolation from the rest of the house, Claire asks Tom to embark on a physical relationship w ith her which she believes will transcend all of her other experiences. Tom's understanding of Claire's aspirations for freedom and purity of life prevent him from succumbing to her offer. CLAIRE. (with the simplicity that can say anything) I want to go it, Tom, I'm lonely up on top here. Is it that I have more faith than you, or is it only that I'm greedier? You see, you don't know (her reckless laugh) what you're missing. You don't know how I could love you. TOM. Don't, Claire, that isn't-how it is-between you and me. CLAIRE. But why can't it be-every way-between you and me? TOM. Because we'd lose-the open way. (the quality of his denial shows how strong is his feeling for her) With anyone else-not with you. (85) Claire refuses to accept Tom's reject ion of a physical relationship and continues to try to persuade him, playing upon his understanding of her ideas of beauty and freedom to bring him closer to agreement with her decision. When Tom persists in his rejection, Claire manipulates his position as a male in comparison with other males and touches upon the The Verge 73 homophobia that Kimmel identifies as an element in the construction of manhood. Claire blatantly stabs at Tom's self-image as a man with, "Wouldn't men say you were a fool!" (87) By striking at Tom with this powerful remark, Claire challenges him to defend his masculinity and his sexual prowess in fear of domination by Dick, Harry, or simply men in general. Claire's tactic aims to evoke the male fear of not measuring up to other men; therefore, she pointedly refers to the judgments of other men rather than herself as the determining factor in Tom's manhood. When she realizes this attempt to demean and threaten his virility fai Is, Claire pursues her manipulation even further by trying to wield expressive power over Tom with the emotional account of the memory of her son and his yearning to fly. Claire attempts to dictate Tom's emotional state by recalling the one male figure in her life she believes would have broken into the freedom she desires. Claire appears to be co.axing Tom into a sexual relationship which she believes possesses the same potential for true freedom she remembers being in her young son's reaching toward the stars. By relating the desired sexual freedom to the lost hope in her son, Claire strives to spur Tom into proving his manhood by fulfilling the one position which all males before him have failed to maintain. This attempt also fails and Tom sustains his own identity and belief in his and Claire's ideals of freedom. Claire's shameless attempts to seduce Tom end when the other characters return to the tower; however, once Tom returns to her the next morning to accept her offer, in his belief that she truly wants the physical relationship, Claire fears that their physical intimacy threatens to trap her and capture them within a form or pattern. With this realization, Claire slowly tightens her grip around Tom's neck and suffocates him. Scholars such as Nelligan and Karen Malpede believe that Tom offers Claire only another form of oppression and a fixed mold of his ideas of beauty 20 and romantic love, 21 but throughout the play, Tom promotes Claire's actions and yearnings in opposition to the views of her husband and Dick. Tom emerges as the only male character of the three who encourages and inspires Claire's creativity, regardless of the effects it has on their relationship. Tom's refusal of physical intimacy arises from his desire to respect Claire as he knows her, and his later acceptance of the offer displays his willingness to share his own plans for freedom and escape with Claire. Claire's final act of murder destroys the one form of 20 Nelligan, 97. 21 Karen Malpede, "Reflections on The Verge," in Susan C/aspe/1: Essays on Her Theater and Fiction, 124-125. 74 SMITH masculinity that supported and encouraged her quest for individuality and freedom. The destruction of this supportive masculine identity reflects the fears men of the Suffrage era faced as women fought to gain their own freedoms. Female workers, reformers, and activists of this period not only campaigned for their right to vote but also struggled for equality within the labor movement resisting the ideas of domesticity and submissiveness which defined women's relationships with men up to this point. As an example of an upper-class career woman during this era, Claire brings to life men's worries that women with power and equality will only work to destroy the ideologies and structures that were allowing the male-dominated society to thrive. Modern historical accounts of the women's movement and the American labor movement of the early twentieth century shed light on the lives of lower-class women who formed networks to further their efforts for equality, many of them including men. Female reformers such as Rose Schneiderman and Pauline Newman realized the importance of incorporating the support of men in their efforts to improve the lives of female workers and gain more freedoms. 22 These women and the organizations they founded served to establish working relationships between men and women of this period and bridged many of the tensions surrounding this assertion of female rights. However, the female Glaspell creates in Claire fails to acknowledge the difference between those males who hoped to restrict her freedoms and the one male who sought to become a partner in her freedom. Claire emerges as a woman who chooses to destroy all men rather than respect the possibility of shared goals and desires. Claire's goals for freedom focus entirely on her own existence and in the process deny the same freedoms of expression and individuality for Tom. Tom's death portrays the figurative death many men of this period believed to be looming within the aims of the feminist movement. Claire, as popular sentiment suspected to be typical of all women, emasculates all of the men in her life and kills the only one she could not emasculate, eliminating at the same time his proffered support and possibly undermining the feminist aim of-the play. 22 For a full account of the lives and achievements of Fannia Cohn, Rose Schneiderman, Pauline Newman, and Clara Lemlich Shavelson, see Annelise Orleck, Common Sense and a Little Fire: Women and the Working-Class Politics in the United States, 1900-1965 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995). Orleck traces their careers throughout the American labor movement, identifying the networks they established within the work place, government, and their personal lives which furthered the efforts of working-class women The Verge 75 The Verge is admired and respected for the vivid, controversial characters and events it depicts, yet scholars fail to agree on the result of G laspell's "political" message or intentions. The fi nal act of murder provides a direction for the play that many believe defeats any feminist purposes embedded in the female protagonist's struggles or at least serves as a warning against pushing feminist ideals beyond reason. Arthur Waterman believes, We must realize that Claire has gone too far. Like many of Susan Glaspell's heroines she seeks some form of expression for the complete life. She can mouth sentiments Miss Glaspell must have felt herself, but Claire's final actions indicate that the playwright was making her an extreme case for dramatic purposes and was acknowledging the limitations that have to be placed on aspiration, the boundaries beyond which no one may go.23 Waterman's comment suggests that Glaspell uses Claire as an example of the abuses of liberation and as a lesson to women who place their goals for self-expression beyond society's supposedly safe limits. Contrary to Waterman's view, Marcia Noe recommends that if scholars view the play "as a play written in the female mode, and as an attempt not to celebrate feminism or illustrate male oppression but, rather, to represent, through Claire, the female experience, we have taken an important first step in coming to terms with this play." 24 There are two problems with this view. First, the assumption that the text achieves a " female form" and portrays the "female experience" relies upon the essentialist view of gender roles and of women's experiences, thereby relegating all females to Glaspell's constructed example of Woman and oppressing women and men within prescribed gender roles. This view of the text robs Claire of her individuality just as she denies the male characters their individual masculinities. Secondly, the image Glaspell presents of Claire's individuality creates an image of a fanatical woman who destroys all manhood regardless of individuality and seeks only to gratify self-serving agendas. In the midst of early twentieth century feminism, the embodiment of feminist qualities coupled with the harsh, emasculating treatment of the men in the text risked the possible 23 Arthur E. Waterman, Susan C/aspe/1 (New York: Twayne Publ ishers, Inc., 1966), 81 . . 24 Marcia Noe, "The Verge: l'fcriture Feminine at the Provincetown," in Susan Claspe/1: Essays on Her Theater and Fiction, 132. 76 SMITH promotion of anti-feminist ideals within the American society. As discussed earlier, women's refusal of strict domesticity and submissiveness to men figured as an intimidating force in and of itself; however, Claire's emasculation of the men in her life sent the message that men were completely expendable. In a society already faced with explosive social changes, a character such as Claire can potentially create a backlash amongst men against the feminist goals of the era. If women like Claire display no regard for the identity and validity of masculinity and manhood, why should men respect and encourage the development of womanhood and female independence? The difficult task lies in determining whether Claire is a positive example of female creativity and individuality or a self-defeating version of feminism, emasculating every male in her path. Nelligan summarizes the difficulty of accepting or rejecting Claire Archer: The Verge anticipates a feminist audience that fully expects to find a character with whom they can sympathize by giving them Claire Archer, a heroine who privileges her right to self- development over maternal and wifely devotion, articulately demands satisfying and egalitarian relationships with men, and is committed to exposing and destroying the conventional social boundaries that crush her individuality. At the same time, Glaspell gives them an unquestionably disturbing character: a mad, inchoate, unsympathetic woman who rejects her daughter, abuses her sister, betrays her husband, and murders one of her lovers because he wants to 'save' her from madness. This, too, is Claire Archer. Through this character Glaspell asks uncomfortable questions about the consequences of a radical individualism that rejects any quality traditionally associated with the female sphere. 25 Nelligan's observation adequately characterizes the dilemma encountered when trying to evaluate The Verge as an example of feminist writing. It is important to recognize that Glaspell demonstrates the inherent difficulty in creating a text that avoids oppressive representations of gender, for in her attempt to construct a strong female character, she victimizes the male characters by diminishing the importance of masculinity. Despite scholarly opinions that Tom, Dick, and Harry present colorless, two-dimensional images of manhood, all three provide insights into the importance of gender and the construction of gender roles in 25 Nelligan, 91-92. The Verge relationships, whether with other men or with women. Claire's strong spirit and quest for individuality provide the background for a fully realized example of the freedom experienced in breaking from oppression; however, Glaspell diminishes the effectiveness _of the female protagonist by allowing her to manipulate and degrade the four men in her life. The Verge depicts the dual nature of gender as it applies to women and men equally, confronting both sexes with the struggle to maintain independent identities in the face of society's constructed categories of behavior. Anthony, Tom Edgeworthy, Richard Demming, and Harry Archer must not be allowed to disappear into the background of Claire's frantic journey to escape gender oppression as just any "Tom, Dick, or Harry," nor must Claire be forsaken for her yearning to experience the pure beauty of self-recognition. Journal of American Drama and Theatre 11 (Spring 1999) "Beware of Tourists if You Look Chinese" and Other Survival Tactics in the American Theatre: The Asian(cy) of Displat rn Frank Chin's The Year of the Dragon ROBERT ji-SONG Ku The Spectacle of Buying Fish I once had an epiphany buying fish on Canal Street in Chinatown, New York City. Not wanting to pay twelve dollars for a pound of salmon in my own neighborhood uptown, I had come downtown to pay just five. As I handed the fishmonger my money, I first noticed her in my vision's periphery: a woman, white, rigged with a camera, amidst a stormy sea of people in the crowded sidewalk of Canal Street. Her costume and gestures easily gave her identity away: she was a tourist. And at that instant, she pointed and shot. Thus we were captured-the fishmonger and me. As she walked away, my instinct was to chase after her, demand an explanation, maybe even payment. If I was to show up on her vacation slide show along with the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge, I wanted to be paid, damn it! But I wasn't in the mood. I had had enough. t had had enough of chasing after tourists. (I grew up in Hawaii-need I say more?) Besides, if this was the price I had to pay for saving seven dollars for a pound of fish, so be it. What irked me perhaps more than anything else was her brazen presumption: how dare she presume I was a native? Never mind I don't live in Chinatown; hell, I'm not even Chinese! But to be treated as such-1 don't know-as such a casual spectacle! To be ambushed like wild game; to unwillingly become a salve for soothing the touristic pangs of a total stranger-it was more than I could bear. I'm just buying fish, for heaven's sake! Yes, I once had an epiphany buying fish on Canal Street: 1 I take my title from Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett's Destination Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), perhaps the most engaging and lucid study to date of the polit ics and problems of ethnographic objects. She writes: "Destination Culture deals with agencies of displays in museums, festivals, world's fairs, historical recreations, and tourist attractions" (1 ; emphasis added). Frank Chin 79 if you look Chinese, beware of tourists, lest you become a souvenir. Better yet, stay away from Chinatown. We Become Who We Pretend to Be As the curtain rises on Frank Chin's The Year of the Dragon, the audience sees a lone figure on stage. He is Fred Eng, a professional tour guide in San Francisco's Chinatown. Although he stands alone, it is clear as soon as he starts talking that we-the theatregoing audience-are supposed to imagine a group of people gathered around him. It is the week of the lunar New Year, eve of the Year of the Dragon, and the phantom throng surrounding Fred are tourists enjoying the festive colors and sounds of Chinatown. The play opens as Fred greets the day's last tour group: We'come a Chinatowng, Folks! Ha. Ha. Ha . . . Hoppy New Year! Fred Eng. "Freddie" of Eng's Chinatown tour' n'travoo. " We tell Chinatown where to go." Ha ha ha. I'm top guide here. Allaw week Chinee New Year. Sssssssshhh Boom! Muchee muchie firey crackee! Ha. Ha. Ha ... 2 Then, there is a sudden transformation-namely, Fred's demeanor and manner of speech: But you're my last tour of the day, folks. And on my last tour of the day, no hooey. I like to let my hair down. Drop the phony accent. And be me. just me. I figure once a day, I have got to be me. (71) By dropping his fake pidgin, Fred lets his audience in on the joke: Surprise! I'm not the goofy Chinaman you assumed I'd be. More importantly, he places himself into their confidence: Hey, I'm being straight with you, trust me, I won't rip you off. Fred makes expl icit the implicit reality of tourism, a truth that is often rendered invisible by the labyrinthine institutional practices of tourism and only reluctantly made visible: tourism is a commercial enterprise, an exchange of goods and services for money. As such, Fred plays the role of a used car salesman who voluntarily opens the hood of a lemon before he is asked to do so by the customer. At the very same instant, however, in allowing Fred to 2 Frank Chin, The Chickencoop Chinaman and The Year of the Dragon: Two Plays (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1988), 71. Subsequent references to this text will be cited parenthetically in the text. 80 jJ-SONG Ku drop his fake pidgin, to forego the performance of the Chinese goo( Frank Chin allows his audience (that is, the theatregoer) in on a slightly different joke, one that might not be as benign: Surprise, you idiot! There's no such thing as a goofy Chinaman; he's just a figment of the-or your-white racist imagination. Both Fred and Chin offer their customers an object lesson, the former masking it as a bargain and the latter as an insult: Beware of the fake Chinaman, beware of the lemon. Fred cont inues his sales pitch as both audiences gaze on: So tonight, I'm gonna take ya where I eat, "The Imperial Silver jade Empress." Good home cookin and souvenir chopsticks. I figure you folks who come ~ me after dark really want to know. You wanta see the Chinaman albino the color of Spain, and the sights only Chinatown's topguide can show ya. I might show' em to ya tonight, folks. You make me feel good. I like ya. Goon Hay Fat Choy .. . (71) With these words of candor, Fred leads the group of excited and pleased tourists to dinner, an activity he repeats day after day as his profession demands. But this is where another transformat ion takes place, where another layer of impersonation-or performance-is stripped from Fred. This time, however, only Chin's audience is in on the joke. As he walks off the stage at the end of this opening scene, Fred mutters to himself under his breath (inaudible to Fred' s audience but not Chin's) : "Goddam motherfucking . . . " (71) Pulsing beneath the layers of performance and impersonation are not only bitterness and contempt for the tourist trade but also for the American theatre. With a line of foul language, Frank Chin rips the mask off the face of the American theatregoer to reveal what is to him a pathetic visage: tourist. You are not so different from the tourists in Chinatown, Chin mocks his audience. The American theatre is no different from a tourist site when it comes to so-called "ethnic" plays. The desire of the theatre audience and the desire o( tourists are one and the same. And, w ith a self-loathing matched in degree only by Fred Eng, Chin confesses: I am not so different from Fred Eng. I am Fred Eng. We' come a Chinatowng, Folks! Ha. Ha. Ha. Can a so-called ethnic American playwright-say a Chinese American-hope to do more than play the role of the tour guide in the American theatre? If he aspires to transcend this role, will anyone care, will he have an audience? Will they come? By staging the stage as a tourist site in the first scene of his play, Frank Chin reminds the audience of something they already know but will never admit: the real reason they Frank Chin 81 have come to the theatre is to gawk at something Chinesey," something authentically Chinesey-something no hooey Chinesey. They are tourists, after all. The Chinese, of course, have been the object of carnival curiosity in the United States for almost two hundred years, and, as early as the mid- nineteenth century, "Chineseness" appeared in America as a novelty item on display. In Marginal Sights, james Moy tel1s us that. the "notion of Chineseness under the sign of the exotic became familiar to the American spectator long before sightings of the actual Chinese." 3 An imagined idea of the Chinese, therefore, framed and dictated the way spectators were to interpret the meaning of the actual Chinese if and when they eventually encountered it. As Moy puts it: "From the onset, then, the Chinese in America resided solely in the province of the imaginary." 4 One of the earliest actual sightings was Afong Moy, a "Chinese Lady" placed on display in New York City in 1834. For three years, she "performed her Chineseness at several locations, including the American Museum, Peals Museum (which would later be purchased by P.T. Barnum), and unnamed venues located at 8 Park Place, the Brooklyn Institute, and the Saloon." 5 By the end of the nineteenth century, the human display of the Chinese-along, of course, with human representations from other "alien races"-in American museums, circuses, freak shows, world's fairs, and theatrical venues was- quite commonplace. It is this mixture of the freakish, ethnographic, and touristic that Chin appears to be eliciting in the opening scene of The Year of the Dragon. Playing the role of docent is Fred Eng, who, as a Chinese body displayed before an audience, is both impresario and human attraction. But he is not what he appears to be, for he, like a trickster, plays a complicated and multileveled game of pretend. He knows what he is not. Or does he? As the play progresses, the theatre audience (but not the Chinatown tourists) eventually discovers that Fred once had a dream, all but forgotten now: to be a writer to write the Great American Novel. Fearing that no one will take a novel by a Chinaman seriously and needing to financially support his family, Fred applies his literary talents to the more lucrative profession of the tour guide. By the end of the play, the audience discovers the source of his bitterness and self-loathing: in Frank Chin's words, a Chinese Chinatown tour guide is 3 James Moy, Marginal Sights: Staging the Chinese in America (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1993), 9; emphasis added. 4 lbid., 10. 5 Ibid., 12. 82 ji-SONG Ku by definition "a Chinaman, playing a white man playing Chinese .... A minstrel show." 6 Fred has become the thing he pretends to be. A Belated Introduction: Getting It Out of the Way (A Sad Attempt) He is the only true pariah in Asian American literature, the one writer no one is supposed to agree with, take seriously, or, god forbid, find endearing. (Even as I write this, I look nervously over my shoulders, just in case someone is wagging a disapproving finger at me.) This is no hyperbole-it is impossible to write about him without first dealing with the question of Frank Chin. I use the phrase "the question of" as Edward Said does in The Question of Palestine, to "refer to some long-standing, particularly intractable and insistent problem. . . . to suggest that the status of the thing referred to in the phrase is uncertain, questionable, unstable: the question of the existence of a Lock Ness monster, for example." 7 Of course, I am in no way equating the plight of Frank Chin to that of the Palestinians, although it is often difficult to distinguish the acrimony of Chin's critics from the feelings of bitter enmity that exist between Zionists and Palestinians. As one Asian American critic put it somewhat mildly: "Contemporary Asian American critics tend to be somewhat embarrassed by Frank Chin's angry and misogynistic works." 8 The phrasing of this observation makes it obvious; this critic is among those embarrassed (note the adjectival use qf "angry" and "misogynistic" to describe Chin's works). I dare say, this embarrassment is not limited to critics but, in effect, the entire Asian American literary establishment, be they writers, scholars, or educators. The intensity of Chin's writings has led one prominent scholar of Asian American literature to ponder whether she, as a Chinese American woman and a scholar, is obligated to choose between feminism and Chin's "patriarchal constructs of masculinity." 9 She detects in Chin's works not only sexism but also homophobia that "imply predatory violence against women," which 6 Quoted in Dorothy Ritsuko McDonald, "Introduction," The Chickencoop Chinaman and The Year of the Dragon, xxii. 7 Edward Said, The Question of Palestine (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), 4. 8 josephine Lee, Performing Asian America (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997), 61 . 9 King-Kok Cheung, "The Woman Warrior versus The Chinaman Pacific: Must a Chinese American Critic Choose between Feminism and Heroism?" in Conflicts in Feminism, Marianne Hirsch and Evelyn Fox Keller, eds. (New York: Routledge, 1990), 236. Frank Chin 83 leads her to implore: "Women of color should not have to undergo a self- division resulting from having to choose between female and ethnic identities." 10 A recent experience of a colleague illustrates quite nicely the degree to which Frank Chin still, after all these years, gets under the skin of almost everyone in the field of Asian American literary studies: after delivering a paper on Chin at an academic event, the first response she received (from the chair of the panel no less!) was distressed and indignant: "But we can't so easily forgive him, can we?" Indeed, s n ~ t taking Chin's works seriously tantamount to redeeming sexism and homophobia? Isn't the question of Chin the only valid subject for criticism and scholarship? We can't so easily forgive him, can we? Authenticity is Big Bucks! The Year of the Dragon premiered at the American Place Theatre in New York City in 1974 to predominantly white audiences. 11 A videotaped PBS production for Theatre in America followed in 1975. 12 Given that the majority of the American television audience, like the U.S. population in general , was white in the mid-1970s (as it obviously is still), it should be safe to assume the audience for the PBS broadcast was also predominantly white. Prior to this, there was only one major American theatrical production set entirely in Chinatown, the immensely popular Rodgers and Hammerstein musical based on C.Y. Lee's Flower Drum Song (1958). The Year of the Dragon is a direct, spit-in-your-face riposte against and a parody not only of the shameless Lee-Rodgers-Hammerstein "visions of Chinatown as exotic menagerie," 13 but also of the perverse orientalia of every other major theatrical production with Asia as a subject matter: Madame Butterfly, The King and I, M. Butterfly, Miss Saigon, Shogun, The Colden Child. In the words of Josephine lee: The Year of the Dragon complicates a supposedly unseen and privileged spectatorial positioning by drawing attention to the racialized nature of audiences and the conspicuous consumption of Asian spectacles both inside and outside the theatre. If the 10 Ibid., 246. 11 lee, 35. Jl McDonald, xx. 13 Lee, 45. 84 Jr-SONG Ku curious tourist seeks in Chinatown a glimpse of the "real" Chinese .. . the strategy of Chin's play is to address such presumptions directly, ridiculing the spectator who looks for the reality of Chinatown in stereotypes. 14 Through his play, Frank Chin offers the view that Chinese America having .. sold its soul, is without integrity and "Chinatown is a Shangri-La, a Hollywood set." 15 The "real" Chinatown is not "what is seen by the thousands of tourists" during the New Year's parade," 16 but something else-something embodied in .the abject resentment that tears at the soul of Fred throughout The Year of the Dragon. In order to attract customers, all in Chinatown turn all of Chinatown into a stage upon which a// of Chinatown puts on a show-the longest running show in American history. But Frank Chin offers his white audience something Fred cannot afford (financially or otherwise) to offer his-the third layer of staged authenticity dressed up in the costume of a cheap velvet curse: Goddam motherfucking. Authenticity is big bucks, and it must, as the law of supply and demand dictates, continually be manufactured, displayed, and marketed. "The touristic way of getting in with the natives is to enter a quest for authentic experiences, perceptions and insights,'' 17 writes Dean MacCannell in his astutely instructive The Tourist: Touristic consciousness is motivated by its desire for authentic experiences, and the tourist may believe that he is moving in this direction, but often it is very difficult to know for sure if the experience is in fact authentic. 18 John Urry, in The Tourist Gaze, adds: The tourist is a kind of contemporary pilgrim, seeking authenticity in other "times" and other "places" away from that person's everyday life. Particular fascination is shown by tourists 14 Ibid., 46. 15 McDonald, xx. 16 1bid. 17 Dean MacCannell, The Tourist (New York: Shocken Books, 1989), 105. 18 Ibid., 101. Frank Chin in the "real lives" of others which somehow possess a reality which is hard to discover in people's own experiences. 19 85 Tourists are thus trapped in what amounts to a manifold of stage sets 20 where they, admittedly or not, premeditatedly undergo anxiety about the authenticity of the sights before their gaze. If a tourist comes to believe that the object of his gaze is not the real thing but just "hooey" intended to fool him, his anger and dismay will ultimately result in the resentment of being ripped off. If, on the other hand, he is confident about the authenticity-however il l usory-of the site of his gaze he will accordingly feel satisfied about getting his money's worth. In describing the touristic activity of "slumming," Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett writes: Slumming . . . takes the spectator to the site, and as areas are canonized in a geography of attractions, whole territories become extended ethnographic theme parks. An ethnographic bell jar drops over the terrain. A neighborhood, village, or region becomes for all intents and purposes a living museum in situ. The museum effect, rendering the quotidian spectacular, becomes ubiquitous. 21 This begs the question: Are the Chinese Americans who live in Chinatown just people or actors? Is Chinatown for all intents and purposes not only a living theatrical stage, as MacCannell implies, but also a living museum, as Kirshenblatt-Gimblett argues? If, say, a Chinese woman in Chinatown engages in the utmost quotidian act, say, of buying fish, is she just living or is she performing? Is this a simple question of audience, "some philosophical conundrum like the one about the tree falling in the forest and no one hearing it?" No, "that is a puzzler for college freshmen." 22 No, the woman buying fish, caught_ helpless in the 19 John Urry, The Tourist Gaze (London: Sage, 1990), 8. 20 According to MacCannell: "The current s t r u c t u r ~ development of society is marked by the appearance everywhere of touristic space. This space can be called a stage set, a tourist setting, or simply, a set depending on how purposefully worked up for tourists the display is." ( 1 00; his emphasis) 21 Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Destination Culture, 54 . . 22 I borrow this clever analogy from M.R. Montgomery's Saying Goodbye: A Memoir for Two Fathers (New York: Knopf, 1989). 86 ji-SONG Ku powerful gaze of the tourist, transmogrifies into a grotesque phantasm of touristic desires and systems of ethnographic signs and freakish spectacles. When Fred's sister Mattie suggests to her brothers Fred and johnny that they follow her example and move out of Chinatown, saying "Out there we'll be able to forget we're Chinamen, just forget all this and just be people," johnny responds coldly: "You have to forget you're a Chinatown girl to be just people, Sis?" (110) Frank Chin answers johnny's question in the form of a question: Is there an alternative? Isn't it this or nothing? The Semiotics of Buying Fish In Destination Culture, Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett asserts: It is one thing ... when ethnography is inscribed in books or displayed behind glass, at a remove in space, time and language from the site described. It is quite another when people are themselves the medium of ethnographic representation, when they perform themselves [wittingly or unwittingly, I might add], whether at home to tourists or at world's fairs, _ homelands entertainments, or folklife festivals [or on the theatrical stages]- when they become living signs of themselvesY Once upon a time, I became a living sign of my Chinese non-Chinese self while buying fish in Chinatown. Perhaps I should have gone after the tourist and demanded payment. A dollar would have been enough-fifty cents for me, fifty cents for the fishmonger. We need to make a living, after all. "Bigger Than Kentucky Fried Chicken " Is it, in fact, this or nothing? For an aspiring Chinese American playwright, is it the tourist trade or nothing? Contrary to popular belief, Frank Chin is not a pariah because of his sexism and homophobia. To repeatedly point out Chin's sexism and homophobia is akin to repeatedly pointing out T.S. Eliot's anti-Semitism or Howard Stern's sexism. It is too easy, too unimaginative, too boring. It is unhelpful. Frank Chin is a pariah because he points his finger and names names: C. Y. Lee, Maxine Hong Kingston, Amy Tan, David Henry Hwang-you are all Fred Engs, but without the resentment, without the third layer of performance. You 23 Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 18. Frank Chin 87 do not know how to curse because you love who you are. You enjoy being what you pretend to be. Chin writes: Kingston, Hwang, and Tan are the first writers of any race, and certainly the first writers of Asian ancestry, to so boldly fake the best-known works from the most universally known body of Asian literature and lore in history. And, to legitimize their faking, they have to fake all of Asian American history and literature, and argue that the immigrants who settled and established Chinese America lost touch with Chinese culture, and that a faulty memory combined with new experiences produced new versions of these traditional stories. This version of history is their contribution to the stereotypes. 24 It is this sort of rhetorical and literary strategy of hyperbolism that has confused Chin's critics, who mistake the hyperbolic for the literal. This is especially true of those who accuse him of narrow cultural nationalism. But how can we not take him at his word? they ask. How can we not be embarrassed and disgusted by his homophobia when he says for all to hear: No wonder David Henry Hwang's derivative M. Butterfly won the Tony for best new play of 1988. The good Chinese man, at his best, is the fulfillment of white male homosexual fantasy, literally kissing white ass. Now Hwang and the stereotype are inextricably one. 25 Isn't it Chin who takes Hwang too literally? Doesn't he mistake Hwang's performance for the real? Perhaps where Chin and Hwang differ is in their respective attitudes toward the institution of the American theatre and the hypocrisy of the American theatregoer. Ch-in believes that it is impossible to critique an institution without implicating the willing participants in that so-called 24 Frank Chin, "Come All Ye Asian American Writers of the Real and the Fake," in The Big Aiiieeeee!, Jeffery Paul Chan, Frank Chin, lawson Fusao lnada and Shawn Wong, eds. (New York: Meridian, 1991), 3. 25 Jeffery Paul Chan, Frank Chin, Lawson Fusao lnada, and Shawn Wong, "Introduction," in The Big Aiiieeeee!, xiii. Although signed by all four editors, I take a risk by attributing the primary authorship of the essay to Chin. Given the familiar Chinian tone and language of the piece, however, I do not think my assumption is too farfetched. 88 ji-SONG Ku liberal institution. Rightly or wrongly, Chin is convinced that Hwang is an apt symbol of the Chinaman who mistakes his token success in the mainstream American theatre for artistic merit. Is it a coincidence that the first play by an Asian American playwright to finally appear on Broadway is a so-called postmodern revival of the ultimate white fantasy, Madame Butterfly? (Is it a coincidence that Miss Saigon, yet another revival of Madame Butterfly, is among the most popular attractions for tourists who visit New York City?) Hwang, therefore, is Mattie in The Year of the Dragon, who blithely returns to Chinatown fourteen years after she left it, with Ross, her "China-crazy white husband," (69) in tow. Although Mattie has returned to Chinatown under the guise of visiting her ailing father who is dying of lung cancer, she has really come with the mission to persuade her family to move out of Chinatown, a place she loathes. Mattie is also, together with Ross, Mama Fu Fu, the author of a Chinese cookbook, looking to commercially expand into a Chinese food franchise. She, in fact, has also come back to Chinatown to wind up a promotional tour of her cookbook. When Ross says to her, "Well, here we are, honey. You're back home," she answers, "This wasn't my home then. It's not my home now. My home is with you in Boston, Ross. Nowhere else." (76) Manufacturing and selling things Chinese may be her profession but she is not of things Chinese-or so she believes. In fact, it is Ross who is boyishly excited about visiting Chinatown. He is the one who admittedly aspires "to be more Chinese" (78) than Mattie. He speaks Mandarin and is fascinated only by everything Chinese. (Implied here, of course, is that Ross's marriage to Mattie is yet another manifestation of his fetish for Chineseness. Mattie, on the other hand, starved for white approval and knowing her desirability to "China-crazy" white men, plays the part of the fetishised oriental object to a tee, too ashamed to admit that she has already become the thing she pretends to be.) When Fred gives a cynical, wise- ass, if not hostile reply to every comment Ross makes, Mattie comes to his defense: SIS: Freddie, quit that! Ross, I don't think Fred wants to talk about Chinese things right now ... ROSS (overlapping SIS's last line): Oh, don't be silly, Mattie. Why shouldn't he want to talk about his culture with a sincerely interested student of all things Chinese? (79) Fred's reply is predictably virulent: "Because I'm a tourist guide and I run forty to sixty of you ... " (79) Mattie, clearly seeing Ross as a victim of what is to her Fred's unnecessary attack, "soothingly" cuts him offand rescues Ross. It is, after all, in her personal interest to defend Ross against Frank Chin 89 attacks from other less-fortunate Chinese Americans, most of whom are blinded by their jealousy of her success. She must make it clear to Ross that she is not one of those needlessly bitter Chinamen. Here is where the critics who accuse Chin of sexism and unmitigated patriarchy see a problem: he positions a Chinese American woman as the "sell-out." She is the one who defends and apologizes for the touristic desires of Ross, the stand-in for the institutionalized fetishism of the American theatre. Whether or not Chin sees Chinese American women to be more inclined to sell-out is debatable, however. His very public disdain for the relative commercial and mainstream critical successes of Maxine Hong Kingston and Amy Tan has no doubt contributed to this impression. But the fact that he is equally, if not more, disdainful of David Henry Hwang and a growing list of other Asian American male writers indicates for us perhaps a greater need to interrogate what he exactly means by "sell-out" than whether his works are sexist or homophobic. Is it, after all, fair to label anybody a sell-out? Are Kingston, Tan, and Hwang Chinese tour guides of Chineseness? Is a Chinese Chinatown tour guide automatically and necessarily a sell-out? For Chin, the answer is an out-and-out yes. For Chin, then, David Henry Hwang's successful"marriage" to the American theatre establishment is analogous to Mattie's relationship with Ross. As the token success, Hwang, like Mattie, has to protect his personal interest by willfully accepting the role of protecting his spouse from unreasonably rancorous Chinamen like "that homophobic Frank Chin." If Ross is the substitute for the liberal institution of the American theatre, then Mattie, in essence, is the token Asian American winner of the Tony. For her, the very fact that Ross has married her is proof enough of his goodness and of the distortion and paranoia in accusations of racism. For her to complete her prescribed role, however, she must do more than just marry Ross for love. She must also convert the bad Chinamen-namely, those who think precisely like Fred. She must convince Fred to join her, to leave Chinatown and "just be people." When Mattie cuts Fred off, she does so by offering him a deal: "You're Vice President of Mama Fu Fu's, Inc.!" (79) Ross then chimes in: You've been wasting your talent as a tourist guide. She showed me a story you wrote and you ... you really have a way with local color. Then when she showed me the cookbook she did .... Fred, Mama Fu Fu's is expanding. (79) When Fred fails to respond enthusiastically and wistfully asks "What's going on here, Sis?" Ross once again is too quick to chime in: 90 ji-SONG Ku ROSS: It's easy Fred. Just a matter of writing Mama Fu Fu's syndi- cated column, patter for her show .. . FRED: Hey, a show already . . . ROSS: A new even more "far out" cookbook. The way you write about Chinatown . . . FRED: I'm going to write the great Chinese American Cookbook, is what. MAMA FU FU' S RICE DEEM SUM right up thei r ass, cuz no one's gonna read the great Chinese American novel .. . ROSS: No, that's not what I meant .. . When I . . . FRED (having never stopped, goes on): I' ll write a Mama Fu Fu Chinese cookbook that'll drive people crazy! They' ll drink soy sauce straight from the bottle. It' s gonna be the first Chinese cookbook to win the Pul itzer Prize and make Mama Fu Fu's bigger than Kentucky Fried Chicken. ROSS (failing to interrupt; ad lib): Fred, I know you can write a novel. I sincerely respect your writing ability. (82-83) Then Mattie, ever so true to her role, soothes Ross's hurt feel ings: SIS: It's not you, Ross . . . (83) Sau-ling Cynthia Wong is extremely helpful when she points out in Reading Asian American Literature that mama fufu in Cantonese means " perfunctory, " "sloppy," or "mediocre," and as "the name Mama Fu Fu implies, (the) scheme is doomed because it is by nature makeshift and phony." 26 In her specific explication of this critical scene, however, she mistakenly attributes the idea of the "scheme" to Fred, misreading his subjectivity when she sees him "excited by the possibility of permanently freeing himself" from the economic burden of supporting his family and getting out of Chinatown. 27 As the excerpt above clearly shows, the point Frank Chin makes with Fred is almost the exact opposite: Fred's bitterness and hostility is due to his frank realization that he will never be free because his heart will never be in the profession of tourism. Fairly or unfairly, Chin denounces the institutions of tourism and American theatre, certain of their bankruptcy and of the gui lt of all those implicated in them. The perceived narrow nationalism of Chin rests here: he holds Asian Amer ican playwrights to a higher-perhaps impossible-standard. He admits to his own failures through the 26 Sau-l ing Cynthia Wong, Readi ng Asian American Literature: From Necessity to Extravagance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 60. 27 Ibid. Frank Chin 91 emotional weakness and cowardice of Fred Eng. (Perhaps this is why he quit the theatre some time ago.) It is impossible to deny it: Frank Chin is a self-righteous, arrogant, know-it-all. He is covered with nasty flaws and ugly warts. He is loud and obnoxious. His writings are full of misogynistic and homophobic ranting. How can anyone actually take him seriously? How can we so easily forgive him? Perhaps he is the sole pariah in Asian American literature because he is the only public Asian American intellectual who makes Asian Americans feel guilty. He not only removes the masks from the faces of the American theatre audience to reveal tourists, but also from Asian American writers to reveal, in some cases, the unhappy face of Fred Eng and, in most cases, the blank, self- congratulatory stare of Mama Fu Fu. Frank Chin is thoroughly annoying to everyone because-well, he's such a pig about it when he does so. (Question: am I a pig to find the him and his writing-but not the question of Frank Chin-so utterly engaging? Am I a fool to let him make me wonder whether I have played the tour guide unwittingly?) Conclusion: That Was Then This Is Now I try to teach The Year of the Dragon every now and then. I don't teach it every semester, even though I'm always tempted to do so. It's an awkward play to teach, as the language is difficult to grasp, and most students seem not to enjoy it. I have taught it at a few different schools- an Ivy League university, a small exclusive, private college, as well as a large public, urban college. It was a former student at the latter, where I now teach, who came to mind as I worked on this essay. She was a student in my Twentieth-Century American Literature course a couple of years ago, and, after reading Chin's play, shared a personal anecdote with the entire class, some forty of us in all. She had lived in Chinatown all her life. She was born there, attended grade school and Chinese-language school there, and still lived there as she commuted to college. She must have been only nine or ten years old. She was with her neighborhood friends, two or three other Chinese American girls playing in the street. One afternoon, tWo strangers, a man a woman, both white, came up the girls and asked whether they wouldn't mind posing for a picture. You are so adorable, so cute, the woman said, grinning a giant Cheshire Cat grin. The student recalled exchanging nervous glances with her friends. They didn' t answer; they were all too shy. Thinking the girls did not speak any English, the man held up the camera to them and pantomimed the act of shooting a picture, mean- while gesturing to the girls to slide a few steps to the left to stand in front of a storefront-a Chinese restaurant with an elaborate pagoda carved on the door. When the girls still didn't respond, the woman opened her 92 ji-SONG Ku purse and, smiling, held up a few one dollar bills-one for each of them. Their eyes widened with excitement and the girls said in unison: Sure, okay, you can take our picture! The woman, thinking she was a victim of a con, reluctantly gave them the money. So you do speak English, she said suspiciously, no longer smiling so gleefully. The delighted girls returned the following day to the same spot and anxiously waited for other white people to pass by, hoping some of them would stop and ask for a picture. After a few days of waiting in vain, and with their dollars all spent, they stopped looking longingly at the passing tourists and forgot all about the affair. They had homework to do and games to play, after all. The student had always regarded this memory with fondness. It never occurred to her to put a negative spin on this episode. She even felt guilty for a while, thinking that she and her friends had indeed behaved dishonestly towards these "innocent" tourists-until now, that is, some ten years after the fact. After reading The Year of the Dragon, she suddenly felt angry, not necessarily at the tourists but at herself and her friends. I feel so dumb, she said to the class. I feel so sorry for myself-not myself then but myself now. She eventually went on to finish up her English major, win an in- school creative writing competition, and graduate with honors last year. I heard from her a couple of months ago. She e-mailed me to say hello and to thank me again for writing her a letter of recommendation. She was about to start the second semester of a M.F.A. program in creative writing at an Ivy League university in the city. She was still commuting from Chinatown and was working diligently on a play. She ended the letter with a joke: Can you help me come up with a cool pen name? Anything but Mama Fu Fu will do. CONTRIBUTORS RICHARD E. KRAMER is currently completing his dissertation in Performance Studies at New York University. He has published in The Cambridge guide to American Theatre, Tennessee Williams: A Guide to Research and Performance, and The Drama Review. ROBERTji-SONG Ku teaches in the Department of English and the Asian American Studies Program at Hunter College. His essays, fiction, poetry, and reviews appear in a variety of publications, including Amerasia journal, Dialogue, and the anthologies Teaching Asian America (Rowan & Littlefield, 1998) and Asian American Literature (Harper Collins, 1994). WALTER j. MESERVE is Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Department of Theatre and English at the Graduate School of the City University of New York. He is a founding editor of the journal of American Drama and Theatre and is a widely published author of books and articles. He is currently working on a six- val ume history of American dramatic I iterature, the first two volumes having been published to date. THERESA JOETTE MAY is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Washington School of Drama. She is the co-author, with Larry Fried, of Greening Up Our Houses (Drama Books, 1994), a guide to ecological theatre management. She is also a playwright and the founding artistic director of Theatre in the Wild (Seattle, Washington). CYNTHIA D. SMITH is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, focusing on American theatre history and American dramatic literature. 93 [I) The Graduate School and University Center I!I::I The City University of New York Faculty include: Albert Bermel William Boddy Jane Bowers Jonathan Buchsbaum Harry Carlson Marvin Carlson George F. Custen Miriam D'Aponte Morris Dickstein Jill Dolan Mira Feiner Deborah Geis Daniel Gerould Jonathan Kalb Samuel leiter Stuart Liebman Judith Milhous David Nasaw Benito Ortolani Tony Pipolo leonard Quart Joyce Rheuban James Saslow Pamela Sheingorn Ella Shohat Alisa Solomon Gloria Waldman Elisabeth Weis David Willinger The Graduate School and University Center of CUNY offers doctoral education in es and a Certificate Program in ihn studies interdisciplinary options with distinguished Graduate Center faculty in other fields and through a consortia! arrangement including New York University and Columbia University affiliated with the Center for Advanced Study in Theatre Arts (CASTA), Journal of American Drama and Theatre, Slavic and East European Performance, Western European Stages Recent seminars include: Contemporary Performance Theory and Technique The Current New York Season Feminist Theory and Performance Melodrama The History Play Dramaturgy Simulat ions Film Aesthetics Romanticism Shakespeare's Comedies lesbian and Gay Theatre and Performance Classicism Theatre Hist ory Dramatic Structure Theatre Criticism American Fil m Comedy American Realism Kabuki Films and Theatre of lngmar Bergman Native Ameri can Theatre Women and the Avant-Garde Post-Colonial ity and Performance Executive Officer: Professor Jill Dolan Ph.D. Program in Theatre CUNY Graduate School and University Center 33 West 42 Street. New York, NY 10036 telephone (212) 642-2231 fax (212) 642-1977 jbarfiel@email.gc.cuny.edu www.gc.cuny.edu The Journal of American-Drama n.--....... __ The widely acclaimed journal devoted solely to drama and theatre in the USA - past and present. Provocative, thoughtful articles by the leading scholars of our time providing invaluable insight and information on the herjtage of American theatre, as well as its continuing contribution to world literature and the performing arts. Edited by Vera Mowry Roberts. Published three times per year- $12 per annum ($18.00 foreign). Please n me the rollowing CAST A publication: Journal of Amuican Drama and Theatre _<!!) $12.00 per year (Foreign) _<!! 1 $18.00 Total Send order with enclosed check to: CASTA. CUNY Graduate Center 33 West 42nd Street New Ynrk. NY 10036 CASTA The Graduate School and UniverstY. Cenlet ol The C1ty ol New Yoril. vOfume '0 .t Now in its 15th year, this journal, edited by Daniel Gerould and Alma Law. brings readers lively. authoritative accounts of drama, theatre, and film in Russia and Eastern Europe. Includes features on important new plays in performance. archival documents, innovative significant revivals, emerging artists, the latest in film. Outstanding interviews and overviews. Published three times per year- $10 per annum ($15.00 foreign). Please send me the following CAST A publication: 5/aric W1cl E(J.Itt'/"11 E11ropem1 Perf(mnunce __ (Q' 1i 10.00 per year (Foreign) __ <g $l.'i .OO Total Send order with enclosed check to: CASTA. CUNY Graduate Center 33 West 42nd Street New York. NY 10036 ' : : ... .. .... \ : .... .. f ' .' " 111 : :t ,. : 0 ,: :- .. ,. 't .. , .. . lo.! \ 0 :-: ; : ! ; , oo ; .; : .... I 1: I '.; ... '. o "V-"'''': -1 to,,.,U I. o An indispensable resource in keeping abreast of the latest theatre developments in Western Europe. Issued three times a year- Spring, Winter, and Fall - and edited by Marvin Carlson, each issue contains a wealth of information about recent European festivals and productions, including reviews, interviews, and reports. Winter issues focus on the theatre in individual countries or on special themes. News of forthcoming events: the latest in changes in artistic directorships, new plays and playwrights, outstanding performances, and directorial interpretations. - $15 per annum ($20.00 foreign). Please send me the following CASTA publication: Western European Stages _ @ $15.00 per year (Foreign) _ @ $20.00 per year Total Send order with enclosed to: CAST A, CUNY Graduate Center 33 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036