As to mere libertinism, you would be
the first to remind me that the Festin de Pierre of Moliere is not
a play for amorists, and that one bar of the voluptuous
sentimentality of Gounod or Bizet would appear as a licentious
stain on the score of Don Giovanni. Even the more abstract parts of
the Don Juan play are dilapidated past use: for instance, Don
Juan's supernatural antagonist hurled those who refuse to repent
into lakes of burning brimstone, there to be tormented by devils
with horns and tails. Of that antagonist, and of that conception of
repentance, how much is left that could be used in a play by me
dedicated to you? On the other hand, those forces of middle class
public opinion which hardly existed for a Spanish nobleman in the
days of the first Don Juan, are now triumphant everywhere.
Civilized society is one huge bourgeoisie: no nobleman dares now
shock his greengrocer. The women, "marchesane, principesse,
cameriere, cittadine" and all, are become equally dangerous: the
sex is aggressive, powerful: when women are wronged they do not
group themselves pathetically to sing "Protegga il giusto cielo":
they grasp formidable legal and social weapons, and retaliate.
Political parties are wrecked and public careers undone by a single
indiscretion. A man had better have all the statues in London to
supper with him, ugly as they are, than be brought to the bar of
the Nonconformist Conscience by Donna Elvira. Excommunication has
become almost as serious a business as it was in the X century.
As a result, Man is no longer, like Don Juan, victor
in the duel of sex. Whether he has ever really been may be doubted:
at all events the enormous superiority of Woman's natural position
in this matter is telling with greater and greater force. As to
pulling the Nonconformist Conscience by the beard as Don Juan
plucked the beard of the Commandant's statue in the convent of San
Francisco, that is out of the question nowadays: prudence and good
manners alike forbid it to a hero with any mind. Besides, it is Don
Juan's own beard that is in danger of plucking. Far from relapsing
into hypocrisy, as Sganarelle feared, he has unexpectedly
discovered a moral in his immorality. The growing recognition of
his new point of view is heaping responsibility on him. His former
jests he has had to take as seriously as I have had to take some of
the jests of Mr W. S. Gilbert. His scepticism, once his least
tolerated quality, has now triumphed so completely that he can no
longer assert himself by witty negations, and must, to save himself
from cipherdom, find an affirmative position. His thousand and
three affairs of gallantry, after becoming, at most, two immature
intrigues leading to sordid and prolonged complications and
humiliations, have been discarded altogether as unworthy of his
philosophic dignity and compromising to his newly acknowledged
position as the founder of a school. Instead of pretending to read
Ovid he does actually read Schopenhaur and Nietzsche, studies
Westermarck, and is concerned for the future of the race instead of
for the freedom of his own instincts. Thus his profligacy and his
dare-devil airs have gone the way of his sword and mandoline into
the rag shop of anachronisms and superstitions. In fact, he is now
more Hamlet than Don Juan; for though the lines put into the
actor's mouth to indicate to the pit that Hamlet is a philosopher
are for the most part mere harmonious platitude which, with a
little debasement of the word-music, would be properer to
Pecksniff, yet if you separate the real hero, inarticulate and
unintelligible to himself except in flashes of inspiration, from
the performer who has to talk at any cost through five acts; and if
you also do what you must always do in Shakespear's tragedies: that
is, dissect out the absurd sensational incidents and physical
violences of the borrowed story from the genuine Shakespearian
tissue, you will get a true Promethean foe of the gods, whose
instinctive attitude towards women much resembles that to which Don
Juan is now driven. From this point of view Hamlet was a developed
Don Juan whom Shakespear palmed off as a reputable man just as he
palmed poor Macbeth off as a murderer. To-day the palming off is no
longer necessary (at least on your plane and mine) because Don
Juanism is no longer misunderstood as mere Casanovism. Don Juan
himself is almost ascetic in his desire to avoid that
misunderstanding; and so my attempt to bring him up to date by
launching him as a modern Englishman into a modern English
environment has produced a figure superficially quite unlike the
hero of Mozart.
And yet I have not the heart to disappoint you
wholly of another glimpse of the Mozartian dissoluto punito and his
antagonist the statue. I feel sure you would like to know more of
that statue - to draw him out when he is off duty, so to speak. To
gratify you, I have resorted to the trick of the strolling
theatrical manager who advertizes the pantomime of Sinbad the
Sailor with a stock of second-hand picture posters designed for Ali
Baba. He simply thrusts a few oil jars into the valley of diamonds,
and so fulfils the promise held out by the hoardings to the public
eye. I have adapted this simple device to our occasion by thrusting
into my perfectly modern three-act play a totally extraneous act in
which my hero, enchanted by the air of the Sierra, has a dream in
which his Mozartian ancestor appears and philosophizes at great
length in a Shavio-Socratic dialogue with the lady, the statue, and
the devil.
But this pleasantry is not the essence of the play.
Over this essence I have no control. You propound a certain social
substance, sexual attraction to wit, for dramatic distillation; and
I distil it for you. I do not adulterate the product with
aphrodisiacs nor dilute it with romance and water; for I am merely
executing your commission, not producing a popular play for the
market. You must therefore (unless, like most wise men, you read
the play first and the preface afterwards) prepare yourself to face
a trumpery story of modern London life, a life in which, as you
know, the ordinary man's main business is to get means to keep up
the position and habits of a gentleman, and the ordinary woman's
business is to get married. In 9,999 cases out of 10,000, you can
count on their doing nothing, whether noble or base, that conflicts
with these ends; and that assurance is what you rely on as their
religion, their morality, their principles, their patriotism, their
reputation, their honor and so forth.
On the whole, this is a sensible and satisfactory
foundation for society.
1 comment