At the heart of The New Age is an agenda based on the principles put
forth by leading luminaries of the time, an agenda that speaks to
the worker classes and the issues sensitive to their place on the
social structure. As we scanned the archives, we became cognizant of
the various divergent opinions and ideas that seemed to permeate the
reviews of performance pieces and books. We also saw divergent
opinions come across in several political essays.
Regarding the drama reviews, we were particularly struck by the often
contradictory statements made by two of the drama critics, L. Haden
Guest and Ashley Dukes. For the most part, both critics panned
theatrical endeavors that seemed sympathetic to the worker classes as
being "melodramatic" or simply devoid of any new ideas that would
promote any kind of sophisticated thinking. We found several examples
where the critics would espouse enthusiastically on dramas rife with
socialist or progressive ideologies, and in the same review, bash a
drama whose premise seemed to be only to elicit emotion or excitement
of feeling. We were hard pressed to find any articles that sought to
bridge understanding between the worker classes and the intellectual
elite as far as their tastes, or lack thereof, for drama as
entertainment.
In one article from Vol. 6, No. 12, for example, Ashley Dukes seems
to, at times, deride the playwrights and theater managers for solely
being interested in profit, even though at times he also admits to
having a material interest in the success of a play by the sheer
number of patrons attending the performances. Dukes slips into the
language of the movement, though, almost as if to reaffirm his loyalty
to the cause. In his review of "Don" (p. 283), he asserts that the
theater is a "resort for idlers, a place of amusement for tired
people....It must be a theater for workers." Dukes, however, means
"brain workers," those he deems "earnest, attentive, and willing to
think." We found ourselves at odds with Dukes' proposal in that the
theater should aim to court a certain kind of patron. By his proposal,
he is promoting the idea that only those members of a learned class
within society can appreciate the nuances of good theater; doesn't
this very idea fly in the face of the socialist agenda so rife within
the pages of The New Age?
Another review in Vol. 6, No. 10, is critical of the play "Caste". The
reviewer is, again, A. Dukes, and he states that "Caste...is almost a
classic. It represents the highest achievement of English dramatic art
during the third quarter of the 19th century - during the period, that
is to say, when Dickens, Meredith, and Hardy were all at work upon the
English novel, and Swinburne and Tennyson upon English poetry. And now
- who is Robertson? Surely there could be no more vivid illustration
of the decadence of the theater."
Dukes seems to be espousing the merits of a return to the traditional
in theater; but even with this overtly enthusiastic review of
Robertson's "Caste", Dukes manages to cut the drama by saying: "this
world of Caste is utterly unreal. The types are the types of Dickens,
but the art of Dickens is lacking." Dukes then goes on to compare
Robertson's play to that of a work by Perceval Landon called "The
House Opposite." Again, he inserts an overtly Socialist perspective to
the writing: "There is plenty of realism without reality. We still
have the old Romanticism cropping up, and the old codes of honour. In
effect, the play is nothing but well-oiled melodrama." Further, Dukes
states that the work "dabbles occasionally in ideas, without the
courage or the intellectual honesty to give them fair hearing. A sop
is thrown to the moderns in the discussion of crime, another to the
bourgeoisie in Cardyne's precious code of honour."
To contrast with Dukes, we also looked at several reviews by his
predecessor, L. Haden Guest. His take on drama in an article entitled
"Real Plays and "My Wife" from Vol. 1, No. 6, for example, hints at
his rather anti-capitalist views: "The play is Capitalist art in
excelsis, and the length of run will be a good test of the strength
and vitality of the mirage of capitalism in the realm of ideas. The
play is well acted; it is smart and bright and snappy, the machine
goes clicking away on oiled cogs; it has many advantages; it lacks
only an intelligent scheme of ideas."
In another review for a play entitled "Divorcons", from Vol. 1, No. 9,
Guest insists that the public wants "good plays, and the actor...good
parts...it is fairly clear that present theatrical conditions are
against them. The theater is now in the hands of the commercial
manager, who is compelled to put as his first consideration that of
profit." I was a bit taken aback by Guest's insistence that an actor's
trade union "could only help us in fact by ruining the managers, by
forcing the formation of theatrical trusts, and compelling us to take
the business over in self-defense." Guest seems to be promoting an
anti-unionist agenda here, something that I found to be conspicuously
incongruent with the pro-worker/pro-union tone of the Socialist
movement.
We examined how the reviews of drama were, at times, moulded by the
views of critics intent on promoting the ideology of the Socialist
movement, even as these views were at times contradictory within the
reviews themselves. It is interesting to note how political viewpoints
could, in certain instances, be oppositional within the text of "The
New Age" itself. It is easy to see how this would lead to readers
questioning the direction of the journal and the views it was
espousing as a journal of independent expression.
Regarding the essays on books and politics, we were interested in how
political viewpoints in opposition to socialism were dealt with in the
pages of The New Age.
A book review of The Russian Revolution by Leo Tolstoy is reviewed
in Vol. 1 No. 3. The New Age devotes a full page to a review of the
book, quoting poignant sections of its contents at length. Tolstoy's
argument in his book is to expose what he sees as the evilness of
governments, regardless of makeup, for the ills of nations. He slams
western-style governments in here as well, asking: "Have the Western
nations [...] attained what they strove for? [...] Among all nations .
. .The chief and fundamental calamities from which the people suffer
remain the same: the same ever-increasing, enormous budgets, the same
animosity toward their neighbors, necessitating military preparations
and armies; the same taxes; the same State and private monopolies; the
same depriving the people of the right to use the land (which is given
to private owners); the same enslaving of subject races ; the same
constant threatenings of war; and the same wars, destroying the lives
of men and undermining their morality. . . . .Is the life of the
majority of the people in those (Constitutional) countries more
secure, freer, or, above all, more reasonable and moral? I think not."
These sentiments appear to advocate anarchy or some sort of
libertarianism, and are certainly in direct contrast to socialism, by
which the government owns the means of production and distribution.
Tolstoy goes on to state that the goal of all governments is
self-perpetuation, and that representative government (Is socialism
considered representative government?) leaves itself wide-open to
corruption.
The reviewer criticizes Tolstoy's "readiness to over-simplify" and
uses the age-old argument that people would not know how to solve
disputes without government to counter Tolstoy's points.
What's significant is that the reviewer, Aylmer Maude, disagrees with
Tolstoy, yet still in the introductory paragraph states that the books
is "well worth reading; for it flings down a stimulating challenge to
some of our most deep-rooted convictions." What is also significant is
how much space (a full page) is devoted to a book that hardly espouses
socialism or any type of western-style democracy. It's also
interesting, of course, to read the words of Tolstoy and see how they
could easily ring true today, as westerners have been socially conditioned to
associate democracy with peace, yet in reality this is largely a myth,
as democracy, in the case of the UK and the US, is nearly always
associated with war, imperialism and socioeconomic problems.
It was also interesting to have found two contrasting articles on
socialism. One, "Why I am a Socialist. (Vol. 2 No. 5 and "Why I am not
a Socialist." (Vol. 2 No. 2) Both articles seem to have in mind the
interests of the poor and working classes, yet this is where any
similarity ends. In "Why I am a Socialist." by Arnold Bennet, he
explains that he is a socialist because he believes it embodies
societal progress, but most importantly because he sees it as the best
way to rid Britain of the governing classes, who he compares to a
"hopeless invalid who won't die." Even today, issues about "royalty"
persist in the UK. It's kind of a strange thing when the faces of
people who don't really do anything appear all over the British money.
In Why I am not a Socialist." the author, G. K. Chesterton things
"sharing" is a silly concept, and espouses more a state in which
people own things, most notably property. Curiously, Chesterton
initially takes a view of the "masses" of society that is seemingly
without patronizing paternalism. He writes that he has faith in the
masses not for their "potentialities" but for the way they are in
actuality. The people don't want socialism, he says. The "whole smell
and sentiment and general ideal of Socialism they detest and disdain,"
he writes. If they could, they would seek to own property just like
the rich, because they want what the rich have, which is certainly not
socialism, but money and property. Chesterton is pro-democracy and
socialism is not in accordance with democracy. But the masses may vote
for socialism anyway, he says, if is is shoved down their throats. His
elitism crops up when he refers to the masses as "vague, slow,
bewildered, and unaccustomed, alas, to civil war." He has faith in
their inclinations against socialism but thinks they may opt for it
anyway under duress, simply because it is too much trouble to resist.
Reading such as those above demonstrate that The New Age was very open
to publishing sentiments that were contrary to the tenets of socialism.
What was perhaps most interesting regarding socialism were the attempts
to persuade and even attack nonbelievers, and this is where the
writing in The New Age seems most effective. The idea one gets from
reading The New Age is that it knows many of its readers don't buy
the whole socialism thing, so it needs to preach to the unconverted,
and it needs to be provocative. One article in particular stands out
in this regard: "The Question of Competition." in Vol. 2 No. 7. The
article points out that the landowners, who are opposed to socialism
on the grounds of lack of competition, are nothing but hypocrites,
collecting, as they do, rents and interest all the while sitting on
their butts! The author Cecil Chesterton, goes on to point out that
there is intense competition among the working classes, but is a
sordid scramble for a "bare and base living." The author notes that
"It is curious, by the way, to note that the very people who declare
unlimited competition to be the one panacea for the race are always
ready to dwell on the moral, mental, and physical incapacities of the
class in which competition is most rampant and ruthless." The essay
posits that socialism will not eradicate all competition, but only the
struggle for a bare subsistence, and bring about equality of
opportunity. Essays like this one indicate that The New Age was under
pressure to explain how socialism works and not to assume that
everyone reading the publication was a convert to it.
Maribel Vega
Julie Ostrowski
