Karl Stern Flight From Woman

 

Morelly's Code d e la nature, proclaimed in 1750. One may even discern in the reasoning of our federal judiciary a concept curiously suggestive of Jean-Jacques' Volontk gdndral. Finally, th e epidem ic of of rio ts, arson, and looting, with the universal prevalence of violent crime may produce by

ha s arrived a t the apex of of th e evolutionary pyramid, through the process of what PBre Teilhard de Chardin calls horninisation. We are becoming ever more confident that increased technological know-how in all aspects of human endeavor, including B.F. Skinner's pet preoccupation, the controll-

and by from a state of mind moved the great panicnotof very 1789.far re-

ing of man, security will eventually lead life. to an unprecedented in everyday Yet, we have not solved problems issuing from the very essence of human existence. The problem we understand least is Man himself. The distinguished philosopher, Eliseo Vivas has written eloquently on behalf of the intrinsic value of man as a person? Man is not a thing, he asserts, and pleads for the scientific recognition of the unique nature of man. Ashley Montagu sees the problem from a different angle: from the point of relationships between persons.2 C.G. Jung maintained in one of his last worrks: wo ks: that ma n is in di r e need of discovering an integrated Self. I contend that we spend a lifetime in search of ourselves with more or less less succes success4 s4 an d that mankind *d oe s not even begin to un derstand the essence of human existence, the four great issues: life, life, death, leadership, an d sexuality. sexuality. We have created a chaos by not facing these issues squarely . Th is contention usually meets with a resistant gunfire of learned objections which run something like this: "Ah, but science has answered most of the important questions connected with life,

'The origin of this celebrated pen-name is uncertain. Lanson supports the general opinion that it is some kind of anagram. 'Acton, Lectures on the French Revolution, London: 1910. 'D e l'a l'ancie ncien n re'gime et la re'volution. This mag nificent study was, unhappily, never finished. The author died in 1856 won after the first volume was completed. 'Reflections on History, London: 1943. 'Introduction to the Everyman edition of the Discourses and the Social Contract, London: 1913. 'The Roots o f Totalitarian Democracy, London 1955. 'The Future o f Industrial Man, New York: 1942 'Ferrero, The Principles of Power, New York: 1942. 'The Age of Reason, New York: 1961. lo A well-known poet, unrelated to Jean-Jacques or D'Alembe D'Alembert' rt'ss foster-m other. Som e satirical verses attributed to him aroused the wrath of several influential writers and he was driven into exile. At the mention of his name, according to M. Lanson , Voltaire would fl flyy into a rage rage.. The Psychology of Revolmion. Ferrero, op. cit.

Man, W om an, an andd Person The Flight from Woman, by Karl S tern, GirM. D., New York: Farrar, Straus OUZ

1965. 310 p p .

4.95.

ONE OF THE most intriguing-if intriguing-if not th e most rewarding-fields of observ ation fo r the student of personality is the failure of ma nkind to deal with the problems of of masculinity and femininity. The human species has solved many problems and, in spite of being a very inferior animal, by the ability to eliminate a number of natural obstacles, Modern Age

If people death, sexuality. would leadership, only think and about these issues in terms of scientific analysis, most of our problems would not exist." I beg to reply to these objections (smacking of wishful utopianism) that the trouble with living, pulsating people, existing outside of of lab oratories seems to be tha t they prefer to live life instead of analyzing it. The fact that we seem to have scientific explanations of the phenomena of life does not ma ke a whit of of difference difference in our attitudes toward them. I agr ee with Ashley Montagu that (for example) we are quite inept in dealing with human relations, in spite of our democratic institutions and legislations.8 83

 

The attitude of scientism has spawned many an astounding statement from some very important if not very wise) people. Only twenty-five years ago Stalin said: “A single death is an incident of conseqiience and pathos: death of a million is a matter of statistics.”* One of the “leaders”

publisher has written his magnum opus, his Playboy philosophy, on this subject. He gives US nothing new beyond crying for more sexual liberation, as so many other youngsters do, and a concomitant prostitution of the word “philosophy.” Frankly, I am confused. What can be meant by more

of

twentiethtwenti century ity hath spoken. We dideth-centur not dealy human any more successfully with th e issue of of se xuality, or, mo re preciseI? with the questions of masculinity and femininit femini nity. y. Fo r we ar e just beginning to realize that, as far as the totality of human experience goes, masculinity and femininity encompass more than sex life. “he history of ma n an d his attitudes attitudes toward toward this simple fact shows pendulum -like fluctuations. Wornen have been disdained, feared, worshipped, adored, avoided, fought and died f o r , detested, oppressed, emancipated-but ncver understood. The recent trend in our own culture to equalize women, i.e. to deny the differences between masculinity and temininity, has led only to more confusion, more artificiality and more anguish. Here, I a m rying to exam ine this confusion, the factors contributi contributing ng to it, and compa re m y conclusions with those of of the erninent Canadian psychiatrist, Dr. Karl Stern, whose book analyzes the same basic question: Why is i t that man and woman cannot understand each other as they should? Is there or is there not a feminine mystique, Mrs. Friedan notwithstanding? It

liberation? thechdays of miniskirts en reveal a In s mu of themselves an d womtheir underwear as the beholder can take in. Magazines, ladies ladies’’ journals, Su nda y supplements a re tre ating of of se sexx openly openly an d gushingly. Sex , sex everywhere everywhere-i -inn cars , on college campuses, and even in churches. O n e of the deleterious effects of such contrived “freedom of discussion” is that, like the miniskirt, they leave very little or nothing to the imagination. Yet, imagination an d fantasy are very very necess necessary ary ingredient ingredientss for successful and satisfying sexual experiences. This mania of talking everything out, making everything completely reasonable and leaving nothing to the intricacies of fantasy but converting even our most intimate feelings and emotions into public property is, of course, only a part of a major pattern pattern tha t I call the sterilization of our psychic life.s Whatever the overall picture may be. the student of personality is still in search of the co ntributing facl faclors ors:: W hat makes persons, individually or in the aggregate, think, feel, behave in this pattern? And we find that our earlier question, “Why is i t

is not that we need more more surveys “scientific” explanations. Newand sex and marriage manuals are published almost every month, dealing mostly with the techn ology of sex ual relationships. O n the one hand, many of u s believe that never before in history was there such a degree of sexual libertinism so widespread as in our times; on the other hand we read more and more animated, desperate pleas for more sexuaI enlightenment and freedom, more sexual rights. (W ha t a delusion ) A financially successful, aggressive, young editor-

that man and woman cannot understand each other as they should?” is compounded by a frigh tenin g realizat realization, ion, nam ely that, that, in addition to a lack of understanding, they are drifting apart, taking flight from each other. Alas, there is nothing new about it. The female was always held at arm’s length by the male (when not in her embra ce). Women were, and st stil illl are in so some me Oriental countries, considered inferior. On the Indian subcontinent women are secluded from the mainstream of life, from the “really serious” affairs of general male interest. The only difference between the Moslem and Hindu attitudes toward women is that in a Moslem culture women

~~~

* A s quoted by Lord Mornn in his Churchill, 1966.

84

diaries

~

on

Winter 1966 67

 

are both secluded and excluded, while in Ind ia they are seclu secluded ded but not excl excluded. uded. In the classical Greek world Penelw was considered an outstanding feminine personality because of her fidelity and wifely virtue, and not because of her intellectual competence or physical prowess.

Ambivalence toward women is not only proverbial, it is archetypal. Even where women were not despised or avoided, they were at least held in suspicion, not to be trusted. Motherly, understanding, alluring, forgiving perhaps, but potentially dangerous and destructive. From ancient or

Omnipotence exclusively male Zeus anneeded characteristic: was no female to bear his favorite daughter, Pallas Athena. She, in turn, needed no maternal nurture to get her through a cumbersome and dependent childhood: she appeared fully grown, fully equipped, complete with her Aegis. Creation was the act of a male god in all mythologies, theologies, and primitive cosmogonies. Psychologically, these archetypal symbols convey not SO much the inferiority inferiority ooff woman a s he r nature, different from the male’s and therefor e mysterious to men of all ages an d

contemporary goddesses with whimsica whimsical, l, unpredictable natures, to Rider Haggard’s She or Keats’ L a Belle Dame S m Merci, they all express this archetype of ambivalent feelings toward women. The Hunga rian proverb: “Ma “Man’ n’ss fate is woman” a nd the F re r e nncc h h iinn tt:: “ C h e r c k u femme,” along with the concept of ;femme f t le constantly remind us how formidable woman may be. At the same time, we may reflect that of all spoken languages it is only in Hungalrian that we find the equivalent of “w ife” to be, in lit er al translation, “my other half’ (fezeskg). It @ves us food for thought. Frig ht leads to eith er fight fight or flight. Th e war between between the sex sexes es ma y be a th readb are cliche but a reality, nevertheless. The seclusion, exclusion, and outright oppression of women a re one outcome ooff thi s war, w ith the victorioue male brooking no nonsense. Some educated Pakistani explained to me why they keep their women in purdah (behind walls or curtains) and excluded from public life. I was puzzled puzzled by this dur ing the seven years of my living in that country. Since I found no explanation in the Koran, I had interviewed a great number of intelligent males and their answers were almost verbatim unanimous, as if by conspiracy: “We believe in decent life. We want to deal with temptation thoroughly and preventively. If you do not see the women, YOU do not get indecent impulses toward them. That is why we hide them. They are our property and we guard our property:’ The second half of the statement took care of the question of exclusion. Western man, however, should not cast stoness at Orientals for such an attitude. Not stone SO long ago ou r women had n o voti voting ng right right,, no property right, could not hold public office or enter certain professions. Milady

cultures. All attempts in history t o equalize woman have resulted in neutralization, consequently in failure, because the aim of equalization was based on the delusion that woman is inferior to man. Ashley Montagu, however, insists that “women are the biologically more valuable part of the species’ capital capi tal’” ’” for reasons tha t should be obvious. We should acknowledge that woman is different, not inferior. Differences are not quantitative concepts, superiority and iyferiority are. Differences are qualitative value concepts. The history of mankind indicates that the male mind cannot deal adequately with values. Over the centuries we have been taught th e origin al badness of man, and aggression, competition, destruction, and conquest have become distinguishing hallmarks of masculinity. We rejoice when o ur lit little tle boy sho shows ws aggres aggression sion on the ballfield, and egg him on when he is i n a competitive situation. Should our eightyear-old he-man turn out to be less aggressive and more docile than our preconceived idea of maleness would warra warrant, nt, we be rate him for being a sissy. We forget, of course, that true masculinity consists of the integration of strength an d tenderness tenderness.. Modern Am

 

85

wore long and heavy dresses to conceal her figure, and any decent “Victorian” woman would categorically deny possessing thighs, legs or knees or that she perspired. A s late as World War 11, Lady Churchill (the n Mrs. C. C.)) remarked wistf wistfully ully that men may seem eager to light a lady’s cigarette but they never listen to what women have to say.* On the other side the war of the sexes has produced the emancipated, phallic woman. Industrial, scientific, psychological, and political revolutions inevitably effected the “liberation” of women. One of the earliest, most militant promises toward the equalization of women may be read in the Communist Manifesto 1848). The wholesale liberation of women occurred early in the Soviet Union and more recently in China in a truly masculine fashion. Now women in those countries are free to bear snow not only children arms, to shovel in city streetsbut andalso to do heavy labor in factories. Only in comparatively old-fashioned, outlying kolchoses, though, do women pull the plows, with the men holding the reins. I hold that the emancipation or equalization of women has led to their masculinization, with a more or less complete concurre nt em asculation ooff men. Co mic strips li like ke Blondie and shows like Ozzie and Harriet are not only catering to public taste: they ar e the creations of public taste. Most television advertising reveal femina triumphans placing her dainty foot on the justfelled stone-age brute: most husbands are Flintstones, shown as bumbling idiots who can be knocked over with just a dash of female supremacy. It is the omniscient mother or wife who knows not only the right bleach but who can select, on scientific basis, the correct toothpaste (uniting the family a ga in) ; he husband is incompetent, he invariably sel select ectss brand X. Yes, all this may be fantasy on the screen. But it is modern woman who is parading her equality in the As mentioned by Lord Moran in his diaries on

Churchill, 1966.

86

 

trousers stolen from man. No healthy male ever appears at a supermar supermarket ket in skir skirts ts although t he fad €or long hair is catching ). Are the emancipated women who now even shed the feminine mystique happier, healthier, and more stable ; re they enjoying their independence and their denuded “femininity” more than their enslaved sisters were able to? Are men and women clos closer er to each other, more comfortable?s The reader may answer these questions for himself, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of the more than 500, 000 Americans currently treated in mental hospitals ar e women. Two-third s of old-age home residents are lonely women, females surviv ing men to 1 The divorce rate is still in cre asi ng and the chorus of of discontent is hea rd all over the land. The effects of psychological enlightenment run parallel to the political upheavals of socialism in statu nuscendi. Freud, who h a d a gene rally pe ssimistic view ooff hu ma nity, has given th e worl worldd a model of femininity that strikes many of us a s a malignant caric atu re. Some ooff his theor theories ies concerning female sexuality are museum-pieces now, in the merciless light of recent research sea rch.. They a re a t bes bestt fatuous fatuous an d represent the Achilles-heel of orthodox physchoanalytic theory (like the two kind s of female orgasm, etc.). All said and done, Freud’s portrait of woman is that of a hostile, frustrated creature, bereft of manhood, hence forever envious. Her relationship to m an is thher at ofrevolt constant hosti lityy and competition: is hostilit inevitable. Helene Deutsch, a Freudian and a woman, has only slightly slightly mitigated the dis dismal mal picture w ith he r statem ent tha t the essence of w oman hood is passivity in contrast to the stormy activism of the male. The first medical psychologist who has attempted to illuminate the mysteries of femin inity was C.G . Jung. With help from his wife, Emma, herself an eminent psychologist, he did not bog down in the m ere physiology ooff female sexuality sexuality but explored the psychological differentiation of male and female. He did not pretend to Winter 1966-67

understand the mystery. He, of all people, had a healthy respect for the mysterious and knew very well that mysteries are not understood by the rational mind: that is why they are mysteries. But he had the honesty and courage, in addition to an inquiring mind, to study rather than sweep

Ka rl St em h as jjoin oined ed the ranks of these distinguishe d th inke rs by virtue ooff his messa message ge i n The Flight from Woman He presents a number of original theses, hard facts and arguments not so much on behalf of or in defense of women as in quest of an integrated view of the human person-

under of knowledge: r a t i o n the a l arug n d the i n t ~two i t i vkinds e . ~is ~is concept of the archetype of femininity, the Anima, symbolizes the intuitive, while in women the corresponding Animus, or rational part of the personality, is in a more or less developed state of of aw areness. Ju n g conceives of masculinity and femininity as opposites, or polarities, polarities, b ut he insists tha t the relationshi p ooff the opposites is not necessarily hostile but potentially cooperative and creative. Neither represents completeness withou t the other? other?’’ Relations become hostile if the male represses the feminine princi-

is not a sex-linked concept). ality Stem’s (whichwork, in my view, contributes

ple (in females the reverse applies) too long or too consistently. Then the pent-up unconscious components, symbolized by the Anima or Animus, assert themselves in the most embarrassing way, hostile to the ego, and produce moody, unreliable, hysterical males and the stiff, frigid, opinionated females whom the Freudians as well as pulp magazines call the “phallic woman.” Thus Jung has called attention to the age-old simple truth that woman is different from man but not inferior to him: they complement each other. I quote his most beautiful statement from memory: “Man takes the

in this book, provided he keeps an open mind to accommodate a number of original ideas. Even the amplification of some theories of Jung is the product of a discerning mind in a personality who has gone through unique experiences during and after World W a r 11. These have given him a singularly deep insight into his own nature as well as into the nature of his fellow humans. We know this from Dr . Ster Stern’s n’s earlier writings such as The Pillar o Fire a nd Through Dooms o Love. Many critics may say many things about Stern and his work; they m ay raise some objec objectio tions ns to his

world by storm. Woman becomes conscious of the world by awakening.” More subtle an d refi refined ned than th e crud e assertion that woman is either envious and hosti hostile le or exclusively passive an d humble humble-as -as if humility were a crime or at least a misdemeanor. Vivas, Montagu, Jung, and many others have at least one endeavor in common: the search for a satisfactory theory of man as a person and not a thing. This, however, is not possible possible without recognizing the validity of poetic-intuitive modes of knowledge, represente res entedd by the feminine principle as an in tegral part of the human personality. Now

views and theories and the way he presents them (such as that he is myst mystic ic,, se sentimenntimental, and a “mentalist,” etc.) but none can say that he is not genuine. He shows the characteristic that I consider to be the only legitimate excuse for human authority: authenticity. Stern postulates a polarity between man and woman and insists that this polarity is not hostile but complementary, thus reinforcing and amplifying some of Jung’s theories which, fifty years ago, represented a sharp departure from tthe he Fre Freudi udian an d o g ma of woman. The polarity exists within the phenomenological and ontological

Modem Age

 

Dr.

much toward the clearing ooff the jungle of present-day behavioral sciences which Professor Vivas so justly criticizes?’ More than that: this work helps u s to reflect and clarify our thinking on the four great issues of life, death, leadership, an d sexuality. Stern’s book is an example of clear, quiet style, based on sound medical principles without being annoyingly clinical-a rare gift for a psychiatrist. The psychiatric connoisseur no less than the lover of belles lettres or biographies may find delight

87

unit we call Man s inherent in his personality and is a conditio sine qua o of integra l completen completeness. ess. Th e idea has solid scientific grounding in the inevitable biological fact of of sexual differentiation, which, the au thor says, has been more or less deliberately overlooked o r ignored in psychology. He takes issue with the “second sex” attitude of Simone de Beauvoir, indeed, his work is the very antithesis of her writings because, contrary to Mlle. de Beauvoir, he argues that the differences between male and female are real, biologically as well as psychologically determined and not the products of social conditioning. He assures us th a t “contrary to what George Sand o r Simone de Beauvoir believes, biology is not a matter of an instrumentarium of circumscribed purpose.” Stern’s purpose here is not to defend women. He feels they do not need defending. What they need is recognition of the feminine principle in a world that has almost succeeded in sterilizing modern life of anything that is beautiful, poetic and in apparent contradiction to pure reason, whatever that may be. Stern’s thesis is germane to the issue issuess we touc touched hed upon earlier in this revie rev iew: w: that we cannot even begin to unde rstand the persistent problems of human existence until we acknowledge the polarity of the sexes as reflected in the conflict of the two modes of knowledge: scientific or rational and poetic or intuiti intuitive. ve. He suggest suggestss

lives with an increase of “programming” of human affairs, so that we live in “a world of slow and noiseless violence.” H e asserts that the concept of of equality is in danger of becoming sameness a n d if that becomes complete, “an immanent principle of order is lost.” Oppugnancy will result. He traces modem man’s loss of his precious psychological faculties, namely faith and trust pistis), to this attitude of oppugnancy. He treads his way deftly between the extremes of the stainless steel world of masculinity and the gilded rococo ornamentations of femininity when documenting the psychological differences between the sexes. T o illustrate and amplify his points he scans centuries of world literature, cultural history, and symbolism with an ease of eru ditio n that I thought had died out with Jung. One could take issue, I suppose,

that the continuous human predicament is aggravated by a lopsided, rationalistic, aggressively activist attitude. It is as if femininity did not exist, or if i t does, it is nonsensical and inimical to rationality and technicality, therefore useless. Freud, Adler, Sand, and de Beauvoir all fall into this trap, their sincere endeavors to understand woman notwithstanding. Contemplation, listening to the inner voice, is regarded as a feminine trait now, yet Stem says: “Uniqueness and sanctity of the human person can be grasped only by contemplation.” A good response to Vivas’ plea,12 I think. The alternative is defeminization, alienation and depersonalization of our

equal, coun on e osuch f a p as ai r,a aspouse constant associate o rterpart, companion or the second-in-command of a ship. But whatever the derivations o r interpretations, Stern’s point is well taken: Woman, bereft of femininity, transformed into what the Freudians call the phallic woman, is not able to play her r61e as woman; indeed she loses her most powerful asset: feminine humility. In addition, she los loses es her m an because of direct or indirect emasculation. I call this the Delil Delilah ah com plex. Stern presents the case of Descartes as the victim of castrating” women. Stern’s method of supporting his contentions and propositions with psycho-

88

 

with Dr. Stern’s interpretation of the English w ord “helpmate “helpmate.” .” On p. 147 the author asserts that “the phallic woman . . . cannot be a helpmate.” He considers “helpmate” to be a beautiful expression. It is, but it derives from a misreading of the English Bible (A.V.). The term used there is “help meet” (Genesis, 2:18). “Meet,” from O.E. gernrete, conveys the sense of “fitting,” “suitable,” “appropriate, pria te,”” somewhat diff different erent in m ean ing from “Mate” which is a M.E. word, derived from a different root, meaning an

6

Whter

196667

biographical studies is in the best tradition of the idiograp hic approa ch. In his psychographs of Descartes, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Tolst Tol stoy, oy, Kierke gaard, a nd Goethe Goethe,, he spans centuries and traces a sorry, declining cu rv e of m an’s spirit. T h e line begins with Descartes, continues downward to despair with Sc hop enh aue r, Nietzsche, Nietzsche, Hegel, Marx, Freud, and ends in the here and now now with Sartre. The common denominator of these lives is a trag ic parado x: the fli flight ght fro m woman whom thes e ‘+so ‘+sons ns we re constantly searching for. Their lives and some aspects of their work remind us of the folk song: “Sometimes I feel like a motherless child.” child.” Of Of all ps yc ho -bi og rap hic al sketches I enjoyed Goethe’s most, not only because the gigan tic per son ality of of this grea t polyhist polyhistor or is brought out in vivid, art ful detail, but because, through Goethe and his Paust, Dr. Stem supports his con-

which c a n only be self-applied, no groups, no government government can do it-i -iss im plic it in the n a t u re of the ailment. Sapienti sat. Hedda Gabler is the only fictional character dissected and interpreted in the bo&. While G. B. Shaw i n h i s essay on The Quintessence of Ibsenism 1913)” regards Hedda Gabler as “a typical nine teenth-century teenth-cent ury fi figur gure” e” and tries to make political hay out of her character for the Fabian Socialists, Dr. Stern interprets her a s one rep rese ntativ e of th e aggressive women of whom we have so much first-hand first -hand e xperience these days, both in fiction and in reality. Hedda Gabler is the female who, hogging the road in her gadget-ridden pseudo-sports car, her Medusahead in giant curlers, is ready to impale anybody who crosses the path of her weapon-car. She is the phallic woman. I n o ur world ooff scientism, scientism, sm artn ess rules

clusions most convincingly, namely that obthe essential aspects of personality “resist I may add, defy quanjectification”-and tification and reification. Personality means more than the sum of its component parts : the person is a historical being.13 H i s t o r i c a l continuity is preserved only by the “eternal feminine,” femini ne,” that my sterious cement that bind s the dispa rate particles of of ha rd scientific facts together as one gestalt. Goethe wrote with the finality O€ true insight: Bas ewig W eibliche zieht uns hinan. Dr. Stern’s book is not a work that dispenses panacea. In the tradition of the true

and wisdom is neglected. Pallascounterpart, Athena (or her early Eastern Christian Sophia) is either dead or sleeping, We, the living, prefer to think with Dr. Stern that the heart open to infused wisdom remains the heart of immutable virginity” and hope that this essential, eternal femininity is only sleeping sle eping behind the seemingly seemingly impen etrable tho rn y walls of aggres sive intolerance, impersonal power struggle and poisonous indifference. The question for us the living, and for the future of of hum anity is this: Will the miracle recur? Will the mystery be reenacted? Will Prince Charming come in

and seasoned physician he suggests rather than forces forces the soluti solution on on his “patient” hu manity. Imbued with love and understanding, he knows very well that the therapy-

the glory of of his strength and tenderne ss and cut through the thicket t o kiss Sophia, the sleeping beauty, beauty, into aw akening ? Will Kalokaguthia rise again? Reviewed by Z. JOHN LEVAY,M. M. D.

“‘Things and Persons, Eliseo Vivas, M o d e m Age, Spring 1965 p. 119 ff ‘Education and Human Relations, Ashley Montagu,, New York: Grove Press, 1958. tagu ‘Man and i s Symbols, C G. J u g ( e d . ) , New York: Doubleday, 1965. ‘In Search of Our S e l v e s E s j a y s , 2. J. Levay, Baltimore: Catonsville Corn. College Pres 1965. ‘Montagu, op. cit. Zevay, op. cit

’“‘Concerning the tw o k inds of thinking,” in The Psychology of he Unconscious Ch. ) , C . G . Jung, London. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1951. in Animus and Anima Emma Jung, 1965 op. cit.; Animus Jung, New York: Analytical Club of New York,

’Montaguop.op. ‘Levay, cit cit.

Modern Age

G

1957.

”Vivas, o p . cit.

‘Vbid.

“J-evay, o p . cit. ”“The Quintessence of

Ibsenism,”

in

Major

Essuys, Critical Co., Ltd., 1948. G . B. Shaw, London: Constable and

89