The Beginnings of the Irish National Theatre

In the initial development of the “Irish national theater”, discourse often seemed to revolve around one central issue: how can art shape the identity of the people? To answer these questions, those invested in the cultivation of a lasting cultural institution had to examine what is was that their nation valued about art, and what in what was it could best serve the needs of the people.  During the process of creation a tension between two schools of thought seemed to arise: one that envisioned a theater defined by the use of unique Irish cultural material, and one that sought to use theater to define the populace by changing the relationship between artist and society. 

            John Eglinton was of the former camp, speaking to the importance of carefully selecting appropriate subject matter the Irish theater. He believed that the creation of a national theater must not define itself through the stale performance of comfortable the folk literature which “obstinately refuses to be…transplanted into the world of modern sympathies” (411). Rather, he thought the theater should explore issues that are relevant and familiar to contemporary Irish audiences, and be “an expression of a strong interest of life itself” (412). Similarly, Frank J. Fay believed that the role of the theater was to show what the world was like “through Irish eyes” (415), specifically through the reproduction of the Irish language in performance. Ultimately, both men believed that Irish theater was important in how the content of the works themselves could define the Irish nation.

However, W.B. Yeats was more interested in the theater’s power to re-define the role of the artist, and consequently re-define the Irish people themselves. Whereas Eglinton and Fay concerned themselves with the content and the form of theater, W.B. Yeats was much more concerned about the theater’s potential to free the creative mind of the artist and cultivate new ways of thinking about art. He felt that the theater should not be  concerned about censoring certain subject matter, accept that plays are always “One man’s vision of the world,” and therefore, inevitably subjective (413). In granting new artistic liberty, playwrights could compel audiences to perform a new Irish identity: one that is not afraid to “describe the relation of the soul and the heart to the facts of life and law… as it is, and not as we would have it be” (414). By broadening the acceptable subject matter for drama and not being afraid to portray a less-than-idealistic picture of Irish life, the theater could act as a “creator of values” (414), and cultivate a society that is unafraid to examine its own problems and make important social change.  

Both of these ideas about the role of Irish theater are enacted in varying ways through Cathleen ni Houlihan and Playboy of the Western World. Looking at Cathleen ni Houlihan with Eglinton’s concerns in mind, the play is quite a success in that it addresses contemporary issues:  the question of Irish rebellion as experienced through a working-class family. Although Cathleen’s character is a reference to more traditional folkloric forms, it acknowledges the past in order to deal with present and relevant issues of Irish life. Cathleen does not serve as an ill-fitted and dated metaphor, but as a powerful and compelling symbol that is deeply concerned with “the patriotism that looks forward” (411). Through the seamless integration of traditional forms into contemporary life, Eglinton and Yeat’s ideologies converge: through free and innovative artistic form, Yeats and Gregory create subject matter that is both pertinent to the audience and politically compelling. 

J.M. Synge’s Playboy of the Western World also addresses the role of the Irish theater through its dramatic action. For one, the play is deeply concerned with Eglinton’s “expression in a strong interest of life itself.” Not only does it look at peasant life, but creates a dynamic and dramatically interesting, albeit arguably unflattering, picture of the Irish people. By looking at issues that, although controversial, dealt with characters and language seemingly recognizable to the lower classes, Playboy was fundamental in the early development of the Irish national theater because of the way it refused to conform to tradition and social boundaries. Additionally, it is no surprise that Yeats supported the production so passionately following the uproar that surrounded the first few performances. The play is a perfect example of his vision of a theater where talented artists create potent and uncensored work, and audiences are in turn, dramatically shaped by it. Although the play arguably presents a distorted version of the populace, Playboy also succeeded in fulfilling Yeats’ belief in the powerful role of Irish theater by unapologetically holding up a mirror to the people and asking them to examine the truth, or untruth, that they saw.

I believe that in examining the essential theatrical foundations laid by both Cathleen ni Houlihan and Playboy of the Western World, we can predict some of the concerns and modes of work of the Irish theater today. I think the idea of Yeats’ “capricious spirit” that is “content to judge without remorse” (414), is still fantastically relevant, especially in light of the works like Eclipsed and the Magdalene Sisters that examine the lasting effects of a series of cruel national histories. I also think that the idea of shaping a national identity is incredibly relevant, as the country changes economically, and especially as it finds ways to incorporate immigrants and think about Irish emigrants in the ever-expanding world.

Ultimately, the way in which the theory has intersected with actual performance in Irish theater is representative of the power of art to determine the cultural values of a nation.

~Maya Miesner