Dramatic Approaches to Creative Fidelity: A Study in the Theater and Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973)

Katharine Rose Hanley

Introduction by

Paul Ricoeur

University Press of America

Acknowledgements of kind help and encouragement:

To the Officers of the international association Présence de Gabriel

Marcel,

To Monsieur and Madame Jean-Marie Marcel for their cordial friendship

and most helpful patronage,

To Madame Jeanne Parain-Vial for her special friendship and her

encouraging support of my projects,

To Professor Paul Ricoeur for his longstanding friendship and his

gracious kindness in providing an introduction for this work,

To Madame Bernadette Gradis and Monsieur Joël Bouëssée, officers

of the Foundation Européene de la Culture, for their gracious

recognition and promotion of my work,

To Le Moyne College Committee on Faculty Research for several

important financial grants in support of this study,

To Dr. Taisto Niemi, Le Moyne College Librarian (1963-81), whose vision

and kindness lent support to my research efforts and projects of the

Gabriel Marcel Institute for Existential Drama,

To Ms. Theresa Santillo, Administrative Assistant, Le Moyne College

Library for her help in procuring texts by Gabriel Marcel,

Acknowledgment of kind help and encouragement continued:

To the Director and Personnel of Le Moyne College Audio Visual

Department, Professor Thomas Hogan and his staff for their excellent

technical services and generous cooperation,

To the officers and members of the Gabriel Marcel Institute for

Existential Drama for their excellent spirit and theatrical productions,

To Mireille Goodisman and Christiane Moloney for their helpful

suggestions and assurance that I could communicate in French--with

a little help from my friends,

To Professor and Mrs. G. Charles Paikert who so graciously encouraged

my intellectual and international adventures,

To Andrea Adams McKnight, whose energies and businesslike efficiency

helped immeasurably in materializing this text,

To Alan Clark for the service of his editorial skills,

To Stephen Healy for his artful illustrations depicting the commemorative

medal struck for the International Society Présence de Gabriel

Marcel.

To my family and all my dear friends who loved me and prayed for me,

thereby helping this project to come to fruition.

iii

Acknowledgment of permission to print:

Révue Philosophique de Louvain, permission to print an English

version, Chapter II. The Unfathomable : A Search for Presence, of an

article originally published in French "Réflexions sur la présence comme

signe d’

immortalité d'

après la pensée de Gabriel Marcel," Révue

Philosophique de Louvain tome 74, mai 1976, pp. 211-34.

Société Française de Philosophie, permission to print an

English version, Chapter III. "The Lantern: and The Light of Truth," an

article originally entitled Le Fanal et la fidélité creatrice," published in the

Bulletin de la Société française de Philosophie, avril-juin 1984, 78 annee,

No. 2, pp. 50-53.

World Congress of Philosophy, for permission to reprint Chapter

IV. "Dot the I : An Existential Witness of the Light of Truth." Originally

printed in the Acts of the XVIIth World Congress of Philosophy: Culture

and Nature Montreal, Canada, August 21-27, 1983.

Association des sociétés de philosophie de langue française for

permission to print an English version, Chapter VI. The Rebellious Heart:

and Human Creation, originally published in French as "Le Cœur des

autres et la création humaine" in La Création, Actes du XXe congrés de

L’Association des sociétés de philosophie de langue française, Quebec,

Canada, 20-23 aout 1984, L’Université de Quebec àTrois-Riviéres; and

an English version, Chapter IX. ""Rome is no longer in Rome: the

Challenge for Creative Incarnations of Fidelity," of Rome n’est plus dans

Rome et lavenir

des valeurs" presented in French and printed in

L’

Avenir, Actes du XXIe congr‘es de L’

Association des sociétés

philosophiques de langue française, August 21-24, 1986, Athens,

Greece.

American Catholic Philosophical Association for permission to

reprint the text of Chapter VII. "Colombyre or the Torch of Peace: the

Role of Person-Communities in Living Creative Fidelity to Values,

originally published under the title: "Dramatic Approaches to Creative

Fidelity" in Ethical Wisdom East and/or West: Proceedings of The

American Catholic Philosophic Association, Vol LI, Washington, D.C.,

1977, pp. 193 - 99; and to reprint the text of Chapter VIII. "The Sting:

Threatening the Foundations of Fidelity" of which an earlier version

appeared in the Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical

Association, Vol. LX, Washington, D.C., 1986.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents iv

INTRODUCTION ix

FOREWARD xii

PART ONE: GABRIEL MARCEL. PHILOSOPHER-DRAMATISTMUSICIAN

Chapter I. An Introduction to Gabriel Marcel's Philosophic Quest 2

MUSIC 3

THEATER 5

Theater of Interiority 7

Theater for a Broken World 9

Theater of Inquiry 12

Theater Introduces Philosophy 15

Philosophy 19

Concrete Approach 20

A Call to Be 20

Neo-Socratic 21

Phenomenological 21

PROPER RELATIONS BETWEEN THEATER AND PHILOSOPHY 23

Always Prospective and Concretizing 24

Paradox of Philosopher-Dramatist 25

Chronological Bibliography Of Works By Gabriel Marcel About His Theater 41

Bibliography Of Works On Gabriel Marcel That Clarify The Nature Of His

Theater And Its Relationship To His Philosophy 45

PART TWO: DRAMATIC APPROACHES TO CREATIVE FIDELITY 55

Chapter II, The Unfathomable: A Search for Presence 56

Chapter III. The Lantern: and The Light of Truth 79

Chapter IV. Dot The I: An Existential Witness of the Light of Truth 91

Notes to Chapter IV. Dot the I and Existential Witness to the Light of Truth 97

1. Gabriel Marcel, The Existential Background of Human Dignity, Cambridge,

MA, Harvard University Press, 1963, p.179. 97

2. Les points sur les I, Paris, Editions Grasset, 1936.

Chapter VI. The Double Expertise: Fidelity and Infidelity 112

Chapter VII. Colombyre or the Torch of Peace: The Role of PersonCommunities

in Living Creative Fidelity to Values. 131

Chapter VIII. The Sting: Threatening the Foundations of Fidelity 140

Chapter IX. Rome Is No Longer In Rome: Challenge for Creative Incarnations

of Fidelity 156

Chapter X. Conclusion: Sketch of the Essential Features Highlighted 168

PART THREE: RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH 178

Works by Gabriel Marcel in Chronological Order of Composition with Publisher

References 179

A.Philosophical Works 179

B. Gabriel Marcel's Plays 183

C. Translations of Gabriel Marcel Plays into English. 184

C. Drama Criticism 186

E. Musical Compositions 188

E. Combination Works by Gabriel Marcel 199

F. Bibliographies 201

Lapointe, Francois H., "A Bibliography of the writings of Gabriel Marcel," pp.

583-609, in The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, (The Library of Living

Philosophers, Vol. XVII),ed. P. A. Schilpp and L. E. Hahn, LaSalle, IL:

Open Court, 1984. 201

H. Centers of Research 204

INDEX 205

vii

"Being is an affirmation

of which

I am the stage

rather than the subject."

G. Marcel, The Philosophy of Existentialism, p. 18

viii

INTRODUCTION

Katharine Rose Hanley has given herself the double task of

introducing English-speaking audiences to Gabriel Marcel’s theater and

of showing how theater and philosophy complement one another in

Marcel'

s work. I can attest that this book by Professor Hanley fulfills that

double promise.

As to the first task that the author assigned herself, it is quite

remarkable that she did not limit herself to merely stating in general terms

that the dramatic work of Gabriel Marcel introduces questioning that the

philosophic work continues, using conceptual analysis. She shows in

detail, through a judicious choice of several highly representative plays,

how the intrigue and development of the characters propose in each

instance a clearly defined enigma that calls for an effort of thought that

members of the audience can, if they wish, pursue under the guidance of

a philosophic essay easily identifiable in the master'

s work. Thus the

preoccupation with the presence of a loved one among the living after his

or her death--in The Unfathomable and in The Lantern --is followed up by

a philosophic reflection in "Presence and Immortality." Likewise, the

question posed by Dot the I is to know the meaning of living in the light of

truth: is it according to childlike simplicity or with adult sophistication? The

Rebellious Heart opens up the question of authentic creation, principally

in art. The Double Expertise introduces the question of fidelity in

interpersonal relationships, and so forth. On this topic, one point struck

me particularly in the detailed analyses of the plays selected, namely

what one might call the heuristic function of the final scene, and even at

times the last exchange between the characters. The last scene most

often serves the dual function of terminating the dramatic action and

beginning the philosophic reflection. More precisely, this nexus between

the dramatic closure and the opening of speculation differs from one play

to the next. In order to chart a course amid the profusion of dramatic

"conclusions," one can very easily follow the lead idea adopted by

Professor Hanley to explore the relation between theater and philosophy,

namely the theme of creative fidelity. One could also try situating the

various dramatic endings on a single scale, as Victor Goldsmith has done

in the past for the Dialogues of Plato, according to whether "the

conclusion" of the dialogue was nearer to the pole of unresolved enigma,

of aporia, or the pole of episteme, of certain truth. The case could be the

same for the dramatic endings of Gabriel Marcel's plays. On an axis

defined by the title in French of a collection of essays that is referred to

most frequently in this study— Du Refus à l’Invocation (From Refusal to

Invocation), translated with the English title of Creative Fidelity, certain

endings only witness negatively and as if by default, in favor of a "creative

presence"; then it is the impasse in which the characters are trapped that

invites spectators to follow at their own risk and peril the investigation of the

ways that the characters in the play did not know, could not, or would not

explore. Such is the situation of The Rebellious Heart and its final note of

mute despair. At the other end of the spectrum, we find plays where the

liberating word is clearly spoken; these are the plays of which Gabriel

Marcel could say that they anticipated his reflection, even at times his

conversion, or in any event the formulation of a "problem" on the point of

turning itself into a "mystery." Such is the case with The Unfathomable and,

up to a point, The Lantern with its ending that is both surprising and

ambiguous. It is a scale of creativity that one would have to speak of in the

case of Gabriel Marcel. But that scale is not, as for the Dialogues of Plato, a

scale of knowledge, but a scale of mystery. Between the two poles of "refusal"

and "invocation" are situated plays in which the accent is placed on threat

and challenge; such is the case of The Sting and Rome is No Longer in Rome,

plays with a decidedly pessimistic turn.

In fact, all the plays draw their dramatic quality, not only from the

opposition between the characters but from the ambivalence of the

responses that one or another character gives to the threat or the challenge

that distinguishes each of the Marcel plays. In that sense, the "refusal" or

the "invocation" designates not so much extreme poles as spiritual directions

that are opposite but equally operative. This is why our image of a scale

along which the plays of Gabriel Marcel would distribute themselves in a

hierarchical order is finally deceptive and must be abandoned after it has

rendered the didactic service we sought from it. We should speak rather of a

dramatic constellation, even an archipelagic formation (to approximate the

magnificent title: "the secret is in the isles”). The remark applies especially to

the plays that we have situated midway, and in which neither pure despair nor

total light prevails starkly, but an ambiguous, even elusive or ironic, end, if not a

satirical one as in The Double Expertise, or one with a nostalgic note as in

Colombyre or the Torch of Peace. It is here that the uniqueness of the

dramas requires an image less linear, if one may say so, more arborescent,

of the plays in half-tones. By the same fact, the reflection that the dramatic

conclusion calls for is different in each case; the very words of "creative fidelity,"

of "light of truth," of "presence" should lose their air of vague generality to

designate in each case a singular response to a singular challenge.

This last remark leads me to the philosophic side of Professor Hanley's

book. If it is true, as she demonstrates, that the principal themes of Gabriel

Marcel's philosophy maintain an organic relationship with the dramatic

situation, one cannot characterize "second reflection" without an explicit

reference to the theater, if one understands by "second reflection" a

recollection on the conceptual level of the fundamental experiences of

"presence," of "fidelity," of "invocation," etc., beyond the objectivations that a

first reflection brings to them, whether the latter be of Cartesian, Kantian, or

Husserlian origin. It is not sufficient to say. that philosophy prolongs a

reflection that a member of the audience may have begun once the curtain

has fallen on the play. One must go as far as to say that second reflection

conserves, on its own proper level, something of the dramatic structure of the

plays. My earlier allusion to the Dialogues of Plato is pertinent here in

another sense, one highlighted by the designation of "neo-Socratic" that

Gabriel Marcel himself accepted for his work. Second reflection, I will say in

following the insistent suggestion of Professor Hanley, is itself of a structure

that is radically dialogical letter (conflict included). If the

philosophical essays of Gabriel Marcel appear often disconcerting, that is

because the reader wants to go directly to the theses that could constitute a

great Marcelian monologue. The reader simply finds the comings and goings

of a thought that advances only at the cost of incessant corrections. These

rectifications are nothing but the reflective transposition of an interplay of

questions and answers among virtual protagonists in a discussion. It is the

first objectifying reflection that is monological. The second reflection is

dialogical, not for any pedagogical concern, but by its essence. Gabriel

Marcel reflecting becomes himself the living theater where multiple voices

respond to one another within a discourse that appears to be spoken by one

voice only. In this sense, Professor Hanley was truly inspired in placing as

introductory quotation this statement by Gabriel Marcel: "Being is an

affirmation of which I am the stage rather than the subject." This stage is

indeed the scene for the theater of thought. Reflection remains a

continuation of theater to the extent that it assumes the logic of the question

and answer, such as Gadamer, following Collingwood, articulates it. The

interpersonal dialogue becomes the dialogue of the soul with itself, according

to the beautiful definition, of thought given in the Theatetus. That's why it is

not astonishing that dialogical reflection obeys as does dramatic dialogue,

the double gravitation of despair and of invocation. It is in this manner that

philosophy develops a "concrete approach to the ontological mystery."

It is in this exchange between the explorative character of the theater

and the dialogical character of the philosophy that is founded, in Gabriel

xii

Marcel's work, in the complementarity between the theater and philosophy.

That complementarity Professor Hanley goes well beyond affirming in

general terms, she establishes it in full detail in her excellent analyses of

several of the best plays of our common master-teacher, Gabriel Marcel.

Paul Ricoeur

FOREWARD

This work stands as a tribute to Gabriel Marcel. Its purpose is to share

with readers some idea of the interest that can accrue from the interaction of

an individuals thinking with Marcel's writings in theater and in philosophy.

Three encounters with Gabriel Marcel have greatly influenced my

personal and philosophic life. After a lecture given at Louvain University in

Belgium in 1958, Marcel autographed a copy of The Decline of Wisdom for

me.(1) Although the question he asked me on that occasion was a quite

xiii

practical ore "who are you?" its cogency, along with the personally engaging

look in his eyes, makes it a vivid question for me every time I recall that

incident.

During his lecture tour around the United States in 1965, Marcel visited

Le Moyne College and received an honorary doctoral degree. At the end of his

five-day visit to Syracuse, he inscribed a copy of Creative Fidelity for me, "in

remembrance of an encounter which I hope will one day be renewed."(2)

Just three weeks before his death on October 8, 1973, at the conclusion of

a conversation after luncheon in his home in Paris, Gabriel Marcel inscribed

Five Major Plays for me, affirming "a bond of spiritual kinship that once

renewed would not be broken."(3)

Many other people can relate similar happenings, for Marcel had a gift of

powerful personal Présence that touched friends and readers alike. It is my

hope for those who read this book, that Marcel will became a friend, one with

whom a bond of spiritual kinship develops, one who leaves a deep and

lasting influence upon their lives.

Several months after Marcel's death, I was among those invited to

speak at De Paul University's Day of Commemorative Tribute, February 4,

1974. I wanted to communicate some perspectives from my last

conversation with Gabriel Marcel. yet the challenge for me was to make

these recollections alive and meaningful to people who were not present at

that particular and very moving moment when Marcel talked of presence

from beyond death. Quite fortunately I thought of his book, Presence and

Immortality. (4) Not only its subject, but also its format were just what was

needed. This book combines, in one volume, the first act of an unfinished

play, journal entries from the years 1938-1943, and philosophic essays, all

focusing on one common topic.

In preparing that talk, I realized that theater enables spectators to enter

into a concrete life situation wherein a mystery reveals itself to those whose

lives are touched by its impact. Thus each person can be caught up in a

situation where certain questions are explored and certain perspectives of

insight come to light. In the case of The Unfathomable (5), the fact that

Maurice Lechevalier is officially reported as missing in action significantly

affects the lives of various members of his family. Their reactions and

interpretations differ according to the relationship each had had with Maurice

before his disappearance.

xiv

The dramatic presentation enables audiences to enter into the situation

where a loved one, a family member, a friend, or a mere acquaintance dies or

otherwise disappears from the daily scene and the familiar ways of

interacting. The dramatization of this event raises questions clearly and

poignantly. What has become of the loved one who has passed on? What

will become of the bereaved, the loved one left behind? Is survival of loved

ones beyond death possible? Can the bereaved continue to live on without the

idea that the loved one still actively intervenes in their lives even from beyond

death and that the gifts of the loved one'

s presence are still received? These

questions occur, not merely theoretically but as real alternatives, dramatic

heart-rending speculations that can touch and radically alter our lives.

Inquiry about these questions, and research about the various possible

answers that will drastically affect our lives, are pursued as these issues

engage our o w n personal being. that is at stake in a determination of the

emptiness or fullness of our own lives. The questions and the way they are

treated are truly existential. The dramatic action brings into clear focus

questions arousing the interest and speculation of members of the audience

about their own relationships, as well as those of characters in the play.

This discovery of how Marcel'

s theater lets many people come into

personal and experiential contact with a reality that calls for reflection and

clarification in their own lives, as well as in the lives depicted on the stage, was

not only significant for that particular day of commemorative tribute. It revealed

to me an approach for entering into dialogue with Marcel's thought, an

approach that has remained significant for whatever subsequent study I

have undertaken.

After that event, I began collecting and studying Marcel'

s thirty plays. I

also collected the numerous articles he wrote as a drama critic, as well as

essays and lectures wherein he comments on the nature of his existential

theater and at times clarifies its relationship to his philosophic reflections.

In conjunction with metaphysics classes and seminars on the theater of

Gabriel Marcel, The Gabriel Marcel Institute for Existential Drama at Le

Moyne College has produced seven plays on stage, for television, and as

readers' theater adaptations: The Rebellious Heart, 1975; The Lantern, 1976;

The Double Expertise, 1977; Dot the I, 1978; A Man of God, 1978; The

Broken World, 1979; and Colombyre or the Torch of Peace,1980.(6) Similar

productions have occurred at other colleges and universities, and always

with noteworthy benefits.

This hands-on experience of producing Gabriel Marcel'

s plays, plus

the opportunity for seminars studying his theater as a way of access to

his philosophic thought, provided more than ample evidence that the

approach of studying dramatic works as a gateway to philosophic

reflection was as exciting and perhaps more illuminating even than

Marcel'

s commentaries had suggested.

In 1983-1984 a series of invitations to lecture before various

prestigious audiences afforded me the opportunity to articulate the thesis

that Marcel'

s theater and philosophy should be studied together. This

series of lectures also enabled me to flesh out an illustration of how this

method of study allows us to clarify some essential features of creative

fidelity, a key theme in Marcel'

s life and work.

This book is the fruit of these various moments of encounter,

theater production, philosophic reflection, and dialogue. The work

includes three parts: an introduction to Gabriel Marcel'

s theater, a study

of eight pairings of plays and essays that clarify various aspects and

dimensions of creative fidelity, and a section of information helpful for

those interested in knowing more about Gabriel Marcel'

s life and work.

The tone of this book is largely conversational, perhaps emulating

somewhat the style of Marcel'

s writing and thought. Chapters Two

through Nine are derived from lectures delivered on various occasions.

Some of these presentations have already been published elsewhere

either in English or in French.

It is my hope that this work will concretely suggest some of the

advantages to be gleaned from studying Marcel'

s theater on its own as

theater, and also as a privileged gateway into the realm of his

philosophic reflections.

It is also my hope that this book and the approach it suggests will

appeal to students and teachers in interdisciplinary and humanities

courses. I am sure the book will help all who desire a concrete approach

to and a personal involvement in philosophic investigations. It may also

prove to be of interest and benefit to theater people who will find Marcel'

existential theater profound in pact and accessible not merely to a restricted

intellectual elite, but rather to all who have a sensitivity of spirit to

compassionately live the heights and the depths of human experience as

these are being portrayed in the lives of members of the human family.

xvi

Finally it is my hope that this book of meditations on various aspects of creative

fidelity will entice readers to seek directly and personally fresh insights into the rich

values of human life that Marcel's works bring to light.

This work will have succeeded and fulfilled my expectations for it if it sends readers

directly to the writings of Gabriel Marcel, and lets the concrete approach of theater open

up the way of access to philosophic reflection and insight whose motherlode is deep

and rich.

Katharine Rose Hanley

xvii

Notes to the Author’s Foreword.

Books by Gabriel Marcel mentioned in the Foreword:

1. The Decline of Wisdom, London, Harvill Press, 1954; New York,

Philosophical Library, 1955.

2. Creative Fidelity, New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1964;

New York, Crossroad Press, 1982.

3. (Five Major Plays), Cinq Pieces Majeures, Paris, Plon, 1973.

4. Presence and Immortality, Pittsburgh, PA., Duquesne

University Press, 1967.

5. The Unfathomable, pp. 254-84 in Presence and Immortality, cited

above.

6. The Rebellious Heart and The Broken World with an Introduction by

the author appeared in The Existential Drama of Gabriel Marcel,

Francis J. Lescoe, St. Jos. College, West Hartford, CT, McAuley

Institute, 1974.

The Lantern appeared in Cross Currents, Spring 1958; Two Plays by

Gabriel Marcel, Lanham:MD, University Press of America, 1988.

A Man of God appeared in Three Plays by Gabriel Marcel,_ New

York, Hill and Wang, 1965.

T w o One Act Plays by Gabriel Marcel: Dot the I and The Double

Expertise, Lanham, MD., University Press of America, 1986.

Colombyre or the Torch of Peace, translated by Joseph Cunneen, is

an English version of the original French Colombyre ou le brasier de

la paix, published with Le Divertissement posthume, La Double

Expertise et Les points sur les I, in Théâtre comique, Paris, Albin

Michel, 1947.

English titles for works by Gabriel Marcel that have not yet been

published in English are not underlined.

xviii

PART ONE:

GABRIEL MARCEL.

PHILOSOPHER-DRAMATIST-MUSICIAN

Chapter I. An Introduction to Gabriel Marcel's Philosophic

Quest

Gabriel Marcel is principally known to an English-speaking

audience as a philosopher, an existential thinker of international

renown. He was also a playwright whose dramas were staged in major

theaters in Paris, and also in Belgium, Germany, the United States, and

elsewhere. When Marcel gave the William Janes Lectures at Harvard

University in 1961, some twelve years after presenting the Gifford

Lectures in Aberdeen, Scotland, he expressed the hope that an

English-speaking audience would soon no longer know his theater only

in an abstract way but would have a direct and concrete experience of

its performance.(1) Marcel was also an accomplished musician,

improvising and writing piano compositions, often bringing favorite

poems to full expression as songs.(2)

In a talk sponsored by the Alliance Française, Marcel noted that

for him music, theater, and philosophy were like three concentric rings,

or concentric levels of communication. Music is the innermost and

deepest center; theater is next, with its dialogue among incarnate

persons; and philosophy is the outermost and last, with its discussion in

general terms of questions and challenges affecting the meaning of

human life.(3) He also wrote in 1962 that unlike past readers who first

approached his philosophy, in the future those who wish to fathom his

thought would have to conceive the theater in relation to the music, and

the philosophy in relation to the theater. He even added that those with

a sensitivity to music will have a special advantage.(4)

These remarks suggest that the interrelationship of music,

theater, and philosophy may provide a significant clue as to how to

approach Gabriel Marcel'

s thought. These comments, while clear,

remain quite succinct. Marcel does not explain their sense; rather he

leaves to us the task of reflecting to clarify their meaning.

The deploying of this image will be the leitmotif of this essay,

which will also highlight some of the distinctive features of Marcel's work

and suggest the importance of letting his theater serve as channel to his

philosophic reflection.

MUSIC

Music played a dominant role in Marcel's life and for a time he

considered a career as a concert pianist. He often wrote about music,

and even improvised musical compositions, most often to give some of

his favorite poems their full expression in song. A commemorative

medal struck after his death shows his likeness with his dates of birth

and death (1889-1973) on one side; on the other side is a figure of

Orpheus with the caption, "Availability, fidelity, hope."(5)

Marcel once wrote that if he had to select a character from

mythology to typify his own life, he would have to choose Orpheus, so

central was the role of music in his life. He even spoke of his marriage,

about which he was always discrete, as being under the sign of music,

pure joy. His wife was an accomplished musician who worked with him,

annotating his musical compositions. Marcel also wrote that in his early

years it was music that provided for him the presence and assurance

of the sacred in human life.(6)

Music not only played an important role in Marcel'

s life, it also

remains a significant metaphor revealing the kind of knowledge and

communication he hoped for. Music is present to us personally,

affecting each individual according to his or her sensitivity to hear.

Music moves us integrally, touching us bodily and spiritually and

influencing our feelings and consciousnesses. Marcel wanted ideas to

be realistically founded, rooted in encounters with realities as personally

experienced in concrete incarnate situations involving our feelings, our

attitudes, and our persons as well as our rational consciousnesses.

Music reveals in a privileged way the dimension of life that Marcel's

searchings bring to light, a spiritual dimension without which our lives

would lack a level of humanness, dignity, and depth.(7) Marcel was

concerned with the sacred in human life and he found witnesses to it in

the works of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and others. He was curious to

conceive of how these sacred realities can be encountered by us. In

his "Essay in Autobiography" he wrote that it was a central

preoccupation of his thought to explore how a transcendent

dimension of life can be present to an individual.(8) Music llustrates

a response to that question. Music, like many realities we experience

bodily and spiritually, is present to us in our individual subjectivity by

way of inwardness and depth.(9) Music is reality that can be present to

many individuals and to each one by way of interiority and depth.

Finally, music, by its presence, effects a certain assurance of the

message it conveys.

For Marcel, music is significant in its own right as a mode of

communication; it is also present in his dramatic and philosophic works

both directly by explicit reference and indirectly by its influence on his

style of composition. References to Strauss waltzes, music of

Solesmes, and Beethoven sonatas and symphonies have their own

peculiar resonance in the context of the plays in which they occur.

Music appears as a central theme in several plays, (Quartet in F#), (My

Time is not Your Time), and (The Sting). Music figures as a secondary

theme in others, for example, Ariadne and (Increase and Multiply).

Music is also present directly or by allusion in The Unfathomable, The

Broken World, (Grace), Colombyre or the Torch of Peace, in fact, in

almost all of his plays.(10) Marcel'

s dramatic works reveal an

architectonic structure similar to that of musical compositions. His

dramas show the influence of a musical style of composition in the

development of dramatic situations, and in the denouement that often

ends on a note of dissonance.(11) One can also recognize the style of

one who improvises and composes musically in the way his thought

progresses in his philosophic writings.

These reflections on music as the first and innermost of three

concentric layers of communication should alert us to the fact that

Marcel expects each person who philosophizes about the human

condition to root his or her reflections in an experiential awareness of

those realities as they can be encountered by way of inwardness

and depth. Marcel offers the encouragement that those initiated to

the deep secrets of the art of music may be more apt to follow the

transposition to other modes of consciousness that theater and

philosophy effect. If we heed Marcel'

s important remarks in the

Préface to Kenneth Gallagher'

s very fine book, The Philosophy of

Gabriel Marcel, "that whoever approaches my work will have to

conceive the drama in function of music, and the philosophy in

function of drama ,"(12) we may indeed expect to see the drama as a

way of leading us into a world of darkness and light wherein we

encounter important existential questions, not only on stage but

within the theater of our own inwardness and depth.

While Marcel wrote only a few succinct, though cogent,

statements about the role of music in his life and work, he wrote

numerous commentaries about the significance of his theater in

itself and as a gateway to his philosophic writings.(13)

THEATER

Marcel writes about his reaction to the theater, which was his

first vocation and for a while, he thought, his only one. His way of

conceiving questions is through a dramatic imagination that

envisages people caught up in a situation of conflict. From the time

he was a child he was at home in the world of theater. He reveled in

creating imaginary characters who peopled the otherwise lonely

landscape of his universe as an only child. A play he wrote at age

twelve was favorably evaluated by a critic and was later produced in a

modified version as A Man of God. (14) Marcel had a real gift for

dramatic composition and a predilection for theater. He enjoyed

hearing his father read plays aloud to him and in later years they

delighted in attending theater performances together. He noted that

theater seemed to gratify the exigency they shared for the aesthetically

pleasing coupled with an intellectual rigor.

Marcel worked for more than forty years as a drama critic, writing

for prestigious reviews. In 1923 he was named drama critic for L'

Europe

Nouvelle. He also wrote for Sept, Temps Present, La Vie intellectuelle,

and others. In 1944 he was named drama critic for Nouvelles

Littéraires. He wrote numerous articles and essays and three full-length

books of drama criticism.(15) All this he did in addition to being a

playwright who created some thirty play's that appeared from 1911 to

1961. One of his plays, The Lantern, remains in the permanent

repertory of the Comédie Française and his work received

numerous French and international awards.(16)

Marcel acknowledged that theater enabled him to break a path

for freedom in his own life, a life that, though gifted and privileged in

many ways, was also marked by tragedy and loss. Furthermore,

through the immediate milieu of his family he became aware of the

suffering wrought by fundamental conflicts. Dramatic imagination let

Marcel see these antinomies played out in the light of the theater

and deal with them in his own life, thus gaining greater lucidity and

freedom. We can understand that Marcel creates his theater with the

hope that it may help others to recognize and deal with some of the

fundamental questions and conflicts in their lives, and thus attain

greater freedom for themselves.

Marcel saw that his was a theater of consciousness, one of

dawning light that opens up paths for freedom to explore. For him,

theater is the second, more exteriorized circle of communication. His

theater, like his music, deals with tensions and conflicts around various

themes. While his dramas depict the playing out of life'

s conflicts and

antinomies as these can lead to despair, they also convey the

possibility of moving beyond them in hope. If we heed Marcel'

s dictum

that his theater is to be conceived as a function of music, we will not be

surprised to discover that his theater in its own proper way also leads

audiences to a depth of their hearts where they experience a certain

call to be. Both music and drama work through the tension of opposition

that conflict brings, and Marcel'

s theater, like his music, moves toward

some kind of resolution, even one that may end on a note of dissonance.

Music moves us through this experience on a level of inward listening that is

beyond eris (verbal argumentation). Theater lets the theme play itself out in the

more externally manifest expression of incarnate subjectivities and their more

verbal form of interpersonal dialogue. Yet theater, like music, enables us to open

onto perspectives of .light and hope that reveal themselves to us as we live

through the tragic, transcending it by way of a path of interiority that leads to the

deepest center in our selves.

Theater presents a living world concretely: lights, music, decor are set on

stage with live actors and actresses. As Marcel wrote in (The Secret is in

the Isles), the medium of theater lets spectators jump right into the life world the

drama portrays. Theatrical presentation permits audiences to be caught

up in the dramatic action occurring on stage and to live it not only as affecting the

characters of the play but also as engaging the very being of the spectator.

Theater is such a complete mode of communication that it allows for this kind

of total participation, even inviting personal identification with what is being

enacted on stage.(17)

Marcel's plays are imaginatively conceived, well crafted, and artfully

structured. They are also dramatically powerful. They usually depict

domestic situations, with settings and themes familiar to all of us. He presents

a drama with which we can easily identify. In this, as well as in a certain

characteristic style involving suspense, surprise turns of events, and

unexpected shocking developments, Marcel's plays are not unlike sate of the

"soaps" popular on television today. Marcel's plays depict situations wherein

there are issues about identity and desire for communication and love.

They show challenges to fidelity and situations involving infidelity. Some

explore the tensions of political differences and examine the struggle of

individual conscience. Others portray the generation gap, concern for

soldiers missing in action, and fears before the menace of war. Still other

dramas explore individuals'

struggles for success and authenticity, or deal

with questions about faith, music, artistic integrity, survival, and life after death.

Marcel'

s plays focus on aspects of human life that are of concern. (18)

As these plays present domestic settings, with family and friends trying to

cane to grips with crises over fundamental issues plaguing their

relationships, they bring to light questions that confront individuals who

are curious about whether or not there is a sense to their lives.

Several features of Marcel'

s dramatic art enable audiences to come

to a vivid and personal awareness of some of these basic issues.

The characters of Marcel'

s plays and their personal

relationships seem to be the focus of the dramatic action. Marcel

has a real forte for creating characters who are lifelike, whom we

feel we'

ve meet or whom we'

d certainly recognize if we did meet

them in real life. As these characters develop and reveal

themselves during the course of the play, the audience begins to

sense something of who these characters are and what they live by.

(19)

Theater of Interiority

Marcel'

s theater has been called "a theater of interiority."

Marcel himself once wrote that he knows and creates the characters

of his plays, as it were, "from within." Spectators then participating in

what dramatis personae are living on stage are moved to a deep

level of compassionate sensitivity within themselves as they identify

with the dawning of consciousness that occurs "within" characters in

the play.

As the play progresses and spectators become aware, not

only of the external events that are happening, but also of the

interior drama that the characters are living, there dawns a

consciousness of the tragic that is emerging in these peoples’ lives.

There is usually at least one person of striking lucidity or

remarkable sensitivity in Marcel's plays. These people project a

sense of the tragic in their situation. Sometimes this consciousness

is communicated directly, as in the case of the exceptionally lucid

and articulate Raymond Chavière in The Lantern. (20) In other

cases the characters themselves are not so translucent, but the

consciousness of the tragic in their life situation is reflected to the

audience by characters who themselves remain somewhat opaque

as in the case of Françoise in “Grace” (21)

This tragic consciousness is not so much a theoretical or an

intellectual awareness as it is an awareness that is enmeshed in a

concrete situation, one that is lived bodily and felt in terms of

sensitivity before it emerges on a level that can be articulated and

then reflected upon. Marcel observed that his was the paradoxical

situation of one who is a philosopher-dramatist. His theater is not a

theater of ideas as theoretic notions to be expounded and argued.

Neither is it a theater that proselytizes an ideology, or a showcase

for puppets who merely mouth an author’s convictions. Marcel

observed that any serious drama brings about a heightening of

consciousness.(22) His theater, however, assists at the birth of

consciousness in a distinctive way. In (The Invisible Threshold), Le

Seuil Invisible, in the Préface he wrote for his first published plays,

Marcel spoke of the dawning of a tragic consciousness) His dramas

present real people coming with almost palpable birthpangs to a lived

awareness of the tragic dimension in their life situation. In Marcel's

dramas his tragic awareness relates to the fundamental issues and

drama of human life.

Marcel'

s plays communicate not only ideas but also an awakening

of consciousness. Actors present the anguish they live. With lucidity and

compassion spectators can identify with the consciousness and drama

of interiority that characters on the stage are living. The action, with its

heightening of consciousness, is played out not only on the stage before

us but also on a stage within us, the intimate theater of each individual's

personal and deepening awareness.

Theater, like music, brings audiences to a deep personal center

within themselves. Theater and music also effect a searching concern

for a significant spiritual dimension in their lives. Both media affect the

person bodily as well as spiritually and in that manner permit an

awareness that is incarnate, holistic, and integral while being intensely

personal. In contrast to music, theater is more verbal. The argument of

conflict is more explicit, and the focus on a particular tragic dimension in

human life is sharpened. Incarnate portrayal facilitates audience

identification with the lead characters in the play, and dramatic action

heightens an increasingly explicit and articulated consciousness of the

precise tragic dimension in this particular life situation.

Marcel '

s dramas portray the shadowed side of life. Compared to

his music or his philosophy, his plays have a more somber tone, often

conveying the pathos that is part of life's tragic aspect. Still, even these

plays enable us to perceive a glimmer of light that invites us to explore

pathways to freedom. This occurs through a peculiar kind of

breakthrough or transcendence beyond the tragic.(24)

Theater for a Broken World

Marcel refers to his theater as a theater of a broken world. The

sentiment first found expression on the lips of Christiane Chesnay in her

conversation with Denise Furstlin in first act of the play the Broken

world. 'Don't you feel...that we are living...if you can call it living...in a

broken world? Yes, broken like a broken watch. The mainspring has

stopped working. Just look at it, nothing has changed. Everything is in

place. But put the watch to your ear, and you don'

t hear any ticking. You

know what I'm talking about, the world, what we call the world, the world

of human creatures. . .it seems to me it must have had a heart at one

time, but today you would say the heart had stopped beating..."(25)

In an introduction written for the publication of two plays, The

Rebellious Heart and The Broken world, Marcel observes that the

consciousness of a broken world takes a different form in each of

these plays. For Christiane in The Broken world, it is the world around

her that disintegrates and breaks apart. This was a world she'

constructed from a disillusioned level of herself. For Rose in The

Rebellious Heart, the breaking up of her world is manifest through a

gradual awareness of that breaking deepening in her heart.(26)

Marcel also acknowledges that "theater of a broken world" can

aptly be applied to the entire corpus of his dramatic works. In each of his

plays, as the lead characters became consciousness of the fact that their

world has fallen apart, a certain light also dawns for them. This light is

not an intellectual explanation, it is not necessarily even a conscious

awareness, but there occurs an illumination of a mysterious dimension

of their lives that transcends the tragic. In some instances the light is

somber, in others it is brighter--almost a light of hope in the darkness,

and in one or another exceptional case the light appears as a flash of

awareness that illuminates the entire landscape of their lives.(27)

In The Rebellious Heart Rose cried plaintively, "There is

but one suffering and that is to be alone."(28) Yet as the play comes to

its climax it becomes clear that the intense suffering in her life is not

caused by her aloneness but by the quality of the relationships she has

with others around her: a husband, Daniel, who uses her but who does

not appreciate her or really relate to her as a person; and a stepson,

John, taken from her by the selfishness of a father whose ways the son

will probably follow, for he has abdicated any real hope for happiness in

this life. As the play ends, heavy with the sadness of despair, there is an

aura of questioning. Perhaps the questions are quickened more in the

rebellious hearts of the audience than in the explicit consciousness of

the characters of the play. Couldn't something have been done to

provide for an understanding and communion of love between Rose

and Daniel? Couldn't John have been saved?

The Broken World ends with a light of hope flooding onto the final

scene of the broken world, when Christiane, who thought herself

rejected and incapable of ever finding true love or real happiness in this

life, by a strange change of circumstances finds that, contrary to what

she felt and believed, she has been and is really loved and not forsaken.

On the strength of this discovery, the realization awakens within her that

there is hope for love in her life. In humbly communicating this

experience to her husband, she invites him to live out with her the

realization of that hope.(29)

In "The Iconoclast," a play written in 1921, which Marcel also

mentions in this same introduction, the world is off-center because of the

death of Vivian, Jacques'

first wife. The world becomes more out of tune

when their friend, Abel, who had not expressed his passionate love for

Vivian out of respect for his good friend Jacques, learns that Jacques

has remarried. Fired by resentment, Abel feels that Jacques is

unworthy of a pure memory of his first marriage to Vivian, and so he

contrives to arouse Jacques'

suspicion about Vivian'

s fidelity. Abel, for

his part, is crushed when he later learns that it was Vivian'

s urging and

her express request that moved Jacques to remarry and to carry on living

after her death. Abel would now like to restore Jacques'

confidence in

Vivian's fidelity. The following quote from a commentary written twenty-

four years after the play speaks well of the opening onto mystery Marcel's

plays effected even before the author was consciously aware of this.

Abel, who has realized his own mistake, suddenly sees

the whole tragedy in its true light. He becomes aware

that, in a sense infinitely surpassing the still too physical

and crude image of her in Jacques'

mind, Vivian's

Présence remains with than. She is still there to draw

them together once more, but only by recognizing this

mystery can they create the harmony in which the soul

can at last possess itself. "You could never," says Abel

to Jacques, "be satisfied for long in a world deserted by

mystery...Life without mystery, would be stifling." But the

mystery must be approached with humility. As Abel says

again: "Life itself will confound the iconoclasts and the selfappointed

judges... Life, or He who is beyond words." And

now at last Jacques too--though as yet confusedly--feels

awakening like music in his soul the consciousness of this

fruitful peace. (30)

In "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," the essay from which this last

quote was taken, as well as in other critical essays, Marcel stresses the

importance of the final act, and especially the last scene of a play, both

for the unity they bring to the entire work and for the questions they

raise.(31)

Marcel'

s plays often end on a disquieting, dissonant note, with

surprises that leave audiences stunned. Yet the end of a Marcel play is

disquieting also for the kind of questions it raises, and for the way these

questions affect audiences.

One theater-goer commented that Marcel'

s dramas have a

haunting quality.(32) The characters and key moments of the drama

remain with the spectator long after the final curtain has fallen on stage.

Gradually the questions come to light, in terms of the situation and

interaction of the characters in the play, and also in reference to ones

own life situation. Furthermore, the questions now come to light in one'

own consciousness as one seeks to fathom their meaning and then find

an acceptable sense that can illuminate a path toward freedom in one's

own life.

The end of a Marcel play can indeed be very unsettling. These

plays do not have "and they lived happily ever after" endings. The

conflicts and the tensions of fundamental antinomies remain, though

they also are somehow transcended. The dramatic situation is not neatly

resolved like a problem that is solved when all the pieces of the puzzle

fall into place. The tragic remains but there also appears the light of a

pathway to one's freedom. Marcel's plays do not seek to explain, or

answer questions. They do not settle problems or resolve conflicts. The

role of the theater, the playwright states, is not to explain, it is to show.

What a Marcel play shows raises questions and opens pathways

for reflection to clarify then. These questions can be formulated clearly

and concretely in terms of the life situation of the characters in the play.

With this articulation of these questions the process of reflective

clarification already begins. Marcel Belay, an exceptionally fine critic of

Gabriel Marcel'

s theater, remarked that drama is already a first

reflection.(33) This first reflection can be followed up with the further

reflection of drama criticism, reconstructing the play in reverse by starting

with the questions raised after the curtain falls. Marcel'

s plays also invite

another form of ongoing reflection, a personal one that can eventually

become technically philosophical.

Theater of Inquiry

Marcel acknowledges that his theater is indeed a theater of

inquiry.(34) His dramatic imagination envisions situations wherein

characters are working through questions and challenges that flow from

the tension of fundamental conflicts. This dramatic development is

shown throughout the plays. His dramas conclude, having raised

certain questions that neither the play nor the playwright attempts to

explain.

These questions are latent throughout the play, but are brought

sharply into focus in the final moments of the last scene or the last act.

The audience is left with questions about the characters. What

becomes of them after the denouement of the drama? What do they do

next? Why didn'

t they act or react differently during the course of the

play? For example, a propos of The Rebellious Heart, does John

become a dandy ne'

er do well? Can'

t Rose convince Daniel to bring the

boy home and help him? Why doesn'

t Rose leave Daniel and make a

home for John? Why doesn'

t Rose refuse to be used merely as a

provider of tenderness, a subject for plays? Why doesn't she insist on

being loved for her true worth? Why doesn'

t Daniel understand, why

can'

t he see? Why doesn'

t she make him see? The tragedy is that these

people in this situation can'

t make it work. That tragic awareness is

stunning, and it leads to a deeper and broader level of questioning. Is a

genuine communion of love possible between Rose and any of her

intimates such as Daniel, her husband, or John, her adopted son? If a

communion of love is not possible, why not? This level of questioning

gives rise to another where the perspective broadens. Is a genuine

communion of love possible in my life or in any human life? What

attitudes and circumstances seem to prevent or destroy true love?

What attitudes and circumstances would be requisite for true love to

occur or endure? What is the nature of genuine human love? Can its

traits be recognized and its essential dimensions lived out effectively?

What is a human life worth, if love is possible or if it is not possible?

What is the worth of life if true love does not occur, if tragedy prevails?

What is the worth and sense of life if true love does grace people'

lives?

All of Marcel'

s plays, his comic as well as his tragic works, end by

raising questions in the hearts and minds of those who see them

performed and are touched by their drama. Each raises questions

about the characters, the situation, the play'

s motif and themes. Each

raises and leaves open with the spectators questions about a

paradoxical situation that affects fundamental aspects of their own lives

as well as the lives of the characters on stage. The questions Marcel's

theater brings to light are experienced as a fundamental call to be that

invites our free response and engages us personally, for they affect our

very lives and being.

The final scenes of Marcel plays open onto mystery. Gaston

Fessard, one of Marcel'

s finest critics, rightly affirmed that the hallmark

of Marcel'

s theater is its communication of mystery. (35)

This communication occurs in a distinctive manner. One of

Marcel'

s fortes is the creation of characters who live and move and

speak as "I'

s," as unique conscious subjectivities, characters whom the

author has created from within. Then, because the action of the play

allows these characters to reveal their growing consciousnesses, the

spectator has the opportunity to participate in the realities occurring in

their lives in a person-to-person encounter. Through dialogue and

action, and especially through the incarnate magic and art of the

theater that actors and actresses effect, the character reveals him or

herself as a person. The actor or actress manifests that person from

within, effecting what Marcel later and in another context called an

"existential witness." The person in the play becomes "present" for the

audience, communicating not only the words said but the very reality that

he or she is living. As the actors and actresses "presentify" what they

are living and even at tines what they live by, the audience can be

touched by the reality that is manifesting itself through the lives of the

people in the play. Thus in an effective way Marcel'

s drama

communicates an experience of mystery that touches people in the play

and in the audience alike.(36)

When a Marcel play comes to an end, the spectator has been

drawn into a conscious experience of the tragic and has also

encountered the presence of a mysterious dimension in the lives of the

people in the play. He or she has been drawn into the dramatic climax

that gives rise to questions, yet provides the wherewithal for ongoing

reflection, for it opens onto a dimension of mystery that invites inquiry and

offers a pathway of light. Thus freedom can begin to find a way as

people struggle to transcend the tragic in their lives.

Drama, like music, can lead audiences to an experiential

knowledge of some of the fundamental mysteries of life. Both music

and drama enable audiences to encounter these realities inwardly and

deeply. Still, drama communicates this awareness in a different manner

than music does. Drama'

s mode of communication is incarnate

interpersonal dialogue. Drama heightens our consciousness of the

tragic that can emerge from some of the fundamental antinomies in

human life. Drama brings audiences to the point of beginning to deal with

these issues in a consciously reflective, interrogative, and reasoned

fashion. Yet Marcel'

s dramas, like poetry and song, would have

audiences deal with these issues, not in an abstractly reasoned

fashion, but in a reasoned reflection that clarifies the concrete situation

of unique human beings. Marcel'

s dramas allow audiences to

experience the situations of others, to recognize the reality of these

situations as also their own, and to understand them with that blend of

sympathy and] intelligence that tragic pity evokes. Tragic pity enables us

to identify with the suffering of others and to compassionately

understand it from a central focal point deep within our own conscious

being.(37)

Theater Introduces Philosophy

Philosophy, as rational discourse expressed in general terms, is

the third and outermost ring among Marcel'

s three concentric circles of

communication. Yet if we heed Marcel'

s dictum that his philosophy

should be construed in relation to his theater, we shall see how Marcel'

theater provides a uniquely appropriate, if not indispensable, gateway

to his philosophic reflection.

Marcel'

s plays raise the questions upon which his philosophic

writings reflect. These questions are posed concretely as they arise in

the lives of real, individual persons. As the characters in a play are

brought to deal with these questions in their everyday lives, their

consciousness of them is heightened. This consciousness of the

questions is communicated dramatically to the audience, who can also

feel the weight of these issues affecting their o w n lives.

Marcel'

s theater poses these questions in a fortunate manner by

conscious subjects, who speak in the first person and ask about the

sense of their lives in view of the crises and conflicts that the dramatic

action brings to light. It is easy then for audiences to pose these

questions on their own account too, because they see their impact

spelled out concretely in the lives of persons whose situation is not

ultimately that different from their own. The fundamental issues that

give rise to the dramatic tensions and the consciousness of the tragic that

emerge in the play pertain to questions about the quality of

interpersonal relationships that these people have or fail to have with

one another. Marcel'

s theater brings members of the audience and

characters in the play alike to personal awareness of questions

affecting the quality or the lack of quality in their own individual lives

and in the relationships they have with others.

Marcel'

s theater is a privileged way of leading spectators to an

encounter with mystery. It is precisely this ability to bring people into the

Présence of the mysterious dimension of human life that is the hallmark of

Gabriel Marcel's theater. This ability to lead people through the tragic

aspect of consciousness to a dawning awareness of the Présence and

light of mystery makes Marcel'

s theater a uniquely privileged and

invaluable gateway to philosophic reflection.

For those who would study Marcel'

s thought, enter into dialogue with

it, or simply understand it there are definite advantages to following

Marcel'

s own example and guidance, adopting an approach that he

suggests and that he himself used.

There are significant benefits that can be gained from studying

Marcel'

s theater as a way of access to his philosophy. Marcel'

s plays not

only pose the questions that his philosophy later investigates, but his

theater enables the audience to personally encounter the mystery under

investigation. In addition to these signal advantages, Marcel'

s theater spells

out concretely and in terms of individual peoples lives the i m p a c t of the

issues under investigation,--be they war, peace, individual conscience, faith,

fidelity, generation gap, or other concerns. The plays also show the various

attitudes and stances that different people can adopt toward these issues.

In this respect Marcel'

s theater begins the process of reflective analysis and

interpretation that his philosophy later carries on in a more explicitly

reasoned and critical manner. Thus it is an entryway into Marcel'

philosophic thinking.

One who has experienced a Marcel play is moved by its dynamic on

a deep and lasting level. One is drawn toward a distinctive light of

comprehension and hope. This mysterious light does not do away with the

tragedy in people'

s lives or the tragic conflicts in peoples fundamental

attitudes that underlie their differences of opinions. It does, however,

enable people to transcend the conflict in being able to perceive it from a

different perspective and then, rather than judging it, to understand it in a

different light.

Two more respects in which Marcel'

s theater provides an

indispensable way of access to his philosophy merit highlighting. one

pertains to the distinctive dimension of human life that his thought

interrogates; the other relates to the unusual exigencies or high

expectations that Marcel held for those who would have dialogue with him.

Marcel expects his interlocutors to bring to the discussion a rich,

concrete experience of the subject under investigation. He also expects

them to become aware of alternate interpretations and to understand the

subjective attitudes from which these spring, and further expects that

anyone who performs a reflective clarification begins with an encounter

with the mystery in question. And, finally, he expects that anyone's

interpretation of a phenomenon will be derived from and confirmed

against an increasing awareness of the reality present within the

person'

s own life experience. He expects that one'

s grasp of the

authentic nature of a phenomenon and one'

s cognition of its requisite

conditions of possibility are gathered from the intense saturating

Présence of that reality as it touches and uplifts that person'

s life.(38)

In summary, Marcel expects anyone who philosophizes with him to be

constantly in touch with his or her own experience of the reality under

investigation, to interrogate it, to experience its features and its

essence in its various modes of "givenness," and then to develop and

verify ones rational interpretations against the presence of that

mystery within ones o w n life experience. Theater provides a first

original experience of this kind of thought as well as food to continually

nourish it.

Concrete dramatic approaches enhance ones experience of the

kind of reality Marcel'

s investigations explore. Marcel researches the

spiritual dimension of human life. This sacred dimension is accessible

primarily by way of inwardness and depth. Its nature and its condition of

possibility are best described in the language of subjectivity, which speaks

precisely in terms of how this kind of reality presents itself in the

conscious experience of incarnate persons.

On this matter, Martin Heidegger, a philosopher so different from

Gabriel Marcel in many other respects, agrees emphatically that

exploration of ones consciousness of the essential features of human

existence is the unique and indispensable pathway for discovering the

meaning of Being and the sense this gives to human life. In the

Préface to "The Invisible Threshold" Marcel affirms that his theater

concerns itself with questions of the human spirit. His works explore

people'

s experience of that sacred dimension of human existence, that

dimension of spirit that assures absolute worth to individual human

lives.(39)

Marcel'

s thought is concerned with human dignity. To examine

this kind of reality one has to encounter it where it occurs, that is,

precisely as it reveals itself to the conscious, affective, incarnate persons

whose life it affects. Marcel'

s philosophy deals with matters of the heart.

He treats these where they occur, namely within the privacy and depth

of a person's being. For it is only there, at the center of a person's

spiritual life, that the presence and nature of certain realities can come

to light and be acknowledged.(40)

Marcel explores, for example, how within someone's heart a decision is

formed that determines the orientation of that person's freedom and the

sense that person gives to his or her life. He explores how one

accedes to faith, how one struggles with unbelief. He describes how

one adopts an attitude of hope or falls prey to the gravitation toward

despair. He discloses how individuals influence and became part of one

another'

s lives. He looks at death and the alternate stances people adopt

toward it. He explores the possibility of genuine love and the tragedy of

its failure. He examines from within the ambiguity of the human

condition, and in the face of its tragedy he nevertheless discloses ways of

the heart for transcending any condemnation to absurdity or despair.

Marcel'

s theater shows these dramas of interiority. As characters

in the play live through their dramatic awakening, they communicate to

the audience something of what they are living and also something of

what they live by. As they come to a heightened consciousness of the

events affecting themselves, audiences can hear the echoes of this

dawning awareness occurring within their own lives.

Marcel's plays enable audiences to experience certain spiritual

realities through what he later called existential witness. He had

inquired, for himself first but then also for others, how the

transcendent, the sacred, or the spiritual dimension of individual lives

could become present to him in his unique subjectivity. He inquired as to

how, if individuals had not encountered certain spiritual realities directly,

they could come to experience then. Marcel recognized that as the lives

of others touch ours, we can encounter the transcendent spiritual reality

that is operative in these people’s lives.(41)

In this respect, Marcel'

s theater appears once again as a

privileged and indispensable way of access for entering into

philosophic reflection about these mysteries. Some people may have

significant experience and insight into these realities on their own.

Others may have less, very little, or almost none to speak of. Yet for all,

and especially in the case of those who would study and discuss some

of these topics together, Marcel'

s theater provides a rich and deepening

experience in which many can participate both personally and in

common with others.

Indeed, in the case of Marcel'

s work, theater provides a uniquely

valuable and a practically indispensable way of access to philosophic

reflection. This relationship is consistent with the metaphor of the three

concentric rings. If philosophy is conceived as a function of the theater,

then dramas can bring people to that place within themselves where

they encounter concretely the precise reality that needs to be present for

ones philosophic reflection to be experientially and realistically based.

Moreover, if philosophy, the outermost ring, is considered as an

outgrowth of music, then the reflective clarification that develops will not

only have intellectual rigor but it will also provide, like music, a deep

inward assurance of the Présence and meaningfulness of the reality

entertained.

All this is implied in Marcel'

s saying, so aptly yet so tersely, in the

essay "On the Ontological Mystery, that "it is in drama that metaphysics

occurs in concreto." (42)

Philosophy as the third and outermost ring of the three brings a

distinctive clarification to the articulation of Marcel'

s thought, even

though, as we continue to affirm, this clarification is most fully

appreciated when his philosophy is read in conjunction with his

dramatic presentations.

Philosophy

Philosophy, for Marcel, provides an accurate and explicit

articulation of questions in general terms. Philosophy then researches

and investigates these questions in a reflective and critically reasoned

manner. Philosophic analysis enables one to identify with clarity and

rigor, albeit in general terms, the nature of a particular phenomenon

that one has been investigating. Critically, philosophy lets one view

possible alternative interpretations and discern the subjective attitudes

and stances from which these various interpretations evolve. In this

manner, philosophy'

s critical reflection not only clarifies the essence of

what something is, but in bringing to light the various options and the

attitudes from which they spring, it enhances one's opportunity for

freedom in the response one makes toward the presence or absence of

that particular reality in ones own life.

Philosophy'

s contribution is distinctive and valuable. As Marcel

wrote in Presence and Immortality, philosophy brings to a level of

critically reasoned interpretation what was previously present only on

the levels of poetry and song.(43)

Concrete Approach

Gabriel Marcel distrusted abstractness. He even warned that a spirit

of abstraction is at the root of all fanaticism.(44) He insisted on the

importance of a concrete approach in philosophy. When he entertained

young people who were preparing for careers in the field of philosophy,

Marcel insisted that they formulate their ideas as one would if

addressing them to a person who was actually living the situation that

they wished to discuss. In the case of Marcel's thought, the need for

concrete approaches is not satisfied by simply offering an occasional

example as an illustration of a general principle. A concrete approach

involves adopting the perspectives of an inquirer whose life is caught

up in the issue under investigation, aware that the meaning and worth

of his or her life will be drastically affected by the results of ones

investigations. Marcel has affirmed that if individual people in their

concrete, incarnate lives are kept central to philosophic reflection one

encounters not only the uniqueness of those individuals, but also the

infinite depth and richness that are part of their lives.(45) Faithfulness

to the concrete approach of one who is, as it were, exploring and

charting the terrain of a particular mysterious dimension of human life

is of primary importance since the source and data for one'

interpretations should in fact be that mysterious, experiential dimension

of human life.(46) It is also important so that the yield of philosophic

reflection includes not merely perceiving the essence of something but

also encountering the concrete reality in its intense presence and full

saturation of givenness.(47) Marcel'

s philosophy is distinctive if not

unique, in that it not only provides for conceptual clarification, but also

strives for the Présence of the mysterious reality under investigation

as the data source for reflection and as a reality enriching the lives of

the questioners.

A Call to Be

There is an ethical dimension to Marcel'

s thought that is consistent

with its concrete approaches. Marcel expects that people will pose

questions about the meaning and value of human life with a view to

enhancing the quality of their own lives. So, as dramatic and

philosophic reflection clarify certain dimensions of human life, they do so

in such a way as to clarify the options and the various subjective

dispositions from which they spring. Thus Marcel'

s theater and

philosophy include a "call to be" that invites individuals in their

freedoms to respond and live authentically in the light of the values

they perceive.(48)

Neo-Socratic

Consistent with Marcel'

s concrete approaches, "neo-Socratic" is a

term he allowed as validly describing his approach to philosophy. The

style of his writing remains personal and conversational, and his

philosophic approach is intersubjective and dialogic. He guides

readers to investigate questions that arise within their own life

experience. Marcel continually invites readers to relate their reasoning

and reflection to "recollection" of their own lived experience. He guides

readers in reflections on varying and diverse experiences. Through a

process of interrogation leading to insight, developed from different

standpoints, Marcel leads his reader-interlocutor to perceive within his

or her own experience the essential features of the reality in question

and also the subjective or intersubjective conditions of possibility

requisite for its occurrence. Marcel, through his approach of interrogation

toward insight through intersubjective dialogue, intends, like Socrates, to

assist at the birth of true ideas and right understanding of the nature of

certain realities that can enhance the quality of one's life.

Phenomenological

Paul Ricoeur, who noted at Cerisy-La-Salle the dramatic

character of Marcel'

s thought, also stated that Marcel's mode of reflection

would be phenomenological even if Edmund Husserl had never

evolved a phenomenological method. (49) What Marcel describes as

"recollection" and "reflection" and what he performs as a concrete

experiential approach to the clarification of mystery does indeed follow

the pattern that the phenomenological method describes. l50) His

reflections appear so original in approach, so rich in content, and so

artful in execution, that one scarcely has the impression of a disciplined

technique being methodically applied. One has rather the impression of a

musical composition developed through artful improvisation. One has

only to read a masterful work like Marcel's essay "Sketch of a

Phenomenology and a Metaphysics of Hope," or, for that matter, “The

Mystery of Family" or "The Ego and its Relation to Others" to recognize

the positive brilliance and artful care with which he develops a

philosophic clarification of topics that concern him.(51) These essays

pursue their topic and develop smoothly as an interesting dialogue and

a rich, concrete, personal reflection. Yet, if one wishes to verify, one

finds that the various steps of phenomenological analysis have been

applied. The main interest of this is the verification it offers of the

critical rigor of Marcel'

s analyses. Yet the rigor is evident for most

readers from following the process of their own thinking, and the central

focus of the reader-interlocutor remains the vitality of the inquiry, the

richness of the clarification, and the depth of true and valuable insights.

Marcel'

s philosophic essays begin with a preliminary sketch of the reality in

question and an evocation of the questions it gives rise to. His approach is

consistently personal and experiential, reflecting on the mystery as

present in the concrete experience of the interrogators. The process of

reflective clarification views the reality from different standpoints and

interprets its essential features accurately. Various techniques of

entertaining alternate attitudes and interpretations are introduced as

part of the process of interrogation toward insight. This critical technique

serves not only to bring to light spurious or counterfeit approximations, but also

to sharpen and refine one's understanding of the genuine reality as

authentically lived. These essays lead to a recognition of the reality as

understood in its essential nature and its subjective conditions of possibility.

The mystery is present in the life experience of the investigator and this

entails a certain incitement to preserve its worth in our life situation.(52)

As the third and outermost ring of communication, philosophy makes a

definite contribution to the expression of Marcel's thought. Philosophy'

reflection and critical reasoning bring to expression in accurate and general

terms the questions and the insights previously present in his theater and

music only as poetry and song. The clarity and rigor that characterize

philosophic understanding bring one'

s consciousness to a new level of

explicitness. Philosophy'

s understanding also brings a new level of clarity to

the sense of uneasiness and inquiry awakened by the unanswered

questions of the plays. And philosophy brings a certain completeness to

the inquiry and research that theater brought to light and that music

foreshadowed. Thus the three concentric circles, music, theater, and

philosophy, bring to successive levels of awareness and critically

reflective consciousness the questions and the perspectives of light and

insight that are part of Marcel's life's work and thought.

Once the major part of Marcel'

s philosophy, drama, and musical

compositions were written, circa 1961 (the date of his last published play), it had

become evident to author and various commentators alike that there was a

fundamental unity in his life'

s work and an important complementarily to be

noted in different respects between his works of theater and philosophy.

PROPER RELATIONS BETWEEN THEATER AND PHILSOPHY

Various authors who have studied Marcel'

s writings have

illustrated the different ways his theater and philosophy can be

interrelated. Charles Moeller, a noted literary critic, sketched Marcel's

theme of hope, fleshing out this portrait with excerpts of dialogue from

several plays. In a more extensive study Marcel Belay, an outstanding

drama critic, examined the portrayal of death in fifteen of Marcel'

plays. Belay concluded this study with a final essay reflecting on the

significance of this theme in Marcel'

s thought. Gaston Fessard and

Joseph Chenu highlighted the substantial unity and essential

complementarity that exists between Marcel's theater and philosophy.

These noted scholars saw Marcel's thought developing as one route

traveled, with theater and philosophy representing the landscape

viewed on either side of the road or depicting either side of the same

height scaled. Fessard'

s work presented this idea principally in terms of

dramatic criticism. Chenu developed the idea and with very careful

balance showed the essential complementarily that exists between

Marcel's theater and philosophy and traced the progressive

development of various themes in Marcel'

s thought. Both these

authors brought into clear relief the prospective as well as the

concretizing role of theater relative to the philosophic thought.(53) Roger

Troisfontaines, Kenneth Gallagher, and Vincent Miceli, whose books are

classic introductions to Marcel'

s philosophy, present his theater as

integral to his thought. Each of these writers included in his book a

chapter or section developing this thesis. M. M. Davy, in her study of

Marcel'

s theater, identifies its distinctive qualities and highlights sore of

its traits and themes that are reflected in his philosophy. Paul Ricoeur,

an eminent philosopher, in a conference on Marcel'

s philosophy,

highlighted the essentially dramatic character of his thought, given his

dialogic approach and his essential concern for life as

intersubjective.(54)

As Marcel wrote in the Preface to (The Secret is in the Isles), the

way different authors interrelate his theater and philosophy and the

weight of importance these authors attach to one or the other will depend

largely on the preference and forte of the individual scholar.(55) This

remark seems to have been borne out by the facts in the past, and it

seems likely that it will be the case in the future as well.

However individuals may choose to interrelate Marcel's theater

and philosophy, they would be well advised to heed the directives and

information Marcel provides in his own writings. For Marcel the essential

relation between theater and philosophy is construed in terms of theater'

prospective and concretizing role. In Marcel'

s original inquiries, theater

was the first stage of research, with philosophy subsequent to it.

Early in his career, Marcel thought that theater alone might suffice

as his only form of literary expression. Soon, however, he realized that

both the theater and the philosophy were necessary. He began to

recognize that there was an essential complementarity, even a

substantial unity, between the two.(56)

Marcel recognized that theater and philosophy are distinct and

autonomous disciplines. Each has its own proper finality, and neither

should be made subservient to the other or to any other purpose. The

role of theater is to show life, not to teach or explain. The role of

philosophy is to reflect on questions and bring certain perspectives of

explanation to light in terms of rational discourse. So theater and

philosophy should remain as separate disciplines even though they

may have an essential complementarity.(57)

Always Prospective and Concretizing

In Marcel'

s writings reflecting on his theatrical and philosophical

works he always stressed that the essential complementarily between his

theater and his philosophy lay in the concretizing p r o s p e c t i v e role

of his theater. Marcel'

s theater is prospective as a first stage of inquiry

and exploration. Marcel observed that any question always occurred to

him first in terms of the dramatic conflict among p e o p l e in a concrete

situation. H e then watched the elements of conflict develop and play

themselves out in the lives of the characters of the play. Marcel's

dramatic imagination brought to the light of the theater certain conflicts and

fundamental antinomies that were part of his own life situation, and it

was thus that theater enabled him to envisage and confront some of the

fundamental questions affecting his own life. Marcel's theater also

played a concretizing role in that, in portraying the concrete situation of

the dramas, it enabled certain stances to be incarnated and various

attitudes to be voiced. This allowed certain questions and themes to

become clear in the light of the theater and find expression dramatically

long before Marcel ever conceived of any such notions philosophically

or become aware of their significance on the level of philosophic

discourse. In this fashion theater often anticipated and prepared the way

for what philosophy was to discover and reflect upon later.(58) A classic

instance of this is Abel'

s voicing the word "mystery" in the

denouement of (The Iconoclast), written in 1917-1921. The

philosophical significance of “mystery" was developed only much later,

appearing in the philosophical essay "On the Ontological Mystery"

published in 1933 in conjunction with the play The Broken World. (59)

On several occasions Marcel emphatically voiced that theater

anticipates philosophy, and the scholarly works of Fessard and Chenu

amply substantiate it.(60)

Paradox of Philosopher-Dramatist

In his later years Marcel reflected on the paradox he saw in the dual

vocation of philosopher-dramatist. For him, the paradox centered in

the fact that although his theater was concerned with fundamental

conflicts in the concrete situation of individual lives that gave rise to

questions and thus consciousness of ideas, his was in no way a

theater for ideas in any literal sense. Marcel'

s is not a theater that sets

out to illustrate a thesis. Nor does his theater propose to proselytize or

present propaganda for some ideology. It serves even less as a forum for

debate, presenting ideas in the form of reasoned argument. Therein

lies the paradox. This theater deals with ideas not philosophically, but

dramatically, as dawning in the consciousness of those whose lives are

caught up in the issues that give rise to questions about life'

s meaning

and worth.(61)

When most of Marcel'

s major works were complete it became

evident that there was an essential complementary, even a substantial

unity, between his theater and philosophy. These were described as

the landscape viewed on either side of the one road traveled. And, in

another homo viator metaphor, identified as alternate slopes of the

same height scaled. From the vantage point of a retrospective view one

can see progressively along the path of Marcel'

s life different questions

explored first dramatically and then philosophically. As he wrote in "An

Essay in Autobiography" it appeared to him as if his work is like that of

one who charts a territory that he had explored but which territory

each individual will want to explore on his or her own.(62)

Looking at Marcel'

s work as a whole, one can occasionally

consider some aspect of certain plays as illustrative of a philosophic

theme or insight. Yet even this risks reversing the dynamic of Marcel'

work and might lead to a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of

Marcel'

s thought. This has occurred on occasion.(63) One is therefore

rightfully advised to respect the theater'

s concretizing and prospective

role as foremost to the relationship between Marcel'

s theater and his

philosophy.

It is hoped that reflection on Marcel'

s metaphor of three

concentric circles will serve as an attractive and enlightening introduction

to the nature of Marcel'

s thought. Reflection on the three circles

indicates what Marcel considers integral philosophic inquiry should

entail and emphasizes the essential complementarity that exists among

these three modes of communication. This same reflection should also

serve to highlight how and why theater opens up a uniquely valuable,

even indispensable, gateway to philosophic reflection.

A right understanding of Marcel'

s procedures for philosophic thinking

requires concrete approaches that awaken inward experience (as

music does), and initiate conscious personal reflection on a reality

directly and incarnately encountered (as theater does), so that one can,

in a manner that is both realistically based and critically reasoned

clarify, as philosophy does, the significance of its presence and/or

absence to evaluate the worth of one's life (as a person seeking freely

and responsibly to live an authentic human life does).

All three rings, each in its own way, bring us to a deep center

where we can encounter the presence of a mysterious reality within us,

a trans-subjective depth of the spiritual dimension of our lives. Music,

theater, and philosophy, each in its own way, enable us to clarify the

significance of this sacred dimension of humanity so that each of us may

live in its light, faithful to its call "to be" and responsive to its incitement "to

create."

Notes to Chapter One. An Introduction to Gabriel Marcel'

s Philosophic

Quest through Music and Theater

1. Gabriel Marcel, The Existential Background of Human Dignity,

The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University 1961-

62, Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press, 1963, 178 pp. Gabriel

Marcel, The Mystery of Being, 2 volumes. The Gifford Lectures

Delivered at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, translated by

G. S. Fraser. Vol. I, Reflection and Mystery, 270 pp., Vol. II, Faith

and Reality, 210 pp. First published, 1950 by the Harvill Press

Ltd., Great Britain. A Gateway Edition was published by Henry

Regnery Co. of Chicago, 1960. Reprinted by arrangement with

Regnery/Gateway by University Press of America, Lanham, MD.,

1982; St. Augustine’s Press, Notre Dame, IN, 200?.

2. Biographic data may be found in: Part Three, Section I, below,

pp. 177-183.

H.J. Blackham, Six Existentialist Thinkers, London, Routlege &

Kegan Paul, 1951.

I. M. Bochenski, Contemporary European Thought, Berkeley, CA.,

University of California Press, 1956.

Seymour Cain, Gabriel Marcel. New York, Hillary House, 1963;

South Bend, IN., H. Regnery/Gateway, 1979.

Kenneth T. Gallagher, The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, New York,

Fordham University Press, 1962, 1975.

Samuel Keen, Gabriel Marcel. Richmond, VA., John Knox Press,

1967.

Francis J. Lescoe, Existentialism with or without God, New York,

Alba House, 1974.

Vincent P. Miceli, Ascent to Being. Gabriel Marcel'

s Philosophy of

Communion, New York, Tournai, Paris, Rome, 1965.

David Roberts, Existentialism and Religious Belief, New York, Oxford

University Press, 1957.

Herbert Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, A Historical

Introduction, 2 Vols., The Hague, Martins Nijhoff, 1960.

Roger Troisfontaines, De L'Existence à l’Être. La Philosophie de

Gabriel Marcel, Louvain, Nauwelaerts; Paris, Vrin, 1952; 1965.

Gabriel Marcel, "An Essay in Autobiography," in The

Philosophy of Existentialism, Secaucus, NJ., The Citadel Press,

1956, pp. 104-28; En Chemin, vers quel éveil? Paris, Gallimard,

1971; "An Autobiographical Essay" (Spring 1969) in The

Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel (Library of Living Philosophers

Vol. XVII) ed. Paul A. Schilpp and Lewis E. Hahn, La Salle, IL.,

Open Court, 1984, pp. 3-68.

3. An allocution for the Alliance Française, "Le Paradoxe

du Philosophe--Dramaturge," Réalisations Sonores: Hughes De

Salle, Collection Française de Notre Temps Nous Confie, Sous

le patronage de L'

Alliance Française, présentation écrite sur la

pochette de Marc Blancpain. No date.

4. "Foreword" by Gabriel Marcel, pp. VII-X, March 26, 1962, to

Kenneth T. Gallagher'

s The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, New

York, Fordham University Press, 1962, 1975, p. VIII.

5. Commemorative medal commissioned by the National Mint

of France (L'

Hôtel Des Monnaies), Presence and Immortality,

Pittsburgh, PA., Duquesne University Press, 1967, pp. 7, 35; Ch.

Moeller, Littérature du XXe Siècle et Christianisme, Vol. IV,

Paris, Casterman, 1960, p. 129.

6. "Musique et littérature," Nouvelles littéraires, jeudi 17 juin

1948; Existential Background of Human Dignity, Cambridge,

MA., Harvard University Press, 1962, p. 21; En Chemin, vers

quel éveil?, Paris, Gallimard, 1971, p. 81; Louis Chaigne, Vie et

oeuvres d'

ecrivains, Vol. 4, Paris, F. Lanore, 1954, p. 193.

7. Préface à Le Seuil invisible, volume qui contient La Grâce

et Le Palais de Sable, Paris, Bernard Grasset, 1914, pp. 3, 8;

Preface to (The Invisible Threshold), an introduction to his first

two published plays, (Grace) and (The Sand Castle).

8. "An Essay in Autobiography," p. 127; "On the Ontological

Mystery,"

p. 18 in The Philosophy of Existentialism, Secaucus,

NJ, The Citadel press, 1956; The Mystery of Being, 2 vols., The

Gifford Lectures at University of Aberdeen, Scotland, Great

Britain, Harvill Press, 1950; Chicago, IL., Henry Regnery Co.,

Gateway Edition, 1960, vol. 1, p. 250, pp. 57-58; reprinted by

arrangement with Regnery/Gateway, Lanham, MD., University

Press of America, 1984.

The Philosophy of Existentialism contains "On the Ontological

Mystery," "Existence and Human Freedom," "'Testimony and

Existentialism," and "An Essay in Autobiography." The essay

"On the Ontological Mystery" was originally entitled "Position et

approches concretes du Mystère ontologique," a conference

presented at the Marseilles Society of Philosophy, January 21,

1933, and published in the same volume with Le Monde cassé

( The Broken World, ) Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1933. Etienne

Gilson remarked that this essay is as central to an

understanding of Gabriel Marcel'

s work as the Introduction to

Metaphysics is to Henri Bergson's.

9. "My Fundamental Purpose" (1937), pp. 13-30 in

Présence and Immortality, Pittsburgh, PA., Duquesne University

Press, 1967, p. 27. Original French version is "Mon Propos

fondamental," pp. 13-26 in Présence et Immortalité, Paris,

Flammarion, 1959, p. 24; The Drama of the Soul in Exile," A

lecture given by Gabriel Marcel in July 1950 to the Institut

Français in London, published as Préface to Gabriel Marcel:

Three Plays, A Man of God, Ariadne, The Votive Candle, trans.

with introduction by Richard Hayes, New York, Hill and Wang,

1965, p. 27.

10. Le Quartuor en fa dièze (The Quartet in F#), Paris,

Plon, 1925;

Mon Temps n’est pas le vôtre (My Time is Not Your Time),

Paris, Plon, 1955;

Le_Dard (The Sting), Paris, Plon, 1936;

Le Chemin de crête, Paris, Grasset, 1936, (Ariadne), in Three

Plays by Gabriel Marcel, New York, Hill and Wang, 1965.

Croissez et multipliez (Increase and Multiply), Paris, Plon, 1955.

The Unfathomable (March 1919, pp. 245-84 in Présence and

Immortality, Duquesne University Press, 1967; L'

Insondable, pp.

195-234 in Présence et Immortalité, Paris, Flammarion, 1959.

The Broken world, pp. 19-144 in The Existential Drama of Gabriel

Marcel, West Hartford, CT., St. Josephs College McAuley

Institute of Religious Studies, 1974; Le monde cassé, Paris,

Desclée de Brouwer, 1932.

Cf. - The Broken World, trans. & ed. Katharine Rose Hanley,

Milwaukee, Marquette University Press, 1998, pp..

La Grâce (Grace), pp. 9-209 in Le Seuil Invisible, Paris, Grasset,

1914.

Colombyre ou le brasier de la paix (Colombyre or the Torch of

Peace), pp. 8-155, Théâtre comique, Paris, Albin Michel,

1947.

11. "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," p. 30; "Les vrais problèmes de

Rome n’est plus dans Rome" (The actual problems of Rome is

no longer in Rome), in Rome n'

est plus dans Rome, Paris, La

Table Ronde, 1951, pp. 155-56; Existential Background of

Human Dignity, p. 106; Le Secret est dans les Iles, (The Secret is

in the Islands), Préface, Paris, Plon, 1967, p. 20; "An

Autobiographical Essay," (Spring 1969) in The Philosophy of

Gabriel Marcel, (The Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. XVII) ed.

P. A. Schilpp and L. E. Hahn, La Salle, IL., Open Court, 1984, p.

60; En Chemin, vers quel éveil? Paris, Gallimard, 1971, pp. 235-

36.

12. Kenneth T. Gallagher, The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel,

Foreword by Gabriel Marcel, New York, Fordham University

Press, 1962, 1975, p. VIII.

13. Présence de Gabriel Marcel, Cahier 2-3, L'

Esthétique musicale

de Gabriel Marcel, Paris, Aubier, 1980, pp. 1-297; Louis Chaigne,

Vie et oeuvres d'

ecrivains, Vol. 4, Paris, F. Lanore, 1954, pp.

252-53. Cf. ff. Chronological Bibliography of Works by Gabriel

Marcel about his Theater, forty titles, pp. 39-42.

14. A Man of God, in Three Plays by Gabriel Marcel, New York, Hill

and Wang, 1965, pp. 35-114. Un Home de Dieu, Paris, Grasset,

1925; reedited, Paris, La Table Ronde, 1950. "La Lumière sur la

montagne," an unpublished play (1905) Marcel identified as a

childish version of the later work, A Man of God. The child'

s version

was, however, favorably reviewed by the critic and poet Fernand

Gregh. En Chemin, vers quel éveil?, p. 23. Gabriel Marcel'

s "An

Autobiographical Essay" (Spring 1969), pp. 16-17, published in The

Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, (The Library of Living Philosophers,

Vol. XVII), published in 1984, presents much information from En

Chemin, vers quel éveil? and makes it available for the first time

in English. Awakenings

15. Cf. ff. Chronological Bibliography of Works by Gabriel

Marcel about his Theater, pp. 39-42.

Three full-length books of drama criticism, Théâtre et Religion,

Paris, Vitte, 1958; L'

Heure Théâtrale, Paris, Plon, 1959; and

Regards sur le Théâtre de Claudel, Paris, Beauchesne,

1964.

Marcel'

s reviews as drama critic, working for over forty

years for Sept, Temps Présents, La Vie intellectuelle,

Europe Nouvelle, and Nouvelles Littéraires, are by far too

numerous to list here. These reviews and others can be

located by using the excellent bibliographic sources listed in

Part Three, Section IV, below pp. 211 citing especially

the works of Roger Troisfontaines, 2 vols., De l'Existence à

être. La Philosophie de Gabriel Marcel Lettre Préface de

Gabriel Marcel, Louvain: Nauwelaerts; Paris: BeatriceNauwelaerts,

1953, 2e ed. 1968, vol. 2, Bibliographie de

Gabriel Marcel, pp. 381-464, in particular III. Articles de Les

Nouvelles Littéraires, pp. 427-42, IV. Journaux, Révues,

Avant-Propos, Divers, pp. 442-50, Conférences, pp. 450-

57, Notes, Entretiens, Débats, Présidences, Interviews, pp.

457-61; and the work of Francois H. Lapointe and Claire C.

Lapointe, Gabriel Marcel and His Critics, An International

Bibliography, (1928-1976), New York and London, Garland

Publishing, Inc., 1977, Part I, bibliography of Gabriel

Marcel'

s writings, pp. 7-107, arranged by years. Cf. also

Francois H. Lapointe, "The Writings of Gabriel Marcel,"

arranged by years, in The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel,

(The Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. XVII), pp. 585-609,

ed. P. A. Schilpp and L. E. Hahn, La Salle, IL., Open Court,

1984.

16. "An Autobiographical Essay," p. 39; Cf. Part Three, Section I,

Biblio-biography, below, pp. 177-83.

17. Le Secret est dans les Iles (The Secret is in the Isles), Préface,

pp. 8-13, to the volume of three plays: Le Dard (The Sting,)

Emissaire (The Emissary), and Le Signe de la Croix (The Sign of

the Cross), Paris, Plon, 1967, 349 pp.

18. Le Quatuor en fa dièze (The Quartet in F#); Le Coeur des autres

(The Rebellious Heart); L'

Insondable (The Unfathomable); Les

points sur les I (Dot the I); La Soif ou Les Coeurs avides (Thirst or

Eager Hearts); La Double Expertise (The Double Expertise); Le

Regard neuf (The New Look), among others treating struggles for

communication and love, and dealing with challenges to fidelity and

situations involving infidelity. Un Juste (A Just One); Le Dard (The

Sting); L'

Emissaire (The Emissary); Le Signe de la Croix (The

Sign of the Cross); Rome n’est plus dans Rome (Rome Is No

Longer in Rome); among others deal with political differences and

the struggle of individual conscience.

Mon Temps n’est pas le Vôtre (My Time is not Your Time)

portrays something deeper than the generation gap. Concern for

persons missing in action is portrayed in L'

Insondable (The

Unfathomable.) Fear of the menace of war is depicted in

Colombyre ou le brasier de la paix ( Colombyre or the Torch of

Peace ); and Rome n’est plus dans Rome (Rome Is No Longer in

Rome) conveys reactions to the menace of war. Le Quatuor en fa

dièze (The Quartet in F#), Le Coeur des autres (The Rebellious

Heart), Un Home de Dieu (A Man of God), Les points sur les I

(Dot the. I), Le Fanal (The Lantern), Le Chemin de Crête

(Ariadne), and others deal with struggles for success and

authenticity. La Grâce (Grace), Le Palais de Sable (The Sand

Castle), Les points sur les I (Dot the I), Le Fanal ( The Lantern ),

Le Dard, (The Sting), and others deal with faith. Music is a

principal theme in Le Quatuor en fa dièze (The Quartet in F#),

Mon Temps n’est pas le vôtre (My Time is not Your Time), and Le

Dard (The Sting). In Le Dard (The Sting), Le Coeur des autres

(The Rebellious Heart), Un Home de Dieu (A Man of God), and

Les points sur les'I (Dot the I) the quest for artistic, professional,

and personal integrity appears. Survival and life after death

appear in L'

Insondable (The Unfathomable), L'

Iconoclaste (The

Iconoclast), Le Fanal (The Lantern), L’ Horizon (The Horizon),

and Le Divertissement posthume (The Posthumous Joke).

19. The expression "what one lives by" or "what one lives on"

occurs often in Marcel'

s works in the sense that comes to light in the dialogue between Arnaud and Evelyne in La Soif, Act III, Scene

9, p. 445, and in "An Autobiographical Essay" (1969), in The

Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, (The Library of Living Philosophers,

Vol. XVII), ed. P. A. Schilpp and L. E. Hahn, La Salle, IL., Open

Court, 1984, p. 61.

20. Le Fanal, Paris, Armand Stock, 1936, Scenes 4, 6, and 7;

especially pp. 38-40. The Lantern, translated by Joseph

Cunneen and Elizabeth Stambler, in Cross Currents, Vol. VIII,

no. 2 (Spring 1958), pp. 129-43, Scenes 4, 6, and 7, especially pp.

136-37.

21. La Grâce (Grace), pp. 9-209, in Le Seuil Invisible, (The

Invisible Threshold), Paris, Bernard Grasset, 1914, pp. 202-

209. "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," p. 21.

22. "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," p. 27, L'

Heure

Théâtrale, p.vi.

23. Le Seuil Invisible, Paris, Bernard Grasset, 1914, p. 7; Le

Secret est dans les Iles, pp. 18-19; En Chemin vers quel éveil?,

Paris, Gallimard, 1973, p. 169.

24. The Drama of the Soul in Exile," p. 27; "Les vrais problèmes de

Rome n’est plus dans Rome," p. 162; "My Dramatic Works as

viewed by the Philosopher," p. 111-12; The Existential Background of

Human Dignity,_ pp. 5, 53, 107; "On the Ontological Mystery," pp.

26-27, in The Philosophy of Existentialism; The Philosophy of

Gabriel Marcel, (Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. XVII),

"Reply by Gabriel Marcel" to "The Idea of Mystery in the

Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel," pp. 272-73.

25. The Broken World, Act I, Scene 4, in The Existential Drama of

Gabriel Marcel, ed. Francis J. Lescoe, translated by Sr. J. M. P.

Colla, West Hartford, CT., McAuley Institute of Religious

Studies, 1974, p. 36.

26. "Introduction to the Theater of the Broken World," in The

Existential Drama of Gabriel Marcel, p. 10.

27. "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," pp. 27-28, 33.

28. The Rebellious Heart, Act III, Scene 3, in The Existential

Drama of Gabriel Marcel.

29. The Broken World, Act IV, Scene 7, pp. 141-44, especially pp.

143-44.

30. "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," pp. 28-29.

31. Ibid., pp. 30, 32-33; Le Secret est dans les Iles, p. 20; Préface,

in Percées vers un ailleurs, Paris, Fayard, 1973, p. l; "De la

recherche philosophique" in Entretiens autour de Gabriel Marcel,

Neuchâtel, à la Baconnière, 1976, p. 9.

32. L'

Heure théâtrale, De Giraudoux à Jean Paul Sartre, Paris, Pion,

1959, pp. III, IV; "My Dramatic Works as viewed by the Philosopher"

in Searchings, New York, Newman Press, 1967, translated from

the German Auf der Suche nach Wahrheit and Gerechtigkeit,

Verlag Knecht, 1964, a conference presented in Freiburg im

Bresgau, 1959, pp. 93-118, especially pp. 108, 117.

33. Marcel Belay, in the discussion of "Gabriel Marcel et la

Phénoméenolgie" presentation by Paul Ricoeur in Entretiens

autour de Gabriel Marcel, p. 88.

34. "De la recherche philosophique," pp. 9-10, 16-17, in Entretiens

autour de Gabriel Marcel; Existential Background of Human

Dignity, William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University,

Cartridge, MA., Harvard University Press, 1963, p. 93; Le Secret

est dans les Iles, p. 12; En Chemin, vers quel éveil? Paris,

Gallimard, 1971, pp. 233-34.

35. Gaston Fessard, "'Théâtre et Mystère," published as an

introductory essay to La Soif, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1938,

pp. 5-116; Notes de 1 auteur: La Chapelle Ardente, in Trois

Pièces, Paris, Plan, 1931, p. 142; "The Drama of the Soul in

Exile," pp. 15, 21-22, 30, 32.

36. Notes de l'

auteur: La Chapelle Ardente, p. 142; "The Drama of

the Soul in Exile," pp. 17, 21, 22, 30, 33.

37. "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," pp. 21, 22-23; "My

Dramatic Works as viewed by the Philosopher," p. 115;

L’Heure Théâtrale, p. VII.

38. "Sketch of a Phenomenology and a Metaphysics of Hope," pp.

29-67 in Homo Viator, New York, Harper and Bros., 1962, p.

29. Earlier edition, H. Regnery, Chicago, 1951.

39. Préface, La Seuil Invisible (The Invisible Threshold), p. 8. This is

also the lead argument of The Existential Background of Human

Dignity.

40. "On the Ontological Mystery," pp. 17-22, esp. p. 22; The

Existential Background of Human Dignity, p. 53; Reply by Gabriel

Marcel to "The Idea of Mystery in the Philosophy of Gabriel

Marcel," in The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, (Library of Living

Philosophers, Vol. XVII), p. 272.

41. Grâce, in Le Seuil Invisible, pp. 207-209, esp. p. 209; Les points

sur les I, in Théâtre comique, Paris, Albin Michel, 1947, pp. 142-

44; Dot the I, translated by K. R. Hanley, in Two One Act Plays

by Gabriel Marcel, Lanham, MD., University Press of America,

pp. l-21; "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," pp. 22, 27; La Soif (The

Thirst), Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1938; reedited Les Coeurs

avides, (Eager Hearts), Paris, La Table Ronde, 1952; later

published La Soif ou Les Coeurs avides in Cinq Pieces Majeures:

Un Homme de Dieu, Le Monde cassé, Le Chemin de crête, La

Soif, and Le Signe de la Croix, Paris, Plon, 1973, pp. 357-450, act

3, scene 9, p. 445; The Drama of the Soul in Exile, pp. 22, 27;

The Existential Background of Human Dignity, pp. 63, 79, 92.

42. "I am convinced that it is in drama and through drama that

metaphysical thought grasps and defines itself in concreto," "On the

Ontological Mystery" in The Philosophy of Existentialism, p. 26.

43. "Presence and Immortality" (1951) pp. 229-44, in Présence and

Immortality, Pittsburgh, PA., Duquesne University Press, 1967, p.

232. "Présence et immortalité," (1951) pp. 179-93 in Présence et

immortalité, Paris, Flammarion, 1959, p. 183.

44. Foreword to Kenneth Gallagher'

s The Philosophy of Gabriel

Marcel, p. VIII; Postface, Rome n’est plus dans Rome, p. 160; The

Existential Background of Human Dignity, p. 123; Gabriel Marcel s

replies passim in The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, (Library of

Living Philosophers Vol. XVII); Allocution for the Alliance

Française, "Gabriel Marcel: Le Paradoxe du Philosophe--

Dramaturge."

45. "My Fundamental Purpose" (1937), pp. 13-30 in Presence and

Immortality, p. 29; "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," p. 27.

46. "An Essay in Autobiography," pp. 104-28 in The Philosophy of

Existentialism; The Mystery of Being, 2 vols; "The Drama of the

Soul in Exile," pp. 27-28; The Existential Background of Human

Dignity, p. 50.

47. "Sketch of a Phenomenology and a Metaphysics of Hope," pp.

29-67 in Homo Viator, p. 29. "This experience, which is that of '

hope..., must, like the fundamental experience of faith, '

I believe...,"

be purified; or, more exactly, we must pass from this experience in

its diluted or diffused state to the same experience, touched--I do not

say absolutely conceived--at its highest tension or again at its point

of complete saturation."

48. "Les valeurs spirituelles dans le théâtre français contemporian,"

Orientations réligieuses, intellectuelles et littéraires, June 25, 1937,

Belgium, pp. 768-98, p. 789; cited by Gaston Fessard in "Théâtre

et Mystere," p. 53; "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," pp. 33-34;

L’Heure Théâtrale, pp. VII-VIII.

49. Paul Ricoeur, "Gabriel Marcel et la Phénoménologie," pp. 53-74,

discussion pp. 75-94, in Entretiens autour de Gabriel Marcel, at

Cerisy la Salle, August 1973; "Gabriel Marcel and

Phenomenology" in The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, (Library of

Living Philosophers Vol. XVII), pp. 471-94. Reply by Gabriel

Marcel, pp. 495-98.

50. "On the Ontological Mystery", pp. 23-26; The Existential

Background of Human Dignity, p. 88.

51. Homo Viator Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope, translated by

Erma Craufurd, New York, Harper and Bros., Harper Torchbooks

(The Cloister Library), 1962; originally published in English by

Victor Gollancz, Ltd., London, and Henry Refinery Company,

Chicago, in 1951; reprinted in 1962 by arrangements with Editions

Montaigne. "Sketch of a Phenomenology and a Metaphysic of

Hope," pp. 29-67; "The Mystery of Family," pp. 68-97; “The Ego

and its Relation to Others," pp. 13-28.

52. "Pour un renouveau de la spiritualité dans l'

art dramatique,"

Combat, February, 1937, cited by Gaston Fessard in "Théâtre et

Mystère," p. 70; L'

Heure Théâtrale, pp. VII-VIII.

53. Charles Moeller, "Gabriel Marcel et le mystère'

espérance," pp. 149-279 in Littérature du XXe siècle et

christianisme, IV. L'

Espérance en Dieu notre père. Paris,

Casterman, 1960.

Marcel Belay, La Mort dans le théâtre de Gabriel Marcel, Paris,

Vrin, 1980,

Gaston Fessard, Théâtre et mystère. Introduction à Gabriel

Marcel, Paris, Tequi, 1938.

Zachary Taylor Ralston, Gabriel Marcel'

s Paradoxical

Expression of Mystery: A Stylistic Study of "La Soif,"

Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of America Press,

1961.

Joseph Chenu, Le Théâtre de Gabriel Marcel et sa signification

métaphysique, Paris, Aubier, 1948.

Guillemine de Lacoste, "The Notion of Participation in the Early

Drama and Early Journals of Gabriel Marcel," Philosophy

Today, Vol. 19, (Spring 1975), pp. 50-60.

54. Roger Troisfontaines, De l'

existence a l’être. La Philosophie de

Gabriel Marcel. 2 vols. Louvain, Nauwelaerts; Paris, Beatrice

Nauwelaerts et J. Vrin, 1953; 2nd ed., 1968. Préface by Gabriel

Marcel. Bibliography.

Kenneth T. Gallagher, The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel.

Foreword by Gabriel Marcel. New York, Fordham University Press,

1962; 1975.

Vincent P. Miceli, Ascent to Being: Gabriel Marcel'

s Philosophy

of Communion, Foreword by Gabriel Marcel. Paris, Desclée de

Brouwer, 1965.

Louis Chaigne, Vie et œuvres d’ écrivains, IV, Paris, F. Lanore,

1954.

Marie-Madeleine Davy, Un Philosophe itinérant. Gabriel Marcel:

Paris, Flammarion, 1959.

Paul Ricoeur, Gabriel Marcel et Karl Jaspers, deux maîtres de

Existentialisme, Paris, Editions du Temps Présent, 1948; and

Entretiens Paul Ricoeur, Gabriel Marcel, Paris, 1968, translated

by Peter MCormick as "Conversations between Paul Ricoeur and

Gabriel Marcel" in Tragic Wisdom and Beyond, Evanston, IL.,

Northwestern University Press,1973; and “Gabriel Marcel et la

Phénoménologie" in Entretiens autour de Gabriel Marcel,

Neuchâtel, à la Baconnière, 1976; "Gabriel Marcel and

Phenomenology" in The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel (Library

of Living Philosophers Vol. XVII) ed. P. A. Schilpp and L. E. Hahn,

La Salle, IL., Open Court, 1984.

Simonne Plourde, Gabriel Marcel. Philosophe et témoin de

l’espérance. Montréal, Les Presses de l’ Université du Quebec,

1975.

55. Préface to Le Secret est dans les Iles, pp. 7-8.

56. Le Monde cassé: Avant-Propos cited by G. Fessard in "Théâtre

et Mystère," p. 9; Gaston Fessard, "Théâtre et Mystère,"

pp. 7-9;

"My Dramatic Works as Viewed by the Philosopher," pp. 115-18;

"Introduction," pp. 7-13 in Paix sur la terre, Deux discours une

Tragédie, Paris, Aubier, 1965; The Existential Background of

Human Dignity, p. 62; "

An Autobiographical Essay," p. 58; En

Chemin, vers quel éveil?, p. 139; Reply by Gabriel Marcel to "The

Idea of Mystery in the Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel," in The

Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, p. 273; Allocution for the Alliance

Française, Gabriel Marcel: Le Paradoxe du Philosophe-

Dramaturge.

57. "My Dramatic Works as Viewed by the Philosopher," p. 106.

58. "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," pp. 29-30; Notes d'

Auteur:

Chapelle Ardente, (1950), D. 142; "My Dramatic Works as Viewed

by the Philosopher," pp. 115-16; The Existential Background of

Human Dignity, p. 62, pp. 13-14; Préface to Percées vers un

ailleurs, pp. II-VII.

59. L'Iconoclaste, Pièce en quatre actes, Collection Nouvelle de la

France dramatique. (Répertoire choisi du Théâtre moderne), No.

13 Supplement to the Revue Hebdomadaire January 27, 1923,

Paris, Librairie Stock; Being and Having, pp. 116-20, 111, 141,

101; "On the Ontological Mystery," pp. 19-23; Creative Fidelity, p.

68; "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," pp. 28-30; The Existential

Background of Human Dignity, pp. 48, 50-53.

60. Gaston Fessard, "Théâtre et Mystère," pp. 7-9; Joseph Chenu, Le

Théâtre de Gabriel Marcel et sa signification métaphysique, pp.

17-18; Part Three, Section II, below pp. 187-96.

61. "Préface," Le Seuil Invisible, pp. 4-8; "My Dramatic Works as

viewed by the Philosopher," p. 102.

62. " A n Essay in Autobiography," p. 128; "The Drama of the Soul in

Exile," pp. 38, 27-28; The Existential Background of Human

Dignity, p. 50.

63. "My Dramatic Works as viewed by the Philosopher," pp. 108-

109.

Chronological Bibliography Of Works By Gabriel Marcel About His Theater

1. "Préface," Le Seuil Invisible, Paris: Editions Grasset, 1914, pp. l8.

2. "Réflexions sur le Tragique," L'

Essor, No. 13, December 1921.

3. "Remarques sur l’Iconoclaste," Revue Hebdomadalre, 27

January 1923, pp. 492-500.

4. "Tragique et Personnalité," Nouvelle Revue Française,

January 1924, pp. 37-45.

5. "Notes sur évaluation tragique," Journal de Psychologie, JanuaryMarch

1926, pp. 68-76.

6. "

L’avant propos," Le Monde cassé," Paris: Desclée de

Brouwer, 1933, pp. 7-9.

7. "Position et approches concrètes du Mystère ontologique,"

Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1933, essay published with Le

monde cassé.

8. "Influence du Théâtre," Revue des Jeunes, 5 March 1935, pp.

349-62.

9. "Pour un renouveau de la spiritualité dans l'art

dramatique," Combat, February 1937, pp. 458-68.

10. "Réflexions sur les exigences d’un Théâtre chrétien," Vie

Intellectuelle, 25 March 1937, pp. 458-68.

11. "Les Valeurs spirituelles dans le Théâtre français contemporain,"

Orientations religiousness, intellectuelles et littéraires, Belgium: 25

June 1937, pp. 768-96.

12. "Postface" de L’Horizon, written 1944, reissued in

Percées vers un ailleurs, Paris: Fayard, 1973, pp. 367-78.

13. "Le Témoignage come localisation de l’existential," La Nouvelle

Revue Théologique, 78th year, t. 68, no. 2, March-April 1946,

pp. 182-91.

14. "De l‘

Audace en métaphysique," (1947), Revue de

Métaphysique et de Morale, reissued in Percées vers un

ailleurs, Paris: Fayard, 1973.

15. "Note de l'auteur," La Chapelle Ardente, Paris: La Table

Ronde, 1950, pp. 139-42.

16. "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," Lecture given July 1950 at

l’Institut Françeis in London, Preface, Three Plays, London:

Seeker and Warburg, 1952; New York: Hill and Wang, 1958,

1965, pp. 13-34.

17. "Les vrais problèmes de Rome n’est plus dans Rome,"

Conférence 18 May 1951; Postface, Rome n'

est plus

dans Rome, Paris: La Table Ronde, 1951, pp. 149-78.

18. "'Théâtre et Philosophie. Leurs rapports dans mon

oeuvre," in Le Théâtre contemporain (Recherches et

Débats, no. 2), Paris: A. Fayard, 1952, pp. 17-42.

19. "

Postface," Mon Temps n'est pas le votre, Paris: Plon,

1955, pp. 237-48.

20. "Postface," Croissez et multipliez, Paris: Plon, 1955, pp.

201-13.

21. "L'atheisme philosophique et la dialectique de la

conscience réligieuse," Athéisme contemporain, (Croire,

penser, espérer). Genève: Labor et Fides; Paris: Librairie

Protestante, 1956, p. 107.

22. Théâtre et Religion, Paris: Vitte, 1958: "Religion et

Blasphème dans le Théâtre français contemporain,"

Conference at Brussels, 1956, pp. 9-52; "L'idée du drame

chrétien dans son rapport au Théâtre actuel," Conference

at Cobourg in Germany, 1957, pp. 53-97.

23. "

Postface,"

La Dimension Florestan, Paris: Plon, 1958,

pp. 159-69.

24. "Le Crépuscule du sens commun," essay published with

La Dimension Florestan, Paris: Plon, 1958, pp. 170-212.

25. "My Dramatic Works as Viewed by the Philosopher,"

Conference at Freiburg im Breisgau, 1959; Searchings, New

York: Newman Press, 1967, pp. 93-118.

26. "Avant-Propos," Présence et lmmortalité, Paris: Flamarion,

1959, pp. 7-9; "Author's Préface," Presence and Immortality,

translated by Michael A. Machado and revised by Henry J.

Koren, Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1967, pp. 7-

10.

27. "Avant-Propos," L'

Heure théâtrale, Paris: Plan, 1959, pp. iii-xiii.

28. The Existential Background of Human Dignity, The William James

Lectures delivered at Harvard University 1961-62, Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1963, 178 pp.

29. "Foreword" dated March 1962 to Kenneth T. Gallagher'

s The

Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, New York: Fordham University Press,

1962; reissued 1975, pp. VII-X.

30. Regards sur le Théâtre de Claudel, Paris: Beauchesne, 1964, 175

pp.

31. "Foreword" to Vincent P. Miceli, S. J.'

s Ascent to Being: Gabriel

Marcel'

s Philosophy of Communion, Paris, New York, Tournai,

Rome: Desclée Company, 1965, pp. IX-XI.

32. "Avant-Propos," Paix sur la Terre, Paris: Aubier, 1965, pp. 7-13.

33. "Préface," Le Secret est dans les Iles, Paris: Plon, 1967, pp. 7-

24.

34. En chemin vers quel eveil? Paris: Gallimard, 1971, 301 PP.

35. "Note sur l'

attestation créatrice dans mon oeuvre," Archivo di

Filosofia, 1972, pp. 531-34.

36. "Préface," Percées vers un ailleurs, Paris: Fayard, 1973, pp. IX.

37. "Introduction," The Existential Drama of Gabriel Marcel, West

Hartford, CT: McAuley Institute of Religious Studies Press, 1974;

letter to Francis J. Lescoe, editor, dated February l, 1973, pp. 6-8,

introduction enclosed pp. 9-18.

38. "De la recherche philosophique," Entretiens autour de Gabriel

Marcel at Cerisy-la-Salle 24-31 August 1973, Neuchatel,

Switzerland, Editions de la Baconniere, 1976, pp. 9-19.

39. "Le Paradoxe du Philosophe - Dramaturge," Réalisations

Sonores: Hughes De Salle, Collection Française de Notre

Temps Nous Confie, Sous le patronage de l‘

Alliance

Française, présentation écrite sur la pochette de Marc

Blancpain, no date.

40. "An Autobiographical Essay" (Spring 1969), and replies to essays in

The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, The Library of Living

Philosophers, Vol. XVII, Paul A. Schilpp and Lends E. Hahn,

editors, La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1984, pp. l-68, et passim.

Bibliography Of Works On Gabriel Marcel That Clarify The Nature Of His

Theater And Its Relationship To His Philosophy

Archambault, Paul. "Gabriel Marcel," in Témoins du spiritual, Paris:

Bloud & Gay, 1933, pp. 139-76; Colin, 1947.

Bagot, Jean-Pierre. Connaissance et amour. Essai sur la

philosophie de Gabriel Marcel. Paris: Beauchesne et ses fils,

1958.

Belanger, Gerard. L'

Amour, chemin de la liberté. Paris: Editions

ouvrières, 1965.

Belay, Marcel. "

Commentaire sur l’Horizon," in Percées vers un

ailleurs, Paris: Fayard, 1973, pp. 379-404.

____. "Commentaire sur l’Iconoclaste," in Percées vers un ailleurs,

Paris: Fayard, 1973, pp. 169-97.

____. "Etude sur Le Mort de Demain,"

in Entretiens autour de Gabriel

Marcel, Neuchâtel: à La Baconnière, 1976, pp. 131-38.

____. "La Grace dans Le Monde cassé" (Entretiens de Dijon de Mars

1973), Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, July-September

1974, 79th year, no. 3, pp. 370-75; discussion pp. 376-82.

____. "La Mort et les morts dans l’oeuvre théâtrale de Gabriel

Marcel." Doctoral dissertation, University of Dijon, France,

1977.

_____. La Mort dans le Théâtre de Gabriel Marcel, Paris: Vrin,

1980.

Berger, Gaston. "Constitution de l’

univers théâtral," in Mélanges

Georges Jamati. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la

Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 1956.

Bernard, Michel. La philosophie réligieuse de Gabriel Marcel. Etude

critique. Le Puy: Cahiers du Nouvel Humanisme, 1952.

Berning, Vincent. "Données et conditions de l'

accueil fait en Allemagne

à Gabriel Marcel, philosophe et dramaturge," pp. 211-19,

discussion pp. 220-37 in Entretiens autour de Gabriel Marcel,

Neuchâtel: à la Baconnière, 1976.

Boutang, Pierre. Gabriel Marcel interrogé par Pierre Boutanq, followed

by "Position et approches concrètes du Mystère ontologique."

Paris: J. M. Place, (Archives du XXe Siecle), 1977, pp. 7-114.

____ . "Le Souci de la Transcendence," Revue de Métaphysique et de

Morale, Vol. 79, No. 3, (July-Sept. 1974), pp. 315-37.

____ . La terreur en question. Lettre à Gabriel Marcel. Paris:

Fasquelles Editeurs, 1958.

Bugbee, Henry G. "L'

exigence ontologique" in The Philosophy of Gabriel

Marcel. Vol. XVII (The Library of Living Philosophers) ed. P. A.

Schilpp and L. E. Hahn, La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1984, pp. 81-93,

reply pp. 94-98.

Cain, Seymour. Gabriel Marcel. New York: Hillary House, 1963; London:

Bower and Bower, 1963; South Bend, IN: Regnery/Gateway,

Inc., 1979.

Chaigne, Louis. Vie et oeuvres d '

écrivains. 4ième série. Paris: Lanore,

1954.

Chastaing, Maxine. "Le langage théâtral de Gabriel Marcel," (Entretiens

de Dijon de mars 1973), Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, Vol.

79, No. 3 (July-September 1974), pp. 354-63; discussion pp. 364-

66.

Cheetham, M. "L'

actualité de Monde cassé de Gabriel

Marcel,"(Entretiens de Dijon de mars 1973), Revue de

Métaphysique et de Morale, Vol. 79, No. 3 (July-September 1974),

pp. 367-69.

Chenu, Joseph. Le Théâtre de Gabriel Marcel et sa

signification métaphysique, Paris: Aubier, 1948.

____. "Théâtre et Métaphysique," pp. 115-22, discussion, pp.

123-30 in Entretiens autour de Gabriel Marcel,

Neuchâtel: à la Baconnière, 1976.

Davy, Marie-Madeleine. Un philosophe itinérant. Gabriel Marcel,

Paris: Flammarion, 1959.

De Corte, Marcel. La philosophie de Gabriel Marcel, Paris: Tequi,

1938.

Delhomme Jeanne. "Un Homme Dieu," La Table Ronde, No. 24

(December 1949), pp. 48-52.

____."Témoignage et dialectique," pp. 117-201, in Existentialisme

chrétien Gabriel Marcel, Paris: Plon, 1947.

Dubois-Dumée, J. P. "Solitude et communion dans le Théâtre de Gabriel

Marcel," pp. 249-90, in Existentialisme chrétien: Gabriel Marcel,

Paris : Plon, 1947.

De Lacoste, Guillemine. "Man'

s Creativity in the Thought of

Marcel," New Scolasticism, 48 (Autumn 1974), pp. 409-23.

____. "

The Notion of Participation in the Early Drama and Early

Journals of Gabriel Marcel," Philosophy Today, Vol. 19

(Spring 1975), pp. 50-60.

Fessard, Gaston. Théâtre et Mystère, Paris: Tequi, 1938.

____."Théâtre et Mystère. Le sens de l’oeuvre dramatique de Gabriel

Marcel," Etudes, No. 234 (1938), pp. 738-60; and Ibid., No. 235

(1938), pp. 40-60.

____. "Théâtre et Mystère." Préface to La Soif by Gabriel Marcel, Paris:

Desclée de Brouwer, 1938.

Gallagher, Kenneth T. The Philosophy_of_Gabriel_Marcel, Foreword by

Gabriel Marcel, New York: Fordham University Press, 1962 and

1975.

____ . "Truth and Freedom in Marcel," The Philosophy of Gabriel

Marcel. (The Library of Living Philosophers, Vol. XVII) ed P. A.

Schillp and L. E. Hahn, La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1984, pp. 371-

88, reply pp. 389-90.

Gilson, Etienne. Existentialisme chrétien: Gabriel Marcel.

Présentation by Etienne Gilson. Text by Jeanne Delhomme, Roger

Troisfontaines, Pierre Colin, J. P. Dubois-Dumee, Gabriel

Marcel, Paris: Plon, 1947.

____."A unique philosopher," Philsophy_Today vol. 3 (Winter

1959), pp. 278-89.

Gouhier, Henri. L’Essence du Théâtre. ( Essais et Critiques, 4) Paris: Plon;

Brussels: de Klogge, 1943; new edition, Paris: Aubier, 1968.

_____."Le Théâtre dans la pensée de Gabriel Marcel," in Savoir, faire,

espérer: limites de la_raison, 2 volumes published on the occasion

of the fiftieth anniversary of the School of Philosophie and Religious

Sciences and in honor of Msgr. Henri Van Camp. Brussels:

Publications des Facultés Universitaires Saint L o u i s , 1976, pp.

407-23.

____.Le Théâtre et existence (Philosophie de l'esprit), Paris: Aubier,

1952; reissued J. Vrin, 1973.

____ ."Théâtre et engagement" in Entretiens autour de Gabriel

Marcel, Neuchâtel: à la Baconnière, 1976, pp. 95-102,

discussion pp. 103-13.

____ .L Oeuvre théâtrale (Bibliothèque d'

Esthétique), Paris:

Flammarion, 1958.

____."Ou en sommes nous?" Recherches et Débats Théâtre

Contemporain, Paris: Fayard, 1952, pp. 9-16.

____."Philosophie et Théâtre" dans L ’ E n c y c l o p é d i e française,

t.XIX, Philosohie Religion, Paris: Larousse, 1957, 19. 30 6-8.

____."Tragique et Transcendence" in Le Théâtre tragique, Etudes

réunies et présentées par Jean Jacquot, Paris, Centre National de

la Recherche scientifique, 3rd edition 1970, pp. 479-83.

Hartshorne, Charles. "Marcel on God and Causality," The

Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, (The Library of Living

Philosophers Vol. XVII) ed. P. A. Schilpp and L. E. Hahn, La Salle,

IL: Open Court, 1984, pp. 353-66, reply by Gabriel Marcel, pp.

367-70.

Hocking, W. E. "Marcel and the Ground Issues of Metaphysics,"

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (1954), pp. 439-69.

Keen, Samuel. "The Development of the Idea of Being in the Thought

of Marcel," The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel (Library of Living

Philosophers Vol_ XVII), ed. P. A. Schilpp and L. E. Hahn, La

Salle, IL: Open Court, 1984, pp. 99-120, reply by Gabriel Marcel

pp. 121-22.

____. Gabriel Marcel, London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1967;

Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1967.

Jouve, Raymond. "Un Théâtre de la Sincereté, Gabriel Marcel,

métaphysicien et dramaturge," Etudes, 5 and 20 April 1932, pp. 21-

34; 171-84.

Lescoe, Francis J. Existentialism with or without God, New York: Alba

House, 1974, Chapter III, pp 77-132.

____.(ed.) The Existentialist Drama of Gabriel Marcel, Letter and

Introduction by Gabriel Marcel. Introduction by Francis J.

Lescoe. The Broken World and The Rebellious Heart, English

versions of Le Monde cassé and Le Coeur des autres, translated

by Sister J. Marita Paul Colla, R. S. M., and Rev. Francis C.

Hara, respectively, West Hartford, CT: McAuley Institute, St.

Joseph College, 1974.

Miceli, Vincent P. Ascent_to Being, Gabriel Marcel's Philosophy of

Communion, New York, Tournai, Paris, Rome: Desclée, 1965.

Moeller, Charles. "Gabriel Marcel et le mystère de

l’espérance," pp. 149-79, in Littératue du XXe siècle et

christianisme, IV, Es p é r a n c e en Dieu notre Père,

Paris: Casterman, 1960.

Man and Salvation in Literature, translated by Charles Underhill Quinn,

Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1970.

Mesnard, Pierre. "Le Monde cassé" in La Vie Intellectuelle, 15 March

1935, pp. 306-12.

Ngimbi-Nseka, H. Tragigue et Intersubjectivité dans la Philosophie d e

Gabriel Marcel, Mayidi, B. P. 6/224. Inkisi: Publications du Grand

Seminaire de Mayidi No. 1, 1981.

Novak, Michael. "Marcel at Harvard," The Commonweal, Vol. 77, No. 2,

(Oct. 5, 1962), pp. 31-33.

Malley, John B. The Fellowship of Being, An essay on the concept of

person in the philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, The Hague: Martinus

Nijhoff, 1966.

Parain-Vial, Jeanne. Gabriel Marcel et les niveaux de

l’expérience Présentation, choix de textes et textes

inédites, Paris: Seghers, 1966.

____ . "L'

Être et essences dans la philosophie de Gabriel Marcel,"

Revue de Théologie et de P h i l o s o p h i e , No. 2(1974),

PP. 81-98.

____."L'

Être et le Temps chez Gabriel Marcel," pp. 187-201;

discussion pp. 202-10, in Entretiens autour de Gabriel

Marcel, Neuchâtel: à la Baconnière, 1976.

____."L'

espérance et l’être dans la philosophie de Gabriel Marcel," Les

Etudes philosophiques, January-March 1975, pp. 19-30.

____."Sur la paternité selon Gabriel Marcel," Archives de

Philosophie du Droit, Tome 20, (1975), pp. 149-62.

____ . "Le Tragique: L'

expérience existentielle face à la

contestation marxiste," Revue de Métaphysique et de

Morale, pp. 246-60.

Pax, Clyde Victor. An Existentialist Approach to God: A Study of Gabriel

Marcel, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1972.

____."Marcel’s Way of Creative Fidelity," Philosophy Today, Vol. 19

(Spring 1975), pp. 12-21.

Piguet, J. Claude. "De l'

esthétique à la métaphysique," Revue

de Théologie et de Philosophie Vol. 8, no. l, 1958, pp. 30-

41.

Plourde, Simonne. Gabriel Marcel philosophe et temoin de

espérance, Montréal: Les Presses de l'

Université de Quebec,

1975.

____. Jeanne Parain-Vial, Rene Davignon, Marcel Belay.

Vocabulaire philosophique de Gabriel Marcel, (Recherches.

Nouvelle Serie - 6) Montreal, Bellarmin, Paris, Cerf, 1985, p.

241.

Prini, Pietro. Gabriel Marcel la metodología dell’inverificabile, Pref. di

Gabriel Marcel, Roma: Studium, 1950. 125 pp. French trans.

Gabriel Marcel et la méthodologie de l inverifiable, Lettre-Préface

de Gabriel Marcel, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1952, 129 pp. (2nd

ed. Roma: Studium Abete, 1968, 170 pp.).

____ ."A Methodology of the Unverifiable," The Philosophy of Gabriel

Marcel, (The Library of Living Philosophers Vol. XVII), ed. P. A.

Schilpp and L, E. Hahn, La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1984, pp. 205-39;

Reply by Gabriel Marcel, pp. 240-43.

Ralston, Zachary Taylor. Gabriel Marcel'

s Paradoxical Expression of

Mystery, A Stylistic Study of Ia Soif, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic

University of America Press, 1961.

Ricoeur, Paul. Entretiens Paul Ricour, Gabriel Marcel, Paris: Aubier,

Montaigne, 1968.

____. "Conversations between Paul Ricceur and Gabriel Marcel,"

included in Tragic W i s d o m and Beyond, Evanston, IL:

Northwestern University Press, 1973, trans. Peter McCormick.

____.Gabriel Marcel et Karl Jaspers deux maîtres de L’existentialisme,

Paris: Edition du Temps Présent,1948.

_____."Gabriel Marcel et la phenomenologie," pp. 52-74,

discussion pp. 75-94 in Entretiens autour de Gabriel Marcel :

Neuchâtel : à la Baconière, 1976.

G. Marcel and Phenomenology," The Philosophy of Gabriel

Marcel, (The Library of Living Philosophers Vol. XVII), ed. P.

A. Schilpp and L. E. Hahn, LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1984,

pp. 471-94, Reply by Gabriel Marcel, pp. 495-98.

Schwarz, Balduin V. (ed.) The Human Person and the World of

Values, New York: Fordham University Press, 1960.

Spiegelberg, Herbert. "Gabriel Marcel as a Phenomenologist," pp.

421-44, Vol. 2, The Phenomenological Movement, Historical

Introduction, 2 vols, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960.

Stern, Karl. "Death within Life," Review of Existential Psychology

and Psychiatry, (Pittsburgh), Vol. 2, No. 2 (1962), pp. 141-44.

Thevenaz, Pierre. "La Philosophie de M. Gabriel Marcel, Une

métaphysique de la présence et la fidelité," Revue

de_Théologie et_de Philosophie, vol. 26, 1938, pp. 235-43.

Thibon, Gustave. "Une Métaphysique de la Communion:

Existentialisme de Gabriel Marcel," Revue de philosophie, 1946,

Paris: Teque, 1947, pp. 144-64.

Troisfontaines, Roger. De l'

existence à l'

etre. La philosophié

de Gabriel Marcel, 2 vols., Louvain, Nauwelaerts, Paris:

Vrin, 1953, 2nd ed. 1968.

____.What is Existentialism?" Thought, Vol. 32, No. 127,

(Winter 1957-58), pp. 516-32.

Tilliette, Xavier. "Gabriel Marcel et l’Autre Royaume" in Jean Wahl et

Gabriel Marcel, Paris: Beauchesne, 1976, pp. 35-56.

____."Gabriel Marcel et le socratisme chrétien," pp. 9-47, in Philosophes

contemporains: Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Karl

Jaspers, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1962.

Vergote, Antoine. "L"

avenement du Je et l'evenement de verité dans le

temoignage," Temoignage, Paris: Aubier, 1972.

Wahl, Jean. Vers le concret, Paris: Vrin, 1932.

addendum: appeared as this work goes to press too late for

consultation but in time for mention in bibliographic references:

GABRIEL MARCEL-GASTON FESSARD CORRESPONDANCE

(1934-1971) présentée et annotée par Henri de Lubac,

Marie Rougier et Michel Sales, introduction par Xavier

Tilliette, Paris: Beauchesne, 1985.

PART TWO:

DRAMATIC APPROACHES TO CREATIVE FIDELITY

Chapter II, The Unfathomable: A Search for Presence

On September 13, 1973, I had the privilege of a two-four conversation

with Gabriel Marcel. Our talk had none of the awkwardness of a first

meeting. Rather, it had been one of my distinct good fortunes as a

philosopher to have first become acquainted with him in Louvain in

1958. Since his four-day visit to Le Moyne College in 1965, I believe it is

not presumptuous to have claimed genuine friendship with this great

philosopher.

In the foreword, I have recounted some of the topics and tone of our

September conversation. Three weeks later, I was back in America and

learned to my sadness that the conversation had been our last. Gabriel

Marcel passed away on October 8, 1973.

Three topics kept appearing and reappearing in that last conversation—

his preoccupation with the presence of loved ones who have gone

beyond death; his concern with the continuing fulfillment of life in the

light of God; and his assurance of a spiritual bond between loved ones

that will not be broken. The topics are so tightly woven to the texture of

human life that they were profoundly moving, even as he spoke. With

his death they took on new meaning. For the three converge in another

theme that was one of Marcel'

s richest sources of philosophic

reflection--that of death and immortality.

In these pages, I would like to present some humble tribute to one who

richly enlarged twentieth-century man's self-understanding and selfappreciation.

The theme I shall consider is that of immortality, from the

perspective of love and interpersonal presence. It is a theme that was

the subject of a continuing existential quest throughout Marcel'

lifework. I would hope that the following pages not only illuminate his

past thought, but also reveal the perspective from which his light may

continue to be experienced.

Marcel stated clearly that his concern with death is precisely from

the perspective of one who is concerned for a loved one who has

died.(1) From his point of view, the existential problem of death is the

problem of the conflict between love and death.(2) This unique

perspective on death and immortality, which issues in a

phenomenological analysis of survival, is intimately linked with his

conviction that BEING is fundamentally intersubjective.(3)

Thus, following the lead of Marcel's own thought, the precise

question we shall pursue here is that of seeking the nature of the

phenomenon and the conditions that can provide for the continued

Présence of a loved one beyond death. The principal textual sources

we shall draw upon are those published in a book entitled Presence and

Immortality. This book, rich in resources and replete with detailed

critical analyses, was published in English in 1967 by Duquesne

University Press. It includes four works: an essay written in 1937

entitled "My Fundamental Purpose"; entries from Marcel’

s "Metaphysical

Journal for the years 1938-1943"; a 1951 essay entitled "Présence and

Immortality," which, significantly, was originally entitled "The Existential

Premises of Immortality"; and the script of the first act of an unfinished

play, The Unfathomable, written in 1917.

Our procedure will be to first examine the play, as this portrays the

existential situation wherein the death of a beloved person occurs.

Subsequently, we shall trace Marcel'

s critical analysis of the existential

premises of immortality as he articulates these through his philosophic

essays.

For Marcel, it is the art of theater to portray an existential situation.

Thus drama communicates a lived experience and allows us to enter

into its world. In The Unfathomable, we confront a situation that

questions the survival of a loved on. Moreover, the stances of the

different characters invite us to consider critically the alternate opinions

we may have toward someone'

s death.

The central event that gives rise to the drama in the first act of The

Unfathomable is the fact that Maurice Lechevallier has been reported as

missing in action at the end of World War I. The drama portrays the

existential situation wherein the various members of his family react to

the news of Maurice's disappearance. Each construes and interprets

the significance of his fate differently. As the action evolves, it

becomes clear that each ones determination of what Maurice'

absence means is to a large extent determined by the attitude that

individual had toward him and the type of relationship they had

shared.

Perhaps, as with the two neighbors, Lise Breton and Francine

Vadot, a death may be a subject of curiosity, a topic of gossip. We may

remain insensitive to the fact that this event involves a person whom

others hold as a loved one. Or the stance may be that displayed by

Robert, who proclaims that the facts must be accepted. For him,

Maurice is dead and exists no more. Robert'

s memories fade and

appear to fall short of the reality. He even begins to doubt if he ever

knew his brother at all. Maurice'

s wife, Georgette, fearfully worries

whether she will have him back, or whether she should start a new life

without him. Madame Lechevallier, Maurice'

s mother, really wishes that

he would reappear, for his sake, his wife'

s, and, of course, also her own.

Père Seveilhac insists that Maurice has returned to God and has left his

loved ones for good. They can only pray for him.

The various attitudes conveyed by these characters seem to put in

relief that of Edith, Maurice’s sister-in-law, who accepts that Maurice has

died and mourns him, but enjoys the assurance that he continues to

live, for she experiences the gift of his presence through love, bestowing

refreshment and renewal of life. Three or four of her speeches convey

her sense of experiencing his presence and even intimate the

subjective dispositions requisite for the continued conferral of

intersubjective presence. Her testimony is dramatically poignant.

Edith'

s speeches in her dialogue with Père Seveilhac are

significant for the testimony they present and the description they offer

of the type of experience she witnesses.

Edith (to Père Seveilhac): I can’t say to what extent your

words chill me ....It seams this prayer to which you invite

me exiles me from those for whom it is offered; between

them and us, it puts more than space, it puts God himself.

One can only pray for those who are truly absent, ... but you

can't pretend that death is an absence! There are times

when he is more immediately present to me than he ever

was in life. No longer is there between him and me this

dreadful fear of thinking of one another in a sinful way; no

longer is there the disturbing image of third parties...there are

no longer any third parties. Don'

t give me that harsh look,

Father; I see too clearly that you don't grasp. And yet, you

should remember, you should understand.(4)

Edith: ...All that is wrong, all that is outside what I feel and

live.(5)

Edith (in a muffled voice): This feeling of absence that a

dead loved one could not awaken in us. I experience for my

husband with a horrible intensity….He is always at a

distance—and that is not saying enough, for space itself

does not separate those who worship one another. He is

not with me, we are not together; we are...I don'

t know

how to explain to you, ... let us say, like objects placed

near one another, forever outside one another. And yet if

only you knew how passionately I desired that it be

otherwise. (6)

Edith: .. You tell me that nothing outside can respond to my

feeling. I don'

t know what you mean by that. Or rather yes, I

think I know. (With sobs in her throat) Basically,for you,the

dead are no longer there; and your thoughts are in no way

different from those who do not believe. Whatever be the

glorious and unimaginable existence that you ascribe to

them ... for you they are no longer of the living. But for me ...

the truly dead, the only dead are those whom we no longer

love. (7)

Edith: When I think of him in a certain way--with tenderness,

with recollection—there wells up in me something like a

richer, deeper life in which I know he participates.This life is

not I, nor is it he; it is both of us. Shall I admit it to you? I

was hoping a little that you would be able to take part in this

kind of ccnversation without words, the sweetness of

which...(with emotion). Why does it seen to me now that I

am violating a sacred prohibition by telling you that? It is

something about which one must not speak (sternly) with a

stranger. In reality, I have betrayed him.(8)

The lived experience of love and presence, of the assurance of the

survival of a loved one beyond death, an experience that Edith's words

witness and describe, and an experience that can be the reader '

s own, is

the mystery that the philosopher is called upon to analyze and to, clarify.

As Marcel writes in another context: "But the role of the philosopher is to

raise to the level of articulated thought what is here only pre-knowledge

and song."(9)

Marcel carries on such critical analysis and reflective clarification

through entries in his "Metaphysical Journal 1938-1943" and in a

phenomenological analysis of survival that animates his essay

"Presence and Immortality."

We can by no means reproduce here the thoroughness of the

detailed analyses and the patient critical probing that Marcel’s thought

brings to bear in questioning the existential premises for the continued

presence of a beloved beyond death. We can, however, trace the main

lines of his thought as he clarifies what he calls the "presential character"

of immortality and uncovers the existential conditions of its possibility.

The major elements Marcel introduces to clarify the presential

character of intersubjective being are: 1) the overcoming of the

categories derived from the model of objects and their relationships, in

order to think of Présence in terms of intersubjective relationships; 2) a

careful investigation of how a subject who is not a physically present

object can nevertheless be actually present, affecting and enriching

the being of a person; and 3) a reflective examination of the significant

difference between possessive desire and the oblative love that animates

hope.

Prior to any understanding of the genuine presential character of

intersubjectivity, it is necessary to overcame the temptation to think of

"presence" in terms of physical objects and those categories proper to

their relationships. Marcel effects this correction of thought by inviting

those who would give such reductionistic interpretations to recognize

the fundamental presupposition implied by their interpretations. The

pretension that being physically near or juxtaposed in space constitutes

"presence" is belied by our own experience as well as by the sense of

Edith'

s remarks. One can be juxtaposed to another in space, be near in

terms of physical proximity, and yet still be alien or distant, far from either

offering or welcoming interpersonal presence. As Edith remarks,

Edith (in a muffled voice): This feeling of absence that a

dead loved one could not awaken in us I experience for my

husband with a horrible intensity.

He is always at a distance--and that is not saying

enough, for space itself does not separate those who

worship one another. He is not with me, we are not

together; we are…, I don'

t know how to explain to you,...let

us say, like objects placed near one another, forever

outside one another. And yet if you only knew how

passionately I desired that it be otherwise.(10)

Or as Marcel comments in "Presence and Immortality,"

For instance, we may have the very strong feeling that

someone who is in the room, very close to us, someone

whom we can see and hear and whom we can touch, IS

NEVERTHELESS NOT PRESENT. He is infinitely farther

from us than such a loved one who is thousands of miles

away or who even no longer belongs to our world. What

then is this presence which is here lacking?(11)

Marcel then points out that intersubjective presence, which is of a

completely different order from physical proximity, requires personal

openness, that is, a person's availability to the other'

s appeal or

revelation. In contrast to the distance that estranges the opaque and

self-absorbed individual from his deepest self and frail otters, the open

person, self-possessed and capable of self-giving, is available to be with

and for the other.(12)

In continuing his assertion that physical categories fall short in

any attempt to account for intersubjective presence, Marcel points out

that material communication may take place between two individuals

without the phenomenon of communion that characterizes interpersonal

presence. As he writes in "Presence and Immortality":

It would not be correct to say that we cannot communicate

with this individual who is there very close to us, for he is

neither deaf, nor blind, nor half-witted. Between us a

certain material communication is assured, but only a

material one. It is in every way comparable to the kind

which can be set up between two distinct stations, one

sending and the other receiving. However the essential

thing is lacking. One could say that there is communication

without communion, and for this reason it is unreal

communication.

Marcel continues,

The other hears the words that I say; but he does not hear

me and I can be painfully aware that these words, as he

relays them back to me, words which he reflects upon,

become for me unrecognizable.(13)

Thus Marcel observes that it is not material communication that

creates intersubjective presence. Rather it is the openness and the

spiritual exchange of love that create communion. Of an entirely

different order from the transmission of material forms is the co-esse or

the radiant communication of the being of the other person that

constitutes intersubjective communion. In "Presence and Immortality"

he writes,

This experience that I have had a hundred tines is one of

the most mysterious that exists and it appears to me to be

among those to which philosophers have never paid any

attention. One could say that it is, in the best sense,

existential. For it is not so much what the other says, the

content of his words which exercises on me

this stimulating action, but it is he himself saying these

words, he himself inasmuch as he sustains his own words

by all that he is.(14)

As Marcel has clarified in other contexts, this communion is a state

of being together in our difference. Such community of being is

constituted as an interpersonal event co-authored by freedoms in the

dialogue of appeal, availability, receptivity, and commitment. Its

enduring quality may be characterized by belonging. Belonging--or the

commitment and creative fidelity of intersubjective being--may be phrased

in affirmations like these: "I am with and for you." "You have at your

disposal all that I am and can be for you." "Your hopes, projects,

fullness of life pertain to me as my own." "I am responsive to your new

questions and new directions of growth; and I will be responsible for

sustaining and supporting them.

Marcel concludes, then, that presence through interpersonal

communion is constituted by the distinctive event "that the other, if I feel

him present, renews me interiorly in some way. This presence is in

such a case revelatory; it makes me more fully myself than I would be

without it."(16) Or as Edith'

s speech expresses it,

When I think of him in a certain way--with tenderness, with

recollection--there wells up in me something like a richer,

deeper life in which I know he participates. This life is not I,

nor is it he; it is both of us. Shall I admit it to you? I was

hoping a little that you would be able to take part in this

kind of conversation without words, the sweetness of

which... (with emotion). Why does it seem to me now that I

am violating a sacred prohibition by telling you that? It is

something about which one must not speak (sternly) with a

stranger. In reality, I have betrayed him.(17)

Thus Marcel has shown. that although physical nearness and

material communication may often be the circumstances in which

presence occurs, they do not account for, nor do they constitute, the

event of interpersonal presence. Moreover, it has become apparent that

presence may occur without these circumstances, for the conditions of

possibility and the distinctive event of interpersonal presence arise from

an entirely different order of being. The requisite conditions for

intersubjective being or events of interpersonal presence are the

attitudes that characterize personhood; namely, openness, availability,

and specially that unity and luminescent quality of personhood whereby

one is capable of self-possession and therefore self-giving. Presence is

then constituted by the interaction of people who, in their freedom and grace,

can make that commitment of responsible self-gift to be with and for the other.

And the "substance" of presence reveals itself to be that event or bond of love

whereby the being and life of one and the other are interiorly enriched,

inspired, and supported toward a creative fulfillment that is together hoped

for.

Turning now to the second perspective of questioning, let us consider what can be

the made of presence of the "thou" to "me," especially when that thou is a

beloved beyond death.

Marcel inquires how the other, who is neither a thing nor an objective person, can

nevertheless be present. Or, as he phrases it in "An Essay in Autobiography,"

"Perhaps I can best explain my continual and central metaphysical

preoccupation by saying that my aim was to discover how a subject, in his

actual capacity as subject, is related to a reality which cannot in this context be

regarded as objective, yet which is persistently required and recognized as

real."(18)

The challenge is then to think of the way in which a subject can relate to a reality

that is in no way an object. Since the relationship of communion is conceived

in terms of a bond of spiritual exchange, it is consistent to think of the proper

mode of interpersonal presence in terms of spiritual interaction.

This means that the model of subject object dichotomy, or of a transmission linking

two stations outside each other, should be radically transcended. These models

have a mode of relationship proper to things in a world of objectivity. Love is

the relationship proper to persons in the realm of intersubjectivity. Thus the mode

of conceiving the interpersonal relationship of presence should reflect the way

in which a subject encounters the active influence of another subject who is

with and for him.

Reflecting on the spiritual exchange that characterizes participation in

intersubjective being, Marcel points out that the subject encounters the

spiritual influence of the other by way of interiority or inwardness, as a spiritual

influx or an inward accretion that profoundly affects one's being. Hence the

way toward encountering the presence of the other is through one's own

interiority and depth. The other then becomes present in and through an active

relationship of spiritual influx that enriches and affects one'

s being. Hence the

relationship proper to intersubjective being is an encounter of a transcendence

by way of immanence. The subject who possesses or recollects

himself finds that he may participate in or draw upon personalizing

forces that are moreand other than his own alone. The subject who

invokes the presence of the other may find the active influx of a spiritual

influence that bestows benefits that enrich and affect his very being. And

this influx can be recognized as originating in the other as its source.

We find Marcel’

s succinct and positive description of this in "An

Essay in Autobiography."

A presence is a reality; it is a kind of influx; (The word influx,

conveys the kind of interior accretion, of accretion from

within, which comes into being as soon as presence is

effective.) It depends upon us to be permeable to this

influx, but not, to tell the truth, to call it forth. Creative

fidelity consists in maintaining ourselves actively in a

permeable state; and there is a mysterious interchange

between this free act and the gift granted in response to

it.(19)

One might be inclined to identify the structure of presence in

technical terms as the active relationship of encountering an immanent

transcendence. Yet Marcel declines technical terminology, preferring

to articulate the unique phenomenon in the specific language it

presents. I believe this arises from Marcel'

s determination to analyze

and interpret the mystery of presence in a manner faithful to the

evidence given within the experience. I find, moreover, that this

procedure heightens the originality of his interpretation of presence. He

insists on the delicate blending of unity and duality in presence. He

acknowledges its predominant unity as communion yet also

recognizes the intersubjectivity of its coauthoring and being.

He observes that perhaps the idea of relationship with its strong

emphasis on duality is not appropriate to identify presence.(20) He

notes that its unity is stressed and expressed by the statement, "This

life is not I, nor is it he; it is both of us."(21) And, in speaking of creative

fidelity, he points out that the idea of unity of communion in presence is

articulated as "you are with me," which transcends the dualistic and

problematic categories of "before me" or "within me."

When I say that a being is granted to me as a presence or

as a being (it comes to the same, for he is not a being for

me unless he is a presence), this means that I am unable

to treat him as if he were merely placed in front of me;

between me and him there arises a relationship which, in a

sense, surpasses my awareness of him; he is not only

before me, he is also within me--or, rather, these

categories are transcended, they no longer have any

meaning. (22)

Even if I cannot see you, if I cannot touch you, I feel that

you are with me; it would be a denial of you not to be

assured of this. With me: note the metaphysical value of this

word, so rarely recognized by philosophers, which

corresponds neither to a relationship of inherence or

immanence nor to a relationship of exteriority. It is of the

essence of genuine co-esse..."(23)

Elsewhere in the same essay he writes:

If presence were merely an idea in us whose characteristic

was that it was nothing more than itself, then the most we

could hope would be to maintain this idea in us or before us,

as one keeps a photograph on a mantelpiece or in a

cupboard. But it is of the nature of presence as presence to

be uncircumscribed; and this takes us beyond the frontier of

the problematical. Presence is mystery in the exact

measure in which it is presence.(24)

Marcel thinks of presence as trans-subjective.(25) Presence is the

sharing, the active participation in the enriched life and being of

intersubjectivity. In this phenomenon the frontier between the I and the

thou is transcended; the essence of presence is the unity of

communion.(26)

Yet presence brings the other to be with one effectively. The

other is really there--in his being, actively constituting the event and

contributing from his uniqueness to the enrichment of the life that

presence provides.

Marcel shows that the genuine experience of presence is

characterized by openness and active receptivity, attitudes that both

recognize and highlight the gratuitous and active intervention of the

other that is required to effect the co-constituted event of presence.

In speaking of presence, Marcel maintains the delicate balance

that it depends upon us to be permeable to this influx, but not, to tell the

truth, to call it forth."(27) The one who retains this openness and active

receptivity recognizes that there is a gratuity to the occurrence of that

spiritual influx that constitutes presence. For in the same context Marcel writes of

creative fidelity:

Creative fidelity consists in maintaining ourselves actively in a

permeable state; and (it can be recognized) there is a

mysterious interchange between this free act and the gift granted

in response to it.(28)

And he further points out that a reciprocal fidelity is required for

an active perpetuation of presence, the renewal of its benefits--

of its virtue which consists in a mysterious incitement to

create.(29)

Moreover, he continues,

Thus if creative fidelity is conceivable, it is because fidelity is

ontological in its principle, because it prolongs presence which

itself corresponds to a certain kind of hold which being has upon

us; because it multiplies and deepens the effect of this presence

almost unfathomably in our lives.(30)

And he points out,

This seems to me to have almost inexhaustible

consequences, if only for the relationships between the living

and the dead.(31)

For, as he comments in this essay "On the Ontological Mystery" and in entries

in his "Metaphysical Journal for the years 1938-1943,"

When I say that a being is granted to me as a presence or

as a being (it comes to the same, for he is not a being for me

unless he is a presence)....(32)

this involves recognizing that

Revelation is the opposite of inquiry.(33)...and in revealing himself

to me the other somehow draws me to himself; and on condition

that I consent to it, he lifts me out of this world where I tend to be

only a thing among things.(34)

By preserving the delicate balance by thinking of presence predominantly

as a unity of communion, yet also recognizing its duality--as intersubjectivity of

being--through its traits of gratuity and otherness--Marvel metaphysically

situates the subject as one open to an influx of participation in being, as in the

model of artistic creation whereby "the world is present to the artist, to his heart

and to his mind, present to his very being."(35) He thereby transcends the

arbitrary limitations of a metaphysics that considers the subject only as an ego,

closed on itself, or as a cogito hermetically sealed off from other reality,

in which context an immanent experience is interpreted as nothing more than

an isolated nomad's lonely, subjective projections—a poor caricature and

sad travesty of the genuine phenomenon of presence.(36)

In "Presence and Immortality," Marcel introduces the metaphor of

light to further clarify the nature of Presence. He points out that it is only in the

context of a philosophy of light that we can see emerge the deepest

implications of openness for presence and intersubjectivity of being.

He writes,

One could say that intersubjectivity is the fact of being together in

the light. Here as always perhaps, by proceeding negatively

one can approach the positive essence toward which it is

a matter of directing one'

s thought. If, in the presence of

another person I am burdened with mental reservations about him,

or if, which amounts exactly to the same thing, I attribute to

him some ulterior motives concerning me, it is obvious we are

not together in the light. I put myself in the shade. At once, he

ceases to be present to me, and reciprocally, I can no longer be

present to him.(37)

However, he observes in "My Fundamental Purpose,"

the world of the other becomes illumined with an increasingly

intense light as the I dispels more of its own darkness and dispels

it more heroically.(38)

He continues,

The more we endeavor to communicate with ourselves--by

that I mean with what in us at first appears as most

recalcitrant to a certain intellectual penetration--the more we

free ourselves from the automatism which is nothing but a

petrifying of our judgment.(39)

So the more closedness is transcended to openness, the more

darkness and estrangement are dispelled to disclose the luminous

quality of ourselves and the luminescent presence of the beloved, until

finally one enjoys a presence that gives rise to an invincible assurance

that is communicated by love. As Marcel writes in conclusion to this

section of the phenomenological analysis of survival in "Presence and

Immortality,"

It expresses itself by some such affirmations as: "I am assured

that you are present to me and this assurance is linked with the

fact that you do not stop helping me, that you help me perhaps

more directly than you could on earth. We are together in the light.

More exactly, in moments when I am detached from myself, when I

cease to eclipse myself, I gain access to a light which is your light.

Surely I do not mean the light of which you are the source, but that

in which you yourself blossom, that which you help to reflect or

radiate upon me."(40)

Thus, intersubjectivity, or being in the presence of one another,

involves an event articulated by freedoms and grace. By presence one's

being and life in its most deeply personal acts is enriched by the active

influx of the other in whose light they are inspired, uplifted, supported,

and sustained. Being together in the light, the other is really and

actively present to me, gracing my being with a light and personalizing

force that I cannot but acknowledge as other and more than my own

alone. For it should indeed be noted that it depends upon me to remain

open and permeable to this gift of presence, but not in fact to call it

forth. As interpersonal presence, its conferral comes as a gratuitous

influx in response to an openness of appeal.(41)

The third and final perspective we shall explore for its

significant illumination of the question of presence and immortality

is the difference between desire and hope. Early in "Presence and

Immortality” Marcel states that he finds this difference most

significant if one is to achieve his aspiration to maintaining a living

relationship of active communication with a loved one who has

died. In this section we shall first note the difference between

desire and hope and then explore its significance to the quest to

maintain the presence of a beloved beyond death.

Speaking of the significant difference between desire and hope,

Marcel notes:

This whole investigation could be articulated only by starting

out from what came to me as a discovery--that of the

difference, often ignored even by the most distinguished

persons, between desire and hope.

Desire is by definition egocentric: it tends toward

possession. The other is then considered only in reference

to me, to the enjoyments which he can procure me if I am

full of lust; or he is seen simply in relation to the services

which he will be able to render me. Hope on the other hand

is not egocentric: to hope, I have written in Homo Viator, is

always to hope for us. Let us say that hope is never the

state of wishful thinking which can express itself by an "I

would very much wish that." Hope implies a prophetic

assurance which is really its armor and which prevents the

being from breaking down, internally first of all; but it also

prevents him from giving up, that is to say surrendering or

degrading himself....(42)

He further elaborates the distinction between desire and hope by

pointing out that, on the one hard, desire is structured to that mode of

relationship of "having," which is geared to the possession of a thing,

while hope, on the other hand, is animated by generous love.(43) The

love that animates hope then is not possessive and self-centered, but

rather self-giving and other-directed. Thus he writes, "human love--and

this word is broad enough to be applicable also to friendship, to philia --

implies a reciprocity profound enough to let other-directedness work both

ways, to let each become the center for the other. Thus is created a

unity which is no less mysterious than that I spoke of in relation to

incarnation."(44)

Now the attitudes characteristic of "having" must be transcended if

ones quest for active communication with the loved one beyond death

is not to fall short and fail.

Marcel writes:

One can affirm in principle, it seems, that the more the

relationship which has united me to another being has been

strictly possessive, the more his disappearance must come

to be likened to the loss of an object. True, the lost object

can under certain exceptional conditions be found again, but

one cannot attribute to it any presential character.(45)

As one tries to relocate a loved one who has died, there is the

inclination to reach for memories or images recalled from the past. Yet

if this quest yields to the weight of desire, one's search tries to find

something that was lost. One attempts to relocate a person, as an

object, to find him again as he was in the past. Yet this temptation is

frustrating, for the person is no longer there as an object. And the

images or memories one tries to hold and manipulate in this search

become fixed and appear as stale replicas or pale counterfeits of the

sadly desired loved one. As Marcel observes in entries in his

"Metaphysical Journal for the Years 1938-1943," the most this attitude

of desire attains is a reconsideration of images, "like photographs that

one can handle at will; but which images are inert and passive in my

hands."(46) Or, at worst, it may find the object of search as dried

bones or as a notary'

s statistic that inclines one to despair, for these

are but hollow substitutes for the person sought.(47)

Images, memories, replicas of events may serve to give focus to an

inner activity that seeks the actual presence of the beloved. But it is

requisite that the desire for possession be overcome, so that hope

may lead one's aspiration to maintain a living relationship of active

communication with the beloved beyond death. (48)

The attitude of desire toward "having," having the other there as

a subject who .

is an object, having precise services rendered as

demanded in particular circumstances, must be transcended to reach

the more genuine attitude of participating in intersubjective being,

admiringly and gratefully being with and for the other and reciprocally

acknowledging that the other remains with and for me.

Let us consider what there is about hope that makes it

indispensable in providing for presence in immortality. Hope is

animated by "oblative" love, a love willing to let go of the other, and

willing to let the other be in a transformed node of life, brings with it an

assurance of a fullness of life for us. In this, hope affects both the

clarification of the conditions of possibility for continued and renewed

presence, and also the tone and focus of one's appeal for that

presence.(49)

First, hope provides assurance of the grounds for a living

relationship of active communication with the actual personal being of

the beloved. For hope carries the assurance that the loved one

continues to live, not merely to exist as sealed off but to be capable of

awareness and capable of responsibility."(50) So while one

acknowledges that the other now lives a transposed mode of life, one

is nonetheless assured that his personal being endures and that the

living reality of intersubjective being will continue to be renewed.

Second, the attitude of hope affects the aim and the tone of one'

appeal for presence. For hope, with its "oblative" love and the unity of

reciprocal other-directed human love it provides, is willing to let the other

be in a transposed mode of being, and yet still enjoy the assurance that

the beloved will continue to remain an active center of initiative in coauthoring

the realization of a fullness of life for us.(51) For hope shows

that where there is the reality of an "us," then the fullness of life that the

beloved hopes for essentially involves his continued active

commitment to the realization of that fullness of life with and for me.

Thus the one who hopes counts on the continued complicity of

the beloved's active interventions of creative fidelity to his personal

commitment to bring about the realization of those values that are

essential to a fullness of life for us. In fact, the one who hopes, actively

awaits, and confidently expects that the bestowal of presence--radiating

his light, supporting, sustaining, and uplifting ones personalizing

forces--will be renewed. For the one who hopes enjoys the assurance

that the loved one continues to exist as an actual personhood. As

Marcel phrases it, a "for itself for others".(52)

The tracing of a second reflection on Marcel’s theme of Presence

and Immortality enables us to clarify the main lines of this phenomenon

and to identify its essential conditions of possibility.

Negatively, it is neither physical juxtaposition nor material

communication, nor even the relationship of a subject confronting

another person as an object that constitutes presence. Rather

presence occurs through a series of events and relationships that arise

specifically within the order of personal being. Its conditions of

possibility reside in those qualities of personhood that provide requisite

dispositions for the co-authorship of interpersonal events creating the

unity of intersubjective being.

Rather than the subject object dichotomy, the structural model for

thinking of the mode of presence of a loved one from beyond death is

that derived from participation in the mystery of being. Openness

welcomes the increase of personalizing forces that originate from the

other and became resources of one'

s being by way of inward influx.

Hope emerges as primary in grounding and clarifying the

possibility for maintaining the presence of the beloved beyond death.

For hope involves a pre-knowledge as well as a prophetic assurance of

a fullness of life for us. Hope finds in the other person’s being the

assurance of his personal commitment and creative fidelity in enduring

as an active source working in complicity for the realization of a fullness

of life that he wills for us with all his being.

The possibility of establishing and maintaining a living relationship

of active communication with a loved one who has died is rooted in

hope, which, like all interpersonal acts of spiritual exchange, depends

finally on the dialogue of freedom and grace.

One might question the possibilities of ever having a living

relationship with someone three months, three years, or thirty years after

he has died, especially if one has never met or even seen that person

face to face. Yet the key to a response to that question is that whether

we hope or not depends upon us in our freedom.

In the case of Marcel, I believe there are exceptional invitations to

such hope.

The style of his philosophy is so strongly personal that he reveals

himself in his concrete approaches, in the articulation of his existential

quest, and by the paths he opens up for personal reflection. Moreover,

his luminescent quality appears, as he phrases it, in that at tines his

words seem to be supported and sustained by all that he is.

Furthermore, his life and work, questioning and reflecting upon the

human condition, respecting its antinomies yet highlighting its noblest

possibilities, is his response to an ontological need for participation in

being, and a clarification of its meaning. This is a communication that is

not exclusively intended as his, but rather fundamentally intended for an

us.

This fundamental purpose, I believe, is the root source of his

protestations against construing or conceiving of anything as his

philosophy. Moreover, this fundamental purpose of communication, I

believe, reveals a deep sense of his preference for neo-Socratic as a

label, if labeling must be done. For the style of his thought is such that it

necessarily respects and awaits the engagement of the other in his or

her own personal philosophizing. For while Marcel portrays concrete

approaches, articulates existential questioning, offers perspectives of

insight, and opens up paths of reflective clarification, still, in order to see the

vision each person must travel the distance on his or her own, making the

experience part of one's personal being, explicating the connection between

steps of reasoning and perspectives of phenomenological analysis, and

deepening a participation in being and clarifying an understanding that

becomes truly one's own.

Thus, to the extent that we aspire to realize fuller and richer forms of

creative fidelity to Marcel'

s inspiration, there indeed appear to be strong grounds

on his part assuring that the light of his presence will be there.

Notes to Chapter II. The Unfathomable: A Search for Presence

1. "Presence and Immortality," in Presence and Immortality,

Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1967, p. 230-31; "An

Essay in Autobiography," in The Philosophy of Existentialism,

New York: Citadel, Philosophical Library, 1961, p. 112-13.

2. "Presence and Immortality," p. 231.

3. "Presence and Immortality," p. 239; "My Fundamental

Purpose," in Presence and Immortality, pp. 24 and 26.

4. "The Unfathomable," in Presence and Immortality, p. 274.

5. Ibid., p. 275.

6. Ibid., pp. 275-76.

7. Ibid., p. 277.

8. Ibid., p. 280.

9. "Presence and Immortality," p. 232.

10. "The Unfathomable," pp. 275-76.

11. "Presence and Immortality," p. 237.

12. "On the Ontological Mystery," in The Philosophy of

Existentialism, New York: Citadel, Philosophical Library, 1961,

pp. 39-40; "My Fundamental Purpose," pp. 27-29.

13. "Presence and Immortality," p. 237.

14. Ibid., p. 238.

15. Creative Fidelity, New York: Noonday Press, Farrar, Straus

and Co., 1964, p. 40-42.

16. "Presence and Immortality," p. 38, citing Mystery of Being,

Volume I, Chicago, Regnery, Gateway Edition, 1960, pp. 220-

21.

17. "The Unfathomable," p. 280.

18. "An Essay in Autobiography," p. 127.

19. "On the Ontological Mystery," p. 38.

20. "Presence and Immortality," p. 238.

21. "The Unfathomable," p. 280.

22. "On the Ontological Mystery," p. 38.

23. Ibid., p. 39.

24. Ibid., p. 36.

25. "Presence and Immortality," p. 238.

26. "Metaphysical Journal for the Years 1938-1943," in Presence

and Immortality, p. 176.

27. "On the Ontological Mystery," p. 38.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid., p. 36.

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid., p. 38

33. "Metaphysical Journal for the Years 1938-1943," May 14,

1943, p. 173.

34. Ibid., May 17, 1943, p. 177.

35. "On the Ontological Mystery," p. 36.

36. "Presence and Immortality," pp. 230, 240-44.

37. Ibid., p. 239.

38. "My Fundamental Purpose," p. 27.

39. Ibid., p. 28.

40. "Presence and Immortality," p. 242.

41. "Metaphysical Journal for the Years 1938-1943," May 3, 1943, p.

153.

42. "Presence and Immortality," pp. 231-32.

43. Ibid., p. 235.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

45. "Metaphysical Journal for the Years 1938-1943," May 31,

1942, p. 79.

46. "Presence and Immortality," pp. 230, 243; "Metaphysical

Journal for the Years 1938-1943," p. 209.

47. "Metaphysical Journal for the Years 1938-1943," May 31,

1942, p. 88.

48. Ibid., p. 89-90.

49. Ibid., April 26, 1943, p. 142; May 17, 1943, p. 177; August 7,

1943, p. 207-8.

50. Ibid., August 15, 1943, p. 217.

51. Ibid., August 19, 1943, p. 217.

Chapter III. The Lantern : and The Light of Truth

In the William James lectures he delivered at Harvard University

Gabriel Marcel voiced his hope that American audiences might soon

know concretely how, in the case of his work, the theater is a privileged

way of access to the philosophic reflections. For theater played a

privileged role in the development of Gabriel Marcel’s thought.(1)

In this chapter I would like to look with you at The Lantern, a oneact

play by Gabriel Marcel that stands in the permanent repertory of the

National Theater of France, La Comédie Française.(2) I hope that our

analysis of The Lantern will reveal something of the nature of Marcel's

drama and also the peculiar role that theater played in the development

of his thought. Through this consideration of The Lantern we also intend

to examine a central question raised by the play, namely, "What might it

mean to see or to live in the light of Truth?"

Our procedure will be as follows. We will first give a brief synopsis

of the play and identify the questions it gives rise to. Then in a second

moment of Gaareflection we shall clarify these issues, reconstructing

the action of the play to bring to light perspectives of insight on them.

And from time to time we shall amplify interpretations by drawing on

statements that Marcel articulated years later on the explicitly

philosophic level of rational analysis. A third moment will propose some

summary conclusions to this study.

The Lantern, written December 26-28, 1935, has as its setting a

Paris apartment, the home of Raymond Chavière. The play explores

Raymond’s situation after the death of his mother, Elizabeth

Parmentier, and focuses on the question of where and how Raymond

will live now that his mother has died. The drama portrays the various

options proposed to Raymond, and a surprise ending to the play shows

how Raymond makes his own choice. True to the hallmark of Marcel'

theatrical style, the drama presents the heightening of Raymond'

consciousness, communicating it as it were from within, so that

audiences too can participate in the mysterious experience that

Raymond lived.(3)

The play begins with Madame Andrezy, the housekeeper, showing

in Mr. Anton Chavière. She fails to recognize him as Raymond'

s father,

for he has not come to the house since his divorce from Madame

Parmentier. When Raymond enters, father and son greet coldly. Mr.

Chavière, who could not get there for the funeral, tells Raymond that he

has come now to see if by chance before going she had not left some

sort of message for him, and also to ask Raymond if now that his mother

has passed on he would not like to come and live with Chavière and

Isabelle at their house on Marignan Avenue. Raymond parries this

query with the curt statement that this would be awkward now, as he is

engaged to be married to Sabine Verdun. There follows a heated

exchange between father and son about the mothers approval of this

proposed marriage and also about the church'

s teaching on matrimony.

As Chavière prepares to leave, Sabine Verdun, Raymond'

fiancée, arrives. She, for her part, encourages Raymond to go away

with her for a holiday of rest and recreation. Raymond becomes

angered by Sabine's saying that this is what his mother would have

wanted, for certainly such was not the case.

As Sabine Verdun is leaving, Chavière's second wife, Isabelle,

who is ravishing, arrives. She asks Raymond to come and live with his

father and her, to add a little interest to their lives. And certainly if he

came to live with than, she would not hesitate to add some tenderness

to his life. Otherwise she is on the verge of leaving with Olivier Guerin,

Sabine'

s former husband, for the Orient. Raymond points out to

Isabelle their weakness and the flaw and ambiguity in her proposal.

Anton Chavière returns to see if Raymond has made up his mind

about Anton'

s invitation to come and live with them in the house on

Marignan Avenue. Father and son chat, apparent small talk about the

apartment, a book by Blondel, the Van der Weyden exhibit this season.

Isabelle, feeling herself superfluous, leaves. Then Raymond gently tells

his father that Isabelle will be away for a while--perhaps she didn'

t dare

mention it to you, but she had wanted to spend a fortnight with a friend

in the country before that friend left on a trip to Japan or India or

someplace like that. Anton interjects, "She didn'

t say a word to me."

Raymond continues, "So then I thought… perhaps it will seem strange

to you …" Anton: "What is it, my son?" Raymond:"That while Isabelle

will be with her friend, you'

d come and live here." Anton (with emotion):

"It would be just the two of us." Raymond (gravely): "

No, father--the

three of us, as before . . . as never before."(4)

The play ends on that surprising note. It leaves us unsettled and

bemused. Marcel plays often have surprise endings. He noted that the

end of a play is most important not only for the unity it brings to the

whole play but also for the questions it raises.

The end of The Lantern leaves us wondering. What does that

ending mean? More precisely, we wonder where that decision came

from. Is it an act of compliance or rebellion in reaction to other"

expectations, or is it a genuinely personal choice, one that can be called

an act of creative fidelity? We also wonder how Raymond came to that

decision. How did he evolve the idea of inviting his father to come home

with him? This decision goes against the flow that the proposals and

actions of others were suggesting. Where did Raymond'

s idea come

from? How did it emerge in his consciousness? Or, in other words, how

did Raymond come to see in the light of truth?

The end of a Marcel play not only poses questions, it also opens

up perspectives of light. Thus the ending of The Lantern stimulates

audiences to reflect on the questions raised, not only as these issues

influence the lives of characters in the play but also as these mysteries

are part of the lives of spectators as well. Thus audiences are invited,

by the startling effect of the ending of The Lantern, to reconstruct the play

in reverse, in the light of the questions raised, in order to see how

Raymond came to the decision he did. This is exactly what we shall do

in the second part of this chapter. We shall reconstruct the action of the

play to help us clarify, by reflection on the drama, what it might mean to

see and live in the light of truth.

The very title of the play, as well as its last lines, suggest that the

light of truth refers to Madames Parmentier's Présence after her

death. There is not only the title, The Lantern, and the last lines, "It

would be just the two of us?" "No, father - the three of us, as before..

.as never before ...” There is also Raymond'

s speech wherein he refers

to his mother as being for them like a lantern.(5) Raymond's dawning

consciousness in this soliloquy is the crucial moment in his change of

attitude. It also marks the transition from his perceiving his mother as a

sometimes oppressive third person between them (Raymond and

Sabine, and Raymond and Chavière) to his perceiving her as an

intimate light or a presence known by way of interiority and depth.(6)

Let us begin to reconstruct the action of the play. Madame

Parmentier is very much present in the action of the first few scenes.

In fact, it seems as if Madame Parmentier is a major figure in the play,

although she never appears on stage except in terms of the aura of light

she seems to radiate into people'

s lives.

There is a coolness and a strained sense of distance

characterizing Raymond's meeting with his father after his mother's

death. Raymond has developed a sense of estrangement if not of

resentment in relation to his parents' divorce. In the early conversation

with his father, Raymond is defensive of his mother's good name, very

protective of his memory of her. The father comes hesitantly and

confusedly seeking some closeness, some form of reconciliation. He

asks if Raymond's mother might have left some sort of message for

him before going. He also asks Raymond to come and live with them,

now that his mother is dead. Raymond refuses this invitation rather

abruptly, announcing that he is engaged and soon to be married to

Sabine Verdun. When Anton asks if Raymond'

s mother approved of

her son'

s betrothal to a divorced woman, father and son quarrel.

Raymond had not told his mother of his plans. Anton and

Raymond argue about readiness for marriage and the wisdom of the

church's discipline and teaching about the holiness of matrimony.

There is a tragic irony about the argument, because basically the ideas

the father proposes in advising his son are the very ones the parents'

divorce seems to belie. (7)

When Sabine Verdun arrives, Raymond remains upset, deeply

troubled by the argument and his father'

s visit. Sabine'

s advice to

Raymond is that he and she should go away for a holiday together.

The rest would do him good, and that is what his mother would have

wanted. Raymond reacts. Taken together, his fathers question of

whether his mother knew and approved of his project to marry a

divorced woman, and now Sabine'

s subtle but incisive observations

and even her insistence that Raymond'

s mother would have wanted

them together to enjoy themselves on a holiday, these events get to

Raymond. He is angered and then thrown back on his own resources.

In reaction to these upsetting references to his mother, Raymond gets

in touch with what he really knew her to be. He recalls their relation,

the closeness they shared. He begins to remember her as she really

was. (8) And in that moment he becomes aware of the deception and

rebellion that had come to characterize his life in relationship to Sabine

Verdun.

In the famous soliloquy, wherein Raymond refers to his mother'

Présence as the beam of a lantern, he acknowledges that he and

Sabine were deceiving themselves as well as his mother. They were

taking advantage of the terrible weakness that death brings. Raymond

admits that he was living a rebellion, like a slave taking revenge that he

didn'

t even enjoy. Further, he even recognizes that he, who never lied,

had lied to his mother about his relationship with Sabine. He had said,

when the mother asked about her, "Oh, Sabine Verdun? A friend, very

intelligent, perhaps a little heartless." He had said that to reassure her.

"To say, 'perhaps a little heartless,'

about a woman, that was clear

proof that one had no intention ..."(9) He finds that they acted

despicably, especially himself, taking advantage of his mother'

weakness, waiting for her to die so that they, Sabine and he, could be

free for the good life to begin. Recalling his true relationship with his

mother, Raymond recognizes his deception of her and of himself, and

he sees his resentful rebellion for the foolish act that it was. Raymond

now realizes that he will probably not marry Sabine Verdun. Their

relation was just a fantasized escape from the demands of an

extraordinary woman and the resentful revenge of one who suffered from

his parents'

divorce.

As Raymond remembers his mother, he begins to perceive his life

situation more clearly, and he seems better able to evaluate the different

options proposed to him as temporary living arrangements after his

mother’s death.

We have just seen what is a significant step in ones opening to see

in the light of truth. Namely, the first moment of coming to see in the light

of truth is a moment of recognition that one has previously been living in

untruth; that is, one has been deceiving oneself and others.

Acknowledgement that one has been living a life of deception, selfdeception

as well as deception of others, usually occurs as it happened

for Raymond. It is in the light of another persons Présence that the light

dawns. One perceives the self-deception and can begin to be freed

from it.

In a philosophical essay written several years after The Lantern,

Marcel developed this idea on a philosophical level.(10) A corollary of

what he wrote is that the more I am open to the light of the Présence of

another person, the more I can see and communicate in a light of truth.

In proportion as I cease to eclipse myself from their light, I can

increasingly live and see in the light of my own truth. (11) It was first

through theater and his dramatist'

s sensitivity to the currents of

interaction between various people that Marcel perceived this reality.

It was only later, in subsequent reflection, that the idea became clear

for Marcel on a philosophic level of analysis.(12)

In the play The Lantern, the concrete portrayal of Raymond'

coming to a decision reveals the way one can come to see in a light of

truth. Once Raymond, in the light of his mother'

s Présence, recognizes

his own self-deception in his attempt with Sabine to deceive his

mother, he begins to see clearly into not only that maneuver but also

into the other options coming into his field of choice and, perhaps most

important, into the true desires of his own heart. We shall see how this

develops through the remainder of the play.

In scene five, Sabine leaves. There is an air of finality about her

departure. After Sabine has left, Isabelle confides in Raymond and

exposes the particular idea of how it could be helpful to Anton

Chavière if Raymond would come and live with them. Raymond listens

and then clarifies by a question what was confused in her proposal.

Was it for his father or for her that Isabelle had asked Raymond to

come and live with them? Raymond also brings to light what was

dangerous in her proposal, the inevitability that if Isabelle and

Raymond lived under the same roof, in two months they would become

lovers, a disgraceful situation that would not be any real help to any of

the three of them.

Raymond sees the accuracy of Sabine's cruel prediction that Anton

and Isabelle’s household will not survive the death of Raymond's

mother. Raymond sympathizes with Isabelle"

s weakness but also sees

through the unconscious treachery of her confusion. Yet while

Raymond sees clearly, he does not judge harshly or condemn. At this

moment, with great balance, Raymond invokes the memory of his

relationship with his mother, a relationship of great intimacy with

moments of happiness and also of some suffering, a relationship

suffused with admiration yet difficult for fear of the disappointment some

show of weakness might cause. So excellent a creature as she is bound

to create a great deal of suffering about her.(13) So while Raymond

sees where the plans lead and refuses to go along with them, he does

not judge the people. He understands why and how the people involved

think and feel the way they do. He also sees how the differences

among them have contributed to the tragic situation in which they

unhappily find themselves. Raymond seems not to judge but rather to

understand with a blend of lucidity and compassion.

Raymond seems, in this respect, to incarnate the kind of

sympathetic understanding that drama can develop in an audience, a

clear-sighted compassion that leads people to see a tragic situation as

it were from an overarching perspective, not condemning or judging but

rather saying with genuine compassion, "You are understood."(19) And

Raymond recognizes that he too is in need of this compassionate

understanding as well as being called upon to give it.(15)

As the play moves toward its denouement we can see how

Raymond formed his decision. Raymond perceives the options

proposed to him as the "apparent goods" that they are. He refuses to

follow the direction of others that leads to splitting off from family ties. Not

only does he foresee the unhappy consequences prepared by such

fragmentation of family, a brokenness of heart and relationships such

as he has already experienced through his parents' divorce, but also,

and perhaps more important for the sake of good decision-making, he

comes very much in touch with the values he wants to love and live by

and make his own. In saying no to options proposed by others,

Raymond gets more deeply in touch with himself and becomes

aware of his own deepest longing for family unity and interpersonal

relations that last.

Raymond'

s initiative in inviting his father home, to come and

live together again, is the result of Raymond'

s progressive

clarification of his perspective on the situation. Thanks to his

willingness to heed a perspective of light that his mother'

s presence

radiates, Raymond has moved from rebellious self-deception and

deception of others to compassionate understanding of a tragic

situation that involves oneself and others. He has come to

recognize the options of alternate life-styles for what they are and,

by way of contrast, to recognize the desires of his own heart for a

deep and lasting relationship of love and interpersonal family

relations that abide.

Raymond'

s decision is no act of conformity or rebellion, merely

reacting for or against the expectations of others. Raymond'

s choice

is a genuine act of creative fidelity. There is something spontaneous

and original about his offer. Moreover, it springs from his own deep

vital center and expresses his personal choice of how he wants to

live. Confirmation of these as essential characteristics of genuine acts

of creative fidelity is articulated years later on a philosophic level in

the book entitled Creative Fidelity. (16)

Raymond, in moving beyond the apparent confines of a tragic

situation, has fallen back on his own deepest resources and in

drawing upon these has created a new form of fidelity to those

persons and values that he wants to restore and preserve in his life.

Thus Raymond'

s personal decision and creative initiative are

resourced in his genuine fidelity--his faithfulness in affection and

responsibility toward his father, his faithfulness to his own hope for

family unity and interpersonal relations that abide, and faithfulness to

what his mother longed and lived for, although she did not see it

realized during her earthly existence.

In the play The Lantern, the light of truth that illumines

Raymond'

s understanding of his situation and his act of creative

fidelity in response to that situation is not just some theoretic

knowledge or dialectic argumentation; rather it is the light of a personal

presence, the presence of his mother from beyond death.

In Raymond'

s soliloquies wherein he evokes his mother, he

alludes to two different modes of presence, one during earthly life when

her presence was like that of a third person who was almost

overwhelming, and the other a presence through real intimacy as when

we encounter another'

s presence by way of inwardness and depth.

Marcel observed in a private conversation shortly before his own

death that he preferred to speak of presence from beyond death

as "living in the light of”.(17) After death one can sense in a more

intense and purified way who the beloved really was and what it was

that he or she really loved and lived for. It is in this manner of

openness to his mother'

s presence, who she was and what she

loved, that Raymond came to live in the light of truth and to pose

his choice of how he would live his life after her death. His choice

was consciously and freely his own, yet its inspiration was in a

shared light, a light that was other and more than his alone. As

Marcel wrote in reflections on presence from beyond death, after

death the loved one can continue to be present although in a

transformed way.(18) Privileged moments of renewal of the loved

one'

s presence, which it depends upon us to be open to but not in

fact to summon forth, occur by way of inwardness and depth and

they bring an uplifting of our being and an incitement to create.

(19)

It is in this manner that we can understand that light of truth in

which Raymond came to make his startling decision at the end of

The Lantern. It is likewise in this context that we can begin to

fathom the meaning of Raymond'

s final remark.No father--the three

of us, as before. . . as never before."(20)

An Endnote

It is possible, upon reflection, for someone to see the way

Raymond lived in the light of truth as representative of the way one

can live life in the light of faith. There are subtle and discrete

intimations of this in the play. There is first the fact that while all

the other characters situate themselves explicitly in relationship to

faith, Raymond simply lives the witness of his. There is also a

stage direction indicating a Van der Weyden print as part of the set.

This artist was noted for vivid colors, for drawing subjects in three

dimensions, and for portraying the religious in everyday

settings.(21)

Marcel cautions that he finds it inappropriate for theater in our

times to try and show God directly, but he observes that theater

can show the working of grace as it operates in peoples'

lives.(22)

Such witness, he offers, could be an appropriate presentation of

religion in theater, but it would be successful only to the extent that

this effect was not calculated or intentional.

It is perhaps, as Marcel wrote à propos of his philosophy, as if

our reflections are drawn toward a light of a higher order that

philosophy perceives from afar and of which it suffers the secret

attraction.(23) Marcel’s philosophic reflections do invite another level of

personal reflection on the part of those who wish to consider these

issues and insights explicitly in the light of religious faith. In the context of

Christian faith, the light of Truth is assuredly a personal Présence from

beyond death. One has only to recall the sacred scriptures celebrated

between the feast of Easter and Pentecost.(24)

Notes to Chapter III. The Lantern: and The Light of Truth

1. The Existential Background of Hunan Dignity, Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1963.

2. Le Fanal, December 26-28, 1935, was commissioned for the

1937-38 season of the Comédie Française by its director Edourd

Bourdet. The script was published in Paris, ed. Stock, 1938. Le

Fanal was published in English translation by Elizabeth Stambler

and Joseph Cunneen in Cross Currents Vol. VII, No. 2., Spring

1958, pp. 129-43.

3. "The Drama of the Soul in Exile" introduction to Three Plays by

Gabriel Marcel: A Man of God, Ariadne, The Votive Candle, New

York, Hill and Wang, Mermaid Drama book, 1965, p. 22.

4. The Lantern, Scene VII, p. 143.

5. Ibid., Scene IV, p. 137.

6. Ibid., Scene IV, p. 137, Scene VI, p. 142.

7. Ibid., Scene II, p. 133.

8. Ibid., Scene IV, p. 137, cf. also Scene VI, p. 142.

9. Ibid., Scene IV, pp. 136-37.

10. "My Fundamental Purpose" (1937) in Presence and Immortality,

Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1967, pp. 13-30.

11. Ibid., pp. 26-27. "I shall note in passing that no philosophical text

has impressed me more strongly than the one in which the American

philosopher, W. E. Hocking, in his book The Meaning of God in

Human Experience, has established that we cannot really conceive

an apprehending of the other which is not truly an apprehending of

ourselves and which confers on our experience its human weight....

the world of the others becomes illumined with an increasingly

intense light as the I dispels more of its own darkness and dispels it

more heroically." Cf. pp. 24, 20, 18, 16.

12. Ibid., pp. 13-15.

13. The Lantern, Scene VI, pp. 141-42.

14. "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," p. 21, "My Dramatic Works as

Viewed by the Philosopher" (1959) in Searchings, New York:

Newman Press, 1967, pp. 111, 117.

15. The Lantern, Scene VI, pp. 141-42, cf."The Drama of the Soul in

Exile," p. 32.

16. Creative Fidelity, New York: Farrar, Straus & Co., 1964, pp. 107,

109; cf. also Home Viator, New York: Harper & Bros., 1962, pp.

129-34.

17. The Heights, Le Moyne College, December 1973, pp.17-18

18. Presence and Immortality, "Presence and Immortality," pp.

235-39.

19. The Philosophy of Existentialism, New York: Citadel Press, 1956, On

the Ontological Mystery, pp. 38, 36, cf. The Lantern, SceneVI, p.

141.

20. The Lantern, Scene VII, p. 143.

21. The Lantern, Scene VII, p. 142.

22. Théâtre et Religion, Lyon, Vitte, 1958, "L'

idée du drame

chrétien dans son rapport au Théâtre actuel" (1957), pp. 76-

86, cf. also The Philosophy of Existentialism, "Testimony

and Existentialism", p. 98, "…. testimony is based on fidelity to

a light, or to use another language, to a grace received."

23. The Philosophy of Existentialism, "On the Ontological

Mystery," p. 46.

24. Philosophic reflection and inquiry are drawn toward the fuller light

of faith. Scriptures relating presence beyond death of Jesus Christ from the

Resurrection to Pentecost: Matthew 28:1-10, 16-20; John 20:1-18; Luke

24:13-35; John 20:19-23; John 16:7; 14:14-21; 14:16, 17, 26; 14:23-

29.

Chapter IV. Dot The I: An Existential Witness of the Light of Truth

During his lifetime Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) often expressed

the hope that his theater and philosophy would be recognized as

essentially complementary, that his dramatic and philosophic works

would be studied together, heard in concert. Introducing his 1961-1962

William James Lectures at Harvard University, Marcel expressed his

regret that reader awareness of the substantial connections linking his

theater and philosophy was unfortunately all too abstract. Throughout

the course of these lectures, later published under the title The

Existential Background of Human Dignityy, he stressed the importance

of studying his dramatic and philosophic works as complementary

modes of inquiry and clarification.(l)

The theme of this chapter, "Existential Witness of the Light of

Truth," is especially well suited for this integral approach. The theme, of

itself, seems to invite dramatic representation. Existential witness refers

to the fact that a certain quality of truth is communicated not merely by

the words one says, but rather by the fact that these words are

supported by the very life and being of the one who speaks them.

Communication in the light of truth refers to the fact that one

person can lovingly share a communication of what he or she lives by in

such a way that another person begins to see in a light of truth what he

or she lives by, or, perhaps even more important, can hope to live by.

Drama can depict existential witness and communication in the

light of truth. Drama can enable audiences to be touched by existential

witness. Drama also lets spectators enter into a dialogic communication

in the light of truth, one that brings into question not only the lives of the

characters in the play but the lives of individual spectators as well.

Dot the I, Les points sur les i, written November 6-9, 1936, raises

questions about the light of truth.(2) The action of the play shows that

existential witness is key in the communication of a light of truth.

Dot the I portrays the situation of three liberal-minded adults who

attempt to live a three-way marriage. The Girondin household includes

Anatole, the playwright and husband; Irma, his mistress and muse; and

Felicia, his housekeeper and wife. Also living with them is Amy, (whose

name in French: “Aimée”, means “the loved one”). She is the twelve-

year-old daughter of Irma. Amy is only there temporarily, having

accompanied her mother. There was no place for Amy at her fathers

home in the south after his new wife, the mother of Amy's baby brother,

moved in. There's talk of finding Amy an "au pair" situation where she

can live and work with a family.

As the play begins it is difficult to figure out who's who, how the

characters relate to one another, and where they fit into the household

arrangement. It is evident that there is irritating friction between the two

women, Felicia, the wife, and Irma, the live-in mistress.

Each person has a different interpretation of the situation. Anatole

reminds Felicia that when she generously agreed to this arrangement

she became obliged to a civility and considerateness that is necessary

if they are to succeed at living this human experiment, feasible only for

those noble spirits who are beyond the prejudices and small minded

constraints of middle-class morality. Felicia reminds Anatole that she

likes to keep it perfectly clear what the situation is. Irma is there only by

Felicias leave. Felicia can end the experiment just by saying so, any

time she wants. What’s more, the child will not stay long. They find a

place for her "au pair." Irma reminds Felicia that they are all better off

now than they were before Irma came to live with them. The situation

then was that Anatole was gone all night, or coming home at all hours

and with "ladies of the night," or taking off for trips to Belgium. Now at

least he's home, steady and working. That's better for all of them. Amy

is not complicated and does not bother her head trying to sort out or

explain that level of situations. She tries to fit in, be helpful, and not

bother others, who she knows really don't want her around.

The fragile fiction that the adults have fabricated is threatened

when Felicia hears that Irma and Anatole plan to spend the weekend in

the country passing as Mr. and Mrs. Girondin and staying at the estate

of a socially prominent couple, Lucien and Blanche Foucard. This they

propose on the pretense of wanting to gain political influence to

promote the production of Anatole's play “Robespierre” so that it will

premiere at the National Theater. Felicia is furious that things have

gone too far. She senses that she is powerless now that events are

beyond her control. She has been ignored and excluded. Moreover,

she is humiliated to the breaking point when, in her own home, she is

not introduced or presented as the person she really is. Irma introduced

her to the Foucards as Mrs. Rosary, a relative who is unfortunately

suffering from painful facial neuralgia.

After the two couples have gone out, Felicia sends Amy to run

and tell her mother that Felicia says she is going to tell Amy the whole

truth, everything. She says she is going to dot the i's... that is to give a

full and complete explanation.

While Amy runs to catch up to her mother and give her the

message, Felicia goes to the window, looks out and then abruptly

closes the shutters and the drapes and turns on the electric lamps,

even though it is broad daylight outside. Felicia sits in this semi

obscured, artificially illuminated room. When Amy reenters the living

room, the stage is set for the final confrontation.

We are prepared to hear Felicia tell Amy the harsh facts of life,

projecting her own perceptions and sense of rejection onto the child,

informing her that she is unwanted and unloved. But we find that the

conversation takes a surprise turn and moves in unexpected directions.

With dramatic irony the child becomes mother to the woman, and the

light of truth appears to be not the dreadful harsh light of resentment,

recrimination, and rejection, but rather a childlike light of faith

communicating a remarkably mature experience of forgiveness and

love.

The conversation starts out very tentatively, then moves to kindly,

friendlier sharings, and finally yields some startling exchanges of

confidence and understanding love.

At first the exchanges are touchy if not hostile. Amy inquires

about Felicia’s health and apologetically assures her that she doesn't

mean to bother her. Amy asks Felicia not to speak harshly, for Felicia

has nothing for which to reproach Amy. Amy has done nothing to hurt

Felicia, at least not deliberately.

When Felicia asks whether Amy didn't really want to get to Paris,

Aired reveals the truth that she would have liked to have stayed at her

father's house with her baby brother, but that there was no room for her

after her father remarried. When Amy shows pictures of her baby

brother and dissolves in tears, telling of her fear that he'll forget her if

she is never able to go and see him, Felicia shows kindness and pity

and assures the girl that they’ll arrange some way for her to go and visit.

The conversation continues in a friendlier vein. Amy asks what

does “dot the I’s" means, and Felicia responds that it is only a cliché

that does not really mean much. Amy asks what kind of work she might

do "au pair," to which Felicia replies in a motherly tone that maybe she’d

take care of little children. She'd love that, Amy exclaims. She adds that

when she’s married she's going to have twins right away, a boy and a

girl. It seems that one can choose. Father Simone’s friends talk that

way, and they seem to decide and choose. Felicia states that it's not

always a question of choice; she then blurts out that she'd lost twins

and was told by the doctors that if she tried to bear children again she'd

die in childbirth.

Amy commiserates with Felicia and then, trying to console her,

affirms that Felicia's twins are angels in heaven. This draws a joking

and mocking reaction from Felicia. Amy asks Felicia if she doesn't ever

repent and confess. Felicia's reply is that she has no need to, that she

has nothing for which to reproach herself. Amy declares her need. She

says that if she didn't confess she'd die. It would be as if she couldn't

breathe, as if her soul would suffocate and die. But, she adds, the soul

doesn't die because the soul is immortal. Entangled in language, Amy

leaves off theological discussion to share a confidence.

Amy admits that when she heard that she'd have to leave her

father's house and not see her brother for a long time she felt shocked

and hurt. She even wished that her stepmother would die so that Amy

could stay with her father and be a little mother to her baby brother. But

then she was ashamed, for some feel that a thought is something real,

like a weapon that can hurt people. Amy felt guilty and ashamed, and

didn't dare to look at her stepmother or to go to confession. But the

priest who'd helped her prepare for confirmation saw something in her

eyes and was kind to her. That helped her find courage to go to

confession. Then she affirms, "Those thoughts left me, I felt light and

happy."

Felicia protests but breaks down, letting tears flow and a new light

of truth be born into her life. She protests that she s beyond reproach.

She did what was best. Few would have had that courage. It’s the

others who are wrong. Amy interjects, "Those others who hurt you."

Felicia continues, "If I'd only had a child like you. The little bit I had, I

wanted to keep." Amy asks, "Those others who have hurt you, cousin,

are they....?" Felicia shakes her head as if to convey that she cannot

answer. Amy continues and gets tearful nods from Felicia. "That is none

of my business? I shall never know? I have perhaps guessed, you

know."

The dialogue continues:

Felicia: No.

Amy: You don't want me to guess?

Felicia: I don't want it, I don’t want it anymore.

Amy: You’re crying now like a child…like a little child, my cousin.

(She drops to her knees; she puts her arms around Felicia’s neck.)

Marcel's plays usually have a surprise ending. The final scene is

most important, both for dramatic unity it provides to the play and for the

questions it raises for the audience. At the end of this play we find many

questions are raised. What does it mean to "dot the i's"? Can one give

the full and complete explanation of a human situation especially as it

involves freedoms in interpersonal relationships? What is it to see and

judge in the light of truth? Is it to see with childlike simplicity or with adult

sophistication? Is it to judge blame, fault, and incrimination, or is it to

come to a compassionate understanding through forgiving love?

The one question the limits of this chapter allows us to focus on,

and that only with a cursory view of its highlights, is: What is the nature

of the existential witness and the communication in the light of truth that

we see happening in the lives of Amy and Felicia in the last scene of

Dot the I ?(4) In the final scene Amy shares an existential witness that

enables Felicia to begin to see her life and revise its meaning in a new

light of truth.

In a loving and confiding manner Amy tells Felicia her secret.

Amy, like Felicia, knew rejection and felt the pain of love’s loss. She

was so terribly hurt that she bitterly resented the one who replaced her,

hated her and almost wished that she'd die. Yet Amy adds that these

thoughts of hatred and resentment and the feelings of shame and guilt

that accompanied than almost suffocated her. Then someone was

compassionate toward her, and that helped her find the courage to

confess. When she confessed and renounced those feelings, the

thoughts that had hurt her left and she felt light and happy.

Amy's witness includes the story she tells, but it also conveys the

reality and light of truth she lives by. Amy shares this communication in

a genuinely loving way. She feels compassion for Felicia and hopes

that Felicia too can be set free. It is in this spirit that Amy shares her

message that to let go of hatred and judgments of condemnation lets

one be free to live and feel love. Amy shares with Felicia the very reality

she lives, namely that forgiveness opens the way for love and hope to

reenter one's soul.

The communication of a light of truth touching both their lives was

enabled by a genuine spirit of love and trust. Felicia's opening to the

light of truth Amy communicates also entails Felicia 's opening by way

of inwardness and depth to her own light of truth.(5) Though at first she

protested, Felicia is able gradually to let go of judgments of resentment

and condemnation. With Amy's compassion, Felicia is able to

acknowledge that the real grief she holds is the hurt of rejection, the

pain of loss and the desperate fear of never being able to love or be

loved again. With Amy's communication of love awakening in Felicia a

feeling and a hope for love, Felicia says, "I don't want it anymore." She

doesn't want it anymore- the hurt, the hatred, the three-way marriage,

the impossibility or unavailability of love. Felicia's confession in the light

of truth is not as explicit or complete as Amy's, but she has begun the

reversal, from hatred to love, from suffocating to breathing, from the

artificial light of deception to a genuine light of truth.

Amy's existential witness communicates not only her story but also

the incarnate expression of the reality and light of faith she lives. Amy,

who is apparently unwanted and unloved, yet whose name means the

loved one, enjoys an assurance since her solemn communication that

she is loved. This has been renewed in the forgiving love of

reconciliation and in her remembrance of these. It is Amy who, by her

assurance of being loved, is able to love Felicia in such a way as to

communicate to her the assurance that she too is loved. That

assurance is communicated through Amy's loving yet ultimately is found

also within Felicia's own being. A certain regard of love awakens within

the other person her own sense of divine filiation. (6)

Theater lets this communication of mystery touch our lives as well.

Notes to Chapter IV. Dot the I and Existential Witness to the Light of Truth

1. Gabriel Marcel, The Existential B ackground of Human Dignity,

Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1963, p.179.

2. Les points sur les I, Paris, Editions Grasset, 1936.

3. Dot the I, trans. By Katharine Rose Hanley in Two One Act

Plays by Gabriel Marcel: Dot the I and The Double Expertise,

University Press of America, Lanham, MD, 1986, pp. 1-21.

4. “Testimony and Existentialism” in The Philosophy of

Existentialism, Secaucus, NJ, Citadel Press, 1956, pp. 91-103.

5. “My Fundamental Purpose” (1937) in Présence and

Immortality, Pittsburgh, PA, Duquesne University Press, 1967,

pp.11-30.

6. “The Dangerous Situation of Ethical Values” in Homo Viator,

New York, Harper Torchbook, Harper & Bros., 1962, p.160.

Chapter V. The Rebellious Heart: and Human Creation

The Rebellious Heart is the title which Francis Lescoe insisted

Gabriel Marcel wanted for the English version (1974) of the play he

originally wrote in French with the title Le Coeur des autres (1921).(l)

The Rebellious Heart tells the story of Daniel Meyrieux'

s attempt to

achieve theatrical success as a playwright. The Rebellious Heart also

portrays the tragic parody Daniel creates as he fails to live a genuine

communion of love and creativity in his intimate family relations.

The setting for the play is the home of Daniel and Rose Meyrieux

in Paris in 1921. With them is Daniel’s natural son John, whom Rose

insisted that they adopt when the child'

s mother died. John has not been

told, however, that Daniel is his real father. The play presents the

struggles and conflicts that accompany Daniel Meyrieux's efforts to find

his identity through artistic creativity.

In the first act we see Daniel and Rose all caught up in efforts to

achieve theatrical success. Their preoccupation with critics' reviews

and their own reflections of what creativity involves have only two

interruptions. The first is the signal visit of Roses mother, Madame

Chambray, who comes to protest Daniels outrageous exploitation of

Aunt Solange'

s story and to request that Daniel withdraw the play or at

least delete those parts that are so personal that they really should

remain private. Daniel and Rose refuse this request. Although Rose

protests to her mother that she, Rose, is completely in accord with

what Daniel is doing, it seems that she does protest too much. She

has gradually increasing misgivings about the psychological

exploitation involved in Daniel'

s literary creations especially the play

Daniel is currently writing that capitalizes, obviously with artistic

embellishments, upon John'

s situation in their own household. The

second interruption occurs after Madame Chambley has left and Daniel is

back at work writing The Silent Child the play about which Rose is so

uncomfortable.

John returns from lunch at the home of a friend. When Rose

chides John for not congratulating his foster father on the success of

his play'

s premiere, John retorts that he doubts if anything can hurt his

father if it doesn'

t affect theatrical works. John then confides to Rose

that one of the maids has told him that Daniel is not merely his foster

father but is in fact his real father. On the heels of that stirring confidence

Daniel enters. He peremptorily dismisses John and proceeds to read

to Rose the dialogue that he has just written for his new play. It is the

scene wherein Gilbert, the silent child, reveals to his foster mother,

Thérèse, that he has learned that his so-called foster father is indeed

his real father. In that same scene Gilbert goes further and declares his

romantic feelings for Thérèse. Stunned, Rose can only listen. She

cannot even react.

In the second act Daniel is concerned only to find some way of

dealing with John so the latter doesn'

t think badly of him or pursue any

lines of embarrassing questioning. When father and son finally

converse, John asks Daniel why he has not acted as a real father

toward him, why he did not marry his mother. Why was he not kind and

caring toward John and his mother? John is revolted by Daniel's cruelty

and still holds fast to the sacredness of his mother'

s love. Daniel

summarily dismisses John'

s questions with the rejoinder that John is

simply too young to discuss or understand such issues. Daniel turns his

anger into blame that he transfers onto John for reading The Silent

Child without permission. John responds that he thought it a good way

to get to know his father, and he was right—it was a good way.

When Daniel tells Rose that John has read The Silent Child on

the sly, Rose ironically informs John that this action was like a breach

of trust. Alone with Rose, John confides that Daniel, by his heartless

dealings, has spoiled the only beautiful thing in his life, his relationship

with Rose. John reveals to Rose that he is disgusted by Gilbert in The

Silent Child, especially by the romantic feelings that Gilbert professes

for Thérèse. John, afraid lest others construe Gilberts feelings to be

John’s, distances himself from Rose while resenting the loss of the only

genuine affection left in his life.

At the end of the second act Daniel, on his own without consulting

either Rose or John, decides that John will start the following week as a

resident student at St. Louis Academy. Alone with Daniel, Rose feebly

warns him, "Take care."(2)

The third act of The Rebellious Heart shows the success that

Daniels dramatic works have won him. It also reveals the failure of his

intimate relations with his family.

The act opens with Daniel receiving accolades including even a

personal visit from an important critic, Paul Thomas. Daniel

reproaches Rose for not being more enthusiastic about this tribute to

100

his success. Rose, grieved by John'

s suffering, has become conscious

of what Daniel is doing. She protests what has become of their love.

There is no genuine communion. She finds she is no longer someone,

but rather has become merely a provider of tenderness and an

inspiration for plays. Daniel has completely eclipsed her. He has

annexed her. Since she doesn'

t count as a person, they no longer are

two but have become merely one. In her rebellion, Rose has now

identified with John'

s suffering and she asks Daniel to withdraw The

Silent Child. Moreover, she warns Daniel that if he refuses her request

she will leave him.

While Daniel goes off to deliver corrected proofs to his publisher,

Rose converses with John, who is home visiting after several months

away at boarding school. Rose is ready to leave Daniel in order to

mother John.

When Daniel returns from his publisher's, he seems anxious lest

Rose really think of leaving him. He is ready to make some minor

concessions in the future, although he reminds Rose that her situation

is most fortunate compared with that of other writers'

wives. Thereupon

he is content that they are reconciled. He embraces her and calls her

"his treasure." Rose, conscious of the tragic in their situation, resigns

herself to it hopelessly.

Rose (with the deepest sadness): Understand me, Daniel, I

am giving up myself; I know it. And I know also that I cannot

do otherwise. After ten years of our life, I am no longer

strong enough to think of myself. When a being has come to

this...go ahead, you are right. Take me. And when you are

short of subjects.... Final Curtain.(3)

The Rebellious Heart has a very sad ending. It ends, as it were, on

a muted note of despair. Rose'

s spirit is crushed. She has given up. It is

as if her soul has died, though she will continue to go through the

motions of life. John'

s life too already seems on the way toward tragic

ruin. He has given up any hope for genuine love or happiness in life. He

is ready, perhaps without even realizing it, to go the dissolute way of his

father. Daniel, by way of contrast, seems quite content with his life,

elated as he is by his recent theatrical success. He remains quite

insensitive to the tragic loss in the lives of those around him, the ravaging

of the lives of those closest to him--or as the French title, Le Coeur des

autres, “the heart of others” implies. The play has a tragic ending indeed. Comment [h1]: im

101

Marcel noted that The Rebellious Heart is a play with a most

somber ending. Still, he remarked that even those of his plays with

somber endings bring a certain light for the audience. It appears that

the quality of light that the ending of The Rebellious Heart brings is not

a direct light dawning explicitly in the consciousness of any of the lead

protagonists, but rather a diffuse light that is reflected, as it were, from

beyond them.(4)

This, like any other Marcel play, leaves us with questions. There are

first the questions affecting the characters of the play, questions that

even awaken among spectators certain feelings of rebellion or revolt.

For example, why is Daniel so insensitive to his wife and son? How can

he be so caught up in his theatrical success as to remain insensitive to

the toll that it has taken on the real lives of those closest to him? Why

does Rose dissolve and give up, abandoning all hope and any effort

toward achieving a genuine communion of love with Daniel or a better

life for John? Why doesn'

t Rose leave Daniel to care for John? The

prospects for life after the end of this play are bleak, in fact quite

hopeless. That is perhaps why the play leaves audiences with a deep

and lingering sadness. Gradually, however, the haunting quality of the

play gives rise to another level of questioning. On reflection spectators

begin to wonder about Daniel'

s success and creativity. One questions

whether Daniel's theater was genuinely creative or successful only for

its borrowings from the lives of real persons? It would be an awful

irony if what caused such suffering and loss in the lives of the people

close to him did not even contribute to his producing real art or

genuinely creative theater. Is it possible that Daniel failed to be

genuinely creative artistically as he failed to be creative and loving in

his family life?

Indeed, reflection on The Rebellious Heart invites us to

consider the question of what is genuine creation, both human and

artistic. The play also invites us to inquire what is required in order for

someone to be genuinely creative.

Marcel explored these questions both in his dramatic and his

philosophic works. For the remainder of this chapter we shall trace

how Marcel pursued his inquiry into these questions and brought to

light essential perspectives of insight, first through dramatic inquiry and

then through philosophic analysis. To retrace the development of

Marcel'

s thought on human creation, we shall refer to aspects of The

Rebellious Heart, which was written in 1919 and staged and then

102

published in Paris in 1921. We shall also refer to philosophic essays

written and published in France between 1932 and 1944, principally

several chapters in his book entitled Creative Fidelity, an English

translation of Du Refus à L’invocation, and also several chapters in his

book entitled Homo Viator, Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope,

English translation of Homo Viator, prolégomenes à une métaphysique

de l’espéranoe. (5)

We find in The Rebellious Heart many comments that attempt to

clarify the nature of artistic creation. Patently, Daniel's efforts to

produce literary work that achieves theatrical success also illuminate to a

certain extent what artistic creation involves, although Daniel'

s life gives

us more of a reverse image of creativity than a direct illustration of what

genuine creation might involve. Theater presents the first moments of

inquiry.

Philosophy, as drawn from several chapters in Creative Fidelity and

Homo Viator, will guide a subsequent moment of tenacious reflection

with critically reasoned analysis of the nature of genuine creativity,

particularly as this can be manifest in the life of the artist and the parent.

Throughout the play we hear many comments that attempt to

clarify the nature of human creation. Clearly in the play creation

appears to involve taking a lived situation and adding something of

oneself and one'

s inspiration to it so as to make of it a new situation with

different people.(6) Throughout the play we hear various characters

trying to identify what artistic creation is. First John asks whether to

create is to make a medley of fact and fiction, the true and the false, the

real and the unreal, what is mine and what is someone else'

s, to fashion

from that something new. (II, 7, pp. 186-87)(7) And Rose wonders

whether to create is not to give over, to consecrate, what is sacred and

most precious in our lives.(I, 2, pp. 157-58; III, 3, p. 205)(8)

Finally, Daniel wonders whether to create doesn'

t mean to save,

to make eternal something of oneself because one has expressed it. (I,

1, pp. 149-50; I, 2, pp. 157-58)(9) Still, Rose'

s mother and John affirm

that people should not be sacrificed for the sake of art or ideas. What is

sacred in their lives should be held secret and should not be profaned

by distorting it for public display.(I, 2, pp. 153-58; II, 7, pp. 185-90)(10)

Throughout the play Daniel displays what appears upon reflection

to be a reverse image of creativity. Genuine creation involves a deeply

103

personal act. It is resourced at the spiritual center of the person whom it

expresses and engages. Daniel'

s efforts fall short of this. His artistic

inspiration is drawn not from the depth of his own being but from the

lives of others--Rose, John, Aunt Solange. He uses his literary talent to

embellish what was real and vital in the lives of others close to him. At

times he distorts, even warps, personal aspects of the private lives of

those close to him for their titillating or shocking effect.

In another respect too Daniel presents a reverse image of

genuine artistic creation. His efforts as a playwright find their direction

by seeking the approval of others, Paul Thomas, the public, or other

drama critics, instead of being guided by a profound urge or a strong

personal inspiration. Marcel warns that one can be misled if one takes

the direction of one'

s life or work from outsiders. One may even

become estranged from one's true source of inspiration, the depth of

oneself, and profane ones productivity, letting it become merely

compliance to the critics'

tastes and the public's expectations.(11)

In his philosophic reflections Marcel noted that genuine creations

arise from the depths of a person. Creativity springs from the spiritual

center of oneself. So for one to remain creative it is necessary to

maintain vital contact with what is alive in oneself and to resist the

temptation to profane oneself, thereby becoming alienated from ones

true self. One must instead remain simple and in touch with ones true

self, preserving a real intimacy of presence with oneself. For the center

of personhood, that particle of divine creation that reveals itself only to

love, is that depth of self that resources genuine creation.(12)

Marcel even maintains that it is finally only the artist who can truly

evaluate his or her creation. For only the artist can know whether he or

she has responded faithfully to a particular inner call. Only the author

can estimate the extent to which the creation measures up to,

corresponds to, or incarnates the original inspiration that gave rise to

the created work.(13)

Our reflections thus far enable us to see that human creation

involves taking something given, adding something of oneself and

thereby producing something new.(14) We also see that genuine

creation springs from the spiritual center of the person.(15) And we may

add, that the more creation flows from the very depth of who a person is,

the more that creation has the characteristics of freedom, spontaneity,

originality, and value.(16)

104

As we continue our consideration of Daniel'

s efforts toward

successful creativity and insights from Marcel'

s later philosophic

reflections that clarify these dramatic situations, we shall continue to

identify some of the requisite conditions for genuine human creativity.

As we consider Daniels efforts in human creation, we see that like

his attempts at artistic creation, while they may at first appear to be

successful, they reveal themselves upon reflection to be in fact failures.

Daniel, for his part, feels elated with his theatrical success and

equally content with the way he has "managed" his relations with those

closest to him. Yet the end of the play suggests the tragic failure that

characterizes the intimate family relations in the Meyrieux household.

Daniel’s failure as a father is clear both from reflection on the play

and from the perspectives of thought developed in the philosophic essay

"The Creative Vow as the Essence of Fatherhood."(17) Once again the

characters and situation of the play offer, as it were, a reverse image of

what genuine fatherhood or genuine human creation would involve, and

the philosophic analysis pursues further the question of what the

nature and possibility of genuine human creativity would involve.

While Daniel did beget a son, this happened as a mere biological

act. Daniels relationships were devoid of any of the characteristic

dimensions of genuine human creation. Daniel begot a child, but

although he had several opportunities to acknowledge John as his son,

that is "to be a real father" to him, Daniel declined or refused all of

these. Other than the biological act, Daniel denied any responsibility for

the creation of the child. Daniel did not acknowledge John as his son

and refused to marry or support John'

s mother. The decision to adopt

John into the Meyrieux family after the death of his mother was entirely

at the insistence of Rose, the foster mother. Daniel only went along

with it for Rose'

s sake, he himself never understanding why she wanted

such a situation. Even when John had been adopted, Daniel never

accepted or loved him, but rather belittled and distanced him,

sometimes in not too subtle ways. He just couldn'

t believe the genuine

affection that existed between Rose and John. Then when John

learned that Daniel was his natural father, Daniel thought only of

finding some way of reestablishing himself in the boy'

s esteem. When

challenged and confronted by embarrassing questions, Daniel

105

immediately exercised his parental authority by sending John away...to

boarding school.

Daniel patently fails in his human creativity or responsible parenting.

This appears to have occurred for lack of what Marcel called

"availability," a disposition or willingness to be there with and for another

and to care for the life of that other.(18)

Daniel appears as a rather shallow, egotistical, and self-absorbed

person. He showed himself incapable of the deep personal

commitment and the generosity of love that genuine fatherhood entails.

Marcel discovered personally and then disclosed through philosophic

reflection that the essence of human parenting is a creative vow. As he

clarified in "The Creative Vow as the Essence of Fatherhood,"

parenting is not a mere biological act, nor is it some casual or impersonal

gesture. It requires a deeply personal act of commitment. Parenting

involves a vow of commitment to be with and for another, guiding that

other through growth toward fulfillment in human personhood. Parenting

is a generous act of sharing life. The sharing is not casual or occasional

but should rather be generous and personally responsible. Human

creation springs from the conviction that life is a rich gift, and it

expresses a willingness to share that gift. The creative vow calls forth a

commitment to another to support that other in the adventure of life and

to offer one'

s guidance and inheritance toward the development of that

life.(19)

In other essays, "The Mystery of Family" and "The Ego and its

Relation to Others," Marcel points out that it is one'

s experience of a

family of origin that assures a child that he or she is the object of love and

careful attention, shareholder of a wealth in life that is to be developed so

that it can be received in turn by one'

s own children.(20)

To see the lack of hope that John has for any happiness in life is to

appreciate the extent to which Daniels parenting has failed. John,

rejected by his father, effectively makes his way unwittingly and

ironically to follow in his fathers own tragic footsteps.

Rose'

s rebellion against Daniel because of what is happening to

John and because of what has become of their marriage reveals the root

source of Daniels failure in human creativity. Daniel, it appears tragically,

is incapable of any genuine communion of other-directed love.

106

What Rose and Daniel have lived is a love of fusion. She has

enriched and has gradually been absorbed into his life. As Daniel said,

they are not two but one. Yet Rose realizes that this is finally not a

good thing because he has annexed her. She no longer counts as a

person. There is no longer any need to consult her wishes, to consider

her for herself, or to care for happiness in her life. Daniel'

s response is

merely to remind her that she is better treated than the wives of many

writers he knows so she ought to be thankful for that.(21)

What Rose desires is a genuine communion of love, wherein, as in

any genuine communion, the two are together in their difference.(22)

Or as Edith expressed it in another context in The Unfathomable,

“it is not his life, nor is it my life, it is our life.”(23) Rose seems to

aspire toward this genuine communion of love first for the sake of

John, so that his life not be sacrificed and merely used, but that he be

appreciated for his real worth, that Daniel recognize as Rose does that

John has real sensitivity and depth. Rose wishes and for a moment

insists that Daniel put aside his work and do something to protect their

son and to promote his happiness and well-being in life.

Daniel, for his part, is incapable of this kind of love. Or at least he

is unwilling now to consider Rose and John as others, people whose life

and happiness call for respectful care and the involvement of self-giving

love on the part of Daniel. Daniel either simply cannot hear or simply

refuses this call to love. Moreover, he takes Rose'

s son away from her.

Her heart is broken, so that finally and tragically she knows that their

union, which exalts Daniel, is neither happy nor fruitful.(24)

Marcel shows in the tragedy of The Rebellious Heart and further

clarifies through reflections in Creative Fidelity that genuine creativity is

resourced in a communion of love.

For Marcel creative fidelity is a requisite condition for any artistic or

human creation. Reflection on the mystery of human and artistic creation

reveals that creativity is rooted in fidelity. Ideally, creative fidelity is lived

as a communion of love. It involves a fidelity to oneself, a fidelity to

others, and a fidelity to an Absolute Other.(25)

In the essay "Obedience and Fidelity," in which Marcel showed

that genuine creativity requires a living fidelity to the spiritual depths of

oneself, he also explained that this fidelity to oneself seems almost

inseparable from a fidelity to another. For, paradoxically, one’s

107

fulfillment as a person develops through self-giving. And genuine

creativity is lived also as a response to a call. Thus a communion of love

is the ideal context in which human creation can occur.(26)

This situation is a far cry from the pitiable marriage that Rose

laments at the end of The Rebellious Heart. Creative fidelity is a

communion of love. Creative actions are realized as incarnate

gestures in response to the appeal of the loved one to whom one has

consecrated ones life. It is the actual presence of the beloved that invites

and inspires human creation. In a genuine communion of love, each

partner remains available to hear and willing to respond to the other's

appeal. It is through a permanent physical/spiritual presence that the

members of that community of love invite and inspire one anther'

creativity.(27)

The Rebellious Heart was staged and published in 1921. The

philosophic essays, "On the Ontological Mystery," "Obedience and

Fidelity," and "Creative Fidelity" appeared in 1932, 1940, and 1944. It

was over the course of twenty years that Marcel developed the notion of

creative fidelity, a central theme in his work and a leading idea in his life.

Marcel discovered this notion in an original manner. As he expressed it,

his life traveled one road, yet theater and philosophy depicted the

scenery on either side of the territory through which he traveled.(28)

Theater presents the concrete approach to the lived situation, and

philosophy offers a reflective analysis of the drama portrayed. Marcel also

maintained that theater often showed the tragic situations in life that

communicate an inclination toward despair, but that also brings another light

that opens onto mystery and hope.(29) Philosophy, through a process of

critical reflection, can then bring to light a positive identification of what

genuine human creation entails.(30)

The dual reflection shows the dangers and difficulties but also highlights

the positive value and possibility of an authentic creativity that calls for

freedom'

s choice of a way of living that draws on humanity'

s deepest resources

and makes the noblest uses of a person's potential. Still, it is theater that lets us

enter into the lived situation that enables us to follow the consciousness of the

tragic and opens onto the ontological mystery where we reach for our ultimate

recourse.(31) One finds in Marcel'

s thought the idea that in situations wherein

despair is a real temptation, there hope may appear in its intense

purity.(32) This is reminiscent of Alfred de Vigny'

s saying that our cries of

distress are often our most beautiful songs.

108

Marcel is convinced that only a most patient, probative, and also most

painful reflection can lead to the discovery of an Absolute that reveals itself as

our ultimate recourse and whose fidelity is the foundation of our own.(33)

For Marcel this Other, this Absolute Thou, becomes part of the integral reality

of our life and our creation.(34)

He sees human creation as a free and deeply personal act that is

rooted in fidelity; fidelity to oneself who lives fidelity to the other who inspires

and invites, and fidelity to an Other who enlivens, invites, inspires, and illumines

genuine creativity.(35)

109

Notes to Chapter V. The Rebellious Heart: and Human Creation

1. Le Coeur des autres, Paris, Grasset, 1921, pp. v-132. Play

premiered March 17, 1921 at the New Theater in Paris. The

Rebellious Heart in The Existential Drama of Gabriel Marcel, ed. F. J.

Lescoe, McAuley Institute, West Hartford, CT., 1974, pp. 145-215,

cf. p. 4.

2. The Rebellious Heart, Act II, Scene IX, p. 191.

3. Ibid., Act III, Scene VI, p. 215.

4. "The Drama of the Soul in Exile" in Three Plays by Gabriel Marcel:

A Man of God, Ariadne, The Votive Candle, New York, Hill and

Wang, 1965, p. 21.

5. Le Coeur des Autres, Paris, Grasset, 1921, pp. v-132; The

Rebellious Heart in The Existential Drama of Gabriel Marcel, ed. F. J.

Lescoe, McAuley Institute, West Hartford, CT., 1974, pp. 145-215.

Creative Fidelity, New York, Farrar, Straus and Company, 1964,

xxvi-261; Du Refus à L’Invocation, Paris, Gallimard, 1940, pp. 326;

Homo Viator Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope, New York, Harper

and Bros., 1962, pp. 270; Homo Viator Prolégom‘enes à une

métaphysique de l'

espérance, Paris, Aubier, 1944, pp. iii-369.

6. "Testament philosophique" (Vienna, Sept. 1968) in La Revue de

Métaphysique et de Morale, tome 74, July-Sept., 1969, pp. 257,

258, 259. Reprinted in Présence de Gabriel Marcel, Cahier 4

Gabriel Marcel et les injustices de ce temps. La responsabilité du

philosophe, Paris, Aubier-Montaigne, 1983, pp. 1 7-37, cf. pp.

130-34.

7. The Rebellious Heart, Act II, Scene 7, pp. 186-87.

8. Ibid., Act I, Scene 2, pp. 157-58; Act III, Scene 3, p. 205.

9. Ibid., Act I, Scene 1, pp. 149-50; Act I, Scene 2, pp. 157-58.

10. Ibid., Act I, Scene 2, pp. 153-58; Act II, Scene 7, pp. 185-

90.

11. "Obedience and Fidelity" in Homo Viator, pp. 129-32.

110

12. Ibid., pp. 131-32.

13. Ibid., p. 130.

14. "

Testament philosophique," pp. 257, 258, 259.

15. "Obedience and Fidelity" in Homo Viator, pp. 131-32.

16. Ibid., pp. 129-34; "The Creative Vow as the Essence of

Fatherhood" in Homo Viator, pp. 105-106; "Observations on the

Notions of the Act and the Person," Ch. V, in Creative Fidelity, pp.

108-109.

17. "The Creative Vow as the Essence of Fatherhood" in Homo

Viator, pp. 98-124.

18. "Belonging and Disposability," Ch. II in Creative Fidelity, pp. 38-

57, esp. p. 53.

19. "The Creative Vow as the Essence of Fatherhood," in Homo

Viator, pp. 113-15.

20. "The Ego and its Relation to Others," in Homo Viator, pp.

13-28; "The Mystery of Family," in Homo Viator, pp.

68-97.

21. The Rebellious Heart, Act III, Scene 3, p. 204.

22. Introduction to Creative Fidelity, p. 8.

23. The Unfathomable in Presence and Immortality, Pittsburgh,

PA., Duquesne University Press, 1967, p. 280.

24. The Rebellious Heart, Act III, Scene VI, p. 215.

25. "Obedience and Fidelity," in Homo Viator, pp. 132-34.

26. Ibid., pp. 132-34; "The Ego and its Relation to Others," in Homo

Viator, pp. 22-23; "The Creative Vow as the Essence of

Fatherhood," in Homo Viator, pp. 104-106, 117-20.

27. "The Creative Vow as the Essence of Fatherhood," in Homo

111

Viator, pp. 117-20.

28. The Existential Background of Human Dignity, Cambridge, MA,

Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 60-62; “An Essay in

Autobiography,” in The Philosophy of Existentialism, Secaucus, NJ,

Citadel Press, 1956, p. 128. "Gabriel Marcel: Le Paradoxe du

Philosophe-Dramaturge," Paris, no date, Alliance Française.

29. "Le Secret est dans les îles," in Le Secret est dans les îles,

Paris, Pion, 1967, p. 21-

30. L'

Heure théâtrale, de Giraudoux a J. P. Sartre, Paris, Plon,

1959, avant-propos, p. xi.

31. The Existential Background of Human Dignity, pp. 64-69; "Les

vrais problèmes de Rome n’est plus dans Rome," in Rome n’est

plus dans Rome, Paris, La Table Ronde, 1951, p. 162; "On the

Ontological Mystery," in The Philosophy of Existentialism,

Secaucus, N. J., Citadel Press, 1956, pp. 23, 26, 32.

32. "On the Ontological Mystery," in The Philosophy of

Existentialism, p. 32; "Sketch of a Phenomenology and a

Metaphysic of Hope" in Homo Viator, p. 36.

33. Préface to Le Seuil Invisible, Paris, Grasset, 1914, PP. 6-8; "On

the Ontological Mystery," pp. 23, 24, 32, 34, 38-39; "Sketch of a

Phenomenology and a Metaphysic of Hope," in Homo Viator, pp. 60-

63, 66-67.

34. "Meditations on the Idea of a Proof for the Existence of God,"

Ch. IX in Creative Fidelity, pp. 182-83.

35. "Creative Fidelity," Ch. VIII in Creative Fidelity, pp. 147-74;

"Meditations on the Idea of a Proof for the Existence of God," Ch.

IX in Creative Fidelity, pp. 175-83; "From Opinion to Faith", Ch. VI

in Creative Fidelity, pp. 120-39.

112

Chapter VI. The Double Expertise: Fidelity and Infidelity

The Double Expertise, a one-act comedy, portrays the tragicomic

situation that develops as Gilbert Marquiset, mustering all the help

he can, tries to find grounds for marrying his third wife. The setting is an

elegant bachelor apartment, Gilbert’s home in Paris, 1937. (1)

Since Gilbert’s mind muddles when he must decide on something

like marriage, he has invited his first wife, Georgette, to advise him.

Georgette'

s second husband, Stani Zürcher, accompanies her. Kate

Leliegeois, Gil'

s second wife, drops in unexpectedly. She has come to

claim something toward overdue alimony payments. She decides to

stay, feeling that she too should have the right to vote on Gil's

prospective bride-to-be.

When Miss Hedwig Frühling, Gilberts intended, arrives, she is

accompanied by her uncle, Mr. Edward Zürcher, an appraiser with a

double expertise. The conversation that ensues inquires about

Hedwig'

s likes and dislikes both for the sake of small talk and to

ascertain whether she is a suitable partner for Gil. Meanwhile Ed

Zürcher wanders around the apartment, inspecting its furnishings as

one might preview a gallery prior to an art auction or an antique sale.

Protesting against Zürcher'

s estimation of Gil'

s lack of taste,

Georgette and Kate reveal that each of them was married to Gil for a brief

time, Georgette for three years and Kate for fourteen months. On the

strength of that, Zürcher advises Hedwig to leave. To everyone'

.amazement, Hedwig, whose name means strife, remains and takes

charge. She proclaims an ultimatum. Either they all remain as a

harmonious group, or the others will have to leave and she will stay there

alone with Gil.

Noticing the familiar tone Stani uses with Zürcher, and learning

that they are father and son who became estranged over an inheritance

settlement, Hedwig announces that those two will go out onto the

balcony and settle their differences. Before that, however, there must

be a moment of "recollection." Hedwig announces the procedure they

will follow. Each is to listen in silence to his or her conscience and then

write his or her inspiration on a piece of paper.

113

Hedwig reads the statements aloud and comments on each one.

To Georgette and Stani'

s statement that they want to see prospectuses

on Hedwig'

s father'

s hotels, Hedwig exclaims triumphantly "There no

longer are any hotels. They were sold in order to found a commune to

regenerate life among those who can no longer live, nor work, nor

love."(2)

Georgette and Stani'

s reaction to that news is clear-cut. No

hotels, no marriage contract. As Georgette and Stani leave, they shake

Gil's hand as one might at graveside after a funeral ceremony. Kate, for

her part, takes a Dufy painting to cover back alimony payments.

Zürcher drifts out, babbling about how this experience has aged him

ten years.

Hedwig and Gil are alone. Hedwig coos enthusiastically to Gil.

"You'

ll see, we’ll lead a very restful life ...green vegetables

...fresh air,...long walks ...soothing naps.... Gradually you'

ll learn to live

a natural healthy life." Gil, dumbfounded, groans his response, "a life

that restful, I'

m afraid it might kill me."(3)

The Double Expertise is an artful, cleverly written comedy. It is

amusing in many ways, yet it also has a disquieting effect. Marcel referred

to his comedy as a "yes...but" part of his work. It is precisely this

unsettling aspect of the play that we will investigate.

On an obvious level, the play is a satirical farce. Its theme of

matchmaking with family and friends assisting fits comfortably into

the tradition of situational comedies. Comic characters are caught up in

the ridiculous task of trying to find grounds for matrimony where patently

none seem to exist. There is, moreover, the comic device of concealed

identities becoming revealed and overlapping relationships becoming

embarrassingly clear. There is also the parody of caricatures. As the

identities of the jury--Gil, Georgette, Stani, and Kate--and the appraiser--

Ed Zürcher--are disclosed, it becomes clear that they in no way have

qualities of expertise that would inspire confidence in their abilities to

evaluate grounds for matrimony, advise about good relationships, or

guide harmonious living. There is furthermore the farcical, almost

slapstick, ending as the hope for a good match fizzles and the

gathering breaks up. The others leave in a surprising reversal of the

movement toward a merger that characterized the direction of the play

up to that point. Finally, there is the ironic and dissonant note as Gil and

Hedwig find themselves alone together. Hedwig proclaims what an

114

idyllic life they'

ll lead, and Gil responds that a life that restful could kill

him.

The Double Expertise is a clever and amusing farce. Upon

reflection, however, we can notice that there is a shadow side to the

whole play that has a haunting effect. At the play's end, it is apparent

that the matchmaking has failed. Hedwig and Gilbert appear ill-suited,

and as appraiser and jury leave, the verdict seems to read "no deal."

Still there is a melancholic note of nostalgia. For Gilbert needs a wife,

someone to care for him, and Hedwig needs someone to take care of.

Clearly Gil needs to learn to live, to love, and to work, and Hedwig is all

ready to rehabilitate him. The prospects seem vain. Yes...but.

Perhaps it could work. It is unlikely, yet there is a trace of

disappointment. So the play ends on a disconcerting note. There is a

similar feeling of inadequacy about the appraiser'

s and the jury'

s attempts

to evaluate. When appraiser and jury agree, no deal; there still

remains a concern or dissatisfaction about their attempt to find criteria

by which to evaluate. Thus a deeper question is unearthed, one that

begins to surface and haunt us. Are there grounds that can motivate a

choice and substantiate a prediction for a happy, stable marriage? If

not, then are the serial marriages of Gilbert, Georgette, Stani, and

perhaps Hedwig, or the marred and broken relationships lived by

Kate and Mr. Ed Zürcher the only fate left? If so, that is a sad fate, a

disappointingly narrow set of options, an unsettling prospect for those

who might still hope for something more stable in human and familial

relationships.

Clearly the play gives rise to questions in the minds of its audience.

As Marcel observed the last scene of a play is most important both for

the unity it brings to the play as a whole and for the questions it raises in

the minds of the spectators.(4) Certainly the final scene of The Double

Expertise raises the question of whether or not Gil and Hedwig will

marry. With that it reopens at a deeper level a whole series of

questions about whether or not there are grounds for marriage. The

end of the play leaves us with these questions and invites us to reflect

on our own and consider whether or not there are grounds for

matrimony and criteria that would enable us to foresee whether there

are grounds for a solid marriage that might last.

The way we will proceed in our consideration of these questions is

first to trace how they are defined in the dramatic action of The Double

Expertise and then explore the clarification that critical reflection can

115

bring to these questions as Marcel discusses them in "Obedience and

Fidelity" and in chapters II, VIII, and IX of Creative Fidelity. (5)

Characters in the play illustrate different attitudes and stances

that can be adopted on the issue of criteria for matrimony and for a

good and lasting marriage. They bring to light the various

interpretations these standpoints suggest. They also occasionally

disclose some of the presuppositions of these various stances and

attitudes. The characters and action of the play further bring to light

certain avenues of investigation that seem worth exploring. In this way

The Double Expertise not only raises questions, it brings them more

clearly into focus and thus prepares the task of reflective clarification.

The question of marital criteria runs throughout the entire play. It is

clarified and explored but left unanswered. It is up to the audience to

critically clarify and personally resolve the issues raised. Right from the

start, Georgette and Gilbert compare their successive domestic

economies, noting advantages and disadvantages of frugal versus

prodigal, calm versus agitated, stable versus changing. Then

Georgette and Stani try to help Gil recognize his own estimation of this

latest prospect. Is she pretty? Does she suit you? Is she modest, or old

fashioned? Is she a nurse? Will she be a good companion for Gil in his

old age? In response to a query from Stani, Georgette remarks that

marrying is like buying an apartment or even a house. It'

s quite a

permanent arrangement. When Stani retorts that it can always be

resold, Georgette admits that that is true, but sold at a loss, so one keeps

it.

À propos of Gil's second marriage, with Kate, Georgette affirms

that this was merely a parenthetical break. It'

s as Doctor ZürcherSolomon

says--each person has one serious illness, emotional as well as

physical, in his or her lifetime. Gil'

s marriage to Kate really was a bad

precedent. One really shouldn'

t go against one'

s deepest feelings. What

matters now is to get Gil nicely settled.

À propos of households, finances, and living arrangements, Gil

blurts out that Hedwig'

s father owns three big hotels in Engadine,

Switzerland. Stani and Georgette agree that Gil should ask to see the

prospectuses on these hotels. No need to be embarrassed, just say that

a friend is considering vacationing in that area.

116

With Kate'

s arrival on the scene, the importance of financial status

in marriage contracts becomes evident. Kate comes to claim

something from Gil'

s apartment as security for late alimony payments.

The others really wonder what Kate lives on; her phone has already

been disconnected. Both Gil and Stani admit they are financially

embarrassed, temporarily a bit short. Georgette has money, and Kate is

very nearly bankrupt. Obviously Gil's need for a financially

advantageous marriage is capital. The bride-to-be must offer him

financial security.

When Miss Hedwig Frühling and her uncle Mr. Edward Zürcher visit,

the ensuing conversation seeks out traits of compatibility and

incompatibility. Preferences in life-style vary widely. Personality

differences are also significant. Hedwig is a naturalist. Health foods,

wildflowers, and the high Alps suit her tastes. She unabashedly states

her dislike for cities and for modern art in which nothing is

recognizable. She concedes that if one must live in a city one can

adjust. Fortunately, however, there are the weekends when ore can get

out into the country for long walks. On the strength of her own say-so

she is very much the doctor and the person in charge. Gil is quite the

opposite. He is a city sophisticate. Long walks tire him. The mere

prospect of them discourages him. He'

s also apparently stunned by

this enthusiasm for wildlife and nature that the Swiss Miss is exuding.

Uncle Ed, who is not only Hedwig'

s escort but also an appraiser,

inspects the furnishings of Gil'

s apartment and his impression is quite

negative. He judges there’s not much money or class there and so

concludes that Gil is not an interesting prospect.

If experience were a criterion for good matches and lasting

marriages, Gil might qualify as an expert, since he'

s been married

twice… Apparently, however, something more than experience, such

as wisdom, art, or prudence, is needed to produce good judgments.

Gil has lots of experience, but as Georgette stated, "Gil appears very

observant without actually being so."(6) If it comes to making a decision

or a well-founded choice, Gil is lost. His mind muddles and he loses his

bearings.

Hedwig, who has the least marital experience, is surest of her

judgment. She wants to marry. Gil is available. So that makes him

eligible. Despite evidence to the contrary, Hedwig hopes for the best.

She has complete self-confidence. She looks forward to the marriage

and feels sure that it will succeed. The success she envisions, however,

117

involves Gil being transformed to her wishes and desires. He needs to

relearn how to live, to love, and to work. They'

ll proceed gradually. Gil

will adjust, even come to enjoy it. After all, as she says, "she's the

doctor." Her criteria are her self-confidence and her tenacious desire

that things be the way she wants them to be.

Hedwig proposes a method of "recollection" --that is silent listening to

ones own conscience--as a means for discerning and decision-making.

In the context of the play, however, this procedure is hardly taken

seriously. What we see is superficial and not taken seriously; it

becomes a mere parody rather than an authentic exercise of genuine

recollection.

Throughout the play, jury and appraiser alike seek by various criteria to

estimate whether the proposed match between Hedwig and Gil would

be a good and lasting one. A variety of criteria are brought to light. The

relevance of taste, life-style preference, harmony or complementarity of

personality, financial status, deep feelings, experience, appraiser's

expertise, even "recollection" for discernment were all considered. Yet

these criteria did not reach a conclusion in the case of Hedwig and Gil.

The fact that the play ends with every indication that a marriage

will not take place, but without assuring that conclusion, raises the

question of whether or not the criteria considered by jury and appraiser

are adequate. The disconcerting ending to the play seems to raise the

question whether grounds for a decision to marry and grounds for a

stable and lasting marriage are not of a distinctively different sort. We

begin to glimpse that if a marriage occurs, this happens as a result of an

interpersonal dialogue that creates a commitment by mutual and

reciprocal consent. A decision to marry one another is a free choice

created in interpersonal dialogue. If reasons conclude or if criteria

compute, is this not finally because of a personal element of free

choice that intervenes? Is it not the case that no matter how an

evaluation process is calculated and tallied, what really counts is that

personal element of whim, preference, or commitment that determines

what the free choice will be?

As the play ends, who knows if Hedwig and Gil will marry or

not? The choice will be determined by their decision or their lack of

decision. Ultimately, it is Hedwig and Gil themselves who will create

their decision to part company, or to marry or perhaps even to love

one another, as unlikely as that may at first appear.(7)

118

The criteria that surfaced in the play are certainly valid indicators of

various kinds of compatibility. Yet these kinds of compatibility are not

adequate grounds for matrimony. If marriages are based on these

kinds of affinities then the relationships cease to exist when the

compatibility is no longer there. Since any and everyone can change

regarding the various criteria highlighted in the play, no commitment

would be stable if based only on affinities of this sort.

Grounds for matrimony are drawn from a whole different order,

namely the distinctively interpersonal order of love, freedom,

commitment, and intersubjective communion. Marcel clarifies this point

prior to investigating the nature of genuine interpersonal commitments

and the possibility of living interpersonal relations with creative fidelity.

When Marcel does investigate these issues philosophically, the questions

he raises are even deeper and more difficult than those raised by the play,

for it is in the context of human freedom's authenticity that Marcel

inquires about the possibility of interpersonal commitments and the

possibility of living out these commitments as creative fidelity.(8)

Marcel'

s philosophic analysis brings into focus the following

questions. He inquires whether interpersonal ground for a deep and

lasting commitment to marriage can be found. He also seeks to clarify

what the nature of such an interpersonal commitment might be.

Articulating his questions with reference to human freedom, Marcel

wonders how both freedom and fidelity can be preserved within the

context of a marriage commitment. Specifically he inquires as to how

freedom can commit itself without enslaving the person so committed?

He also asks explicitly how one can reasonably commit oneself to love

another in the future when circumstances, one's own feelings, and the

other person may have changed. For one might be left merely living out

routine compliance, fulfilling a promise begrudgingly and not loving

genuinely or wholeheartedly. Marcel inquires as to the manner and the

conditions in which one can voice a commitment to a lasting

interpersonal relationship. He likewise explores how one can live out

creative fidelity to such a commitment in a manner that is genuinely

faithful and at the same time respectful of freedom and human dignity?

Marcel explores the questions raised by The Double Expertise

philosophically in several essays, especially "Obedience and Fidelity" in

Homo Viator and chapters of the book entitled in English Creative

Fidelity. (9)

119

When Marcel considers the possibility of a marriage or of any

lasting interpersonal commitment, he raises several questions that are

intellectually exacting and personally demanding. Can one responsibly

commit one's freedom? Has one the right to bind one'

s freedom in a

lasting way to love and be faithful to another person? Does one have the

right to engage ones liberty for the future, when circumstances, others,

even ones own feelings may have changed? It is these questions that

we shall examine in the context of Gabriel Marcel's reflective

clarifications of intersubjectivity.

Can one responsibly bind ones freedom, committing oneself to

love another with a steadfast love in the future? Certainly one cannot

responsibly abdicate freedom, getting rid of responsibility for the use of

one's freedom by disposing of that responsibility into the hands of

another. Freedom cannot be bound or given away. Nor can freedom be

committed to demeaning or enslaving causes without falling beneath

the level of human dignity.(10) One cannot responsibly give one's

freedom away, but one can validly commit one's freedom, definitively

claiming responsibility for that lasting will. One can commit one's

freedom responsibly, knowing that one continues to have authorship

and responsibility for that commitment. One can commit one'

s freedom

authentically when one recognizes that to commit oneself to this cause

or person is enobling and is in fact the best use one can make of one's

freedom.(11) Only conscious, responsible commitment is worthy of

human freedom.

A commitment then that binds people in an interpersonal

relationship would have to be made as a mutual agreement of two

liberties to be worthy of these people's dignity. Such a commitment

should also evolve through a dialogue of freedoms. We will see shortly

a sketch of how this commitment can occur.

Still on the side of freedom Marcel pursues the question of

whether or not one can validly engage oneself to love another in the

future. Would not such a commitment involve a risk of compromising the

genuineness of love and the self-determination of freedom? Would not

such a situation also introduce the possibility of hypocrisy, since one can

easily imagine changes in circumstances and even in character that

could cause one to regret the commitment and comply with its demands

only in a begrudging way.(12) If a bond were founded only on feelings,

circumstances, and compatibilities that can readily change, or even if the

120

relationship were founded on a pledge of freedom that reserved its right to

renege, then the commitment would not last if any of these factors

changed. Certainly some of the basic factors will alter, and it is all the

more likely that a relationship will not last when the commitment is

envisioned as being essentially only a conditional one. So Marcel has

set forth the challenge to think about how freedom can commit itself

without denaturing itself. He further asks, once a pledge is made, how

it can be lived out in a manner respectful of freedom'

s essential selfdetermination.

Marcel'

s approach to this type of question is usually to reflect

critically, exploring various concrete situations until he finds the

subjective attitudes that are requisite for certain events or relationships to

become possible.

For a valid interpersonal commitment to occur, or even to be

possible, several conditions are requisite. The first requisite condition is

that there be two persons involved, not just two individuals but rather

two persons. What does Marcel mean by that distinction? A person is

someone who is available. In order to be capable of self-disposition,

one must first have a certain degree of self-possession. A person is one

who knows what he or she loves and lives for.

In chapter II of Creative Fidelity on "Belonging andDisposability"

Marcel offers a lengthy excursus on belonging.(13) The person who

recognizes what he or she wants to be is someone who belongs to

himself or herself and who is capable of self-gift. By contrast, someone

who does not belong to himself or herself cannot give himself or

herself. It follows that the one who says, "I belong to no one, to no

cause, I belong only to myself," errs. If one belongs to no one, he does

not belong to himself or to anything. As a matter of fact, it is an

anarchy beneath the level of liberty to try and maintain that one does

not want to devote oneself to any cause, value, or person. Such a

person is committed to nothing, consecrated to nothing. Such an

individual cannot promise his allegiance or fidelity from one minute to the

next. Someone like that pretends to belong to himself or herself alone,

but actually he or she belongs to no one, is committed to nothing. By

contrast, an authentic person is capable of commitment, devotedness,

consecration, self-gift, in brief: love. Such a person knows what he or

she loves and lives for. Because of belonging and disposability, such a

person has something to give in response to the appeal of another

121

person. We meet here a paradox. To possess oneself is to be capable

of giving oneself.(14)

There can be no commitment or self-gift between individuals who

do not possess themselves. Availability and belonging are capabilities

only of persons who possess themselves, determine and know what

they love and live for. The unavailable individual has not determined

what he or she values and belongs to, and so that individual is incapable

of self-gift. Such an individual is unavailable, incapable of consecrating,

giving, or committing himself or herself. All the more so the unavailable

individual is incapable of pledging or premising faithfulness in love, now

or in the future.

Gilbert is a fine example of someone who does not know who he

is or what he wants out of life. He never can decide. He hasn'

determined what he loves and lives for, so he hasn'

t enough selfpossession

to be capable of self-disposition. He may appear selfcentered

in his instinct for survival. Still he is not conscious and

resolved, or self-possessed enough to be capable of a commitment.

Likewise, he is not self-possessed enough to welcome or assume

responsibility for another.

Hedwig displays another kind of unavailability. She knows what

she wants and is overly determined to get it. She wants the marriage

with Gil. She desires it tenaciously. Yet she is unavailable in the sense

that she is not disposed to welcome others, be receptive to them, or let

them be as they are. She is not open to accepting Gil as he is. Instead

she is committed only to what Gil will be when he has relearned to live,

to work, and to love—under the tutelage of Dr. Frühling, of course.

Hedwig doesn'

t give the impression that she is capable of receptivity, or

that she can love and accept another as he or she is. She is so filled with

her own plans that she has no room to w e l c o m e another with that

other’s particular individuality and life projects. To be available, or to be

capable of belonging, is to be open and receptive to the Présence of the

other person. Once again we see a paradox. Giving oneself entails

receiving others. (15)

Looking at Gil and Hedwig'

s situation from the perspectives that

philosophic analysis brings to light, we can begin to understand why

the play doesn'

t disclose grounds for marriage. Such grounds need to

be of an interpersonal sort, and neither Hedwig nor Gil, where they are

in the action of the play, seems to show signs of the requisite attitudes

122

necessary in order for a genuine interpersonal relationship to occur.

For an intersubjective relationship to occur, there must be two

persons with knowledge and self-determination of who they are and what

they live for, two persons capable of availability or disposability and

belonging, two persons capable of an act that commits their freedoms

and that also creates and confirms their resolve to be loving and

available for one another. When these conditions are provided, then an

interpersonal relationship can be created by a dialogue of freedoms.

First there is an appeal, concretely expressed, of one person inviting the

other to be with and for him or her. Then there is the other's response.

It may be yes, no, maybe, no way, later, etc. If the response is

affirmative, then the I-Thou encounter occurs, a spiritual bond is created

by the reciprocal self-gift of two persons. The spiritual exchange of that

reciprocal self-gift to be with and for one another is what authors the IThou

encounter and constitutes an I-Thou relationship.(16)

An I-Thou relationship is a spiritual exchange of persons willing to

be with and for one another. Normally an I-Thou encounter grows into a

stable interpersonal relationship of love and friendship. Furthermore, this

interpersonal relationship can develop to constitute a veritable co-esse, a

stable communion of intersubjectivity, or an interpersonal bond of love.

The logic of love wants a relationship to be permanent. As Marcel

wrote, “To say to someone, '

I love you' is to say to that person, '

You...you will not die.” “To love someone is to want that person to be

and to be a Présence for me.”(17)

How can one promise love that is lasting? Obviously such a

commitment can only be made under certain exacting conditions and with

the noblest of human attitudes.(18) What are the requisite conditions?

And how can a lasting commitment be validly founded? As we said

earlier, a commitment requires two persons who know what they want

from life. It is also requisite that these two persons be sufficiently

transparent to reveal themselves to one another. It is likewise

necessary that they be sufficiently respectful of one another to invite and

grant disclosure to one another of who they are and what they live for

as their relationship grows and meets the challenges of change. Those

who propose to commit themselves to one another know what they

love and live for. They also know that with all their being at their

disposal, it is their will to promote the essentials of life with and for one

another. Moreover, they also know that both of them wholeheartedly will

to live out their commitment to love one another in the future. And so a

123

vow is made. They consecrate themselves to live with and for one

another.

The vow to love one another in a lasting way can indeed be well

founded, even if in some respects it partakes of the nature of hope in that

it refers to the future that has not yet come to be and so is not yet fully

determined, and also in the respect that it recognizes that its grounds

of assurance are interpersonal. Marcel points out that one should never

underestimate the determination and strength that one receives toward

living out one's promises from the very fact that one resolves to remain

faithful.

The fact is that when I commit myself, I grant in principle

that the commitment will not again be put in question. And

it is clear that this active volition not to question something

again intervenes as an essential element in the

determination of what in fact will be the case....My

behaviour will be completely colored by this act embodying

the decision that the commitment will not again be

questioned. The possibility which has been barred or denied

will thus be demoted to the rank of a temptation.(19)

Some view the future as if it were an event that happens to us

without our being in any way able to influence its significance. Such an

attitude looks at one'

s pledge from the outside as would a distant

spectator. (20) Yet such distancing from ones act can be the beginning

of ones disowning it. In fact this attitude entails, whether consciously or

not, the betrayal of a mystery that one is part of and reduces that

mystery to the status of a problem from which one is disengaged.(21)

By contrast, it is possible to see that one'

s attitude and resolve now can

greatly influence ones future stance and choices. So what is capitally

important is to recognize that once one'

s troth is pledged, once one'

life is committed, then one considers as a temptation to betrayal any

inclination toward infidelity that might occur. The sense of freedom'

living in love is to refresh and renew this commitment of love, to

complete it and to enjoy fulfilling it. Any idea of abandoning this

commitment or bondl of love appears as a betrayal of one's beloved,

oneself, and one'

s life and not in some distorted way as a chance for a

new life or a second career. Marcel even goes so far as to ask whether

one may not pledge as part of one's original commitment the intention

that, even if on some level one'

s feelings alter, one'

s behavior would

nonetheless remain consistent with one'

s original commitment. Marcel

124

observes that in certain instances this can even be a higher form of

fidelity.(22)

Marcel observes that the vow of interpersonal commitment is

sacred, essentially because it springs from freedom. It is I myself who

create it, will it, pledge it, offer it as a gift to another person. The more

the act is free, the more it is personal, that is, acknowledged by its

author.(23) The vow is also sacred because it is addressed to another

person whom it engages and affects. The more I realize that the other

is incapable of exacting compliance and is in fact powerless against me if

I should forsake my pledge, the more I see the other as vulnerable and

recognize the sacredness of the trust for which I am responsible.

Furthermore, the more the act is free, the more it becomes an act of

self-giving love, not a selfish act of covetous desire that seeks

principally the advantages the other may provide.(24)

It is finally significant that the vow is spoken as an act of hope that

is also the beginning of a prayer. "May it be given to us to find the

means to remain faithful to the love we now vow."(25)

A vow of unconditional and permanent love is a vow that strives to

be absolute. It thus anticipates and calls upon the help of an Absolute

Thou as the ultimate source of our strength and hope. As Marcel wrote

in Homo Viator, the statement of hope in its ultimate purity and intensity

is "I hope in Thee for us."(26)

As Marcel sees interpersonal relations evolve, they develop

through dialogue and growing engagement of freedoms whereby

persons commit themselves more and more to be fully and permanently

with and for one another. The relationship is initiated through a dialogue

of freedoms: appeal, response, and gratuitous conferral of presence.

This reciprocal agreement constitutes an I-Thou encounter. If an

interpersonal relationship develops, the spiritual exchange of Présence

and availability increases. If friendship, marriage, or religious

commitment evolves, it comes to the point of commitment that Marcel

describes as "belonging."

In chapter two of Creative Fidelity, "Belonging and Disposability,"

Marcel inquires as to what can it mean to use the term "belonging," not in

the context of things, but in the context of intersubjectivity? To say "you

belong to me" certainly does not mean that you belong to me like a

slave or a bicycle. To say "you belong to me," means that I take to

125

heart everything that affects you and your well-being, as affecting me.

To say "I belong to you" rejects any connotation of possession or

abdication of autonomy. It affirms that all I am and have is at your

disposal. There is a trust fund in your account that you can draw on in

support of your hopes and projects.(27)

It is this sense of belonging and assured availability that is

affirmed in a commitment of love--in friendship, marriage, or religious

promises. A pledge of commitment formalizes the belonging, it

actualizes the commitment of freedom in an explicit way and clarifies the

nature of the relationship and the legitimate expectations it includes. A

commitment of matrimony aspires to be a total and complete selfgiving.

The intimacy, depth, and completeness of that reciprocal selfgift

calls for a commitment that is interpersonal and lasting. And the

living out of a lasting commitment of belonging in an authentic fashion is

what Marcel calls "creative fidelity."

Marcel reflects on how it is possible to live fidelity in a manner that

is respectful of the dignity of freedom and also of the exigencies of

genuine communion of love. The following discussion clarifies the

authentic manner of living creative fidelity. The description also clarifies

an authentic manner of founding a vow of marriage as an interpersonal

commitment.

Marcel purifies our understanding through a negative clarification.

Creative fidelity is not merely certain forms of conformity or unswerving

compliance. Creative fidelity is the willingness to invoke the actual

Présence of the beloved and to expect in relation to gratuitously

conferred renewals of the actual presence of that loved one, an

incitement to create, that is to love faithfully in new and fresh ways.

So Marcel clarifies. Creative fidelity is not merely keeping ones

promises no matter what, even though it is good to keep one'

promises. Nor is creative fidelity merely a question of fulfilling

contractual obligations one has agreed to, though it is good to be true

to ones word. These forms of compliance can become impersonal,

mechanical, routine observances. They can also become merely

annoying demands to which one responds grudgingly and finally with

bitterness and resentment. Fidelity is not simply a question of

constancy in one'

s behavior or consistency in complying one'

s behavior

to one'

s principles or promises, or one'

s reputation or popular image.

126

Nor is creative fidelity a simple compliance to what one believes others

expect of him or her.(28)

Marcel points out that it is difficult to ascertain to what or to whom

one is faithful. It is difficult to discern whether fidelity is lived first as

faithfulness to oneself, or faithfulness to another. It is likely that

normally one lives faithfulness to the other in the appeal he or she is

and to oneself in the response that one is to that invitation, and in the

joy that one has to be a response of creative fidelity to that call to

be.(29)

Fidelity is certainly not merely repeating certain words or gestures.

Nor is it merely a question of obeying orders, observing laws, and

following rules. In the essay, "Obedience and Fidelity," Marcel notes

that obedience may be commanded by a chief or officer with authority to

direct certain functions, but fidelity cannot be ordered merely by dint of

office or authority. Fidelity must be merited, and it is addressed to a

person, not an office, idol, or role.(30)

Actually the form of fidelity that is authentic and well founded, that

form of fidelity that can renew itself and remain creative, is a fidelity that

invokes the actual presence of the other person. Conferred gratuitously,

it is the presence of the other person that incites love and inspires

incarnate gestures expressing love, that is, acts of creative fidelity.

The renewals of presence that refresh love and fidelity are also acts

of intersubjectivity. Marcel notes in his essay "On the Ontological

Mystery" that it depends upon me to invoke presence, to remain open,

receptive, permeable. But in point of fact it does not depend totally on

me to summon it forth. When presence is renewed, its revelation, a

correlate to invocation, manifests itself inevitably as a gift, and always

brings an inspiration to create. Presence always has its characteristic

traits of gratuity, altereity, and incitement to create.(31)

This positive sketch of the nature of an authentic interpersonal

commitment and a life of creative fidelity that we have drawn from

Marcel'

s philosophic reflections goes far beyond what we might have

imagined from the options depicted in the tragic comic farce The Double

Expertise. In this instance again we see that theater and philosophy

complement one another remarkably for those willing to reflect on

existential issues that affect our lives.

127

After both dramatic and philosophic reflections we can see that an

adequate, although by no means automatic, foundation for an

interpersonal commitment and a lifetime of intersubjective communion

requires the following attitudes and subjective dispositions:

1) That one is capable of self-possession and self-disposition.

2) That both persons recognize one another as willing the

same essentials for life, and as being willing to share and

provide these essentials of life for one another and

eventually forr others too.

3) That the interpersonal commitment to be with and for one

another for life is coauthored by a dialogue of freedoms,

thus co-constituting a spiritual exchange that becomes a

communion of intersubjectivity, a veritable co-esse.

4) That people express this mutual and reciprocal self-gift in a

resolve of freedoms that expresses itself as a vow that

includes a note of hope and a tone of prayer.

5) That people renew this spiritual exchange by acts of

presence one to another, as privileged and tangible

moments of the intersubjective communion that founds and

renews their life of creative fidelity.

128

Notes to Chapter VI. The Double Expertise: Fidelity and Infidelity

1. La Double Expertise in Théâtre comique, Paris, Albin Michel, 1947;

Two One Act Plays by Gabriel Marcel: Dot the I and The Double

Expertise, Lanham, Maryland, University Press of America, 1986, pp.

23-38.

2. The Double Expertise, Act I, Scene 3, p. 37.

3. Ibid, p. 38.

4. "Drama of the Soul in Exile," in Three Plays by Gabriel Marcel,

New York, Hill and Wang, 1965, p. 30; Le Secret est dans les îles,

Paris, Plon, Préface, pp. 12, 20-21.

5. Creative Fidelity, New York, Farrar, Straus and Co., Ch. II., "Belonging

and Disposability," pp. 38-57; Ch. V, "Observations on the Notion

of the Act and the Person," pp. 104-19; Ch. VIII, "Creative Fidelity,"

pp. 147-74; Ch. IX, "Meditations on the Idea of a Proof for the

Existence of God," pp. 175-83. Homo Viator An Introduction to a

Metaphysic of Hope, New York, Harper Bros., 1962, Chicago,

Henry Regnery Co., 1952, "Obedience and Fidelity," pp. 125-34.

6. The Double Expertise, Act I, Scene 1, p. 28.

7. L'

Heure théâtrale, Paris, Plon, 1959, avant-propos, p. iv.

8. Creative Fidelity, Ch. I, "Incarnate Being as the Central Datum

of Metaphysical Reflection," pp. 26, 30; Ch. II, "Belonging and

Disposability," pp. 147-74; Homo Viator, "Obedience and

Fidelity," pp. 125-34.

9. Cf. note 5 above.

10. "Obedience and Fidelity," p. 129.

11. Creative Fidelity, Ch. II, "Belonging and Disposability," pp. 47-

49.

12. Ibid., Ch. VIII, "Creative Fidelity," pp. 153-64.

13. Ibid., Ch. II, "Belonging and Disposability," pp. 38-47.

129

14. Ibid., "Belonging and Disposability," pp. 51-55; Homo Viator; "The

Ego and its Relation to Others," pp. 13-28; The Philosophy of

Existentialism, Secaucus, New Jersey, Citadel Press, 1956, "On

the Ontological Mystery," pp. 24-25.

15. Creative Fidelity, Ch. II, "Incarnate Being as the Central Datum of

Metaphysical Reflection," pp. 27-29.

16. Ibid., pp. 32-34; "On the Ontological Mystery," p. 39.

17. Trois Pièces, Le Regard Neuf, Le Mort de demain, La Chapelle

ardente, (Three Plays, The New Look, Tomorrow'

s Dead, The

Votive Candle), Paris, Plon, 1931, Le Mort de demain (Tomorrow'

Dead), Act II, Scene 6, p. 161; cited by Joseph Chenu, Le Théâtre

de Gabriel Marcel et sa signification métaphysique, Paris, Aubier,

1948, p. 97.

18. Creative Fidelity, Ch. VIII, "Creative Fidelity," pp. 157-59, 160-62.

19. Ibid., p. 162.

20. Ibid., Ch. I, "Incarnate Being as the Central Datum of

Metaphysical Reflection," p. 31.

21. Ibid., Ch. VIII, "Creative Fidelity," pp. 163-64; "On the Ontological

Mystery," pp. 28-30, 35.

22. Ibid., Ch. VIII, "Creative Fidelity," p. 158.

23. Ibid., Ch. V, "Observations on the Notions of the Act and the

Person," pp. 107-109, 113; "Obedience and Fidelity," pp. 132-33.

24. "On the Ontological Mystery," p. 39.

25. "Obedience and Fidelity," p. 133.

26. Creative Fidelity, Ch. VIII, "Creative Fidelity," pp. 166-67;

"Obedience and Fidelity," p. 134; Homo Viator, "Sketch of a

Phenomenology and a Metaphysic of Hope," pp. 29-67, especially

pp. 60-61.

130

27. Creative Fidelity, Ch. IV, "Phenomenological Notes on Being in a

Situation," pp. 97-100; "On the Ontological Mystery," p. 40.

28. "Obedience and Fidelity," pp. 128-32

29. Ibid., pp. 129-32; Présence Gabriel Marcel, Cahier 4, Paris, Aubier,

1983, “Gabriel Marcel et les injustices de ce temps. La

responsabilité de philosophe”, "Testament philosophique,"

(Vienna, September 1968), pp. 130, 132-33.

30. "Obedience and Fidelity," pp. 127-28.

31. "On the Ontological Mystery," pp. 37-38.

131

Chapter VII. Colombyre or the Torch of Peace: The Role of PersonCommunities

in Living Creative Fidelity to Values.

Creative fidelity is one of the central and most significant themes in

the thought of Gabriel Marcel. The present chapter examines one

aspect of this exceedingly rich theme, focusing upon Marcel'

s inquiry into

the possibility of living with creative fidelity to humanizing values in the

face of a situation threatening their survival.

To retrace Marcel'

s reflective clarification of this topic this chapter

will examine the development of his thought through his dramatic and

philosophic works: Colombyre or the Torch of Peace, a comedy in

three acts written in 1937, and "The Dangerous Situation of Ethical

Values," an essay of philosophic reflection written in 1943.(1) This

fresh approach to studying Gabriel Marcel's work is intended both to

illustrate the important interconnections between his dramatic and

philosophic works and to permit a faithful portrayal of the clarification he

brings to the question of the possibility of creative fidelity to values in a

dangerous situation wherein their survival is menaced.

The procedure of the study will be as follows. First, the distinctive

features of Marcel'

s drama will be summarized with a view toward

identifying its relation to his philosophic reflection. Second, the play

Colombyre will be examined in order to sketch the situation it conveys and

to summarize the questions it raises. Third, the essay "The Dangerous

Situation of Ethical Values" will be seen to illustrate the clarification

philosophic reflection brings to questions underlying an existential

situation. Fourth, the findings on the significance of dramatic approaches

to philosophic reflections will be summarized as well as the

clarification they bring to our understanding of the indispensable role of

person communities in providing for the survival of values.

Existential theater, as Marcel conceives it, communicates a

concrete situation that enables the author and the audience to

consciously participate in it. The development of the dramatic action

evokes an awareness of the fundamental antinomies characterizing the

human condition. The drama evolves among persons whose attitudes

and alternate stances of interpretation the audience can recognize as

being on some level their own. The distinctive dramatic element in

existential theater is the emergence and heightening of consciousness

132

for both the drama'

s characters and the audience. The successful final

act of an existential drama is not one that settles all the problematic

elements of the situation, but one that brings a certain dawning of light.(2)

Marcel's theater focuses on the dramatic issue of whether, in a

given concrete situation, a certain quality of life or more precisely a

certain quality of interpersonal communion is possible. At the end of his

plays, author, protagonists, and audience alike arrive at a certain

consciousness of this existential issue, the awareness of which enables

them to be beneficiaries of a certain diffuse light in which to carry on the pursuit of

their existential inquiry. The complementary role of philosophic reflection is to

bring this awareness of existential questions and light to another, higher level of

consciousness and clarification.(3)

Marcel's philosophic essays interpret the existential situation and

articulate its existential questions in more general and fundamental

terms. The critical analysis and dialectical reasoning of philosophic reflection

shed light on the fundamental antinomies of the human condition by

identifying their root sources. At the same time, phenomenological analysis

clarifies the requisite attitudes and conditions of possibility for gathering

ontological resources that would enable one to transcend these

antinomies and authentically realize one's noblest and deepest

possibilities.

Philosophic reflection continues the questioning to which

existential drama gives rise and through a more rigorous style of inquiry

brings it to a level of critically reasoned clarification. Yet, philosophic reflection

continually draws on the personal engagement in the quest and the concrete

approaches to reflection which existential theater can provide.

Let us now consider Marcel'

s dramatic approach to a situation

wherein the survival of values is dangerously imperiled. Colombyre or the

Torch of Peace is set in a Swiss mountain resort in the summer of 1937,

that ominous period before the outbreak of World War II. The play

represents in farcical fashion a caricature of a peace colony, tracing the

complacent vanity of its members, the vagaries of its spirit and goals, and the

fragmenting dissolution that becomes its fate. Its style is marked by clever wit,

deftly drawn caricatures, sharp-edged humor, ever-present irony, and a

comic sense of the ridiculous. The play satirizes the flaws and foibles that

undermine the "Colombyre" project'

s goal of being "A Torch of Peace." Yet,

ironically, its final scene of dissolution touches a chord of nostalgia for the

possibility of what might have been, or what perhaps someday might be.

133

The first act introduces a strange collection of characters who have bought

shares in a Swiss mountain villa called "Colombyre." While this

international group seems in some vague way to have as its ambition

the preservation and promotion of peace, it quickly becomes apparent

that there are sorely lacking any bonds of fraternal love, any kind of

consensus about the nature of this collectivity, and any common

commitment toward the realization of its goals.

The second act reveals the vanity of "Colombyre’s” pretentions.

The various plans for radiating peace fail, while the animosity and open

hostility among its members increase. "Colombyre," instead of being a

hearth of peace, becomes a hot-bed of strife.

Act three traces the final fragmentation of the "Colombyre"

experiment. Its dissolution develops apace with the unraveling of the

mystery of the old Russian’s violent death. Speculations,

accusations, recriminations, plots of assassination, and startling

betrayals abound. As the specter of violent death approaches, the

option of flight rather than fight wins popular consent. A note scribbled

before the cook'

s hasty departure warns of immanent disaster, and the

deciphering of its message spreads panic for fear of a time bomb. All

flee in disarray, deserting "Colombyre." Silent in the aura of sunset,

"Colombyre" appears to two young lovers as an idyllic setting for a

haven of peace. They leave. Explosion. Curtain.

The experiment at "Colombyre" failed. Its pretentions of being a

refuge and a radiating center for peace were farcical and doomed.

Instead of promoting peace and life, the experiment fomented

dissension, destruction, and death. The end of Colombyre certainly

raises the issue as to whether all such efforts to ensure the survival of

peace are equally ridiculous. Yet, the irony of the final scene, wherein

the young couple envisions this site as one day being a radiating center

for international peace, does raise the question of whether a personcommunity

could ever contribute effectively to the survival and radiance

of peace.

At face value Colombyre seems to ridicule the possibility of a

person-community actually resourcing and effectively radiating

peace in this world. However, Colombyre is no mere farcical

comedy, it is also a satire. Thus, as Colombyre sketches the tragic

comic flaws of a ridiculous caricature of a peace center, it also

134

brings into relief and focus paths of inquiry about what the essential

features and distinctive traits of a genuine community of creative

fidelity might be.

Questions are raised about the possibility and nature of an

international community with a bond of fraternal love, a Personcommunity

animated by a spirit and light from above, and about the

requisite conditions and attitudes for resourcing fidelity to values and

extending their realization in this world.

In a subsequent essay, “The Dangerous Situation of Ethical

Values," written in December 1943, Marcel articulates his philoscphic

reflections on the possibility of living creative fidelity to humanizing

values in a situation wherein their survival is seriously threatened.

The preliminary sketch in this reflection stresses that personcommunity

is the indispensable context for genuine creative fidelity to

values. Values are real and not merely ideas when they are incarnate,

that is, realized and embodied within the lives of individual human

persons. One's response to values is incarnately expressed toward the

concrete reality of individual human persons with, and for whom, values

are to be realized. Consistently, one's ethical response is a personal

commitment to promote the realization and embodiment of humanizing

values and is addressed to that cause as a suprapersonal reality.

Thus, one'

s commitment to promote value with and for other

persons engages one in a particular type of unity, which holds

together a number of persons within a life they share. In a spirit of

loyalty, one'

s engagement in the cause of a suprapersonal reality,

promoting the realization and embodiment of life'

s values with and

for persons, leads to the inclusion of all members of the human

community as those with and for whom one strives to see values

realized and embodied.(4)

Marcel shows that it is man himself in the unity of his life who is in

danger of death. This peril, he notes, applies equally to the concrete

individual person as a whole, and to the human race considered as a

flowing out or expansion of an essence. Man is threatened and in

danger of death by severance from the ontological foundation of life,

and also by the separation that alienates him from humankind.(5)

Many forces contribute to the perilous situation. For over four

hundred years atheism in our civilization has continually undermined

135

the natural foundations of life upon which faith and virtue grew. For the

last century and a half, naturalist and reductionist philosophies have

desacralized and profaned life. A general spirit of abstraction has

removed the reality of life and concrete approaches to its values from

the sphere of philosophic study. Techniques of control, leveling, and

debasement have aided man in diminishing his humanity. Thus, man

has lost both contact with the dignity and depth of his life and faith in

himself and humankind.(6)

Marcel warns that any attempt to save values must be clearly

envisioned and lived with constant vigilance, lest by oversimplification or

facile schematization, it should tend to aggravate the fissure that is

developing at the center of the human mass. Marcel then proceeds to

envisage various alternative stances that propose to promote values.

He indicates the difficulties and dangers that accompany each alternate

stance, and evaluates their appropriateness in function of their ability to

enhance those dimensions of unity, depth, and dignity in human life

that are in need of restoration and renewal. By successively

analyzing alternative positions and identifying both the

presuppositions that underlie and the consequences that flow from

them, Marcel evolves a critical identification of the requisite

conditions of possibility for the survival of values. The descriptive

clarification that accompanies his critical investigation also develops

a phenomenological sketch of appropriate ways to provide for the

survival and regeneration of values.

To the proposal that would count solely on social, economic,

and political techniques to effectuate humanization, Marcel warns

that such strictly tellurian mystiques do not draw on resources

capable of regenerating the moral quality of life. He also warns that

the operationalization of such tellurian mystiques carries the danger

of aggravating the fragmentation of humanity into opposing groups

of domination and subjugation and establishing relations of envy and

resentment in the struggle for possession of the world.(7)

In view of the dangers and risk of compromising the moral quality

of life involved in such collaboration, there is a temptation to withdraw

from such efforts. Yet, to abandon the effort to promote values entails a

betrayal of life and the very notion of hope for its salvation.(8)

Pursuing another direction, Marcel inquires as to what the stance

should be of those who believe in values in a situation that includes

136

others who are either non-believers, indifferent, or desire to merely

survive a bad situation with the least possible harm.

Should the believer patronize and attempt to bestow values on

less fortunate individuals? Should the believer preach particular truths

to others who are still in the darkness of ignorance or error? No

attitudes could be more likely to incite envy and spite and thus deepen

the rift of misunderstanding and resentment. Furthermore, these

stances falsify the reality of the situation. The believer cannot claim to

give something he has, for the reality of light and grace is not something

one has.

To act as if it were is to denature and distort its reality. Faith or

grace is genuine on the condition that it inhabits a person, not only as

radiance, but also as humility. Even this attitude may seem hypocritical

to the unbeliever. The believer must practice constant vigilance lest he

merely make a gesture of what he imagines humility to be.(9)

Marcel suggests that there is a Christian maieutic more

appropriate to healing rifts and more fruitful for communicating an

experience of values. A regard of love can awaken the other's

consciousness of his divine filiation. One does not bring or give the

other anything, rather one addresses one's act of adoration to God's

Présence within the other’s life. This is more difficult to the extent that a

person remains closed in his self-complacent vanity.(10) Yet, to

communicate thus serves not only to strengthen the suprapersonal

community that binds one with this other, but also to strengthen the

bonds that make universal community possible,(11)

Marcel observes that upon further reflection even the division

between believer and unbeliever is belied when one recognizes those

vast regions within ones own life wherein the gospel has not yet been

preached, Such resistant dimensions of one's self and action are often

the most, and sometimes the only, part of life that is visible to

others.(12)

A proper approach toward providing for the survival of values now

begins to emerge. It is creative of that unity in life which is indispensable

for resourcing a renewal of values. Individuals who are concerned for

the survival of values can together, and in the context of a personcommunity,

explore and rediscover the natural foundations of human

life and values. Such an exploration of the peri-Christian or natural

137

foundations of life's values is capital. The survival and renewal of values

depends upon the restoration of that vital contact. Seeking humbly

together to rediscover the natural foundations of human life opens a

viable way to experience anew the present grace and revelation of

values carried by human life.

Within the life of a person-community that exercises the Christian

maieutic of love, the vital contact with the unity and depth of human life

can be restored. Through that the renewal and communication of

human and ethical values can occur. Individuals living a communion of

fraternal love and exercising a Christian maieutic can come to share

what is essential in each ones experience and heritage. Together they

can deepen the discovery and enrich the communication of the values

they come to share. Living this spirit of truth in the openness and depth

of their quest, the individual members can achieve a unity with a suprapersonal

reality of light and love that will make possible the gathering

and communication of those values they seek to embody with and for

one another and all humankind.

Marcel envisages the development of many small groups,

relearning how to live in conditions that are real, and in a light that at

their summit illumines the group they form with each other and the

things supporting them. He envisages this as the proper and

indispensable way in which the lacerated tissue of human life can be

regenerated. The guarantee of success for such undertakings is bound

up with the humility in which they originate and which shapes their first

objectives.(13)

Person-communities can effectuate and philosophers help to

formulate this regeneration of the lacerated tissue of human life and the

renewal and communication of values. Without this, man will be

condemned to an infra-animal existence of which our generation has

the painful privilege of witnessing the first apocalyptic symptoms.(14)

Marcel'

s essay identifies precisely the forces that menace, the

nature of what is at stake, and the stances that threaten to aggravate

rather than ameliorate the imperiled situation of human values. Hence,

Colombyre can be viewed as a dramatic representation of humankind'

plight. It traces the inadequacies in the attitudes of its membership as

the reason for the alienation and destruction which become the fate of

life at "Colombyre."

138

Marcel'

s essay identifies person-community as the appropriate and

indispensable manner of effectuating the survival and regeneration of

values in human life. More important, the essay identifies the essential

traits of life and spirit which enable a person-community to realize a

genuine creative fidelity to values. In this, success depends upon

humble and heroic realization of man'

s noblest possibilities, which only

the dialogue of freedom and grace can assure. This clarification of the

spirit and life which animates a genuine person-community'

s realization

of creative fidelity to values stands in stark contrast to the tragic comic

caricature satirized in Colombyre.

Dramatic imagination and critical conceptual clarification are

mutually illuminating. They further the ongoing human effort to achieve

concrete awareness of the existential situation and bring questions to

that level of conscious elucidation that should characterize human

understanding and enlighten ethical response.

139

Notes to Chapter VII.. Colombyre or the Torch of Peace: The Role of

Person-Community in Living Creative Fidelity to Values

1. Gabriel Marcel, Colombyre ou le brasier de la paix, in Théâtre

Comique, Paris, Edition Albin Michel, 1947, pp. 7-154. Colombyre

or The Torch of Peace, English version by Joseph Cunneen, Two

Plays by Gabriel Marcel: The Lantern and The Torch of Peace,

University Press of America, Lanham, MD, forthcoming. Gabriel

Marcel, "The Dangerous Situation of Ethical Values" in Homo Viator,

an Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope, trans. by Emma Craufurd,

New York: Harper Torchbook, 1962, pp. 155-65.

2. Gabriel Marcel, Le Seuil Invisible, Paris, Edition Grasset, 1914,

Préface, pp. 1-8.

3. Gabriel Marcel, "De la recherche philosophique" in

Entretiens autour de Gabriel Marcel, Neuchâtel, à la

Baconnière, 1976, pp. 9-19.

4. Gabriel Marcel, "The Dangerous Situation of Ethical Values," pp.

155-56.

5. Ibid., p, 156.

6. Ibid., pp. 156, 161, 164 passim.

7. Ibid., pp. 157-58.

8. Ibid., p. 159.

9. Ibid., pp. 159-61.

10. Ibid., p. 160.

11. Ibid., p. 156.

12. Ibid., p. 160.

13. Ibid., p. 164.

14. Ibid., p. 165.

140

Chapter VIII. The Sting: Threatening the Foundations of Fidelity

Through the William James lectures that he delivered at Harvard

University in 1961, Gabriel Marcel amply illustrated that he considered

his theater a privileged way of access to his philosophic inquiries.

Marcel developed this idea repeatedly, not only in his Harvard

lectures, The Existential Background of Human Dignity, but also in

works of drama criticism and in his two major essays of

autobiographical reflection.(1)

The works we shall focus on in this chapter are The Sting, a play

written in 1936 and staged in 1937, originally entitled Le Dard, and Man

Against Mass Society, a collection of philosophic essays first published

in French under the title Les hommes contre l'

humain in 1951 and then

published in English in Great Britain in 1952 and in the United States

in 1962. These works proceed in distinctively different though quite

complementary fashions to identify the forces of degradation that

undermine human dignity and threaten the survival of individual persons

by demeaning spiritual values.(2)

While Marcel'

s earlier works usually focused on questions that

affect the emptiness or fullness, inauthenticity or authenticity of

individuals' lives, The Sting is perhaps prophetic in that it focuses on the

mood and temper of a society wherein the survival of spiritual values is

seriously threatened. Yet, whatever topic an investigation researches,

Marcel'

s approach is always the same. He inquires as to how the lives

of individual persons will be concretely affected by the particular issue at

hand.

Marcel felt that drama let audiences enter into the life world

depicted on stage and even into the inner consciousness of certain

characters who communicated their growing awareness of the tragic

dimension within their lives. Since the dramas often highlight questions

and open perspectives of light, especially in their denouements,

audiences have access to the life situation of others and can thus enter

into a shared experience of the mystery occurring on stage. The dramas

present questions as these challenge individual lives. Theaters role is

not to demonstrate or explain, but rather to present life. Marcel'

s theater

141

invites reflection on certain issues that philosophy can subsequently

investigate critically and then interpret through rational analysis.

In this study we shall look first at the play, The Sting, considering

an analysis Marcel gave to it in the Préface to (The Secret is in the

Isles).(3) Then we shall examine Marcel'

s subsequent philosophic

consideration of some of the issues the play brings to light. These

philosophic issues we take from the several essays included in the book

Man Against Mass Society. (4)

Gabriel Marcel'

s Analysis of The Sting,

excerpted from (“The Secret is in the Isles”).

"The Sting”, written in 1936 and staged in 1937, reflects the

disorientation of mind and spirit affecting people before the outbreak of

World War II. I must say also that in the case of this drama as in most

all of my plays, the creative inspiration came in terms of two exceptional

individuals who in their reciprocal relationships imposed themselves on

my imagination. Around these main protagonists other people of

secondary importance grouped themselves. These are presented in a

somewhat satirical fashion. One might say there was a center and an

epicenter. Surely the center is Eustache Soreau, an intellectual who

came from more than modest circumstances. Though he has attained a

certain social status, he, cannot allow himself to accept his success,

which he views as somehow involving a betrayal.

"The epicenter is Werner Schnee, a German artist, who has

become a refugee in France, not so much out of necessity as out of

solidarity with a Jewish friend who was persecuted and who will

probably not live long after the terrible treatment he received.

"These two, Eustache and Werner, knew each other in Germany

when Eustache was a teaching assistant at Marburg University. They

became friends, but what will become of that friendship? Will it

withstand the stresses of a cohabitation during which each of them will

experience, as it were, the other as a sort of judgment or condemnation

of what he lives or aspires to be?

142

"Eustache and Werner are not the only protagonists in the play.

First of all, there is Beatrice, Eustache'

s wife. And there is her father, M.

Durand-Fresnel, a narrow-minded politician, a conservative socialist,

who would just fit as a chairperson of a masquerade committee.

"There is no question that Eustache has loved Beatrice for herself

and not because of but rather despite the advantages that accrued from

their marriage. But his love has been, one might say, poisoned by the

idea that their marriage has been advantageous for him, and by that

very fact liable to be considered as a sort of desertion. Should Beatrice

have refused to accept the dowry that her parents gave her? Should

she now, in order to please Eustache, break off relations with her family

under the pretext that they are secure bourgeois? She has too much

good sense for that, and her family means too much to her (even

though she recognizes their mediocrity) for her to yield to a demand that

she finds excessive and quite unreasonable. She has mixed emotions

about this. She admires, to a certain extent, Eustache’

s detachment and

disinterestedness, but on a deeper level she considers suspect what is

impure in Eustache’s protestations. And it is here that Gertrude

Heuzard, a grammar school teacher, an extremist of the radical left,

comes into the picture. She and Eustache were close comrades before

Eustache'

s marriage. She has just recently been suspended from her

job on the allegation that she has disseminated antipatriotic propaganda

among her students. In that respect she can be considered a victim,

and Eustache envies her more than he pities her. She has the merit of

having made her actions conform to her ideas. Eustache feels judged by

her as a deserter. She is a personification of his bad conscience. But

Beatrice, who is intelligent and sensitive, perceives what is essentially

equivocal about this woman. Beatrice suspects that basically Gertrude

is in love with Eustache and considers Beatrice as a rival. She tells her

husband this feeling of hers, but he simply refuses to acknowledge it.

Eustache has only disdain for the realm of affectivity; in this, as in other

matters, he reasons only as a function of his ideology. To Beatrice this

would be mere childishness that would make her smile, if it were not for

the fact that the rift between her husband and herself was growing. The

arrival of Werner Schnee and his wife Gisela only serves to widen the

gap.

143

"Werner is essentially an artist--not a composer, but a singer, a

gifted and impassioned interpreter of the songs of classical musicians.

He was never active politically. As a matter of fact, he is not interested

in politics and probably even disdains it. He left Germany, as I have

said, in sympathy with the persecuted Jewish pianist who was his

accompanist. What matters for him are individual persons and

relationships between people. He distrusts the abstractions with which

fanatics nourish themselves. In such circumstances, how could a

conflict not inevitably erupt between him and Eustache, who is precisely a

man of abstractions, a man of "isms"? Eustache reproaches him for

not establishing contact with other political refugees, for not joining one

of the organized groups that already exists. For Eustache there is a

category of refugee that implies certain obligations that one must meet.

But, in Werner'

s eyes, that category as such is nonexistent. There is no

reason to affiliate himself with people whom he doesn'

t know and who

probably would be uncongenial if he did know them. But Eustache

judges such individualism as reactionary and consequently scandalous.

Is it only an ideological difference that sets these two men off in

opposition to one another? Eustache, without admitting it, is annoyed

by the admiration that Beatrice obviously manifests for Werner. Can

one speak of jealousy in the strict sense of the term? Perhaps not. But

Eustache has a vague presentiment of usurpation, which offends him.

Moreover, he will discover with profound irritation that Beatrice and

Werner talked about him in his absence, doubtless to discuss his situation

and maybe even to criticize him. He cannot bear being treated as a third

party by those two, and there is here a particularly meaningful

illustration of one of the fundamental themes of my philosophic

reflections.

"It seems unnecessary to me to literally tell the story of the whole

play. I merely wanted to clarify the essential elements of its dramatic

structure. This play is, in my opinion, one of the most characteristic of all

the plays I have written. It’s not merely a psychological drama; rather it

portrays, as I have said, a definite and important moment in our

history. But even more important, it is hard for me not to find a

prophetic dimension to this play. Here I am thinking, of course, of the

concluding lines of the final scene.

"Werner has decided to return to Germany, certainly not to accept

the comfortable position that an impresario offered to him, which

would have presupposed his surrender to an execrable regime. He has

144

discovered that there is something within himself and his songs that is

his way of participating in life creatively, something that touches

people and by which he can help them to live. As he is essentially a

noble person, he is repulsed by the idea that these gifts could become

merely a means for social success. He asks himself--and the author

asks with him, without in any way answering the question--if he has not

to some extent become infected by the contagious sickness that

plagues Eustache. But there is more; he discovers that he loves

Beatrice and that probably his love is reciprocated. But how can he live

with the idea of betraying Eustache, who, after all, has been his friend?

On this basis he feels the obligation to leave, to tear himself away from a

temptation which, in the long run, he is not sure that he could resist. The

moment of decision is all the more critical since Eustache has become

Gertrude’

s lover, and Beatrice is at the end of her strength and just

about ready to leave him. Still there would be something base and

despicable in taking advantage of this set of circumstances.

"Werner: You cannot abandon him. You must always remember

that you are the wife of a pauper...Poverty is not a lack of money, nor is

it lack of success. Eustache has had money, he'

s had success; yet he

remains poor and keeps getting poorer. Probably he will never recover

from his kind of poverty. It is the great evil of our times, and its

spreading like the plague. They haven'

t yet found a physician who can

heal it. They don'

t even know how to recognize the illness. There's a

chance artists may escape, even if they do go hungry. And also the

faithful who by their prayer.... All other people are in danger.

"Beatrice: You are asking me to live with a leper...

'Werner: The leprosariums are going to proliferate on this earth, I

fear. It will be a grace reserved for very few to live there, knowing

that they are living with lepers and yet not hold them in horror.

Even more than a grace. How do you say? Via-te-cum, a viaticum.

"Beatrice: I am not brave enough, Werner, I assure you.

"Werner: You will think of me, as I think of Rudolf. Later on I shall

be in you a living presence, as Rudolf still is in me. You will

remember then what I told you here a few weeks ago. If there

were only the living, Beatrice...

145

The words he spoke were these: "

If there were only the living, I

think life on this earth would be quite impossible.”

"Those who have read Man Against Mass Society will have no

difficulty in recognizing that this prophetic word not only announced the

ideas that were developed in the essays that I collected under that

title, but also pictured in advance the terrible situations that developed

in France and other countries after the Second World War. But what I

want to underline here, appropriate to this introduction, is that the

subsequent reflections developed in connection with an individual

person, namely Eustache, who came to me with his particularity, and

also from imagining someone who was oriented in the opposite direction

and what one might think of the other. Nothing is less like an

argument, or a demonstration of a thesis. It is a question rather of

showing and awakening, by means that are not unlike those the

musician uses to awaken consciences concretely to a terrible

disorder, yet beyond that an order that transcends conceptualization,

but which each one of us can attain by means of recollection and

prayer".(5)

Marcel considers The Sting as one of his most significant dramas.

It deals, he writes in "The Drama of the Soul in Exile," with the suffering

of our contemporary world.(6) What is this suffering? It is a kind of

spiritual poverty, a sickness that threatens the survival of humanity on

earth. When Marcel discussed The Sting as he did in The Existential

Background of Human Dignity in Chapter VII on "Human Dignity," and

in a Préface to the re-edition of (The Sting) along with (The Emissary)

and (The End of Time) in the book (The Secret is in the Isles), he

quoted the final dialogue between Beatrice and Werner from the final

scene of The Sting .17) These final exchanges let us hear in the words

of people who are living the dramatic challenge their concrete

perception of the tragic sickness affecting the masses today and the

heroic action required of those who must live in that situation but who

hope to do so without succumbing to its poisonous sting.

Our procedure in the second part of this chapter will be similar.

Recognizing that Marcel'

s theater is a privileged way of access to his

philosophic thought, we shall reconstruct scenes from the play and

perspectives from the philosophic analyses collected in Man Against

Mass Society, as together these clarify questions about what the Sting

146

is, and how people can be preserved from its infection.

Early in the book Man Against Mass Society Marcel observed that

between Frederich Nietzsche’s declaration that "God is dead" and the

current phenomenon that "man is in his death throes," there is no

logical connection, but there is a connection that is concrete and

existential.(8) A spiritual poverty such as is presented in The Sting and

commented upon in Man Against Mass Society is only possible where

belief in God and transcendent values is absent.(9) Yet Marcel also

stated that "it is perhaps by starting from the statement '

man is in his

death throes'

that we may be able to question once more the statement, '

God is dead’, and to discover that God is living after all."(10)

In that same essay, "What is a free man?", Marcel clarifies that:

"To say that man is in his death throes is only to say that man today finds

himself facing, not some external event,...but rather possibilities of

complete self-destruction inherent in himself...(possibilities) of a

spiritual destruction wrought by techniques of human degradation."(11)

With these preliminary perspectives noted, let us take up our

analysis of the play and Marcel's philosophic commentaries about the

sickness plaguing our civilization.

In the first two scenes of Act One, Eustache Soreau shows his

dis-ease about his poor social origin, evidenced by his irritation over the

contrast between his mother'

s obvious lack of cultural refinement and the

mannerly affectations of his wife'

s family. Yet it is Eustache'

s contact

with Gertrude Heuzard that precipitates his showing symptoms of that

particular form of bad conscience that Marcel saw as a malady of our

times. The bad conscience that Eustache displays is, Marcel noted, very

like the phenomenon of resentment as Max Scheler and Frederich

Nietzsche have described it.(12)

It is Eustache'

s interaction with Gertrude that discloses the

dynamics of bad conscience. Eustache felt uncomfortable about his

humble origins, but he also felt guilty about having risen above them.

Yet it is Gertrude who, judging him in terms of a militant's ideology

convicts him of guilt. Eustache, by a strange complicity, interiorized

Gertrude'

s judgment, and in a spirit of condemnation convicts himself of

147

betraying the people by having deserted their condition for the sake of

bourgeois privileges.

The degradation of others, and the overthrow of values through

the phenomenon of resentment works as follows. The "oppressed"

convict the "elite" of guilt, degrade and disgrace them, and remove them

from positions of privilege and power. By this process of

condemnation, the oppressed become the powerful, and the elite

become powerless.

Indeed Beatrice perceived rightly that Gertrude not only disdained

Eustache in the light of her militant ideology, but that she also wanted

to gain power over him and possess him and thus considered Beatrice

her rival.(13)

Marcel observed that in many radical socialist and peoples

democratic parties, although the phenomenon is not limited to these

groups, the ideal of equality is one that envisages reducing everyone

to the lowest common denominator. Such an ideal of equality, he

notes, is not congruent with either liberty or fraternity. This claiming of

equality strives to eliminate spiritual values by degradation and to

suppress any admiration of excellence. The struggle for equality is

often founded on a spirit of envy and meanness, not on a reverence or

admiration for the human dignity of persons as created by God, imago

Dei. (14)

Scene 4 of Act I, the scene wherein Eustache engages his inlaws

in conversation, further demonstrates how the attitude and

atmosphere of spiritual degradation spreads. Eustache now becomes

the agent inducing bad conscience, a technique of which he was so

recently a victim. This scene also shows ideas that Marcel explores

quite thoroughly in Man Against Mass Society. We see that the

spreading of an ideology does not proceed by carefully reasoned

analyses of concrete situations, nor is it communicated through civil

rational discourse. Conversations are more like diatribes of partisan

politics. The techniques used are those of propaganda. A militant claims

to possess the truth, and he or she is willing to coerce others until they

adhere to that conviction. Conversations exchange slogans of

propaganda that resemble battle cries more than ideas. Marcel also

notes that most often these slogans are adhered to more by passion

148

than by intelligent understanding. Propagandizing manipulates ideas for

the sake of power and does not operate in a spirit of truth. It also

attempts to manipulate opponents, to find their weak points and exploit

them, to confound their arguments and make them appear foolish and

in error.(15)

From the time of Eustache’s conversation with the DurandFresnels,

Act I, scene 4, and then the arrival of Werner Schnee and his

wife Gisela, the difference between Eustache and Werner becomes

clear, as does the tension of opposition that will develop in this

cohabitation, even though these two men were once friends at Marburg

University. Through this contrast and the interaction of Eustache as

point and Werner as counterpoint it becomes evident what on the one

hand contributes to the process of spiritual degradation and what on the

other hand serves as a basis of resistance to such dehumanization.

Eustache is an intellectual animated by a spirit of abstraction, caring only

for political goals and ideals. Werner is a dedicated artist, who cares

for music and individual persons. A spirit of abstraction and a disdain for

life are part of the process of spiritual degradation. Care for individual

persons and a faithful commitment to creatively communicate the

transcendent values of life to others are the lifelines of a strength that

can resist such dehumanization.

Act II begins with Werner singing a Goethe song, Gisela

accompanying him at the piano. In the conversation that ensues,

Eustache affirms that he does not like music, finding it valuable only if it

promotes the spirit or goals of the party. Eustache goads Werner to

join a political alliance or a refugee action group. Werner avows that

he finds politics distasteful. What he cares about now is music and

Rudolf Schontal, his accompanist--a real person, who has suffered

terribly from political persecution and probably will die as a result. Gisela

offers that she does not want to battle with a dead man, she wants to

go home to Germany where she had a life, her house, her family, her

friends. Werner muses, "Oh Gisela, if there were only the living, I think

this world would be quite uninhabitable."(16)

In a lecture entitled "The Paradox of a Philosopher-Dramatist"

(17) Marcel affirmed that a spirit of abstraction is at the root of all

fanaticism and fratricide. He develops that idea in the Man Against

Mass Society’s essay "The Spirit of Abstraction as a Factor Making for

149

War."(1)

A spirit of abstraction is necessary in order to regard another

human being as “the enemy.” Through a spirit of abstraction one can kill

a "Nazi," a "commie," or a "whatever" not envisioned as an individual

human person. A spirit of abstraction is, moreover, a factor for waging

war in that often one kills or maims for the sake of an abstraction, "the

People," "Justice," "the Party," or even "Peace." A spirit of abstraction is

an essential part of the process of propagandizing and the

development of a fanaticized consciousness. A spirit of abstraction is

radically opposed to a concrete approach that considers every issue as

it affects the lives of individual persons, whom one continues to regard

as individuals created by God, even imago Dei whose being includes a

particle of the divine reality. This latter perspective allows one to

perceive that sacred dimension of persons that reveals a true

universality concretely present in persons, one disregarded by a

spirit of abstraction that falsely fires up fanaticism and incites the

masses.(19)

The path that Eustache and Gertrude'

s relationship follows

indicates the role of disdain for life in techniques of degradation.

Gertrude comes to Eustache'

s home to tell him that she is going to

commit suicide. Her life has led her to a point where she expects

nothing more from it, and so she plans to end it. Eustache, though

aware that there may be some sort of blackmail involved, goes to be

with Gertrude. In taking this decisive action, he insults, soils, and

repudiates everything he had previously held as valuable. He refuses a

promotion, insults his "friends" in the ministry of education, profanes his

house and marriage, bringing Gertrude to be there with him in his wife'

absence and telling his fatherin-law

that this is just the beginning of

militant action yet to come. In "Techniques of Degradation," Marcel cites

reports from World War II concentration camps which indicated that

techniques of degradation were intended to shame the victim so that he

or she appeared worthless in his or her own eyes, felt wholly at the

mercy of another, ceased to be an opponent worth reckoning with, and

provided to the executioner a feeling of delight and exaltation

comparable to the delight and exaltation of sacrilege.(20)

In the third act of The Sting, it appears as if all is lost. Everyone

associated with Eustache'

s household is to some extent afflicted by the

150

sting. Eustache has gone over to be with Gertrude and live out her

militant ways. M. Durand-Fresnel is offended by insult and ingratitude.

Eustache'

s mother and brother feel rejected and deeply hurt. Beatrice,

upon her return, finds that Eustache is effectively planning to leave her

and everything of their life together, to go and be with Gertrude. And

then Werner comes to announce his imminent departure for

Germany.

When Werner tells Beatrice of his plans to return to Germany, she

protests that it'

s suicide and pleads, asking how he can leave her alone

in this most terrible moment. And Werner explains his mind to her. It is

not a question of suicide; he plans to be with the oppressed and, by

sharing his gift of song, serve to quicken their sense of their human

dignity. Both Beatrice and Werner are intelligent and loving people who

care for individuals thoughtfully. Werner recognizes that he must go his

way, faithful to his commitment and Beatrice must continue in hers

though the persecution and suffering may be excruciating for them

both.

Werner acknowledges that indeed he and Beatrice do love each

other. Their love does not exempt them from the temptation to give

carnality full reign, yet in this case, their fidelity to higher values will

protect them. Thus Werner encourages Beatrice to stay with

Eustache, to be faithful to him and care for him even though the

situation may be horribly painful.

Werner adds that it is a grace given to very few to live among

those infected by the sting of spiritual poverty and degradation and

not hold them in disgust. Marcel wrote in Man Against Mass

Society, "Individual goodness is inconceivable without grace."(21)

He adds that it is an extraordinary grace that enables a person to

break the hellish cycle of reprisals and counter-reprisals that spiritual

degradation sets in motion.(22) Werner'

s decision to affirm human

dignity in concentration camps and his encouragement to Beatrice to

do likewise in her household is just such a decision to transcend the

force of spiritual degradation.

Werner'

s life as an artist witnesses how creative fidelity to

higher values is possible. Marcel observed that Werner, as an artist

consecrated to music, has his life totally given over to creatively

151

communicating this value with and for others. By thus living creative

fidelity to that spiritual value he is protected from the sting of spiritual

degradation.(23) Furthermore, his willingness to give his life, even to

the point of martyrdom, so that a spiritual value will be present among

others shows how one persons life, even after his death, can

resource creative fidelity in other people'

s lives. Werner witnesses

that communion with his friend Rudolf helped him to make his decision.

This communion he knows will also sustain him in his suffering and

death. On the strength of this witness he assures Beatrice that not

only an artist but also a true believer who can pray will be spared

from destruction by the spiritual sickness that menaces our time.

Werner'

s life and words assure Beatrice that she will not be alone.

She will find, through tender remembrance and prayer, a communion of

love and an assurance that he is with her, as Rudolf was with him. He

even assures her that, later on after his death, he will be for her like

a via te cum, a viaticum sharing his life in a way that a loved one

from beyond death can be here with us, strengthening us in our

weakness in time of persecution and death.(24)

The Sting ends on a note of hope. Even in the face of the

tragic situation wrought by spiritual poverty and degradation, we

discover that it is indeed possible to resist the sting by drawing on

transcendent spiritual resources deep within ourselves that enable

even heroic forms of creative fidelity. Reflection assures that the

grace to live such heroic fidelity will not be lacking to those whose

creative lives--like those of artists and true believers who pray--will be

resourced by the continuing life of someone who has died before us yet

continues to live on.

The study of Gabriel Marcel'

s theater and philosophy in concert

has enabled us to see in an existential and concrete way that a concern

for human beings in their death throes can bring us to the center point

within ourselves where we can recognize that in fact "God is not dead

but living"...beyond death, yes, living with and for us.(25)

In the process of his reflection as philosopher-dramatist Gabriel

Marcel has revealed something of his notion of personhood. His notion

is one that transcends by far the idea of equality of individuals as allotted

by materialist psychologies, philosophies, or ideologies, and exceeds

by far the level to which cultural propaganda of 1937, 1950'

s, 1960'

152

1980'

s, or 2000'

s would reduce people'

s self-images. Marcel has let us

share in his perspectives that allow us to perceive persons as imago

Dei, and even experience the sacred depth and possibility of

interpersonal communion that assure the true existential background of

human dignity.(26)

The fidelity of the living finds its basis in the enduring fidelity of martyrs.

By their self-sacrificing love, their self-gift for others, they continue to live

on in survivors nourishing and supporting the fidelity of the living despite

the epidemic proportions of spiritual poverty in this world.

153

Notes to Chapter VIII. The Sting: Threatening the Foundations of

Fidelity

1. "An Autobiographical Essay" (Spring 1969) in The Philosophy of

Gabriel Marcel (Library of Living Philosophers Vol. XVII) ed. Paul

A. Schilpp and Lewis E. Hahn, LaSalle, Illinois, Open Court, 1984,

pp. 1-68; "An Essay in Autobiography" in The Philosophy of

Existentialism, Secaucus, New Jersey, The Citadel Press, 1956,

pp. 104-28; Introduction to The Existential Drama of Gabriel

Marcel, ed. F. J. Lescoe, West Hartford, Conn., McAuley Institute,

St. Joseph College, 1974; "My Dramatic Works as Viewed by the

Philosopher" in Searchings, New York, Newman, 1967, pp. 93-

118; "The Drama of the Soul in Exile" (July 1950) in Three Plays

by Gabriel Marcel, London, Secker & Warburg, 1952; New York,

Hill & Wang, 1965; The Existential Background of Human Dignity,

Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1963.

2. (The Sting), A Play in Three Acts. Le Dard, Paris, Plon, 1936,

reedited in Le Secret est dans les Iles, Paris, Plon, 1967, pp. 25-

153. Les Homnes contre l’humain, Paris, La Colombe, 1951; Man

Against Mass Society, Great Britain, 1952; Chicago, H. Regnery,

Gateway, 1962.

(The Secret is in the Isles), including a Préface ("The Secret is in

the Isles") and three plays, (The Sting), (The Emissary), and (The

End of Time), Paris: Plon, 1967, has not yet been translated into

English. Even though (The Sting) has not yet been translated and

published in English, its title has been underlined in the text of this

chapter to enable readers to easily recognize by the conventional

sign that The Sting is the title of the play analyzed in this chapter.

This underlining is a departure from the system employed in Part

Three of this book, wherein titles in English are not underlined in

order to indicate that a work has not yet been translated and

published in English.

3. Le Secret est dans les Iles, Paris, Plon, 1967, pp. 14-19.

4. Man Against Mass Society, Chicago, H. Regnery, Gateway, 1962.

"The Universal Against the Masses," I, II, pp. 1-11, 257-73;”What

is a Free Man?" pp. 13-25; "Lost Liberties," pp. 26-36;

"Techniques of Degradation," pp. 37-75; "Technological Progress

and Sin," pp. 76-101; "The Philosopher and the Contemporary

154

World," pp. 103-32; "The Fanaticized Consciousness," pp. 133-

52; "The Spirit of Abstraction, as a Factor Making for War," pp.

153-62; "The Crisis of Value in the Contemporary World," pp. 163-

92.

5. Le Secret est dans les Iles, pp. 14-19, quotes from (The Sting), Act III,

Scene 8, pp. 152-53.

6. ”The Drama of the Soul in Exile," p. 32.

7. The Existential Background of Human Dignity, Ch. VII, p.

122.

8. Man Against Mass Society, "What is a Free Man?" pp. 14-

15.

9. Ibid., pp. 22-23; "Techniques of Degradation," p. 67.

10. Man Against Mass Society, "What is a Free Man?" p. 15.

11. Ibid., p. 14.

12. Max Scheler, Ressentiment, New York, Schocken Books, 1972.

13. (The Sting), Act I, Scene 3; cf. Act II, Scene 9; Act III, Scenes 2,

3, 6.

14. Man Against Mass Society, "Lost Liberties," pp. 27, 28, 29, 35-36;

"Techniques of Degradation," p. 67.

15. Man Against Mass Society, "Techniques of Degradation,"

pp. 37, 49-52, 69, 73, 75.

16. (The Sting), Act II, scene 10, p. 121.

17. Gabriel Marcel: Le Paradoxe de philosophe-dramaturge,

Realisations Sonores: Hughes De Salle, Collection Francais de

Notre Temps Nous Confie, Sous le patronage de lAlliance

Française, presentation écrite sur la pochette de Marc Blancpain,

no date.

18. Man Against Mass Society, "The Spirit of Abstraction, as a

155

Factor Making for War." pp. 153-62.

19. Man Against Mass Society, "The Spirit of Abstraction,..." pp. 156-

58, 160; "The Universal Against the Masses," pp. 4, 259, 262, 267,

273; "Techniques of Degradation," p. 67.

20. (The Sting), Act II, Scene 6; Act III, scene 6. Man Against Mass

Society, "Techniques of Degradation," pp. 42-45, 46, 47, 48;

"Technological Progress and Sin," pp. 79, 92-93.

21. Man Against Mass Society, "Lost Liberties," pp. 30, 93;

Jeanne Parain-Vial, "La Grace dans Le Dard," to appear.

22. Man Against Mass Society, "Techniques of Degradation," p.

48.

23. The Existential Background of Human Dignity, pp. 124-25; Man

Against Mass Society, "Technical Progress and Sin," p. 100;

"Degradation of the Idea of Service," p. 203.

24. "The Sting," pp. 152-53. The Existential Background of Human

Dignity , pp. 124-25.

25. Man Against Mass Society, "The Universal Against the Masses,"

pp. 15, 259, 266-67.

26. Man Against Mass Society, "What is a Free Man?" pp. 22-25; "Lost

Liberties,"

pp. 29, 35; "Techniques of Degradation," pp. 57, 67;

"Technical Progress and Sin," pp. 79, 92-93; "The Spirit of

Abstraction," p. 160; "

The Universal Against the Masses," pp. 4, 266-

67, 273.

156

Chapter IX. Rome Is No Longer In Rome: Challenge for Creative

Incarnations of Fidelity

Rome Is No Longer in Rome is a play that in its own time

created quite a stir both for its timeliness and the power of its

message. It was originally produced at the Hébertot Theater in

Paris, April 19, 1951.(1) Its composition was occasioned by the

atmosphere in France and other parts of Western Europe, where

people had lived through two major wars in close succession.

People felt the impending advent of a political or military coup that

would introduce a Soviet or at least a "popular front" regime. Still,

the situation depicted in the play has counterparts in our current

situations.

Significant questions are brought to light, questions that are

personal and that have relevance to the current plight of western

civilization. How can one be genuinely faithful to ones heritage of

spiritual values and communicate them or creatively incarnate them

in a world where these kinds of values are foreign? The foreign land

in question may be a territory or nation or it may mean a material

civilization where spiritual values are unknown, devalorized, or

forgotten.

After a brief summary of the play we shall reflect on a few

questions to clarify their significance with reference to the drama

and the philosophic writings of Marcel.

Rome Is No Longer in Rome depicts the Laumière family as

they live out their decision to emigrate to another land rather than

be destroyed by the events that menace their survival in France.

This play is certainly one of Marcel'

s finest works. Rather than

depict barricades and trenches, Marcel portrays in five acts the

psychological drama that some individuals undergo as they form a

decision and struggle to find its worth in the trying circumstances of

their lives.

The first three acts deal with the drama of making the decision

to leave France. The last two reveal the drama of giving meaning to

that move.

157

Renée Laumière, without consulting her husband, Pascal, has

made arrangements for him to be offered a teaching position at a newly

founded university in San Felipe. When Pascal learns that there is a

professorial appointment and a welcome for him and his family in San

Felipe, he is disconcerted. Certainly he wants his wife and children to

be safe, but he himself had not planned to leave France.

He is helped in his decision by his nephew Marc André, who

announces his plan to leave France with a friend whose father can get

them jobs in Africa. Marc André begs Pascal to take care of his mother,

Esther, so that she will not feel forsaken. While they exchange views on

various topics, Marc André wants to test his uncle's strength. Would

Pascal subscribe to the following commitment by one of his friends'

fathers, Professor Moreuil?

I don'

t know what that moment will make of me, perhaps a rag.

m not presuming on my own strength alone. I'

m counting on

God, that he will not abandon me, that he will save me from a

final disaster. Either he will take me to himself, or he will give

me the strength to withstand the torture. (Act II, Scene I)(2)

Pascal responds that in all honesty he cannot state that conviction

as his own. He sees that he has only the more abstract notion of his

sense of integrity and the hope of his loyalty to French "honor" and

"patriotism." Marc André then inquires whether the orphaned children

inherit this sense of "honor" by proxy.

After a sharp exchange between Pascal and his wife Renée, it

seems that there are no solid reasons left for remaining in France.

Reason seems instead to suggest leaving while they can move to a

land where life seems possible. This is all the more true since Marc

André just learned that his plan for Africa has fallen through. Pascal,

then, looks upon Brazil as an opportunity to give his family, including

Esther and Marc André, a chance for a good life.

The last two acts take place in Brazil at the home of the Martinez.

The setting is a spacious living room that opens onto a patio.

When we arrive in Brazil, it is immediately and painfully clear that

the Laumières are considered refugees. They are expected to respect

the sensitivities of their host country and to follow the ways of its culture.

158

This behavioral compliance is requested in the name of politeness or the

common courtesy that is due in exchange for the hospitality they enjoy.

Expectations become increasingly oppressive, in both professional and

personal life. Compliance is, of course, expected of refugees. Pascal

feels undone. Marc André, by contrast, feels as if life has just begun.

Esther appears, carrying a letter with news of her brother, Robert, who

has disappeared. Probably he has been put out of the way because he

staunchly, perhaps even uncompromisingly, championed a "French"

communism.

Pascal and Esther discuss the death of Robert. They reminisce

about him, as if death let others see more clearly into his character.

Unloved, rejected by his mother, he forced everyone else to despise

him.

Renée and Carlos Martinez beg that no mention be made of

Robert'

s death, or of his communist affiliations. News of these would

create scandal among their friends. Carlos informs Pascal that his

weekly broadcast will be from the Martinez home, since Pascal

appears tired and somewhat weakened.

Pascal confides’ in Esther that curiously, almost paradoxically, the

scandalously persecuting manner of the Martinez’ and their priest friend

from the university gave him a vivid sympathy for Christ. as if behind the

threatening words of those torturers was an infinitely discrete appeal of

Christ, a distinct call--"not to betray." Later that same day, in sharp

contrast with the Martinez’ pagan priest friend, a young monk

approached Pascal. This young monk'

s face had the gentle look of

Christ'

s.(3)

Esther asks if Pascal has decided to submit. When he responds

that he definitely has not, she interjects that she, for her part, has decided

to return to France to care for Robert'

s baby since the infant'

s mother,

Robert’s mistress, wants no part of raising the child.

Marc André joins them, startled to see that his uncle doesn'

t look

well. Pascal comforts him, explaining that now he can make Professor

Moreuil'

s statement his own.

Pascal begins his weekly broadcast back to the people in France

with a quote from Sertorius, a Roman general in one of Corneille'

tragedies. Sertorius claims that "Rome is no longer in Rome" but instead

159

lives on in the hearts of those outside her walls who keep her heritage

alive.

Pascal cries out, "That verse is false. The claim is false." He

staggers but continues. "Stand fast. Stay.... And if you don'

t feel you

have the strength. Or if you think you won'

t have the strength." He

staggers and falls faint.

Esther runs to revive him. A young monk with a kind smile and a

gentle manner enters and moves toward Pascal. "Let me go to him. I

know he'

s waiting for me."(4)

The end of the play is stunning; its theatrical impact powerful. The

curtain falls, and the audience is left facing a darkened stage with only a

radio facing them.

We are surprised, disconcerted. We are left with questions that

call for reflection about the possibility of fidelity and the possibility of

communicating our values to others.

The play gives rise to many other questions about the different

characters and the significance of some of their actions and

interactions. The drama is artfully composed in a symphonic fashion,

and it would take a full-scale study to do justice to the intricacy of

meaning that is developed.

As the play ends, the question of the ultimate grounds for fidelity

when spiritual values are severely menaced is brought to mind by Pascal.

The finale of the play involves a reprise of the question

confronted by Professor Moreuil. This time, however, Pascal is ready

to answer that for him, ultimately one'

s fidelity to France, honor, liberty,

integrity, or a spirit of truth is founded in ones confidence in God'

fidelity. One'

s fidelity draws on a trust that God will not abandon those

who abandon themselves to his care, those who count on him as their

ultimate recourse. As Marcel wrote in Creative Fidelity, the foundation

of fidelity is faith in an Absolute Thou who is encountered as an

ultimate recourse in one’s dire distress. (5) Or, as Professor Moreuil

phrased it, he had confidence that in his hour of distress, be it trial or

torture, God would give him the strength to endure or would take his life

before he succumbed to betrayal.(6)

160

It was apparently this confidence in Christ, who as a personal

Presence can assure ones fidelity that founded Professor Moreuil's

decision to stay in France. A similar trust in the personal Presence of

Christ is what inspires and enables Pascal'

s decision not to be co-opted

by a repressive regime.(7)

That is why Pascal can say to his radio audience in France that

we live in a civilization where spiritual values are becoming more and

more alien. Stay--stand firm, be faithful and true--and if you do not have

the strength, be open in your hope for fidelity secured in the faithfulness

of a living God.

Abandoning pride, presumption, and stoic self-sufficiency, one can

find God as an Absolute Thou present in a moment of dire distress. God

comes then as our ultimate recourse.(8)

Perhaps our greatest strength comes when, in our weakness, we

draw on a strength that is other and more than our own.(9) Pascal'

decision and the message he broadcast, not to betray, is one that

expresses the mysterious and intimate workings of freedom and

grace.(10)

In the final moment of the play, and perhaps even of his life,

Pascals decision becomes really his own, an act he owns and through

which his life'

s meaning is expressed.(11)

By using four dots Marcel often leaves phrases and perspectives

of insight open-ended for the reader or spectator to inquire about and

then fill in with his or her own light. The pointing is "and if you have not

the strength...." Then there are the discrete stage directions. And then

the stark confrontation with the radio, inviting each one of us to hear and

consider the question ourselves.(12)

With dramatic power and discrete finesse, Marcel invites the

spectator to reconstruct the play and to discern for himself or herself

whether fidelity is possible, and whether ways can be found to

creatively incarnate it in our world today.

In the essay "The Real Issues in Rome Is No Longer In Rome,"

Marcel responds to some of the controversy stirred up by the play. He

points out that techniques of "brainwashing," first recognized because

of their prevalent use during the Korean War, changed the ground on

161

which valor, honor, integrity, or faithfulness are viewed. Prior to the fullscale

use of techniques of spiritual degradation or "brainwashing," the

stoic options could suffice. The stoic attitude is based on a confidence

or belief that the private regions of a person'

s mind and will were regions

that could not be violated, pressured, or altered. Patently mental and

psychic states can be altered. That is why one would be well advised to

write a declaration of one'

s stand compos mentis and a renunciation or

a retraction in advance of any statements conditioned by

brainwashing." Philosophically the question becomes: Is there

anything more trustworthy than human strength of mind, virtue, or

willpower when faced with forces of persecution whose techniques of

spiritual degradation are dehumanizing indeed?(13)

The action of the play illustrates various options that Marcel

evaluates concretely in the drama and examines philosophically in the

essays on fidelity in Creative Fidelity and Homo Viator. (14)

Morality appears inadequate to transmit values; otherwise Marc André

would surely have inherited the values of his mother, Esther.

Abstractions such as "honor," "liberty," "mankind," or "patriotism,"

though powerful sounding in propaganda, are of themselves inadequate

to ensure fidelity or to inspire creativity. Sterile arguments and abstract

notions do not move hearts or nourish lives, though they can be used to

feed emotions and to incite passions to promote fanaticism.

Fidelity is inspired by persons who communicate in love and in a

spirit of truth, as do for instance, Pascal, Esther, and Marc André. The

inspiration to fidelity is often through the person of someone present

from beyond death. The presence of Marc André'

s father from beyond

death certainly significantly influences Marc André, Esther, and also

Pascal.(15)

Physical force and psychological blackmail can pressure behavior.

Ideological propaganda can confuse thought and discourage feelings.

Political and social power can dictate ideological propaganda and force

behavioral compliance. Social control can be exercised by both totalitarian

Marxist governments and reactionary regimes of clericalism and very likely

by other groups as well. Although these forces and power groups can

dictate ideologies and manipulate behaviors, they are not enough to

control a person of liberty, an individual who lives in a spirit of truth.

162

Then what enables a person to resist the insidious and powerful

forces mentioned above; what can safeguard a person's fidelity?

Fidelity, in order to endure, like Pascal's, must be based on

interpersonal presence lived in a spirit of truth and love. Pascal cares

for his family, he cares with special concern for Marc André and Esther,

and he also cares for others in his literary and radio audience who

might try to live through this current crisis with integrity. Pascal,

together with Marc André and Esther, through open, searching

conversations tries to clarify what his responsibility is in living out fidelity

to the spiritual heritage of France.

Pascal’s fidelity is lived as an attempt to hear and respond to his

particular vocation.(16) His response is a commitment to the values of

life with honor. Pascal'

s fidelity is essentially animated and enlivened by

interpersonal relations with Marc André and Esther. In the trial of

persecution his fidelity is intensified. It deepens to the point that he

experiences an intersubjective relationship with God. Pascal’s fidelity

and its moment of fullest saturation are grounded finally in the

intersubjective presence of Christ.

As Marcel wrote in his essay "The real issues in Rome Is No

Longer in Rome," the play certainly does not suggest that there is only

one right way to preserve the honor of France. The play does not mean

to state bluntly that Pascal should have remained in France, nor does it

imply which is the right way to express faithfulness to the spiritual

values of France'

s heritage.(17)

Except for the case of Pascal, the play does not question

whether people's particular choices are expressive of their values. Each

person'

s choice is expressive of his or her values. Marc André wants to

be able to live, hope, and love. Esther,his mother, wants the best for

him, for Pascal, and later for Roberts child as well. Renée, on a more

practical and superficial level, wants a good life with all possible social

advantages for herself and her children. Pascal, moved by the

solidarity he senses with Marc André, feels responsible to provide the

children a better opportunity for life than the political and social situation

of France affords. Pascal judges his responsibility to be that of providing

for his household a situation wherein life is possible, He hopes at the

same time that he can also in some way remain faithful to France, his

homeland and heritage. Robert chooses to remain in France and

assure the reign of French communism when "the event" occurs.

163

People in the play do seem to question one another'

s values. There

is discussion for understanding. Pascal seems at times to deplore

Renée'

s expediency, but mostly he decries the way she demeans him,

almost incapacitates him. Renée in turn disdains and eventually

despises Robert’s ineffectiveness. Esther and Marc André seem to

encourage Pascal’s effort to be faithful to his integrity and purpose.

Only Robert and Pascal argue and condemn one another's positions.

Moreover, they try to undermine one another'

s confidence in their

values and in one another'

s abilities to effectively incarnate their fidelity

to those values.(18)

The conflict between Pascal and Robert not only shows the

opposition between their value systems, it also serves to clarify concretely

certain distinctions that are helpful toward developing a right

understanding of the challenge to incarnate creative fidelity to spiritual

values.

Ones effectiveness in responding to the challenge to incarnate

one'

s fidelity to spiritual values is not measured by ones success in

influencing socio-political trends. One'

s effectiveness in preserving

spiritual values and communicating them to others lies in ones ability to

awaken others awareness to the spiritual dimension of human dignity.

This awareness is something that is communicated among individuals in

a spirit of truth and love.

It seems that Robert's choice, which will help to assure "French"

communism when "the event" occurs, has the most likelihood of being

effective. His initiative is in line with socio-political forces. Robert will, it

appears, serve to assure a post-revolutionary survival of a French form

of communist government. But as Pascal foresees, Robert'

s initiative is

not likely to prevail. Those who gave Robert a formal promise of

French communism believe in dialectical truth that changes with the

circumstances. So when Robert’s tactics no longer serve to promote a

changing goal, he is disposed of. It is unlikely that any individual'

initiative will be effective in changing the direction of the socio-political

history of Western civilization. An individual action rarely can control the

force or the direction of socio-political trends. Neither Pascal'

s writing

nor Robert'

s direct action can reverse a trend that has gained so much

momentum. Social iniquity has gone too far.(19) Moreover, even if

socio-political trends could be altered, something more would be still

required to preserve and communicate values. Ideological propaganda

164

and behavioral conditioning can promote doctrinal orthodoxy and

behavioral social compliance. Force, physical or psychological, cannot

communicate spiritual values. These can only be espoused in liberty

and communicated in a spirit of truth that accompanies interpersonal

love.

Pascal's decision and the sense of it that is revealed dramatically

at the end of the play incarnate an authentic response to the challenge

for creative fidelity to spiritual values.

As Gabriel Marcel wrote in his philosophical essays, it is not others

or any critical public who can evaluate a person'

s fidelity.(20) It’s

oneself who is best suited to estimate the value of one'

s efforts. It is

oneself who can recognize the extent to which one'

s creation

corresponds to the original inspiration that gave rise to it. So it is Pascal

who can best judge whether his actions in the final scene correspond

to his deepest hope--not to betray but instead to preserve and transmit

what is most valuable in the spiritual heritage of France.

Upon reflection it appears that Pascal in the final scene has posed

an act of genuine creative fidelity. He has not betrayed. In his refusal

to go along with a repressive clericalism, he has preserved his sense of

honor and kept faith with what he esteems to be France'

s heritage of

spiritual values. Moreover, in the final and crucial moment of his ordeal,

the ultimate test of his fidelity, he has found that his strength to remain

faithful resides neither in resources of sheer willpower nor in the lifeless

ground of abstractions but in the lifegiving faithfulness of God present

to him through the person of Jesus Christ.

Pascal’s final decision has the characteristics of an act of

creative fidelity. His act of fidelity not only preserves the values of

his spiritual heritage for himself, but he also communicates them to

others. Pascal’s decision has an impact not only upon his life, but

on the lives of others as well. The decision is life-affirming,

especially for Marc André and for Esther. Marc André has begun to

live in this new world. Esther too has grown. She has let go of

Marc André and plans to return to France to care for her brother'

child, a child whose survival depends on her caring.(21)

Pascal communicates not only his deeds but also what he

lives by. He announces to people in France or wherever they are

in exile that their strength not to betray will come from beyond

165

themselves. Their faithfulness in time of trial in effect will be an

expression of the unfailing faithfulness of God. Pascal also

communicates what makes these deeds possible for him, namely

that because he has experienced the presence of Christ, seen his

face and heard his call through the faces and words of others, he is

assured that his attempt to live out his act of fidelity will be assured

by God's presence to him in his moment of distress. At the end

Pascal can make his own the words of Professor Moreuil that Marc

André had quoted to him earlier.

“I don'

t know what that moment will make of me, perhaps

a rag. I'

m not presuming on my own strength alone. I'

counting on God, that he will not abandon me, that he will

save me from a final disaster. Either he will take me to

himself, or he will give me the strength to withstand the

torture.” (22)

Pascal has shared the meaning of his action in conversation

with Marc André and Esther. They follow him with difficulty, and at

a certain point they can go no further. But, with time, especially

after his death, they will come to understand. Then his words will

become their own, as Moreuil'

s have become his. For Pascal’s

words are a witness. They are not just words he says, they are

words he supports with his very life and being.

A genuinely creative incarnation is one that is life-affirming

and one that lets traditional values be present in a new way

appropriate to altered circumstances. Certainly in this respect

Pascal's action is creative. His creative gesture springs from

resources of fidelity that are most deeply and intensely

interpersonal.

The genuineness of any act of creative fidelity is often indicated

by the additional acts of creative fidelity it inspires in other’s lives.

Whether or not this might be the case after Pascal’s plea is heard

depends upon the openness of Pascal'

s audience to hear his message

and the willingness of this audience in turn to reflect on the reality they

convey....

166

Notes to Chapter IX. Rome Is No Longer in Rome: Challenge for

Creative Incarnations of Fidelity

"Rome Is No Longer in Rome," has not yet been translated into English.

Still, the title is underlined in the text of this essay to enable readers to

easily recognize by the conventional sign that Rome Is No Longer in

Rome is the title of the play analyzed in this chapter. This underlining is

a departure from the system employed in Part Three of this book,

wherein titles in English are not underlined in order to indicate that a work

has not yet been translated and published in English.

1. Rome Is No Longer In Rome, a play in five acts and “The Real

Issues in Rome Is No Longer in Rome” to date have appeared

only in French: Rome n’ést plus dans Rome, pièce en cinq actes,

et “Les vrais problèmes de Rome n’est plus dans Rome”, Paris:

La Table Ronde, 1951.

2. Rome n’est plus dans Rome, Act II, Scene I, p.49.

3. Ibid., ActV, Scene V, pp. 142- 143.

4. Ibid., ActV, Scene V, pp. 147- 148.

5. Creative Fidelity, New York, Farrar, Strauss and Co., 1964, pp.

167, 182.

6. Rome n’est plus dans Rome, Act II, Scene I, p.49; cf. Act V,

Scene V, pp. 145-148.

7. Ibid., ActV, Scene V, pp. 142- 143.

8. Ibid., ActV, Scene V, pp. 49. ActV, Scene V, pp. 145- 148. “Les

vrais problèmes de Rome n’est plus dans Rome”, pp. 161-162;

Creative Fidelity, pp. 164-73, 182-832.

9. Rome n’est plus dans Rome, Act V, Scene V, p. 145.

10. “Les vrais problèmes de Rome n’est plus dans Rome”, P. 166.

11. Ibid., P. 165

12. Rome n’est plus dans Rome, Act V, Scene V, p. 148; “Les vrais

167

problèmes de Rome n’est plus dans Rome”, P. 153.

13, "Les vrais problèmes de Rome n’est plus dans Rome," pp. 160-

72, esp. 168-70.

14. Creative Fidelity, Ch. VIII, Ch. IX, pp. 147-74, 175-83; Homo

Viator, An Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope, Chicago, Ill.,

Henry Regnery Co., 1951; New York, Harper Bros., 1962,

"Obedience and Fidelity," pp. 125-34.

15. Rome n’

est plus dans Rome, Act II, Scene I, pp. 51, 80.

16. "Les vrais problèmes de Rome n’est plus dans Rome," pp.

164-66.

17. Ibid., pp. 152-59.

18. Rome n’est plus dans Rome, Act II, Scenes I and II, pp. 67-

78.

19. Ibid., Act III, Scene I, p. 74.

20. Homo Viator, "Obedience and Fidelity," pp. 129-32.

21. Rome n’est plus dans Rome, Act V, Scene V, pp. 144.

22. Ibid., Act II, Scene I, p. 49.

168

Chapter X. Conclusion: Sketch of the Essential Features Highlighted

Reflection on eight Marcel plays and philosophic essays

commenting on the issues that the theater brings to light has enabled

us to highlight some of the essential features of "creative fidelity."

The Unfathomable lets us see that presence is central to a life of

creative fidelity. Presence consists of a spiritual exchange that can

become a life of intersubjectivity, a veritable co-esse. Edith'

s reflections in

The Unfathomable and Marcel'

s philosophic clarification in Presence

and Immortality enable us to recognize the nature of Presence. -

Presence occurs as a spiritual influx encountered by way of

inwardness and depth. These works also reveal Presence as a

witness of fidelity, a co-authored communion, the benefit of whose

renewals is always a mysterious incitement to create.

The two plays The Lantern and Dot the I reveal the essential role of

the light of truth in a life of creative fidelity. The Lantern shows that the

light of truth is an interpersonal Présence that enables one to discover in

truth what one loves and what it is that one hopes to live by. Dot the I

shows that existential witness discloses not merely ideas or the words

one says but also the very reality by which one lives.

The Lantern brings to light several essential aspects of creative

fidelity. Raymond'

s life shows what essays of philosophic reflection on

creative fidelity confirm. Creative initiatives issue from fidelity to the

Présence of loved ones in one'

s life. Genuine creativeness arises out of a

faithfulness to oneself. It springs from keeping in touch with what is

vital and most deeply personal, what is ultimately revealed only to love.

Such faithfulness to oneself is most often discovered, however, in

conjunction with one'

s attempts to remain faithful to one'

s family and

loved ones. Creative fidelity involves coming to know who one is in the

sense of recognizing and freely deciding what one wants to love and live

for. This self-discovery, a precondition to any genuine creativity, occurs

best in the radiance of a light of truth that is experienced as a personal

Présence.

Dot the I reveals how existential witness is an essential part of

creative fidelity. This play shows how one can communicate what one

lives by. In Dot the I Amy shows what her experience of forgiving and

169

of feeling assured that she is loved has been. Through compassion,

and love Amy the child becomes the mother of the woman. Amy

shares with Felicia not only the ideas she states but also the very

reality by which she lives. Amy’s testimony enables Felicia to begin to

experience within herself and in relation to her own life what it is that

Amy is talking about. Such communication of the interpersonal realities

that are part of our lives can only occur through a communion of love.

The Rebellious Heart highlights, by its absence in the life of

Daniel Meyrieux, what The Lantern portrays positively in the life of

Raymond Chavière. Creativity is not distinguished by novelty,

inventiveness, or spontaneity but rather by the fact that it is rooted in

faithfulness. Any genuine creativity in the realm of art or of daily living

requires as its basis faithfulness within a genuine communion of love.

Creativity finds itself resourced in faithfulness to oneself, faithfulness to

others, and ultimately in faithfulness to an absolute Other.

The Double Expertise leads us to recognize that creative fidelity,

like the act of commitment initiating it, has as its condition of possibility

availability, people's ability to invoke and provide actual renewals of

interpersonal presence and their effective and consecrated resolve to

do so.

The last three plays we considered, Colombyre or the Torch of

Peace, The Sting, and Rome Is No Longer in Rome, all portray the

contemporary situation wherein the survival of spiritual values is

threatened. This situation of menace highlights the heroic attitudes that

are necessary if human life is to survive.

Colombyre or the Torch of Peace shows the context that is

necessary if creative fidelity is to endure. For values to be realized, both

in the sense of being incarnately actualized and in the sense of being

personally understood, they must be expressed among persons. A

person-community whose atmosphere and one-to-one relations are

characterized by a spirit of light and love from above is the necessary

condition for the survival and growth of values. This context encourages

individuals to get in touch with their own personal experience and

heritage of values and to share this wealth with others. If spiritual values

are to be communicated effectively to others, it will be when the spirit of

light and love--the spirit that animates the one-to-one relations among

persons in community and that is reflected in their use of the things that

170

surround them - touches others by its radiance and by their existential

witness.

The Sting reveals that in our times, when spiritual values are

debunked and the very foundations of fidelity and trust are undermined,

what is called for is not mediocrity but heroic attitudes. Creative fidelity

requires the personal commitment and service of individuals who, like

the artist and the believer who really prays, are consecrated in selfsacrificing

love to quicken others'

sense of their spiritual dignity. Such

persons will be protected by their heroic commitment. Yet, given the

epidemic proportions of the malady of spiritual degradation that can

destroy an individual from within, they will also need to draw on the

self-sacrificing love of a martyr who lives on in them like a viaticum

nourishing and sustaining fidelity among the living. Creative fidelity calls

for heroic commitment. Creative fidelity also needs to draw on the

support of an interpersonal bond of love that unites us with those who

from beyond death assure the fidelity of the living.

Rome Is No Longer in Rome shows the situation wherein spiritual

values are so alien to a culture that any attempt to promote them or live

by them is almost sure to meet with violent persecution. In such a

situation it becomes clear that no individual can assure by his or her

strength alone that he or she will remain faithful through torture and

brain-washing. Assurance can only come in relation to a ground of fidelity

that can be experienced as one'

s ultimate recourse in response to an

appeal from one'

s utter distress.

Rome Is No Longer in Rome shows that it is of the essence of

creative fidelity to be resourced not merely in rational argumentation,

stoic constancy, or unswerving loyalty to abstract ideals, but in the

personal presence of God, whom we trust will not abandon and forsake,

but who will rather be faithful and save his people.

This play also shows that genuine expressions of creative fidelity

are not so much technical maneuvers that influence a socio-political

movement. Rather the concrete gestures that incarnate fidelity

creatively are personal acts of witness and testimony that, like Pascal'

share with others in a spirit of truth and love the living core of one'

spiritual heritage.

171

Signs of the authenticity of one'

s acts of creative fidelity are that they

seem to awaken a sense of life in others and that they seem to

correspond to the original intent of their author.

Creative fidelity is centered in presence and is essentially a life

rooted in a communion of love. Creative fidelity is rooted in an

intersubjectivity of being that brings an uplifting of one'

s being and an

incitement to create whenever the conferral of presence is renewed.

Creative fidelity involves a light of truth that is the personal presence of

a loved one. The actual presence of a loved one, revealing what he or

she loves and live for, brings a light of truth that illumines one's own

discovery of what it is one hopes to be. The communion of love that

presence actualizes helps one not only to see, but also to decide in a

light of truth what one hopes to love and live by.

Creativity, with its striving for generativity, be it artistic or

human, is truly effective only when it finds its basis in a communion

of love involving faithfulness to oneself, faithfulness to others, and

ultimately faithfulness to an Other.

Faithfulness requires remaining in vital contact with what is

alive in oneself, that deep personal spiritual center that is revealed

only to love. Such faithfulness occurs and is often most readily

recognized in terms of one'

s response of faithfulness to another'

invitation and appeal for love.

A vow of creative fidelity is the voicing of a personal

commitment to be with and for another in loving care. It is also the

utterance of a hope and prayer that resources will be provided for us

to remain faithful in our reciprocal commitment to love.

The bond of love that is lived out as creative fidelity develops

through a dialogue of freedoms, an invitation or appeal, a free

response and a reciprocal resolve to be with and for one another.

The reciprocal self-gift of freedoms can progress from co-authoring

an I-Thou encounter to constituting a co-esse or intersubjectivity of

being that characterizes belonging and availability. This bonding and

commitment to be with and for one another is what constitutes a

communion of love. The pledge of its enduringness is what

formalizes and enables the life-long commitment of creative fidelity.

172

Creative fidelity, like the act of commitment initiating it, has as its

condition of possibility "availability," peoples ability to invoke and

provide actual renewals of interpersonal presence and their

consecrated and effective resolve to do so. Family or personcommunity

is the requisite context wherein creative fidelity, or a life of

commitment and service to promote human values with and for others,

can be lived out. In order for one's sharing of values to be authentic,

and not a farcical caricature, the interpersonal relations that

characterize the community'

s life must be animated by a spirit of light

and love from above. This inspiration incarnate in the community'

s oneto-one

relations is also reflected in the atmosphere of the community's

dwelling place and in its dealings with others.

Spiritual values or a reverence for the existential background of

human dignity are not transmitted best when broadcast like sound

waves from a transmitting set to be picked up by a receiving set.

Communicating values is rather a question of awakening in others their

sense of their worth as human individuals. Expressing toward others the

act of adoration addressed to the participation in the divine reality

within them can awaken in others their sense of divine filiation. This

communication is not so much a telling or even a giving of something as

it is a quickening of another's appreciation of his or her situation in

Being.

Creative fidelity may in fact simply designate an artful way of

living out a loving and life-long personal relationship with oneself,

others, and an Absolute Other.

There is a reciprocity in creative fidelity, one that is immediately

sensed and one that can finally be discovered to be ontologically

founded. It appears almost paradoxically. The creation of one's life as a

personal response to an invitation to be with and for others and an

Other is grounded in one's faithfulness to oneself, others, and an Other.

This faithfulness, as revealed poignantly in time of test or trial, is in turn

nourished by the faithfulness of others in their active communication of

love and by the faithfulness of an Absolute Thou as the ultimate

recourse and source of creative fidelity.

Sketching the main lines of the essence of creative fidelity risks

portraying as a bare-bones skeleton what in reality has all the concrete

richness of enfleshed individuals' lives.

173

Indeed, creative fidelity may be read as designating an

individual's response to a continually renewed call to be. The response

to that call is as creatively rich and varied as the individual’s life situation

and the particular invitations he or she received. In this perspective

creative fidelity may be recognized as a descriptive clarification of the

personal response and life story one writes as his or her answer to the

question "Who am I?"

Gabriel Marcel's book Du Refus à l’Invocation, entitled in English

Creative Fidelity, suggests that creative fidelity can denote a person’s

lifelong response to a continuous call to be. From this point of view it

becomes evident that the meaning of the term "creative fidelity,"

reflective of the mystery it expresses, transcends in richness any

particular expression or summary definition that might be given to it.

The purpose of this work is achieved if readers perceive a hint of

the richness of Gabriel Marcel's thought on creative fidelity, and if they

are at the same time attracted to explore his work and examine

firsthand the concrete richness of thought on this and other themes that

can be discovered there.

It is also my hope that this study has suggested, without betrayal

through oversimplification, how Gabriel Marcel's theater is a privileged

gateway into areas of inquiry that his philosophic reflections serve to

clarify.

The following section of this book offers information for those

wanting to know more about Gabriel Marcel.

174

There follow drawings by Stephen Healy depict the commemorative

medal commissioned by L'Hôtel des Monnaies (the National Mint of

France) and created by Charlotte Engels. One side presents a likeness

of Gabriel Marcel. The reverse side represents the myth of Orpheus

and Eurydice and bears the words fidélité, (fidelity); disponibilité,

(availability);and espérance, (hope). Marcel remarked that if he were to

choose mythological characters as a sign for his life he would choose

Orpheus and Eurydice. Certainly this choice highlights the centrality of

music in his life as well as his concern for loved ones who have passed

beyond death.

175

COMMEMORATIVE MEDAL OF GABRIEL MARCEL

Medal struck at La Monnaie

176

177

COMMISSIONED BY L'HÔTEL DES MONNAIE

For Présence De Gabriel Marcel

178

PART THREE: RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH

179

Works by Gabriel Marcel in Chronological Order of Composition with

Publisher References

A.Philosophical Works

(in chronological order of composition)

Les idées métaphysique de Coleridge dans leurs Rapports avec la

Philosophie de Schelling (1910) Coleridge et Schelling, (Présence et Pensée) Paris, Aubier Montaigne, 1971, 271 pp.

Fragments philosophiques, 1909-1914, Louvain, Editions Nauwelaerts,

1961. Philosophical Fragments, 1909-1914, Notre Dame, Indiana,

University of Notre Dame Press, 1965, 127 pp. English version

includes: Editors Note, “The Philosopher and Peace” by Gabriel Marcel,

“Foreword” by Gabriel Marcel, “Introduction” by Lionel Blain, “Philosophical

Fragments 1909-1914”, and “Epilogue” by Gabriel Marcel.

Journal métaphysique (1914-1923), Paris, Gallimard, 1927, Vol. XI, 341

pp. Metaphysical Journal, translated by Bernard Wall, Chicago, Henry

Regnery Company, 1952, Vol. XIII, 344 pp. English version adds

translator'

s note, p. v, and author'

s Préface to the English edition, p.

VII-XIII, 1950.

La Métaphysigue de Royce, Paris, Aubier, 1945, 225 pp. Royce’s Metaphysics, translated by Virginia and Gordon Ringer, Chicago, Henry Regnery Co., 1956, Vol. XVIII, 180 pp. English version includes

Préface by William Ernest Hocking, August 1956, p. V-VIII, Author'

Foreword to the English edition of Royce’s’

Metaphysic, July 1956, p. IX- XII. Reprinted 1975 by Greenwood Press, a division of WilliamhouseRegency

Inc.

"Position et approches concrètes du Mystère Ontologique" (1932) is

the text of a lecture delivered to the Philosophic Society of Marseille,

January 23, 1933. The essay was published in a volume with the play

entitled The Broken World, published by Desclée de Brouwer, Paris,

1933. The essay was later reprinted with an introduction by Marcel de

Corte and published by Louvain, Nauwelaerts, and Paris, Vrin, 1949. The

essay was again reprinted in the book Gabriel Marcel interrogé par

Pierre Boutang, Paris, J. M. Place, 1977, pp. 121-41, cf. p. 143. The

essay appeared in English translation by Manya Harari "On the

Ontological Mystery" in The Philosophy of Existentialism, Secaucas,

A new English translation by Katharine Rose Hanley was published in

180

Gabriel Marcel’s Perspectives on the Broken World, Milwaukee, WI,

Marquette University Press, 1998, pp. 172-196. (Etienne Gilson

considers these pages as important to an understanding of Gabriel

Marcel'

s thought as is the Introduction to Metaphysics to the

understanding of Henri Bergson s thought.)

Etre et Avoir (1928-1933) Paris, Aubier, 1935, 357 pp. Being and

Having, Westminster, Dacre Press, 1949. Reprinted: New York, Harper and Row, 1965, Vol. XVII, 236 pp., with an Introduction to

the Torchbook Edition by James Collins, pp. VI-XVII.

Du Refus à L'invocation, Paris, Gallimard, 1940, 326 pp. Creative

Fidelity, translated with introduction by Robert Rosthal, New York, Farrar,

Straus, and Company, 1964, Vol. XXVI, 261 pp.; New York, Crossroad

Press, 1982, and New York: Fordham University Press 2002.

Homo Viator, Paris, Aubier, 1945, 358 pp. Homo Viator, Introduction to

a Metaphysic of Hope, translated by Emma Craufurd; originally

published in English by Victor Gollancz, Ltd., London, and Henry

Regnery Company, Chicago, in 1951 and reprinted through arrangement

with Editions Montaigne, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1962, 270 pp.

"Regard en arrière" in Existentialisme chrétien: Gabriel Marcel, Présentation de Etienne Gilson, Paris, (Présences), Plon, 1947, pp.

291-319. "An Essay in Autobiography," translated by Manya Harari,

104-28, in The Philosophy of Existentialism.

Le Mystère de lÊtre, I. Réflexion et Mystère, II. Foi et Realité, Paris,

Aubier, 1951, 235, 188 pp. The Mystery of Being, I. Reflection and

Mystery, II. Faith and Reality, Vol. I translated by G. S. Fraser, Vol. II

translated by René Hague, London, Harvill Press, 1951. Gateway

Edition, Henry Regnery, Chicago, IL, 1960. The Gifford Lectures,

delivered at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, 1949. Reprinted

Lanham, MD, University of America Press, 1984.

Les Hommes contre l’humain, Paris, La Colombe, 1951, 206 pp. Man

Against Mass Society, translated by G. S. Fraser, Foreword by D. M.

Mackinnon, first published in Great Britain; A Gateway Edition, Chicago, IL,

Henry Regnery Company, 1962, 273 pp.

Le Declin de la Sagesse, Paris, Plon, 1954, 117 pp. The Decline of

Wisdom, translated by Manya Harari, London, Harvill Press, 1954, 56

181

pp., New York Philosophical Library, 1955.

Homme problématique, Paris, Aubier, 1955. Problematic Man,

translated by Brian Thompson, introduction by Leslie Dewart, New York,

Herder and Herder, 1967, 144 pp.

"Le Crepuscule du sens commun," in one volume with La Dimension

Florestan, Paris, Plan, 1958, 212 pp., pp. 170-212.

Présence et immortalité, Paris, Flammarion, 1959. Présence and

Immortality, Pittsburgh, PA., Duquesne University Press; Louvain, Editions

Nauwelaerts, 1967, 284 pp.

182

Auf des Suche nach Wahrneit und Gerichtigkeit, (1959-1963), ed.

Wolfgang Ruf, Freiburg, im Bresgau, Verlag Knecht, 1964. Searchings,

New York, Newman Press, 1967, 118 pp.

La Dignité humaine et ses assises existentielles, Paris, Aubier, 1964.

The Existential Background of Human Dignity, The William James

Lectures, Delivered at Harvard University, 1961-62, Cambridge, MA.,

Harvard University Press, 1963.

"Le Philosophe devant la Paix," (1964), in Paix sur la Terre, deux

discours et une tragédie, Paris, Aubier, 1965, 177 pp., pp. 41-60. "The Philosopher and Peace" in Philosophical Fragments, (1909-1914) and

The Philosopher and Peace, translated by Viola Herms Drath, p. 6-19, Notre Dame, IN., University of Notre Dame Press, 1965, 127 pp.

Entretiens Paul Ricoeur-Gabriel Marcel, Paris, Aubier, 1968. Pour une Sagesse Tragique et son au-delà, Paris, Plon, 1971. Tragic Wisdom

and. Beyond, including Conversations between Paul Ricoeur and

Gabriel Marcel, translated by Stephen Jolin and Peter McCormick, Evanston, IL., Northwestern University Press, 1973, XXXV-p. 256.

Includes translators'

introductions and authors’ “Préfaces” for English versions.

"An Autobiographical Essay" (Spring 1969), in The Philosophy of Gabriel

Marcel, Library of Living Philosophers, Ed. P. A. Schilpp and L. E. Hahn, La Salle, I1, Open Court, 1984, XVIII, 624 pp., pp.3-68.

En Chemin, vers quel éveil? Paris, Gallimard, 1971, 301 pp.,

Awakenings, trans. Rev. Peter Rogers, S.J., Milwaukee, WI, Marquette

Univ. Press, 2004

"De l"Audace en métaphysique," in Percées vers un ailleurs, Paris,

Fayard, 1973, pp. 405-21.

Entretiens autour de Gabriel Marcel, "De la recherche philosophique" in Neuchâtel: à la Baconnière; Paris, Diffusion

Payot, 1976, 287 pp., pp. 9-19.

Gabriel Marcel interrogé par Pierre Boutang, Followed by Position

et approches concrètes du Mystère ontologique, (Archives du XXe

Siecle, no. 1), Paris, J. M. Place, 1977, 143 pp.

Présence de Gabriel Marcel, Cahier 4, Gabriel Marcel et les injustices

de ce temps, La responsabilité du philosophe. Cahier publié avec le

concours de la Fondation Européene de la Culture, Membership

subscription received at secretariat de la Présence de Gabriel Marcel,

21 rue de Tournon, 75006, Paris, France.

183

B. Gabriel Marcel's Plays

(In chronological order of composition)

La Lumière sur la montagne (1905). Unpublished.

Le Seuil Invisible. Paris: Grasset, 1914. Contains two plays: La Grâce (composed March-April 1911) and Le Palais de Sable (composed August-September 1913).

Le Quatuor en fa dièse. Paris:Plon, 1925. Written in 1916-

1917.

Un Juste. First act of an unfinished play written in early 1918 published in Paix sur la Terre, deux discourse et une tragédie, Paris:Aubier, 1965, pp. 61- 6.

Insondable. First act of an unfinished play written March 1919, published in Présence et inmortalité, Paris: Flammarion, 1959, pp. 195-234.

Le Petit Garçon. An unpublished play in four acts written December 18-20, 1919.

Trois Pieces. Postwar 1919-1920, Paris: Plon, 1931. Contains three plays: Le Regard neuf, La Mort de demain, December 6-12, 1919; and La Chapelle ardente. (Several versions; 1949 edition contains revision and first version entitled Le Sol detruit. )

Iconoclaste. Paris: Stock, 1923. Original idea, 1914, first draft, 1916

entitled Le Porte-glaive: written 1919-1920.

Le Coeur des autres. Paris: Grasset, 1921 (Cahiers verts). Written

1920.

Un Homme de Dieu. Paris: Grasset, 1925 (Cahiers verts). Written 1922;

New edition: La Table Ronde, 1950.

Attelage ou le Noeud coulant. An unpublished play in four acts,

Written 1926.

Horizon. Paris: Aux Étudiants de France, 1945. Written 1928.

Le Monde cassé, followed by a philosophic meditation entitled Position et

approches concrètes du Mystère ontologique. Paris: Desclée De

Brouwer, 1933. Written 1932.

184

Le Fanal, Paris: La Vie Intellectuelle (Supplement, 1936); Paris:

Stock, 1936. Written December 26-28, 1935.

L Chemin de Crête, Paris: Grasset, 1936.

Le Dard, Paris: Plon, 1936.

Théâtre comique. Paris: Albin Michel, 1947. Contains four plays:

Les Points sur les I. Written November 6-9, 1936. First published,

Paris: Fayard, 1938, in Les oeuvres libres No. 208, October, 1938.

Le Divertissement posthume. Written 1923. Colombyre ou le

Brasier de la Paix. Written 1937. La Double Expertise. Written

1936.

La Soif. Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1938. Re-edition entitled Les

Coeurs avides, Paris: La Table Ronde, 1952.

Vers un autre royaume. Paris: Plon, 1949. Contains L’Emmissaire, et

Le Signe de la Croix, 1949.

La Fin des Temps. Paris: Realités, 1950.

Rome n’est plus dans Rome, Paris: La Table Ronde, 1951. Mon

Temps n’est plus le votre. Paris: Plon, 1955. Croissez et

multipliez. Paris: Plon, 1955.

La Dimension Florestan. Paris: Plon, 1958.

La Prune et la prunelle. Paris: L'

Avant-Scène, 1960.

C. Translations of Gabriel Marcel Plays into English.

(In chronological order of composition)

The Unfathomable. March, 1919. First act of an unfinished play, L’'

Insondable. Trans. Michael A. Machado, Rev. Henry J. Koren, published, Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1967, Presence and

Immortality.

The Funeral Pyre. Original title of Rosalind Heywood'

s translation of

La Chapelle ardente (c. 1920) published London: Seeker & Warburg,

185

1952; paperback edition, New York: Hill and Wang, 1965: Three Plays has the translation of La Chapelle ardente entitled The Votive

Candle, pp. 225-82.

The Votive Candle. Revised title given to trans. of La Chapelle ardente

originally entitled The Funeral Pyre as above.

The Rebellious Heart. trans. by Francis C. O'

Hara, M.SS.A, of Le Coeur des autres, a play in three acts (written in 1920) in The Existential Drama of Gabriel Marcel, ed. F. J. Lescoe, West Hartford, Conn.: St. Joseph College Mc Auley Institute Press,

1974, pp. 145-215. New translation by Katharine Rose Hanley,

under the title “The Heart of Others”, in “The Path to

Peace”,forthcoming, Milwaukee: WI, Marquette University

Press, 200?

A Man of God. Trans. by Marjorie Gabain of Un Homme de Dieu, a play

in four acts (written 1922), published in Three Plays, London: Secker

and Warburg, 1952; New York: Hill and Wang, 1965, pp. 35-144.

Broken World. Trans. by J. M. P. Colla, R.S.M., of Le Monde cassé, a

play in four acts (written 1932) published in Existential Drama of

Gabriel Marcel, 1974, pp. 19-144. New translation by Katharine

Rose Hanley, Gabriel Marcel’s Perspectives on The Broken

World, Milwaukee:WI, Marquette University Press, 1998, pp31-

152.

The Lantern. Trans. by J. Cunneen and E. Stambler of Le Fanal, a one

act play (written December 26-28, 1935), Cross Currents, VIII, 2 (Spring 1958), pp. 129-43; Revised translation, in “The Path to

Peace”, M.U.P., forthcoming 200?.

Ariadne, translation by Rosalind Heywood of Le Chemin de Crete (written 1935) a play in four acts published in Three Plays, New York: Hill and

Wang, 1965, pp. 115-224.

Dot the I. Trans. by Katharine Rose Hanley (written 1936) in Two One Act

Plays by Gabriel Marcel, Introduction by Jean-Marie and Anne Marcel, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1986, pp. 1-21. Cf.

as above, “The Path to Peace”.

The Double Expertise._ Trans. by Katharine Rose Hanley (written 1937) in Two One Act Plays by Gabriel Marcel, Introduction by Jean-Marie and Anne Marcel, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1986,

pp. 23-38. Cf. as above “The Path to Peace”.

186

C. Drama Criticism

D. Gabriel Marcel'

s Essays in English on Drama and Relations of

Theater and Philosophy in his Work:

"The Drama of the Soul in Exile," Préface, pp. 13-34 in Three Plays. (A

lecture given in July 1950 at l’Institut Français in London.)

"My Dramatic Works as Viewed by the Philosopher" (1959), pp. 93-

118 in Searchings, New York: Newman Press, 1967.

The Existential Background of Human Dignity (The William James

Lectures, 1961-62). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1963, 178 pp.

Introduction to The Existential Drama of Gabriel Marcel, ed. F. J. Lescoe,

pp. 9-18, West Hartford, CT: McAuley Inst. Press, St. Josephs

College, 1974.

"An Autobiographical Essay" (1969) in The Philosophy of Gabriel

Marcel, Library of Living Philosophers Vol. XVII, ed. P. A. Schilpp & L. E.

Hahn. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1984, pp. 1-68.

E. Gabriel Marcel'

s Books of Drama Criticism in French :

Théâtre et Religion, Paris: Vitte, 1958, 107 pp.

Heure Théatrale de Jean Giraudoux à Jean-Paul Sartre, Paris:

Plon, 1959, 230 pp.

Regards sur le Théâtre de Claudel, Paris: Beauchesne, 1964, 175 pp.

For additional essays published in French confer:

Chronological Bibliography of Works by Gabriel Marcel about his

Theater, pp. 39-42.

Drama reviews in periodicals are listed in Roger Troisfontaines, De

l’Êxistence à l’Être. La philosophie de Gabriel Marcel, pp. 385-464,

(1953; 2nd ed. 1968), Louvain, Nauwelaerts, Paris: Vr in.

Cf. Francois H. and Claire C. Lapointe: Gabriel Marcel and His Critics,

187

An International Bibliography, (1928-1976). New York and London:

Garland Press, 1977.

Also F. Lapointe, "A Bibliography of the Writings of Gabriel Marcel" in

The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel. The Library of Living

Philosophers, Vol. XVII, pp. 583-609 (1984).

188

E. Musical Compositions

Hommage à la Vie. (In Praise of Life), PP. 201-208.

Mes Manes à Clytie Music composed by Gabriel Marcel for a poem

by André Chenier. Appended in Marie-Madeleine Davy, Un

Philosophe Itinérant, Gabriel Marcel, (Homo Sapiens), Paris:

Flamrarion, 1959, p. 347.

Mélodie: Le Double. Music composed by Gabriel Marcel for a poem

by Jules Supervielle, pp. 321-24 in Existentialisme chretien: Gabriel

Marcel, présentation by Etienne Gilson, (Présences), Paris: Plon,

1947, p. 325.

Essays on Music Cahier 2-3, Présence de Gabriel Marcel

“L’Esthétique musicale de Gabriel Marcel,” par Jeanne Parain-Vial.

ARTICLES GENERAUX

Introduction: Gabriel Marcel et la critique musicale. Réflexions sur la

nature des idées musicales.

idée chez Cesar Franck.

Bergsonisme et musique.

Musique comprise et Musique vécue.

La Musique et le regne de l’esprit.

La Musique selon St. Augustin.

Réponse a l

enquête de “L’Image Musicale."

Irruption de la Melodie.

La Musique et le merveilleux.

Méditation sur la musique.

Humanisme et musique.

La musique dans ma vie et mon oeuvre.

GABRIEL MARCEL ET L'

AUTRICHE

Les melodies espagnoles et italiennes d’Hugo Wolf.

Discours d’ouverture du Festival de Salzburg 1965.

ECOLE FRANÇAISE

Un intimiste: Ernest Chausson.

Le lyrisme Debussiste.

189

Paul Dukas.

Henri Duparc.

Gabriel Fauré.

Cesar Franck.

Vincent d’Indy.

Albéric Magnard.

Maurice Ravel.

Albert Roussel.

DIVERS RÉFERENCES

Métaphores et exemples musicaux dans l’oeuvre de Gabriel

Marcel.

TEMOIGNAGE

Gabriel Marcel et le disque.

INDEX DES COMPOSITEURS CITÉS

INFORMATIONS

Subscriptions: Présence de Gabriel Marcel, 21 rue de Tournon,75006

Paris, France

Cf. L. Chaigne, Vie et oeuvres d'

Écrivains, Vol. 4, Paris: Lanore,

1954, pp. 252-53.

Hommage _ à la Vie. (In Praise of Life) is a copy of the piano

composition Gabriel Marcel improvised to bring J. Supervielle'

s poem to

its full expression as song. Gabriel Marcel improvised musical

compositions at the piano. His wife Jacqueline Boegner Marcel noted

the musical score for these piano compositions. This activity was

frequent and especially significant 1945-47. The sheet music for

Hommage à la Vie is reprinted here by kind permission of the family of

Gabriel Marcel.

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

Homage to Life

Words by JULES

SUPERVIELLE

Music by GABRIEL

MARECL

It is nice to have chosen

A living residence

And to house time

In a continuous heart,

And to have seen one'

s hands

Placed on the world

As on an apple

In a little garden,

To have loved the earth,

The moon and the sun,

As intimates

Which have no equals,

And to have entrusted

The world to one'

s memory

As a pale cavalier

On his black mount,

To have been friendly

To these concepts: wife, children,

And served as a shore

To wandering feelings,

198

Words by JULES SUPERVIELLE

Music by GABRIEL MARECL

And to have reached the soul

By small oar-strokes

Not to frighten it

By an abrupt approach.

It’s nice to have known

The shade under the foliage

And to have felt age

Creep over one’s nude body,

To have accompanied the pain

Of black blood in our veins

And gilded its silence

With the star Patience,

And to have all these words

Moving around in one’s head,

To choose the least loving

And celebrate it,

To have felt life

Premature and badly loved,

To have captured it

Into this poetry.

It’s nice to have known

The shade under the foliage

And to have felt age

Creep over one's nude body,

To have accompanied the pain

Of black blood in our veins

And gilded its silence

With the star Patience,

And to have all these words

Moving around in one'

s head,

To choose the least loving

And celebrate it,

To have felt life

Premature and badly loved,

To have captured it

Into this poetry.

Translated by

Janet Kawa and Judith Woodard

199

E. Combination Works by Gabriel Marcel

Books containing Works of both Theater and Philosophy (in

chronological order of composition)

Broken World and "On the Ontological Mystery" published together in

1933 in Le Monde Cassé, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer & Cie., 1933

(Collection Les Îles) followed by "Position et approches concrètes du

Mystère ontologique."

Le Dard et L’Universel contre les masses. Plon, 1936. Flammarion, 1951. (The Sting) and Man against Mass Society,_

Chicago: H. Regnery, 1952, 1962.

La Soif, followed by Gaston Fessard’s essay "Théâtre et Mystère," Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1938.

Rome n’est plus daps Rome et "

Les vrais problèmes de Rome n’est

plus dans Rome," Paris: La Table Ronde, 1951. (Rome is no longer in

Rome) and "The real issues of Rome is no longer in Rome," extract of

an article to appear in Hommes et Monde, presented by Gabriel Marcel

as an address May 18, 1951, at the Hébertot Theater.

La Dimension Florestan, Postface, "Le Crépuscule du Sens Commun" 1953-1954. (The Florestan Dimension) and ("The Twilight of Common Sense") and a Postface.

Présence et Immortalité, Paris: Flamrarion, 1959, contains

Metaphysical Journal 1938-43; essay, My Fundamental Purpose

(1937); essay Presence and Immortality (1951), originally entitled,

"On the Existential Premises of Survival," and The Unfathomable

(1919), the first act of an unfinished play.

Paix sur la terre, containing Un Juste (first act of an unfinished play)

and "Le philosophe devant la paix" (The Philosopher and Peace),

discourse pronounced upon the awarding of the Frankfurt Peace Prize,

Germany, 1964). Paris: Aubier, 1965, 177 pp.

Le Secret est dans les Îles, Paris: Plon, 1967, contains essay "Le

Secret est dans les Îles," Le Dard, L'

Emmissaire, La Fin des Temps. (The

Secret is in the Islands), contains a Preface by that title, the plays (The

Sting), (The Emissary), and (The End of Time).

Percées vers un Ailleurs, Paris: Fayard, 1973, contains Préface, L’ Iconoclaste, Commentaire de l’Abbé Belay, L’'

Horizon, Post face de

l’Horizon, Commentaire de l’Abbé Belay, essai "De L'

Audace en

200

Métaphysique.", (Daring in Metaphysics) by Gabriel Marcel in

(Breakthrough toward a Beyond). Contains two plays, (The

Iconoclast) and (The Horizon), a Préface to one and a postface to the

other, two commentaries by Marcel Belay, and an essay by Gabriel

Marcel, "Daring in Metaphysics."

Cinq Pieces Majeures. Un Homme de Dieu, Le Monde cassé, Le

Chemin de crête, La Soif, Le Signe de la Croix. (Five Major Plays:) A

Man of God, The Broken World, Ariadne, (The Thirst) and (The Sign of

the Cross) Paris: Plon, 1973. At the end of this book, Marcel noted that

he planned to reedit L'

Emissaire, (The Emissary), and to publish with it

an essay "La Philosophie de l'

Épuration" (1945) which until that date

(1973) had only appeared in a Canadian review. The essay "La

Philosophie de l’Epuration" appeared in Présence de Gabriel Marcel,

Cahier 4, Gabriel Marcel et les injustices de ce temps. La responsabilité

du philosophe, published with the sponsorship of the European Cultural

Foundation, Paris: Aubier, 1983, pp. 77-103. Subscriptions: Présence

de Gabriel Marcel, 21 rue de Tournon, 75006 Paris, France.

201

F. Bibliographies

Lapointe, Francois H., "A Bibliography of the writings of Gabriel Marcel,"

pp. 583-609, in The Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel, (The Library of

Living Philosophers, Vol. XVII),ed. P. A. Schilpp and L. E. Hahn, LaSalle,

IL: Open Court, 1984.

Lapointe, Francois H., "Bibliography on Gabriel Marcel," The

Modern Schoolman, Vol. 49, (November 1971), pp. 23-49.

Lapointe, Francois H. and Claire C., Gabriel Marcel and His critics,

An International Bibliography, (1928-76), New York and London:

Garland Publishing, Inc., 1977.

Troisfontaines, Roger, S. J., De lÊxistence à l’Être,

La Philosophie de Gabriel Marcel, Louvain, Nauwelaerts, Paris: Vrin,

1952 and 1968. Bibliography through 1964, Vol. 2, pp. 381-464.

Wenning, Gerald C., "Works By and About Gabriel Marcel," The Southern Journal of Philosophy,_ Vol. 4, No. 2, (Summer 1966), pp. 82- 96.

202

G. Partial List of Marcel Plays Staged and Produced

Information to update and add to this partial listing will be gratefully

received by the author, c/o Gabriel Marcel Institute of Existential

Drama, Le Moyne College, Syracuse, NY 13214

La Grâce

Grace

Le Coeur des

autres

The Rebellious

Heart

Le Regard neuf

The New Look

La Mort de demain

Tomorrows Dead

La Chapelle Ardente

The Votive Candle

The Funeral Pyre

Un Homme de Dieu

A Man of God

At the Théâtre Mathurins, by the Grimace

Company, Paris, 1921

At the Théâtre Grévin, by the

Canard Sauvage Group, Paris, 1921.

In English at Le Moyne College, Gabriel

Marcel Institute for Existential Drama,

November 10-12, 1975.

At the Ambigu, under the patronage of the

Escholiers, Paris, 1922.

At the Théâtre des Arts, then by the DeuxMasques,

Paris, 1937.

At the Théâtre des Jeunes Auteurs au Vieux

Colombier, Paris, 1925.

In English The Funeral Pyre at Newton

College of the Sacred Heart, Newton, MA.,

1961.

Presented by the Comédie de l’Est at the

Théâtre Montparnasse, June, 1949, and

extended to the Théâtre de l’Oeuvre where it

was performed for several months, 1949-50.

It was performed at Cobourg in Germany,

and in German at Munster, Westphalia. It

was also performed in England.

In English, Readers Theater versions were

performed at De Paul University, Drama

203

Program, February

1974, and at Le Moyne

College, Gabriel

Marcel Institute for

Existential Drama,

April 1978.

204

L'Horizon

The Horizon

Le Monde cassé

The Broken World

Le Fanal

The Lantern

La Double Expertise

The Double Expertise

Les Points sur les i Dot the I

Le Chemin de crête Ariadne

H. Centers of Research

Présence de Gabriel Marcel

21 rue de Tournon, 75006 Paris, France

Publication:

Présence de Gabriel Marcel, Cahier

address as above.

Cercle Gabriel-Marcel ????

Siege social:

Case Postale 67

Cap-de-la Madeleine, Quebec

Canada G8T 7W1

Publication:

Bulletin du Cercle Gabriel-Marcel, Revue

philosophique et littéraire. Published six times

a year since 1979. address as above.

205

Gabriel Marcel Theater Project, Dept of Philosophy, Le Moyne College, 1418, Salt Springs Rd. ,Syracuse,

New York 13214

English-Speaking Gabriel Marcel Society

Department of Philosophy

University of Current President:

Prof. Brendan Sweetman,

INDEX

abstraction, 20

abstraction, spirit of, 132, 144-45

antinomy, 6, 12, 15, 24, 129

Ariadne, 5

atheism, 132

authenticity, 119

availability, 61, 103, 119, 120, 123, 164, 166

Bach, Johann Sebastian, 4

Beethoven, Ludwig von, 4 being, 17, 55

Belay, Marcel, 12, 23

belief, believer, 133-34

belonging, 61, 119, 120, 123

Bergson, Henri, 29(n. 8)

betrayal, 122

brainwashing, 155, 165

Broken world, The, 5, 10, 11, 25

Chenu, Joseph, 23, 25

Christ, 154, 156, 159

co-esse, 60, 64, 120, 125, 163, 166

Colombyre or the Torch of Peace, 5, 129, 130-31, 135, 164

Comédie Française, La, 6, 77

commitment, 61, 103, 116, 117-18, 119, 121

communication, 15, 60, 69, 71, 89, 94

community, 129, 131-32

compassion, 9, 82, 93

concreteness, 20

concrete philosophy, 20

206

conscience, individual, 7, 16

creation, artistic, 6, 66

creative fidelity, 63, 65, 70, 71, 79, 83, 105-106, 123-24, 125, 129, 132,

135, 146-47, 157-68

Creative Fidelity 83, 100, 105, 113, 117, 118, 123, 131, 154, 155, 167

creative fidelity, as interpersonal Présence, 116-17

"Creative Vow as the Essence of Fatherhood, The," 103

creativity, 100-102, 103, 105, 106, 159, 163, 164, 166

"Dangerous Situation of Ethical Values, The," 129, 132-35

Dard, Le, see: Sting, The

Davy, M. M., 23

death, 18, 23, 55-59, 67, 69, 132, 142, 147

degradation, 145, 146, 155, 165

dehumanization, 144

desire, 67-68, 69

despair vs. hope, 18, 99, 100, 106

207

dialogue, 116

dignity, 17, 117, 132, 146

Dot the I, 89-94, 163-64

Double Expertise, The, 111-20, 124-25, 164

"Drama of the Soul in Exile, The," 12, 141

"Ego and Its Relation to Others, The," 21, 104

encounter, I-thou, 120, 123, 166

equality, 143

"Essay in Autobiography, An," 4, 25, 62, 63-64

Existential Background of Human Dignity, The, 89, 137, 141

existential witness, 14, 18, 89, 93, 163, 164

experience, 21

faith, 7, 16, 18, 84, 132

faithfulness, see: fidelity

family, 104

Fessard, Gaston, 14, 23, 25

fidelity, 7, 16, 65, 83, 105, 106, 117, 119, 122, 123-24, 154,155-56, 159,

163, 164, 165

forgiveness, 93

freedom, 9, 12, 14, 18, 71, 93, 106, 116, 117-18, 122, 135, 166

friendship, 68, 120, 123

Gallagher, Kenneth, 23

generation gap, 16

Gilson, Etienne, 29(n.8)

God, belief in, 154

God, in human situations, 165

God, in theater, 84

grace, 67, 71, 84, 133, 134-35, 146

Grâce, 5, 8

having, 68

Heidegger, Martin, 17

"Homage à la vie," see: "In Praise of Life"

Homo Viator, Introduction to a Metaphysic of Hope, 68, 100, 117, 122,

155

hope, 7, 11, 16, 23, 67-68, 69-70, 71, 121, 122, 125

human dignity, nature of, 17

Husserl, Edmund, 21

hypocrisy, 118

208

Iconoclast, The, 11, 24

immortality, 55, 58, 69, 70

incarnation, 68

Increase and Multiply, 5

infidelity, 7, 122

"In Praise of Life," 201, 203-209

interrogation, as a method, 21, 22

209

intersubjectivity, 23, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 116, 120, 125, 163

Invisible Threshold, The, 9, 17

Lantern, The, 6, 8, 77-85, 163

light, 66, 81, 83-84, 89, 99, 133

love, 13, 18, 62, 68, 69, 94, 104, 105, 116-123, 134, 156, 164, 165, 166

lucidity, 6, 8, 9

Man against Mass Society, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146

Man of God, A, 6

marriage, grounds for, 111-25

Metaphysical Journal, 56, 58, 65, 69

metaphysics, 19

Miceli, Vincent, 23

Moeller, Charles, 23

Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 4

music, 3-5, 19, 200-209

"My Fundamental Purpose," 56, 66

mystery, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 64, 70, 121, 137

"Mystery of Family, The," 21, 104

My Time Is Not Your Time, 5

Nietzsche, Friedrich, 142

"Obedience and Fidelity," 105, 113, 117, 124

"On the Ontological Mystery," 19, 24, 65, 105, 124

"Paradox of a Philosopher-Dramatist, The," 144

parenting, 103-104

peace, 16, 131

phenomenology, 21-22, 130, 133

philosophy,

and music, 3-5

and theater, see: theater, and philosophy

as personal, 17-18

concrete, not abstract, 20

neo-Socratic approach, 21, 71

pity, tragic 15

poverty, spiritual, 146

prayer, 122, 125

presence, 59-60, 61-71, 81, 120, 122, 124, 163, 165-66

Presence and Immortality, 19, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66, 67, 163

210

Presence, from beyond death, 7, 55-71, 83-85, 146-47, 156

Presence, interpersonal, 61, 83-84

Presence, I-thou, 62

propaganda, 143

Quartet in F#, 5

211

"Real Issues of Rome Is No Longer In Rome, The," 155, 156-57

Rebellious Heart, The, 10, 13, 97-106, 164

recollection, 21

reflection, 12, 15, 19, 21, 79, 84, 106, 129, 130, 160

relationship, I-thou, 120

responsibility, 70

revelation, 65

Ricoeur, Paul, 21, 23

Rome Is No Longer in Rome, 151-60, 164, 165

sacred, the, 4, 17

Scheler, Max, 142

Secret is in the Isles, The, 7, 23, 137, 138, 141, 148(n.2)

self-gift, self-disposition, 60, 62, 105, 118-20, 123, 125

“Sketch of a Phenomenology and a Metaphysics of Hope," 21

146-47, 156

Sting, The, 5, 137-47, 148(n.2), 164-65

stoic attitude, 155

suffering, 141

survival, after death, 7, 55-71, 83-85, 146-47, 156

"Techniques of Degradation,"

145

theater, 3, 5-19

and mystery, 14-15

and philosophy, 3, 15-19, 23-26, 77, 89, 106, 137, 141, 147, 168

comic, 112

existential, 129-30

"for a broken world," 9-12

of inquiry, 6, 13-14

of interiority, 8-9, 18

transcendence, 62, 63

Troisfontaines, Roger, 23

truth, as light, 77, 81, 84, 89, 93-94, 134-35, 163

unbelief, 18

Unfathomable, The, 5, 56-59, 61, 104, 163

values, 20, 29, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 146, 151, 157, 158, 164,

166-67

war,

212

About the Author

Katharine Rose Hanley holds a Ph.D. degree from the Higher

Institute of Philosophy, Louvain University, Belgium, where she first met

Gabriel Marcel in 1955. She is a Professor of Philosophy at Le Moyne

College, Syracuse, New York where she has taught since 1961. Since

1975 she has been Director of the Gabriel Marcel Institute of

Existential Drama at Le Moyne. Professor Hanley has authored books and numerous articles on metaphysical topics and on aspects of Gabriel Marcel'

s thought. She has lectured to national and international audiences. Recently she

addressed the International Gabriel Marcel Society in Paris as well as

the Société Française de

Philosophie at the Sorbonne.

The author has for several years been involved in translating and

editing some of Gabriel Marcel'

s 30 plays for English-speaking

audiences and in producing some of these plays for stage and

television.

213

214

Dramatic Approaches to Creative Fidelity: A Study in the Theater and Philosophy of Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973)

Gabriel Marcel Society

RESOURCES

I WANT TO:

COLLEGES