28 September 2019

"The Wickedest Man in the World": Aleister Crowley, Part 1


[On 20 January, I posted “Rudolf Steiner, Spiritual Scientist” on Rick On Theater.  It was supposed to be the first of three personality profiles I was planning to write for this blog; the second article was going to be this one, a biographical profile of occultist Aleister Crowley.  I expected it would be about the same size as the Steiner profile, seven or eight pages of typescript.  Man, was I wrong!

[I started working on “‘The Wickedest Man in the World’: Aleister Crowley” in the middle of last January, right after I finished “Rudolf Steiner”—and I didn’t compete it until the end of September!  Aside from some intervening posts with short deadlines, I just had no idea how complicated and involved Crowley’s life was—or how complex his ideas and philosophies are.

[As I say below, my introduction to Aleister Crowley was pursuant to some research I was doing a couple of decades ago.  I was, however, focused on just one small aspect of this multifarious man’s biography and ideas.  I was surprised to find that I not only had to cover much more territory than I imagined, but I had to make momentous decisions about what to include and what to leave out.  And before I even got to that decision, I had to decipher what Crowley was saying and thinking—not writing or editing, but just unpacking!  I had to stop and look up a lot of stuff.

[The result that starts below, even as bare-bones as it is, is six parts.  (I will be posting all six installments in a row at three-day intervals.)  I hope that ROTters won’t find reading “Aleister Crowley” as hard going as I did composing it.  The story of the famous—and infamous—occultist is an exceedingly strange tale and I hope you will stick with it till the end.  I warn you, though: you may find some of what you will read hard to believe.  I assure you, however, that this is not fiction.  That is to say, most of it isn’t.  See what you make of it—and of Aleister Crowley, “the wickedest man in the world.”]

His mother, a fundamentalist Christian, called him “The Beast,” and he reportedly reveled in the soubriquet.  The press of his day labeled him “the wickedest man in the world,” a title he adopted himself.  He had followers, but he often seemed to court the opprobrium of everyone else.

Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) was an occultist, a mystic, an esotericist, and a student of magic.  He was the most renowned magic practitioner and theoretician of the 20th century and wrote numerous books about the subject.  Crowley was also a poet, sexual revolutionary, and general iconoclast and influenced popular culture, including that of later generations.

He advocated ceremonial magic as a means of training the will, and of constantly directing one’s thoughts to a given objective through the trappings of the ritual.  He founded a religious philosophy known as Thelema, a mix of sex, spirituality, and freedom, the chief precept of which is the sovereignty of individual will: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”  Thelema’s second commandment is “Love is the Law, love under will,” making its appeal to the hippie counterculture of the 1960s intense.

My introduction to Crowley came though Leonardo Shapiro (1947-96), the experimental stage director on whom I’ve written quite a bit for Rick On Theater.  Shapiro was into magic—first, stage magic (that is, prestidigitation or illusion) and then supernatural magic (thaumaturgy)—and had read Crowley, especially when he was in New Mexico in the late 1960s, where he used a Crowley incantation in his Halloween 1969 performance of W. B. Yeats’s “The Second Coming” in Taos (see “Cheerleaders of the Revolution,” posted on this blog on 31 October 2009). 

When I read in Shapiro’s notes (sent to me posthumously in about 2003) that he’d been into Crowley, I had to find out who he was and what he believed and wrote.  (Crowley made a distinction between magic, which is legerdemain or sleight of hand, and magick, which was Crowley’s word of “real” or paranormal magic.  The latter spelling may show up in quotations and book titles, but I’ll be using the standard form, which, unless I specify otherwise, will refer to supernatural magic.)

Aleister Crowley (he liked to point out that his family name rhymed with ‘holy’) was born in Warwickshire, England (the county that gave us William Shakespeare), on 12 October 1875 as Edward Alexander Crowley.  His mother, Emily Bertha Crowley (née Bishop, 1848-1917), and father, Edward Crowley (1829-87), were a wealthy couple and members of the Exclusive Brethren of the Christian evangelical movement, known as the Plymouth Brethren.  The elder Edward Crowley was trained as an engineer but owned a share of a profitable family brewery.  This made it possible for him to retire before his son was born and eventually young Crowley, called Alick in boyhood, would inherit his father’s wealth, £150,000 (valued at the 2019 equivalent of $6½ million, of which Aleister would receive one third when he came of age), allowing him to indulge pretty much his every whim (which he did, with abandon). 

The future Aleister Crowley rejected his parents’ fundamentalism, even mainstream Christianity, freeing him, it seems, to manifest a libertine lifestyle.  (It was this behavior that prompted Emily Crowley, who had a fraught relationship with her son, to dub him The Beast, a reference in the Book of Revelation to the devil.)  The boy’s father had been a devout practitioner of his Christian faith, even serving as an itinerant preacher.  He read a chapter of the Bible to his family every morning.  (Edward and Emily Crowley also had a daughter, Grace Mary Elizabeth, who had died a few hours after she was born in 1880.)  The elder Crowley died of cancer on 5 March 1887, when Alick was 11; young Crowley claimed to have had a dream while at school in Cambridge on that very night foretelling his father’s death. 

After his dream was realized, Alick, who, despite Edward’s austere parenting, had always admired his father, was never the same again.  He blamed the Plymouth Brethren for his father’s death because, despite recommendations by reputable physicians that he have surgery, the Brethren rejected the advice in favor of prayer and homeopathic treatment.  Even at this young age, because of his anger at the Brethren and his animosity toward his mother, who had taken up her late husband’s religious devotion and become a zealot even by Brethren standards, Crowley alienated himself from his family.

In 1883, before his father’s death, Alick had been sent at 8 years of age to an evangelical boarding school in Sussex, where, as an exceptionally bright but physically awkward child (he was chubby and non-athletic), he endured years of teasing and bullying.  Needless to say, he hated the school and in 1885 he was transferred to a school in Cambridge run by a former Anglican priest who’d become a member of the Plymouth Brethren.

Alec, as he began calling himself now, was happy at the new school at first.  He was very active in schoolwork, writing his first poems, heavily influenced by Brethren hymns, around 1886, for example, and making friends and winning awards for both religious knowledge and academics.  But after his father’s death, he began to have disciplinary troubles.  The headmaster was exceedingly strict, confronting infractions by meting out punishments such as placement in “Coventry” and caning.  (Corporal punishment was common in British schools in the 19th century.  “Coventry” was a form of ostracism in which the child being punished couldn’t communicate with anyone at the school, student or teacher, nor they with him.  The boy would be separated from everyone else at all times.)  Crowley labeled this headmaster a sadist, but by the practices of the day, he seems to have been no more than excessively stern with the troubled and misbehaving Alec.  Around 1888, he was removed from school once again after he developed a liver ailment. 

Among Crowley’s misdeeds was his habit of pointing out contradictions in the Bible to his religion teachers—not a practice, I’m sure you’ll see, that was bound to ingratiate the boy with the school’s faculty and headmaster.  He also began indulging in a lifestyle that contradicted the Christian morality in which he’d been raised by smoking, masturbating, and, later, having sex with prostitutes from whom he contracted venereal diseases (what today are labeled sexually transmitted diseases, or STD’s).  He had come to detest as hypocritical the religiosity of the Brethren, including his mother’s fanatical devotion; the rigid evangelism of her brother, his Uncle Tom Bond Bishop (1839-1920); and the authoritarian harshness of his former headmaster. 

Religion, at least as it was manifested by his circle of evangelicals—and his mother’s fanaticism had restricted his access to any other examples of religious practice—had become intolerable to Alec Crowley.  He began to believe that it was wrong about God, and if so, it must be wrong about sin, which he’d been brought up to fear.  He decided, therefore, to devote himself to becoming a sinner—even the greatest sinner in the world! 

After recovering from his illness, Crowley’s mother decided to keep him at home and have him tutored.  Her brother would select the teachers—based largely on their religious devotion more than their academic qualifications.  Finding them all his intellectual inferiors, young Crowley tormented them and one after another, they left.  Meanwhile, Alec was engaging in a regimen of physical rehabilitation and exercise which included rock climbing and fishing, as well a traveling.  (The climbing eventually brought him to Scotland which would be an important influence on his life.) 

Soon Alec was well enough to return to school and between 1891 and 1895, Crowley attended several local colleges (which in England are secondary schools more like prep schools).  During this period, Crowley increased his interests in playing chess, writing and reading poetry, and climbing mountains.  In this last pursuit, he climbed nearby cliffs, then went to Europe and climbed in the Alps (notably, the Swiss peaks of the Eiger, Jungfrau, and Wetterhorn, among others) and ultimately joined the Scottish Mountaineering Club.  He became greatly enamored of Scottish culture and eventually bought an estate on the shore of Loch Ness and took to wearing Highland garb.  (This was probably the most conventional of Crowley’s habit of dressing up, as he later wore more elaborate and extravagant costumes.)

It was at this time, too, that he shed his childhood name.  In 1895, he began studies in philosophy at Trinity College of Cambridge University.  (He later switched to English literature.)  Starting a new stage in his life, now an adult (and, now of age, inheritor of his share of his father’s estate, the modern equivalent of over $2 million), Crowley was dissatisfied with his given names.   He didn’t like the sound of “Alick” and “Alec” was too boyish; he rejected all the nicknames and diminutives of both Edward and Alexander, and ultimately settled on Aleister, the Scottish Gaelic form of Alexander. 

The new name satisfied his “romantic ideals” and “Aleister Crowley” had a favorable poetic scansion for predicting future fame.  (I won’t go into this, but it’s a sort of poetic numerology.)  I suspect it also immensely gratified his ego, being a self-chosen name that was unconnected to his family and would have stood out because of its rarity and Crowley’s idiosyncratic spelling.  (The spelling is nearly unique to Crowley.  The usual Anglicized form is Alistair, from the Gaelic Alasdair.) 

Though he devoted himself to the study of literature and, especially, poetry, publishing many of his own verses in student journals, Crowley spent much of his time at Cambridge in personal pursuits.  He practiced chess for two hours a day and became head of the chess club; he traveled to the continent to pursue his interest in mountain climbing, becoming known in the mountaineering community for his exploits.  Crowley also maintained an active sex life, mostly consorting with female prostitutes—from one of whom he contracted syphilis. 

In December 1897, however, Crowley met Herbert Charles Pollitt (also known as Jerome Pollitt; 1871-1942), who had left Cambridge with his masters degree in 1896.  Pollitt had been president of the university’s Footlights Dramatic Club and had become quite famous as a female impersonator (his stage name was Diane de Rougy).  Pollitt was also a devotee of Decadent art and literature, a movement that celebrated perversion and vulgarity and promoted the superiority of human creativity over logic and nature.  The Decadents and their followers abandoned their craft and values for the sake of pleasure.

Pollitt attracted Crowley partly because of his air of freedom and unfetteredness in comparison with Crowley’s abstemious upbringing at the hands of his father and the Plymouth Brethren.  It’s also fair to add that Pollitt was an eye-catching man—and made a beautiful woman when in drag.  Pollitt and Crowley began a sexual relationship and lived together as a couple, even though homosexuality was illegal in England at the time (and remained so until 1967).  Indeed, that may have been part of the attraction of the relationship for Crowley.  In any case, it opened him to recognizing his own bisexuality.  Crowley’s father had sternly warned him against homosexuality at the time he went off to boarding school and young Alec had been accused of sodomy by the headmaster of the Brethren school in Cambridge, but he’d never really come to grips with his own sexual proclivities until Pollitt came into his life. 

At this same time, Crowley traveled to St. Petersburg, Russia, ostensibly to study the language in preparation, he said, for a career in diplomacy.  Some biographers of Crowley speculate, however, that he went to Russia on behalf of the British secret service and that he’d been recruited as a spy while at Cambridge.  (Though this rumor persisted throughout Crowley’s life, I don’t believe there was ever any proof of its veracity.  It was common practice, however, for future agents of MI5 and MI6 to be spotted, vetted, and recruited while at Cambridge and Oxford Universities.  If you want the best of the best, you go where they are—especially when they’re young and idealistic.  So the scenario isn’t beyond credibility—except perhaps for the matter of Crowley’s lifestyle, which would have been anathema to either the diplomatic or secret services.  ROTters will recall that I had connections to both in the 1960s and ’70s.)

At the end of the previous year, 1896, Crowley had what he considered his first mystical experience.  He’d been ill briefly and was in Stockholm during the Christmas holiday when he suddenly awoke one night with the revelation that he possessed a magical power to call forth the “immanent deity.”  (Some biographers and chroniclers of Crowley’s life and thought interpret this report as a covert description of a homosexual encounter, but others, perhaps more astutely, assert that Crowley had his mystical experience because of the sexual act.)  This seems key to Crowley’s development as an occultist. 

An immanent deity (as explained to me by my friend Kirk Woodward, who’s made a serious study of theology) is a god who pervades the material world and all creation.  This is in contrast to the Judeo-Christian God who is “transcendent,” in that He or She created the material universe, but isn’t part of it, remaining above or beyond the created world.  Occultists and mystics, among other believers, conceive of a deity who inhabits the fabric of the material universe.

As I see this applied to Crowley and his occultism—and I’m jumping ahead a few years in the development of his thinking—if there’s an immanent deity who exists within the material world, and Crowley and his followers/colleagues can summon this deity/spirit, then they can control the material world at their will—hence, perform magic/miracles.  These are things Crowley and his adepts actually claimed to know about and be able to do.  (This all gets tied up with Satan; the spirits the occultist reported that he called up to do his bidding were demons.)  

Crowley and his followers may have been charlatans and poseurs or they may have been sincere, but they actually lived by these beliefs.  This wasn’t J. K. Rowling, J. R. R. Tolkien, or George R. R. Martin creating a fictional universe.  These folks were living in Warwickshire, Sussex, Cambridge, and London!  

However vague, the mystic event, which Crowley reported occurred again a year later in Amsterdam, changed the direction of his life.  He gave up the prospect of a diplomatic career and reduced his interests in chess and mountaineering to pastimes he enjoyed merely for recreation.  He decided to devote his life to the occult. 

At Christmas 1897, walking the streets of Amsterdam, Crowley had a “crisis of faith.”  For one thing, he’d been contemplating mortality and decided that a life in diplomacy would not provide him with any substantial renown.  (Remember that Crowley chose his first name in part because “Aleister Crowley” had the requisite poetic meter to presage fame.)  Success as a great poet might make him famous in his lifetime, but he concluded that such fame wouldn’t last long after his death.  He found no answers to his dilemma in either God or Jesus, and so he turned his back on the faith of his upbringing and turned to the only alternative he knew: the devil. 

Seeking more information, Crowley came upon a newly published book in 1898, The Book of Black Magic and of Pacts by Arthur Edward (A. E.) Waite (1857-1942).  It turned out to be a collection of books on magic from the Middle Ages.  It also introduced Crowley to the notion of an alternative route to spiritual truth of which he’d never heard in his sheltered life.  He wrote to Waite for additional information and the author responded.  Waite recommended that Crowley read the recent translation of a book by German mystic Karl von Eckartshausen (1752-1813), The Cloud Upon the Sanctuary (1802; tr. 1896). 

Crowley complied and spent his Easter holiday with Pollitt climbing and reading.  Pollitt, who didn’t share Crowley’s passion for either mountaineering or mysticism, saw that the two were drifting apart.  Indeed, this divergence of interests did soon scuttle the relationship.  Crowley ended his affair with Pollitt in the summer of 1898, though he later recorded that he regretted doing so for the rest of his life.
                                                                                                                 
After publishing several books of poetry, including White Stains, a collection of Decadent erotic poems that Crowley had issued without his name by an underground publisher who had it printed in Amsterdam because the author feared it wouldn’t pass the British government censors, Crowley left Cambridge in July 1897 without taking a degree.  (Some of the poems included in White Stains were “A Ballad of Passive Paederasty” and “Necrophilia.”  The publisher was Leonard Charles Smithers, 1861-1907, who also published Decadent writer and artist Aubrey Beardsley and poet and playwright Oscar Wilde, 1854-1900.  Wilde had been released in May 1897 from two years’ incarceration at hard labor in  Reading Gaol for sodomy and “gross indecency.”)  

The next month, Crowley met Julian L. Baker (1873-1958), with whom he shared an interest in alchemy (a subject to which Crowley’d been introduced by Waite), while on a climbing holiday in Zermatt, Switzerland (site of the famous Matterhorn alp).  Back in London, Baker introduced Crowley to his brother-in-law, George Cecil Jones (1873-1960), a member of the occult society the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.  (Hermeticism is a mostly medieval philosophy that traces its origins back to the writings of Hermes Trismegistus, attributed author of 2nd-century C.E. mystical, religious, philosophical, astrological, and alchemical texts and identified by mystics and alchemists with Thoth, the ibis- or baboon-headed Egyptian god of wisdom, writing, hieroglyphs, science, magic, art, judgment, and the dead.  The tenets of the Hermetic tradition are too complex to describe here; curious readers are encouraged to look it up on their own.) 

Crowley became a member of Golden Dawn in November 1897 and took the magical name “Frater Perdurabo,” which he translated as “I shall endure to the end.”  It was the practice of most mystical orders for initiates to choose and adopt magical names, a kind of alias, both as a symbol of their start to a new life within the order and as protection against persecution and rejection by their families and associates.  Often, the magical name had numerological or gematric (a Kabbalistic form of numerology) significance. 

In addition to Perdurabo in Golden Dawn, Crowley, for example, was also known as “Mega Therion” (“The Great Beast” in Greek) in Thelema, “Baphomet” (the name of a deity which medieval Christians imagined that pagans, the Knights Templar, and, sometimes, Muslims worshipped) in the Ordo Templi Orientis (“Order of the Temple of the East” or “Order of Oriental Templars”), and in AA as “V.V.V.V.V.” (the initials of his motto for his grade of Master of the Temple, Vi Ver Vniversum Vivus Vici, Latin for “By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe”).

All of Crowley’s brothers and sisters in the various orders which he joined or started also took magical names or mottoes, and the occultist assigned his “Scarlet Women,” the earthly emissaries of the Thelemic deities who are sorts of sex goddesses-cum-earth mothers, magical names as well.  The men were all “Frater” (Brother) So-and-So and the women “Soror” (Sister) Such-and-Such.  (I won’t use these magical names, though many Crowley biographers do, because, frankly, remembering who they are and keeping them all straight gets confusing.  Besides, in addition to the reasons for their use that I stated earlier, I think the prime rationale was an affectation that was part of the play-acting and showmanship of these practices, like the costumes they devised and their use of languages like Hebrew, ancient Greek, Latin, and ancient Egyptian—which were also the sources of most of the names and mottoes the members concocted.)

The same biographers who posited that Crowley had gone to Russia on a mission for British intelligence assert that he joined Golden Dawn to keep tabs on the organization’s leader, Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers (1854-1918).  (The rationale for this was apparently political, but of a nature that would require a lengthy explanation to be comprehensible to a 21st-century readership.  It had to do with the 18th-century succession to the Spanish throne.  Go figure.)

Moving into a sumptuous apartment in London, Crowley brought in a senior member of Golden Dawn, Allan Bennett (1872-1923), to live with him as his private magic tutor.  Bennett taught Crowley about ceremonial magic (magic in which the practitioner uses specific rituals and invocations to call upon the spirit world) and the use of drugs in magic rituals.  Together, they conducted the ritual of the Goetia, the summoning of demons, until Bennett left England to study Buddhism in South Asia. 

In November 1899, Crowley bought the Scottish manor Boleskine House on the shores of Loch Ness and proclaimed himself the “Laird of Boleskine.”  (The Scottish Highlands have long been a place associated with mystery and supernatural happenings, largely because of its mountainous and mist-shrouded terrain, its isolation, and its sparse population.  The famed Loch Ness Monster, however, did not become popularized until 1933.)

Crowley published several more books in the years 1898 and ’99, including a play, Jephthah (1899), considered a critical success.  Crowley’s other books achieved mixed critical reception.  Meanwhile, Crowley climbed the ranks of membership in Golden Dawn even though his bisexuality and the dissolute lifestyle he openly practiced made him unpopular in the Order.  One member with whom he especially feuded was the Irish poet William Butler Yeats (1865-1939), a devotee of Irish legends and the occult.  Yeats thought Crowley was demented and immoral and Crowley accused Yeats of being jealous of his poetic gifts.  Crowley is said to have accused Yeats of using black magic against him and the Irish poet may have been the model for a character in Crowley’s roman à clef, Moonchild (1929).  Yeats helped oust Crowley from Golden Dawn.

The London temple of Golden Dawn refused to promote Crowley from the Outer Order to its Second Order in 1899, so Crowley went directly to Samuel Mathers, who initiated Crowley in Paris in 1900.  This finalized a rift between Mathers and the London branch of the Order and he and Crowley were isolated from the rest of Golden Dawn, which subsequently splintered into a bunch of spinoffs around 1901. 

In June 1900, Crowley traveled to Mexico, with stops in the United States en route in July.  In Mexico. he continued his experiments in ceremonial magic and claimed to have become a Freemason during his sojourn there.  Around November, he founded his own occult order, the Lamp of Invisible Light (LIL) in Guanajuato. 

He was drawn to Mexico and settled in Mexico City, where he even fell in love with a Mexican woman.  He published several more poems in Oracles (1905) and wrote a play, Tannhäuser: A Story of All Time. (1902), the tale of a knight’s descent into various worlds based on Richard Wagner’s 1845 opera.  He also climbed some local peaks, including the active volcano Popocatepetl, before leaving Mexico for the Far East. 

[Well, there’s the beginning of this strange journey.  I hope you’re still with me—it gets stranger as we go along, believe me.  I’ll be posting Part 2 on Rick On Theater in three days, and I hope you’ll come back to see where “‘The Wickedest Man in the World’: Aleister Crowley” will take you next.  Hint: I try to explain the occultist’s religion, Thelema, in the second part.]

23 September 2019

Dispatches from Israel 18

by Helen Kaye

[Helen Kaye, a theater reviewer and cultural reporter for the Jerusalem Post, has been a contributor to Rick On Theater for many years now; her last contribution was posted on 26 March 2019.  I’ve published or republished many of her articles on theater and travel (which have been posted under the byline Helen Eleseari), but all her reviews have all been posted under the collective title “Dispatches from Israel,” of which this is the 18th installment, always covering two or more notices of productions from various theaters around the country.

[In this collection, Helen has included four reviews dating from 13 August to 10 September; I’m posting them in reverse chronological order because I want to spotlight the latest play for which Helen sent me a review, Shahar Pinkas’s Next in Line.  I won’t recap her review, but I want to point out that Pinkas’s biblical tale of King David, the 11th-century BCE king of Israel, is presented as a commentary on current Israeli society, politics, and political personalities.  In that sense, it resembles William Shakespeare’s history plays.

[Several of the playwrights and directors of the shows covered in “Dispatches 18” have appeared in previous installments of Helen’s contributions: playwright Pinkas (1 past review), director Omri Nitzan (4), and playwright-director Aya Kaplan (1); curious ROTters are urged to use the search application above to look up these artists’ past work as discussed on ROT by Helen Kaye.]

Next in Line
By Shahar Pinkas
Directed by Shir Goldberg
Beersheva Theater; 10 September 2019

Via the “TV” we are being earnestly addressed by King David (Natan Datner) regarding the necessity of peace talks with the Philistines and the equal necessity of making sure they fully understand the mailed fist in the armored glove, i.e. that real peace is never on the table. During his address David wears his crown, an uncomfortable looking iron circlet to which are attached sharp-pointed triangles that look like spears, alternatively a crown of thorns. And up pops another analogy “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” ([Shakespeare’s] Henry IV, p. 2, Act III, sc.1)

And the crown, right now, and incidentally he never removes it, sits insecurely on David’s head. He’s old. He’s sick. He’s failing. All the more reason to hold on, not to let go, to relinquish power to another. Holding onto power is the focus of his thinking – does this strike a chord? All else is marginal which is why, when Nehemia the Servant (Ron Bitterman) comes in to tell him at various times throughout the play that a ‘representative of the people’ seeks an audience, he’s rebuffed; and when that ‘representative’ dies, the chandelier, oddly enough – or perhaps it signifies the obligations he is ignoring – a larger version of David’s crown, collapses.

Not that the vultures aren’t circling anyway. Chief among them is his eldest son, Adoniyah whom Tom Avni meticulously and beautifully depicts as a traitorous, treacherous weasel willing to suborn, plot, lie, anything to get him the throne, anything to get his father’s withheld love. Not far behind is Yoav (Jonathan Cherchi), his top general who views David’s increasing feebleness with alarm – “If the king is weak, the nation is weak,” he pronounces as he tempts Adonyah to treason, only to be betrayed in his turn.

Then there are the women, Batsheba (Adva Edni), and Avishag (Inbar Dannon), both opportunists, the former blatant, the latter not, each manipulating David for their own ends.

Sitting (more or less) above the fray is Nathan the prophet, a solid, watchful Muli Shulman whose advice the king mostly ignores. And then there’s Solomon (Oren Cohen), also watchful, the outsider, the one who gets the crown – and we all know the story.

This is a good-looking contemporary production, designed by Ula Shevstov and Natasha Polyak, the only oddities being the belts worn by Yoav and Adoniyah, the belt signifying an encompassing will to power.

And as in other Pinkas/Goldberg productions, it’s the cast that move the few set pieces that denote place and time.

It’s a strong cast. For the rest, Datner’s David is a man beset, afraid, employing bluff and bluster to hide his weaknesses from others and himself. As Bathsheba, Edni never lets her guard down, displays an enviable single-mindedness and leaves us in no doubt where her loyalties lie. Dannon’s Avishag maintains her “sweet naivety” mask to good effect. Cherchi’s Yoav is stalwart, a man convinced of his own rectitude. As Solomon, Cohen is not only watchful, but careful and fully aware that all he has to do is let it happen.

Pinkas/Goldberg have described their intense, enthralling drama as a biblical political thriller, and it surely works in that context. As a parable for the politics and machinations of our own time, it’s more inferred than demonstrated.

[Helen makes only one passing comment referring to the parallels Pinkas depicts to present-day Israel—but remember that she’s writing for an Israeli readership.  Severely restricted in the length of her JP reviews as she is, it’s reasonable for Helen to assume that any Israeli theatergoer seeing Next in Line or reading her notice will immediately glean Pinkas’s intentions.  For us here in the U.S. and elsewhere outside Israel, suffice it to say that David is meant to evoke Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; ROTters can look up or deduce the other characters’ contemporary avatars.  (The Beersheva production of Next in Line was staged, and Helen’s review written and published, before the parliamentary elections in Israel on Tuesday, 17 September 2019.)

[By the way, I contend that Next in Line, at least from Helen’s description above, sounds as if it could apply a little to the current U.S. political scene and our political dramatis personae—perhaps not directly, but in the vein of the way Macbeth was adapted by Barbara Garson in 1967 as MacBird!  Just a thought . . . .]

*  *  *  *
Pregnancy
By Edna Mazya
Directed by Omri Nitzan
Cameri Theater, Tel Aviv; 8 September 2019

When Efi (Maya Dagan) announces that she wants to have a baby, old flame and now fertility expert Ido (Oded Leopold) cackles mirthfully. Efi? Baby? Oh come on! Successful businesswoman Efi and famous physicist Yoni (Micha Selektar) have a wonderful and deliberately childless marriage. In fact, at her 39th birthday party (which starts the play), Efi lets loose a pretty vicious antikid rant, so a kid? Yes, well, biology starts talking, Efi obtains Yoni’s unwilling assent and they get going. Except that Efi doesn’t get pregnant, and doesn’t get pregnant, and what started as a desire for a child has become an obsession with seemingly disastrous results.

Efi is a go-getter, successful in all that she sets her hand to. It’s therefore inconceivable that she cannot accomplish the most mundane of biological processes – that of reproduction – and it’s her growing obsession that drives this intelligent, quick-witted, and meaty drama. Pregnancy is the vehicle. Par for the Mazya course, it should be said.

Director Nitzan has liberally ladled his considerable talent onto the production so that it too is intelligent, quick-witted and meaty, engaging the eyes and the mind. The cast is uniformly excellent, acting with rather than at, each other.

Maya Dagan takes Efi from a committed, confident and energetic woman to a self-demeaning, self-abdicating wraith that never changes out of her pajamas, as she allows the character’s increasing desperation to infect her life – until . . .

At first Selektar’s Yoni never really leaves the safety of his professional world, then is prized from it inch by slow inch until he achieves humanity, due to his genuine love for Efi, and pushed, it must be said by Na’ama Shetrit, as his passionate ‘I have to change the world’ sister Nati. Kinneret Limoni shines as the exuberant yet grounded Rona, Leopld’s Ido is a tuned mix of torn emotions, Dana Meinrath’s Sarai is out of place among these high flyers but her instincts are sound and the compassion is real. Helena Yaralova cameos efficiently as Efi’s hi-tech partner, Galia.

Adam Keller’s all-white set of oblong boxes - suggesting sterility among the rest – plus an upstage table, serves as the spaces where the events occur while the table is the background for Yoav Cohen’s deft video art and graphics, so essential to move the plot along.

The play ends as it began, with a birthday party, but with a different dynamic this time, because the protagonists have grown. Dare we say grown up?

*  *  *  *
Abdullah Schwarz
By Rami Vered
Directed by Roni Pinkovitch
Bet Lessin, Tel Aviv; 22 August 2019

The Schwarz Family lives in Savyonei Shomron, a West Bank settlement. Tziki Schwarz (Avi Kushnir) is an accountant contemplating divorce from his wife of 30 years, Tirtza (Anat Waxman). However . . .

It’s Lali Schwarz’s (Efrat Baumwald) wedding day. She’s marrying Aviel Tzur (Shlomo Tapiero), not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but . . .

The reading of a seemingly innocuous verse turns Papa Tziki Schwarz of Savyonei Shomron on the West Bank into Egyptian Abdallah with no recollection of his true identity. Reading the verse again turns him back to Tziki with no memory of his Arab identity, except that . . .

Oh for heaven’s sake!

Roni Pinkovitch has directed one of the funniest, smartest local comedies to come along in ages. It gleefully slays every sacred cow in sight while keeping its tongue firmly in its cheek. Events go south and back again as a superb cast imperturbably juggles an incipient security situation, Mossad shenanigans [Mossad is the Israeli national agency for intelligence collection, covert operations, and counterterrorism], hatred of Arabs, co-existence, romance and what not, with maximum brio and without ever dropping a ball (to mix metaphors).

It all happens on Zeev Levy’s convincing indoor/outdoor set complete with outsize Israeli flag, aided and abetted by good costuming (Aviah Bash), lighting (Adi Shimrony), music (Elad Adar), movement (Sharon Gal), and not least by Rubi Moskovich’s Arab/Egyption dialog coaching of Kushnir.

Kushnir is phenomenal as Tziki/Abdullah – there’s no other word for his effortless switching between somewhat hen-pecked, a mite gormless Tziki and the virile, potent man-with-a-mission Abdullah. Anat Atzmon, a truly fine actress, has (unhappily) been somewhat typecast these past few years as a Shrew. Yes, her Tirtza is a shrew, but muted, her pretty pink clothing complementing the mood. Then Tirtza meets Abdullah and all at once she’s bashful, giggly, sweetly smitten and an utter joy to watch. An even greater joy is watching Atzmon and Kushnir working seamlessly together.

Shahir Kabaha is Fadi, an area Arab, or “Israel from Petah Tikva” and he is delicious as Abdallah’s willy-nilly translator from Arabic to Hebrew. Father and son Tzur – respectively Hai Maor and Tapiero – charge headlong and most believably into their roles as security office/father of the groom and bridegroom. Baumwald’s dippy Lali is beautifully anxious to please and Odel Hayon makes a sturdy, eager Reli, Lali’s younger brother. Most ably rounding out this great cast is Tal Charnovsky as big sister Sari, a card-carrying Leftie, who’s come up for the wedding from planet Tel Aviv.

Abdullah Schwarz - 80 minutes of mischievous irreverence and not to be missed.

*  *  *  *
Homeward
Written and directed by Aya Kaplan
Cameri Theater, Tel Aviv; 13 August 2019

We are told that “there is no correlation between the characters and events . . . in real life” in this soggy soap opera whose ‘charismatic guru’ Avihu Tishbi (Shmuel Vilojzny) bears a remarkable physical resemblance to real-life cult ‘guru’ Goel Ratzon [a self-proclaimed Messiah and faith healer from Tel Aviv, b. 1951], currently serving 30 years for assorted cult-related felonies.  Additionally its heroine’s story is based on that of Yehudit Herman, a Ratzon cultist for 10 years, who bore him five children, and now lectures on her ‘lost years’ throughout the country.

The story: Ora (Neta Garti), as she initially demands to be called, also has five children by Tishbi, but  in her case,16 years have gone by since she, then called Noa, fled her kibbutz home and joined the cult. Now, following Tishbi’s arrest, she must come to terms with her past and with real life, unless she wants to join Tishbi in jail – those are the alternatives that Inspector Turgeman (Ruth Asarsai) bluntly offers her. However, it’s not until her eldest daughter, Shuvi (Carmel Bin) blurts out that Tishbi has fed her the same line of guff – i.e that she is spiritually enlightened – that he intends to make her his “wife”, that the scales finally fall from Ora’s eyes. She briskly shops [that’s a British colloquialism for ‘rats out’] Tishbi, and as Noa once again, she and the children make a New Beginning, (or so it seems), at Rosh Hashana.

Cue in the hosannas, heavenly choirs and cooing doves.

However, there’s a problem with the play, and it’s that never, at any time, does it feel genuine; that here are real people showing us what makes them tick. Never, at any time, does it demonstrate the real danger that a cult represents.

A cult has been broadly defined as a system of beliefs and rituals. There are many different types of cult, but all have one ingredient in common, a blind, uncritical, unconditional devotion to the leader whose supremacy in all matters, sacred or profane, is absolute. We have only to think of Jim Jones and the mass murder/suicide at Jonestown, Guyana in 1979 to understand how lethal a cult can be.

As Tishbi, all Vilojzny can manage is a kind of avuncular charm, a kind of cuddly warmth that doesn’t even approach the charisma his character must radiate. Within this stricture, Garty does her best. Her Ora/Noa is driven, blinkered, but the emotions are manipulated and do not seem real even to the character she plays, not even when the scales fall from her eyes. The same is true of the other characters who also do the best with what they have, like Avi Termin as Noa’s stubborn, vengeful father, Odeya Koren as her always-willing-to-accommodate mother, and Asarsai as Turgeman.

The play’s most disposable role, and Assaf Solomon makes a sturdy job of it,  is that of Michael, Noa’s pre-Tishbi boy friend, who’s carried a torch for her all these years. The most difficult role is that of Gili, Noa’s younger sister, whom Maya Landesmann invests with a kind of desperation, as though she doesn’t know what is her character’s purpose in this play, and is playing it by ear. She is not helped by the ghastly costumes Yehudit Aharon designed for her, though those the other characters wear are apt.

Svetlana Breger’s set veers shockingly between a Kafka-inspired police station and the patently picture-postcard, gemütlichkeit environs of the parents’ home in the kibbutz.

Bottom line? Homeward is cult lite. On that level, it works fine.

[The German word Gemütlichkeit (which, like other nouns, would be capitalized in German) is an untranslatable word that means, among other things: ‘comfortableness,’ ‘coziness,’ ‘pleasantness,’ ‘friendliness,’ ‘geniality,’ ‘cheerfulness,’ ‘collegiality,’ ‘comradery,’ or ‘cordiality.’  (I believe Helen should have used gemütlich, the adjective, rather than the noun.)  ~Rick]

18 September 2019

"Observations: A New Deal for the Arts"

by Paul Goodman

[I’ve occasionally republished on Rick On Theater  old essays from periodicals that I found significant or interesting.  Probably, the most prominent of these posts is Robert Brustein’s 1988 New York Times article,  “Reworking the Classics: Homage or Ego Trip?” (posted on 10 March 2011).  While doing some research some years back, I read Paul Goodman’s “Observations: A New Deal for the Arts,” published  in the January 1964 issue of Commentary (vol. 37, no.1).  It’s an argument against the establishment of a government-run arts fund, written before the National Endowment for the Arts was created, though it was being discussed.  (The National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, which established the NEA and the NEH, was enacted on 29 September of that year.)  In the current atmosphere, I think Goodman’s thoughts are worth revisiting.]

The recent closing of the Living Theater in New York for default on rent and taxes reminds us strongly of the plight of such enterprises in our society.  It is hard to be decently poor and to venture in a style uniquely one’s own.  To Europeans this was our most famous advance-guard company, and at home it was at least the most notorious.  Yet simple calculation shows that it was unviable both economically and artistically.  The maximum number of seats an off-Broadway theater may have, if it is to be allowed to pay the “Equity minimum” subsistence wage-scale, is 299; because of the unavailability of real estate in New York City, the Living Theater seated about 170.  Its weekly budget was $2000, of which half went for the subsistence salaries.  Thus, the theater would have had to sell out nearly every night at four dollars a ticket to meet the budget and get enough ahead to mount a new production.  (A new production costs eight to ten thousand dollars.)

The ticket price was out of line for an advance-garde theatre [sic].  The directors’ original intention had been to keep half the seats at one dollar—for students, poor artists,  beatniks.  Worse, the pressure to have pretty immediate “successes” inevitably undermined the artistic intention, which was to provide new-theater experiences and present the best available new plays, in order to enliven the torpid mass audience and form a new audience.  Since the indifference or disapproval of the incompetent New York reviewers was guaranteed, one had to rely on word of mouth; but this takes months, one could not wait.  Hence the temptation was strong to be sensational, or to play voguish modern classics like Brecht—which prevented the formation of a loyal new audience.  If by chance there was an eventual selling notice for a play, like the New Yorker’s rave for Jack Gelber’s The Connection or Life’s spread for Kenneth H. Brown’s The Brig (ironically, the theater went bankrupt when it had one of its modest hits), the audience would consist of tourists and mink coats or week-end Yalees.  Worst of all, in order to cash in, it was necessary to keep repeating the successful play long beyond the interest of the directors or performers, and this undermined the original aim, which had been to do repertory.  By and large, indeed, the most interesting evenings at the Living Theater were Mondays, when off-Broadway is dark and the stage was used for  irregular performances or readings.

The Living Theater had a non-profit classification and sought foundation support.  But somehow, though a couple of the great foundations have rather generously supported several dozen little theaters, no money was forthcoming for this liveliest one.  It was rumored that the Living Theater’s connection with the Worldwide General Strike for Peace put the foundations off; Julian Beck and Judith Malina (Mrs. Beck), the directors, were in and out of jail on this issue and civil rights; also the theater itself was a resort of known pacifists, potheads, poets, and other punks.  A representative of a great foundation complained to me that the Living Theater was not financially scrupulous; he was apparently surprised that it would pay its actors before its bills, or that artists would write bouncing checks to save the opening of a play that they had prepared for six weeks.  Or maybe the lack of foundation, support was just “mathematical,” as Kafka said of the mischances of this world.  

Needless to say, many have proposed the usual liberal solution for such problems: paste the problem on the wall and throw government money at it.  Since the arts, like the poor, are worthy and neglected, there must be an Arts Council in Washington and a direct government subsidy.  But I doubt that the Congress of the United States would be a more sophisticated or catholic patron than the foundations; we can hardly expect it—under the patriotic fire of Walter Winchell or Senator Eastland—to support potheads, Communists, pacifists, homosexuals, or “nigger-lovers.”  At best, officially sponsored theater would be sanitary, uplifting, or mass-entertaining; it could not be corrosive, political, or intimately vulgar and popular.  Artistically, official support of new theater would in all probability be positively damaging.  Especially under an administration with a certain moneyed cultivation like that of Governor Rockefeller in New York or that of the late President in Washington, the tendency is to support glamorous show-cases like Lincoln Center or the proposed National Arts Center, that create in the public mind the illusion that this kind of thing, with its Big Names, is the norm of living art.  Every such enterprise makes it all the harder for the genuine, the modest, the outlandish, to live and breathe.  (The case of the WPA theater of the 30’s was different—and I shall return to it.)

In my opinion, there is an important role for direct government subsidy of theater, namely to underwrite standard classical repertory, of drama and opera, say up to 1940, a generation ago.  This is simply part of the education of the young and is no different from supporting museums or schools.  Such repertory provides good training for directors and performers, it gives interim employment, it can do little damage to new art, and indeed, by raising the general level of the audience, it indirectly and powerfully helps new art.

II

How, then, can our society support necessary new ventures like the Living Theater?  Let me make a proposal springing from an analysis of the structure of our contemporary institutions.  The essence of our modern problem, as I see it, is that the growth of mass communications, the centralized decision-making in the big media, their heavy capitalization, their concentration by continual mergers, the inflated costs from overhead, public relations, and highly organized labor, and the vast common-denominator audiences sought and created for the efficient and profitable use of such investments—these things pre-empt the field and make it impossible for small, new, or dissenting enterprises to get a start and a fair hearing.  Even more important, the big mass media interlock in their financing and echo one another in content and style; with one tale to tell, they swamp and outblare, and they effectually set definite limits to what can “normally” be thought, said, and felt. 

It is hardly necessary to demonstrate all this, but I will just mention the usual headings.  (1) “News” is what is selected as newsworthy by a few men in a few news-services; three almost identical broadcasting networks abstract from the same; and then it is abridged for the Junior Scholastic.  Even for this news only 60 towns in America have competing newspapers (in 1900 there were 600).  (2) The publishing houses merge and their editorial choices are increasingly determined by tie-is with book clubs, serialization in national magazines, Hollywood, paperback reprints.  (3) The Standard of Living, how to live decently, is what is shown in the ads in a few mass-circulation magazines and identically in the TV commercials; and movie-sets of respectable life come from the same factories.  (4) The “important” in entertainment is what is slickly produced, elaborately promoted, and reviewed by the right dozen papers and national magazines.  (5) Political thought is the platforms of two major parties that agree on crucial issues like the cold war and the expanding economy, and the Congress decides to abrogate equal time for the broadcasting of minority opinions.  (6). Public-service communications, e.g. educational TV, are tightly geared to the Establishment universities and the middle-of-the-road school boards.

Now some of this has real advantages, and anyway the whole complex represents one inevitable use of the technology and the national economy.  Yet this whole complex is gravely problematical, so problematical, indeed, that it faces us with a constitutional crisis.  For in such an atmosphere of uniform thought and feeling, and potential brainwashing, it is impossible to carry on a free, rather than a mass, democracy.  The attempt to regulate the media by government agencies, like the FCC, does not work; and the outcry of censorship, though entirely hypocritical, is correct in principle.  (As the case is, however, the broadcasters themselves censor: they blacklist and they wipe out controversial tapes, even though they have exclusive licenses to the channels.)  It has been proposed that the government itself be used to counteract the debasing media—for instance by establishing a TV channel like the BBC or by publishing an official edition of classical American literature.  This is wise if it refers to transmitting authoritative information and standard fare, but it is entirely irrelevant to the problem of helping the controversial and the new, for of course the government is part of the consensus that makes it hard for the controversial to gain an entry.

Therefore, to meet this constitutional and cultural crisis, let us look for a new principle in the structure of the danger itself, and let that us suggest that it is the responsibility of the mass media themselves to support, freed from their own direction, a countervailing force of independent and dissenting media of all kinds.  Since it is mainly the size of the common-denominator audience that constitutes the peril, conceive of a graduated tax on the audience size—of the broadcasting stations and networks, big newspapers and chains, national magazines, Hollywood, the publishing combinations—to create a fund earmarked exclusively for the support of countervailing small media: local newspapers, little theaters and magazines, unaffiliated broadcasters.  The tax would be collected by local, state, or federal government as relevant we shall discuss the administration of the fund below.  The constitutional virtue of this proposal is that it provides for the danger—of brainwashing—to generate its own antidote.  Moreover, it is altogether in the spirit of the American principle of built-in checks and balances, applied to technical and economic conditions where free competition cannot work, where, indeed, there is semimonopolistic private government paralleling or interlocked with public government.

As an immediate simple application of the principle to cases like the Living Theater, consider the following: Instead of repealing, as seems to be intended, the war-time excise tax on theater and movie-tickets, earmarked it for a fund to support little theater and experimental movies.  This would in effect mean that the mass and commercial media, which provide almost all of the take, would be supporting the local, the off-beat, and the, and the dissenting.  I propose this immediate remedy because obviously it is easier and less painful to shift the use of an existing tax than to levy a new tax.  But of course for the general application to the media—TV, press, advertising, and publishing—the rate (10 per cent per ticket) is vastly out of line.  The aim of the proposed tax is not punitive or sumptuary or emergency but simply to provide a steady modest revenue.  We are concerned with audiences numbering often in the millions; an audience of 100,000 would surely be exempt.  (Incidentally, there is now before the House of Commons a graduated tax on the advertising of the big broadcasting networks, but this seems to be partly punitive.

III

To whom should support be given?  I am strongly opposed to having Arts Councils or boards of experts as selectors.  With the best will in the world, such experts are cliquish.  Many of the best artists—as it turns out—are lacking in the character and techniques to win prestigious attention; they do not attend the right parties.  Much that is excellent is overlooked or misunderstood; it sometimes wins its way unaided and is then crowned with help when it no longer needs any.  The thorny problem is to choose professionally—by definition, amateurs do not need “support”—and yet as randomly as the spirit bloweth.

I have discussed the matter with Mr. and Mrs. Beck of the Living Theater and we agree that the following methods are tolerable:  (1) A popular principle: to divide the country into regions and give aid to any group that can get a certain number of thousand petitions for itself.  (2) A professional principle: to support any group that can win a certain number of dozen peers as sponsors—namely directors, playwrights, professors of literature or the humanities , critics, film-makers, etc.  These need not like what the group does, but must be willing to testify that the enterprise is worthwhile and should be helped to exist.  (3) Naturally, any group that does exist in the present conditions has proved its right to exist, and should be supposed if necessary.  (4) Also, the old policy of the WPA theater has much to recommend it: this was essentially to support everybody unemployed in the field; when there were enough to form a group of any kind in a locality, the group was underwritten and the individuals employed.

Support by the fund should be very modest, of no interest to people in show business; and it should be tailored just to help a worthwhile group get a hearing and either try to win its way commercially or fulfill a non-profit artistic function.  Consider an interesting case: Recently there was a little group at the Judson Memorial Church (rent-free) that passed a hat for the scenery, lights, and ads; in my opinion, this group provided the best evenings of theater in New York City in the past two years.  It seems to me extremely important for the dignity of such artists that they be paid Equity minimum instead of nothing; and of course, without such pay no such group can persist.  Or another kind of case: the fund might underwrite a quarterly circulation of 10,000 copies for a little magazine for, say, three years, by which time it ought to have won its own audience or go out of business.  Another case (to show how little money is involved): WBAI in New York City, certainly one of the best radio stations in the country, operates for $38 an hour (its salaries are low; most of its programming is volunteer).  It has no ads.  More than 60 per cent of its $250,000 budget comes from its 12,000 subscribers, at $12 each.  Yet the station might lapse because of the difficulty of getting gifts for the remainder.  In this case, a subsidy of as little as $5 an hour would put everyone at ease.

Obviously, the fund must entail no responsibility either by or to the government.  That is, it could subsidize activities politically extremist in any direction, morally questionable, or aesthetically outrageous, subject only to ordinary law.

IV

Allow me a philosophical reflection on the political principle that I am here using. 

The justified suspicion of growing governmental power and the efforts to curtail it, usually leave the field open to the operation of private powers that are almost as formidable and yet are less subject to popular check.  The exercise and not very tender mercy of private powers are in turn met by the regulatory agencies and welfare policies of public power.  Sometimes these public and private powers glower at each other and clinch, and then there is no social movement at all.  At other times there are unholy combinations between them, like the military-industrial, government-universities, urban renewal-real estate promoter, politics-Madison Avenue complexes, that pre-empt the field, expand unchecked, ride rough-shod, and exclude any independent, thrifty, or honest enterprise.  Certainly, to avoid these dilemmas, we must encourage a different concept and practice of countervailing force.  In important ways, public and private power do not usefully countervail each other when both are centralized and powerful, for the independent, the new, the dissenting are destroyed by both.

In a viable constitution, every excess of power should structurally generate its own antidote.  That is, power entails a responsibility to counteract the dangers it creates—though proper exercise of the power should not thereby be impeded.  In my opinion, resort to this kind of built-in countervalence is often far more direct and safer than relying on the intervention of the governmental juggernaut, whose bureaucracy, politicking, and policing are sometimes worse than the disease (if one is a “conservative”) or are at best necessary evils (if one is a “liberal”).  The proposal of a fund provided by the mass media to support in dependent media and prevent brainwashing is an example of built-in countervalence.  (I think the same line of reasoning could be usefully pursued in another case: to make those who profit by automation more directly responsible to provide or educate for other employment or useful leisure.)

*  *  *  *
NOTES

Living Theatre – Avant-garde stage company founded in New York City in 1947 by Julian Beck (1925-85) and Judith Malina (1926-2015).  After Goodman wrote this article, the Living reopened in another location.
Walter Winchell – 1897-1972; conservative newspaper and radio commentator; influential gossip columnist (New York Evening Graphic).
Senator EastlandJames Oliver Eastland (1904-86); Democratic senator from Mississippi, 1941, 1943-78; chairman. Judiciary. Committee., 1956-78; avowed racist and segregationist, opposed civil rights movement; declared Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education decision “illegal”; opposed (and tried to block) appointment of Thurgood Marshall to Court of Appeals and Supreme Court; admirer of Joseph McCarthy.
Governor Rockefeller - Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller (1908-79); Governor of New York State, 1959-73; U.S. Vice President, 1974-77.
late President – John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-63), assassinated U.S. President , 1961-63.
National Arts Center – proposed arts center that became the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts (or Kennedy Center) after JFK’s death; fundraising began, 1959; construction began, 1964; opening, 1971.
little group at the Judson Memorial Church – probably the Judson Poets’ Theatre (1961-81) under Al Carmines (1936-2005).
fund earmarked exclusively for the support of countervailing small media – Goodman’s note: “The chief Congressional champion of aid to the arts is Rep. John Lindsay (R., N.Y.), and he too is earnestly insisting that a ‘Federal grant-in-aid program by a government-appointed panel should not dictate cultural tastes in America.’   I am quoting from his speech in the House of April 4, 1963.   But affectionate as I am toward Rep. Lindsay, his proposal is a poor one, namely that the government match funds with individual and foundation gifts above a certain minimum: ‘this would compel the organization to prove itself with the public before receiving government aid.’   If Mr. Lindsay thinks that rich individuals or foundations represent the public, or the artistic public, he does not know the facts of life.   He moves too much in the right circles.  ‘As a safeguard,’ he says, ‘a ceiling—say 3 percent of the total appropriation—should be set on the amount for any single organization.   This would prevent a single group from capturing the whole Federal kitty.’   (But it would mean that 35 prestigious groups would capture it.)   Lindsay entirely misses the point of how to support poverty-stricken authentic art.  But at least he is trying.   The problem is not perfectly soluble.   For instance, there are probably some kinds of art which must not be helped, in order to remain themselves.”

[Paul Goodman (1911-72) was a novelist, playwright, poet, literary critic, and psychotherapist, although now best known as a social critic and anarchist philosopher.  Though often thought of as a sociologist, he vehemently denied being one in a presentation in the Experimental College at San Francisco State in 1964, and in fact said he could not read sociology because it was too often lifeless.  In the late 1950s, besides Commentary, Goodman published in Dissent, Liberation, and The Kenyon Review.

[The complete edition of his three-volume novel, The Empire City, was published in 1959 and the Living Theatre staged his theatrical works (Childish Jokes, 1951; Faustina, 1951; The Young Disciple, 1955; The Cave at Machpelah, 1959).  The author of dozens of books including Growing Up Absurd (1960) and The Community of Scholars (1962), Goodman was an activist on the pacifist Left in the 1960s and a frequently-cited inspiration to the student movement of that decade.  A lay therapist for a number of years, he was a co-founder of Gestalt therapy in the 1940s and 1950s.]