"THE BLUE BIRD."

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19759, 9 April 1926, Page 12

"THE BLUE BIRD."

All who have seen “The Blue Bird,’* or who have read the play in book form —and these must now number countless thousands —are aware that the Belgian playwright appears to teach that the dead live only in our memories of them (writes D. X. G. in Light). It is Tyltyl’s grandfather who announces this doctrine when he tells his grandson that he (Gaffer Tyl) and the other departed members of the family are asleep all the time, and only wake up when their friends on earth think of them. But the old gentleman is bothered about that word “ dead.” “ What does it mean ? ” he asks, And he remarks a little impatiently, “ The Living are so stupid when they speak of the Others ” —which may contain a deeper truth than appears on the surface. This suggestion that the dead live only when we think about them seems to have puzzled some people. Why does Maeterlinck teach such u dcpressin. doctrine? Why does he not make it clear and positive matter that the dead are truly and in every sons'* alive? It is a natural criticism, especially from spiritualists. We must remember, however, that Maeterlinck is a mystic, am. some of hi« ideas need explanation, fie rarely condescends to be literal, but is inclined to embroider hard scientific facts with poetical fantasies. Xone the less the facts remain. Is there really a sense in which the dead live only when we are thinking of them? I think there is; that is to say, that it is only when we think of them that they are alive—to us. We must remember that, as the lawyers say, there are two parties to the contract. Whether a man is living or dead he is practically non-existent unless his existence is recognised not only by himself but by others. Everything and everybody can only exist in relation to something or somebody else. There can be no isolation. Life is a question of mutual and reciprocal relationships. Let me illustrate the point with a short story which is strictly true. A man I know once received a message through a medium whom he had never met. It was conveyed to him by a friend, a relative of the medium. It came from the man’s mother, ami be recognised the description of her given by the medium to his friend. The message was (in effect) :—“ Ask him to think of me sometimes —he never thinks of me.” It was a true message, and a touching one as well, and carried its lesson. It seems to me tb have some little bearing on Maeterlinck’s doctrine, which doctrine, however, we need not accept too literally. Perhaps he is giving us a hint in his own fashion, of the power and significance of thought as a link between the “ living ” and the “ dead.” Maeterlinck, as a poet and a play* wright, is naturally governed by the canons of art, which ordain that the artist must not be too literal, and that the stark outlines of fact must be toned down by a certain amount of imagery ami symbolism. The stage must not invade the liberties of the pulpit awd the platform. Maeterlinck’s message i« plain enough, “ There are no Dead,” bu£ his way of conveying it is suggestive and indirect. He could not put the spiritual world on the stage —nor could he approach that w orld by way of the medium and the seance room. So he used the method that comes most naturally to the poet —the method of dream ancj vision, the method of parable.