|
Throughout the play Arcadia by Tom Stoppard there is a distinct difference
between the characters who have a science background and those who do not. One
of the recurring themes is that those characters and actions of those characters
which are against science often lead to conflict and disaster. Even those
characters that are of logical thinking for the most part are prone to disaster
when they let go of this rational thinking and give in to their irrational side.
Bernard is a main character who is not a scientist and has basically no
scientific background. From the moment he is introduced, he is portrayed as
eccentric and odd. Here Bernard is described for the first time: “Bernard, the
visitor, wears a suit and tie. His tendency is to dress flamboyantly but he has
damped it down for the occasion, slightly. A peacock-coloured display
handkerchief boils over is his breast pocket.” (73) The term flamboyant refers
to his ornate and rather bold outfit and personality. He is dressed differently
than most other characters and behaves much different as well. He is as well one
of the most irrational characters of the play. Bernard and his constant need to
be successful and famous lead him to disaster. Throughout the play he acts with
little regard to the truth. He rarely looks to proof when coming up with ideas
and theories. He feels that if there is the slightest proof that he is correct
then he is able to tell everyone it is the truth. He completely disregards the
logical way of thinking that theories can be proven wrong.
He never takes the
time to see if his theories can be proven wrong. Here Hannah shows her dismay
with Bernard’s irrational behavior: “You haven’t established it was fought. You
haven’t established it was Byron. For God’s sake, Bernard, you haven’t
established Byron was even there.” (50) Hannah tries to tell Bernard that he
hasn’t discovered enough evidence to publish his theory. Bernard although
believes she is incorrect. He feels that all you need is your own instincts to
lead you to the truth. Bernard displays this here: “By which I mean belief in
yourself. Gut instinct. The part of you which doesn’t reason. The certainty for
which there is no back-reference.” (50) Bernard is responding the quote by
Hannah above. Here Bernard is exemplifying perfectly his idea about how his
theories are founded. He uses the words “gut instinct” and “certainty for which
there is not back” which shows how he doesn’t need hard evidence to prove
things. He feels his own personal view is enough to make something real. He has
no concept of the regular, logical format of backing up theories with evidence.
Instead he relies on nothing but himself. And no matter how irrational his ideas
are his feeling is that if your gut tells you it’s the truth then you should go
with it. He also refers to his way of thinking as “the part of you which doesn’t
reason” showing how irrational he really is. He’s admitting that sometimes no
reasoning is needed in proving something. To most this seems completely foreign
and quite illogical. Bernard, although, finds this to be the normal way of
thinking. Later in the play Bernard is shown once again to be completely
irrational. After Bernard makes his argument that Mr. Chater was killed in a
duel with Lord Byron and this was the reason Byron left. Hannah reacts to this
theory by saying, “Bernard, I don’t know why I’m bothering-you’re arrogant,
greedy, and reckless. You’ve gone from a glint in your eye to a sure thing in a
hop, skip, and a jump.” (59) Hannah reveals her disapproval of Bernard’s
attitude and aggressive approach to everything. His attitude is described as “
arrogant and reckless,” proving how little regard for logic he has. She also
says, “You’ve left out everything which doesn’t fit.” (59) Hannah describes how
Bernard has chosen only information which has helped his case and left all other
out.
She is saying that Bernard ignores the information which disproves his
theory and only focuses on that which does prove it. This is completely
unscientific and illogical if you want to have limited doubt in your theory.
Also in this scene Valentine shares his opinion, “Actually, Bernard, as a
scientist, your theory is incomplete.” (59) Valentine, the main character who
has a large scientific background, also states that Bernard does not have enough
evidence to proceed in publishing his theory. Valentine tries to tell Bernard
that although he does have some evidence that he does not have nearly enough to
proceed in publishing. Despite the advice of others Bernard decides to precede
with this theory and publish it no matter now much evidence might be out there
to prove it wrong. This decision proves to be a big mistake. It is proven wrong
just days after it is published. Not only was he proven wrong but it was proven
wrong by science as well. It was discovered that Chater did not die in a dual
but of a monkey bit in Martinique. Bernard’s haste to be famous caused him to
make a mistake which could not be erased. His purposeful carelessness and
irrational behavior cost him his credibility forever. Thomasina is another
character that shows the dangers of becoming irrational and illogical. Thomasina
is 13 years old when the play begins. She is a brilliant young woman especially
in the field of mathematics and science. Most of her time is spent working on
different problems and theories with her tutor Septimus Hodge. For the most part
she is purely scientific with little knowledge of the irrational world. She
bases her thoughts and ideas on logical and plausible evidence. She is
constantly using logic and other techniques to prove various solutions to
theories. She never concludes anything without an explanation. She wasn’t
interested in love and didn’t want to study anything that didn’t pertain to
mathematics. Septimus asks Thomasina why she hates Cleopatra and her response
is, “Everything is turned to love with her. New love, absent love, lost love-I
never knew a heroine that makes such noodles of our sex.” (38) Here Thomasina
proves how she dislikes those which deal too much with love and emotion. She
feels there is more satisfaction in mathematics and science.
Towards the end of
the play and especially in the last scene Thomasina gives in to her romantic and
irrational side. In the last scene Thomasina and Septimus are talking about her
theory of how the world is doomed and then they begin to waltz. This shows the
mixture of science and pleasure and at the same time rational and irrational
thinking. In the beginning they are rationally talking about Thomasina’s theory
but by the end they are acting impulsively waltzing and even kissing. This scene
we know precedes her death. We learned earlier that she died that night before
her seventeenth birthday in a fire. In this scene we get an idea of why the fire
started. Thomasina truly gives herself up to irrational behavior. Her
self-control is lost and lets herself become the opposite of what she was
determined in the beginning to be. This scene give an idea of why an explanation
why never found on her theory. “ Take your essay, I have given it an alpha in
blind faith. Be careful with the flame.” (96) This suggests that the essay,
which could possibly have contained her explanation, was the cause of the fire
which took her life. When Thomasina became reckless with her emotions she was
doomed. For the most part, Thomasina has always been logical and once she became
irrational it turned into a disaster that could never be reversed. Science was
the root of the disaster as well. Her essay, which was filled with her
scientific explanation, was what in the end what caused her death. It can be
suggested that because she deviated from her usual rational behavior that the
tragedy occurred. In the play Arcadia there is a distinct split between those
characters that act rationally and those who do not. For the most part this
split can be seen on the basis of scientific background of each character. Those
characters with little science knowledge act more irrationally and those with
science background act rationally. It even showed how those characters that
usually act rationally can those that rationality with the lose of science.
|