The Attitudes to Nature in The Literature of Naturalism

It goes without saying that Naturalism tries at length to pair how humanity is the greatest evolutionary success, suggesting that man is as natural as the Earth itself, and so should be represented in a variety of forms and circumstances to enable a deeper understanding of the effects of the natural environment on humans. In some sense, Naturalism’s involvement of nature is to mould and test the limits of human psychology, just like Zola had attempted with Therese and Laurent.

The way that nature has been perceived throughout the nineteenth century has changed dramatically. It was first considered by the Romantics to mean a ‘return to nature’, that being a return to poetic depictions of isolated and desolate landscapes, all devoid of human presence. However, more contemporary connotations now single out the idea of nature as relating to forests, mountains, rivers and seas. It has had a definitive impact on literature, as in the works of Wordsworth and Coleridge, where nature, “meant the fundamental unitary principle requisite to reality, the principle underlying of beings and things and any one being or thing.” This attitude relates back to Stroud’s comment, suggesting that naturalism and nature are integral to the foundation of what any author, playwright or artist, seeks to represent in their works by mirroring reality. Nature becomes almost synonymous with Naturalism, as it is the chief building block to its portrayal of both real world impacts and, most importantly, the ‘natural order’ of things. One way Naturalism critically engages with nature is the fact that, for the naturalist, there is only the natural order, that is, what is most accessible to us through specific studies and observations. It is the whole idea of what is real and factually supported, and what can be considered as part of the natural order. It is interesting to recognise that naturalist attitudes to nature all comprise of the concept of there being one natural order that encompasses all of that which is included in reality.

Anton Chekhov was considered to have blended realism, romanticism and naturalism in his plays and, whilst heavily influenced by Zola’s Naturalism, he was at the same time grounded in his medical history that inspired a lot of his literary and drama works. This was because his scientific abilities informed a lot of his literary production, which enabled him to seek a middle ground in finding the actual truth behind the reality of his own works, something perhaps Zola lacked in the originality of his naturalist methods. Chekhov did agree with Zola to an extent, having: “no quarrel with an artistic method based on faithful reproduction of materialistic phenomena”, suggesting that the nature of the working world and of its social and economic cycles in society are what factually influences one man’s thought processes. It was also suggested by M. V. Kiseleva that Chekov’s works focus far too much on “the dung hills of life, without seeking the hidden pearls” in them” in which Chekov reveals in a long reply about how “literature becomes art only insofar as it portrays life as it really is”. He explains that:

“To a chemist nothing on earth is unclean. A writer must be as objective as a chemist, he must lay aside his personal subjective standpoint and must understand that dung hills play a very respectable part in landscape, and that evil passions are as inherent in life as good ones.” (Chekhov, XI, 113).

The suggestion here is that, whilst Chekhov may have disagreed with some of Zola’s points, he did solidly grasp that life, or at that, the process of human nature, cannot simply be idealistic and completely devoid of all things considered ‘good’. He plays with the understanding that reality comes with both turmoil and satisfaction, comparing it to a chemist finding the right chemical equation that works, so too does Chekhov ‘experiment’ with the ways in which art and literature field different versions of reality in unique perspectives.

In many of Chekov’s plays, then, mankind is unable to mirror the tranquillity of nature. This is displayed in The Cherry Orchard, where the Ranevsky family are forced from their home due to their class standing, which drives them away into a world, once recognisable and safe, but now looks down upon their economic position. The naturalistic attitude towards nature in the play is centralised through a connectivity of the past and the present, resulting in a reality that is almost illusory, and therefore detached from the natural order. The orchard itself stands alone as both a symbol of nature, through its portrayal of inherent beauty, and as a representation of a past once satisfying and pleasurable to characters like Ranevsky and Gayev. We understand that these two uphold an idyllic and picturesque version of their lives but are instead forced to meet with the horrific changes society undergoes, tarnishing their imaginary visions of a more hopeful present. Chekhov’s attitude to Naturalism, and of his attempt to blend it with Realism, is to show what reality is truly like, blurred through the way in which he tailors particular situations found in the play. When both Ranevsky and Gayev are taking a walk through the countryside, they come across telegraph poles that are littered throughout the scenery, and then they come across a drunk that abruptly interrupts them. This demonstrates how Chekhov’s view on nature, that is, an inseparability between both man and nature with one not more important than the other, exercises his need to make recognisable its overall importance: “in which man contemplates or participates in a natural scene while at the same time the independence and autonomy of the particular piece of nature are stressed”. There is the suggestion here that Chekov’s use of Naturalism, is not of the efforts to try and find a plausible solution to the problems at hand in the play, but to rather broadly illustrate the drastic and consistent reformation of nature as a whole. There is an invasion of external factors that act as the physical agents of change to the natural environment, which Chekov specifically intends to do, and he employs this authorial method in his work to shape the play in order to embed a growing sense of helplessness and unease in his readers; the eventual realisation that nature must progress alongside destructive human drives.

August Strindberg’s play Miss Julie, follows two specific days in the eponymous character’s life and how she met a valet named Jean, in which a relationship follows suit. Strindberg was driven by the need to impress the naturalist leaders Emile Zola and Andre Antoine, in order to tailor a play which satisfied their staging needs and acting direction, so it could be noticed as the pinnacle of naturalist theatre. In the play, Miss Julie is described as a “man hating, half-woman” to which her being gender is taken into specific consideration when compared to her environment. She goes against normal social conventions and looks to stand out to the men that she crosses as almost a threat, or arguably, to stand out as the much needed figure capable of inducting change in a male dominated society. Strindberg wrote many of his plays in revolt against contemporary social conventions, arguably due to his emotional insecurity growing up, but Strindberg’s works were heavily influenced by the nature of marriage and traditional love. His impact on Swedish society was invoked through his blending of naturalism and the nature of men, that is particularly, Miss Julie, as he looked to represent the harshness of the real world by showing that to go against fundamental values can result in harsh consequences. He intended to captain the movement in direct reference to the naturalist leaders proposed ideas. Madsen stated that Zola felt that: “Décor does for the naturalistic dramas does what description does for the novel” allowing “naturalist playwrights to avail themselves of the advantages of the realistic, true to life settings in order to create the illusion of reality”. When staging Miss Julie, Strindberg exclaimed an acute distaste for the need of painted backdrops and scenery in theatre, and so endeavoured to create a play that removed a part of itself from its own sequence of reality and encase it in a single, authentic set. This was a desire to represent the undistorted image of reality, and at that, the natural inclusion of all things that contribute to the defining of a realistic setting.

From this then, the idea of nature within Miss Julie takes form through that of the disturbance of human nature, and at that, the centralised portrayal of the nature of women. Within Strindberg’s envisioning of the most ‘naturalistic play’, the issue in question takes form through gender power-play, as Jean’s maleness outshines and displaces Miss Julie’s worthiness as something less considerable and important within the play itself. This play brings to attention how Naturalism in this narrative engages with the nature of women, and how there is a debate in light of the significance of women’s role in society, as to what is considered natural or unnatural. Miss Julie’s inevitable death is hinted to be initiated by her seeking of power and autonomy in society, as even Strindberg writes with the assumption that the ‘natural’ thing for women is to only get married and have children, not to conjure a desire to make some gender-defining impact in a male dominated society. However, it is through Strindberg’s own fears of women overthrowing men – which first came to his attention after there was a noticeable and steady rise in the fight for female equality at the time – which shaped his view, on top of the central idea proposed by him that Miss Julie’s challenging of her own nature is the catalyst to her demise; a stand against nature infers the likelihood of death or suffering. Strindberg plays with social conventions at the time by using the heavily considered, negative hereditary trait of being ‘crazy’, by comparing Miss Julie to her mother. This was due to the fact that she was established as a promiscuous and carefree woman who would ask random men to dance with her in front of their own partners, which contributes to this idea of how it would have been distinguished with how an idyllic ‘natural’ woman should present themselves in society. Where Strindberg states in his preface that Julie is a “man-hating half woman”, it insinuates not only her unwomanliness but also her strong hatred for the presence of men. There is the strong suggestion here that Miss Julie would have always been viewed as the labelled victim, as Strindberg intended to portray women in relation to what they think and how that thinking supposedly dooms them because of a refusal to submit to social norms and stereotypes. Perhaps, then, Strindberg could be commenting upon the naturalistic aspect of a person’s environment shaping their own natures, as Miss Julie is subject to her conditions and is forced to challenge stereotypes in order to prosper and fulfil her own desires. Most importantly, Miss Julie’s death is expected to happen in the play, as it is the tragedy which displays that the repressed emotions of an unnaturally born woman should remain repressed, as the result ends in suffering. Strindberg’s view on the nature of women in a naturalist setting puts forward the suggestion that people should have the ability to pick out unnatural women, those who feel they must stake a claim and upset the balance of society, in order for humanity to right the wrongs and progress to strengthen its own resolve. In a sense, Strindberg feels that nature must be controlled and led in the right direction to benefit others, which arguably demonstrates the harsh realities of naturalist plays and of the subtle indication that nature (in this instance, human nature), must be monitored and controlled.

With the many attempts to theatricize true reality alongside nature and the natural world on stage, it comes down to a realisation that within the playwright themselves, it is their own informed portrayals that have that great ability to spark questions and debate into what is even considered to be natural in the real world. The many attitudes picked up on in this essay demonstrate naturalism’s true importance to the theatre world in exposing the kind of realities people were too afraid to come to terms with in the real world. Naturalism enables more performance potential to which nature can be explored in further detail; exploring potentially different claims in the attempt to represent how it can be ‘natural’ to see nature in different lights. This leads on to how perhaps the natural order itself is seen differently or is influenced by the way in which it keeps its equilibrium with nature, and how we as humans perceive it. It’s involvement with how it is aimed at keeping the rights of the people without imposing strict limits on their liberty, suggests that through naturalism, a person’s happiness can only be measured by their environmental conditions. These playwrights are able to condition their works by tailoring circumstances that are both real and true to life, whilst exercising theatrical means of demonstrating the fact that not all individuals can attain maximum happiness and economic success in a society that is demanding and a world that is ever-changing. With these many views, Naturalism paints a full artistic understanding of our reality, and of nature’s own. These attitudes to nature in Naturalism are included to give a slither of what could define one man’s conceptualisation of his environment, and of how an individual’s temperament can impair their overall social and economic accomplishment.