1

ÖzlemÖzmen

Fighting Fire with Fire: Unavoidable Violence in John Arden’s

Serjeant Musgrave’s Dance

InSerjeant Musgrave’s Dance (1959), by using Brechtian epic devices such as songs,

dances and minimalistic setting, and deriving his source from the grim realities of his age like

the British invasion of Cyprus (Gilman 59), John Arden depicts the futility and cruelty of war

which shapes people involved in it in accordance with their own benefits and victimises them

all. Drawing parallelism between the experiences of the unemployed townspeople in northern

coalmining town of England and the victimised soldiers in war, and presenting the false

idealism of Serjeant Musgrave who becomes a part of the system he criticises, John Arden

emphasises the impossibility of destroying war by using violence.

The play takes place in a remote coal-mining town in northern England, and the

background of the play is the colonial wars that took place between 1860 and 1880 which

Musgrave later on refers to as the “war of sin and unjust blood” (Musgrave 1.3.33). The

reason why Arden uses historical setting in his play is explained as an attempt to “permit a

more objective discussion of political issues than would be possible in a contemporary

context” (Patterson 47) which is an epic device to provide a critical outlook for the audience

to evaluate contemporary issues through past events. In the play, through the experiences of

Serjeant Musgrave and his three soldiers, Attercliffe, Hurst and Sparky, who all deserted their

duty “with an anti-war lesson to teach” (Gray 107), John Arden warns the audience about the

realities of war. Along with these, in order to make a critique of the war, the use of the

recurring themes such as death, violence and hypocrisy of the authorities are the most

important issues which all add up to one central theme: the cruelty and futility of war.

2

The cruelty of war is most densely relayed with the dominating idea of death in the

play. The army is no longer represented as “a means of defending the populace”; rather, it

becomes “a means of brutal repression” (Patterson 56), and for that reason, Musgrave and his

soldiers escape from the battlefield. In the play, a soldier‟s duty is either to die or to kill, and

this is criticised in Annie‟s song:

I‟ll tell you for what a soldier‟s good:

To march behind his roaring drum,

Shout to us all: „Here I come

I‟ve killed as many as I could- . . . (1.2.17)

In the play, with the use of such thematic songs, Arden‟s employment of epic technique is

observed as he makes his characters comment on a particular situation through songs to

provide alienation effect for the audience, because “such songs interrupt the sense of dramatic

continuity, keeping the spectator off balance, remote, and critical” (Wulbern 148). Thus, the

audience is invited to criticise the futility of war.

In the play, the soldiers‟ plight is accompanied by that of the townspeople who are not

paid by the Mayor. In the coal-mining town where Musgrave and his soldiers come, people

are on a strike as a result of the closure of the coal mines which results in unemployment. It

should be noted that, the strike in the country is paralleled with the war that takes place in a

wider scale as Musgrave also mentions that “their riots and our war are the same one

corruption” (1.3.36). The townspeople are unemployed, the Mayor cannot pay their wages,

and as in warfare, everyone is against each other, and it is not possible to form a harmonious

society in this town. Hence, Musgrave regards the strike and rebellions in the town as a

microcosmic reflection of the war from which he departed. The weakness of the soldiers

3

against the system is very close to the subordination of the townspeople who cannot do

anything other than riot against the closure of their workplace.

As a result of the unrest in the town, Musgrave thinks it is especially necessary to

show these people the reality of war and the fact that no one can benefit from it other than the

authorities. However, Musgrave‟s obsession with realising his mission results in unstoppable

control over his soldiers. The soldiers do not even know what Musgrave is planning and why

they follow him since they ask him that “everyday we‟re in great danger. . . Isn‟t it time you

brought out clear just what you‟ve got in mind?” (1.3.29). In fact, the soldiers are not as

willing to follow Musgrave because they are all fed up with the war and they want to get out

of it as soon as possible; however, Musgrave takes it for granted that his soldiers are always

with him and he is not sympathetic towards them. Even when one of his soldiers, Sparky is

dead through the end of the play, he is still in control over his emotions, and believing that

Sparky died because he did not trust in his mission, he responds quite calmly: “Desertion.

Fornication. It‟s not material. He‟s dead. Hide him away” (2.3.69).

Although Musgrave‟s mission is to stop wars, he cannot realise it unless he can

establish feelings of sympathy. When Musgrave learns about Annie‟s story who is the lover of

Billy Hicks, a soldier who died in the colonial war before she gave birth to their child, he

wants Mrs. Hitchcock not to mention this to his soldiers because he believes that “[d]ead men

and dead children should bide where they‟re put and not be rose up to the thoughts of the

living. It‟s bad for discipline” (1.2.27). Musgrave regards love as anarchy and tells Annie to

stay away from his soldiers and says that their work is “not soft: it‟s got a strong name- duty”

(2.1.51). Apparently, Musgrave does not want to involve his feelings fearing that he will lose

his control over his soldiers and will not accomplish his mission.

4

Like Musgrave, The Mayor, the Parson and the Constable are also after power, and

they are “self-seeking, concerned only to preserve the status quo by exploiting the colliers”

(Patterson 57). All the representative authorities in the play are seeking discipline and control.

Like Musgrave who tries to hold his soldiers in his power by discipline, the Mayor of the

town is after preventing any uncontrollable riot in the town. The economic corruption in the

town victimises the colliers, and Malick states that this is a class conflict “in which the same

political order is seen to protect the interests of the mine owners against the local plebeian

majority of colliers” (89). The hypocritical authorities in the town also try to use Musgrave

and his soldiers in order to control the townspeople. When Musgrave and his soldiers first

come to the town, the Constable and the Mayor debate over who will take them under his

control. The Mayor thinks that they are necessary because if people join their army, they will

not rebel against him. On the other hand, the Constable wants Musgrave and his soldiers to be

added to his force so that they can easily cope with the potential riots in the town.

In order to realise his mission, Musgrave organises a recruiting meeting and pretends

to invite people for the Queen‟s army. He is so much devoted to his mission that he assumes

the power of God, and calls his duty “God‟s dance on this earth” and adds that “we are His

four strong legs to dance it...” (1.3.36). By pretending to organise a recruiting meeting and

inviting people to join the army, Musgrave‟s real aim is to prove them the futility of war by

showing Billy‟s corpse who was a citizen living in this town. Before doing this, he takes

consent of the Mayor saying that this will stop the riots. The Mayor also supports him seeing

this as his only opportunity left to keep townspeople under control. The change in the attitude

of the Mayor towards Musgrave is regarded as an attempt to “turn attention away from the

domestic ills to drums, fifes, and military glory” (Hoke 635). The other authority, the Parson

also supports Musgrave sharing the same concerns with the Mayor, and in order to encourage

people he says that “„And Jesus said, I come not to bring peace but a sword‟” (3.1.79) acting

5

as the supporter of the system and trying to present joining the army as an admirable

responsibility of a noble Christian folk. Through the Mayor and the Parson, Arden criticises

religion along with administrative power.

Serjeant Musgrave‟s logic depends on the idea that it is necessary to kill twenty five

people in revenge for five soldiers killed in the war. In the army, when Billy died, his friends

killed five innocent people as revenge, and according to Musgrave‟s “Logic”, he says that

now twenty five people need to die in revenge for these five people which he calls “the

mechanism of God” (3.1.91) and invites the townspeople to join his army to take this revenge.

However, his logic is quite ironic because what he actually wants to accomplish is to show

people that taking revenge will not stop wars and this will cause further innocent people to

die. Although it was Musgrave‟s duty to kill as a soldier when he was in the army, now he has

a quite different aim. In relation to the change in Musgrave, Hoke suggests that “[w]hat was

formerly his duty, then, Musgrave now sees as a disease which he must cure in himself and in

the social order” (634). As a sign for this change, Musgrave prays to God that “I‟m in this

town to change all soldiers‟ duties” (1.3.37).

Musgrave is concerned that the ongoing war and the struggle in society is everyone‟s

responsibility and each person should do whatever is necessary to stop wars. To support his

idea, while showing Billy‟s corpse, he says that “[t]hat‟s not material, there‟s one man is

dead, but there‟s everyone‟s responsible” (3.1.87) which means that his concern is not the

death of Billy, but to stop the continuing deaths that come later on. What is also interesting is

that while Musgrave utters these words, he dances around Billy‟s corpse. Through

Musgrave‟s serious words with inappropriate action, Arden tries to emphasise the uselessness

of circulation of revenge which would cause the death of more innocent civilians.

6

In the same scene, in order to emphasise that war is everyone‟s responsibility, and to

reinforce Musgrave‟s ideas about the futility of war, his soldier Hurst helps Musgrave and

says that “[w]e‟ve earned our living by beating and killing folk like yourselves in the streets

of their own city. Well, it‟s drove us mad- and so we come back here to tell you how and to

show you what it‟s like” and he also addresses the authorities who are the actual targets and

continues that “[t]he ones we want to deal with aren‟t, for a change, you and your mates, but a

bit higher up. The ones as never get hurt” (3.1.94). As it is suggested in the stage directions,

when he says this, he points his gun at the Mayor, the Parson and the Constable, the

authorities who are never involved in fights or who witness such cruel deaths.

However, what is in contrast with Musgrave‟s strong ideology is his inability to

practice it himself. His fault is that while trying to realise his mission, he is unable to

recognise that he cannot make people aware of the futility of war and stop wars by using

violence himself. In the play, in order to persuade people to join his army, he cannot control

his passion and points his gun at the people to threaten them and directs the Constable, the

Parson and the Mayor as he likes. Because of his passionate and uncontrollable actions,

Musgrave‟s plan fails and at the end of the play, two of his soldiers die and he ends up being

arrested together with Attercliffe.

As Musgrave continues threatening the folk, one of his soldiers, Hurst cannot stand

any more to Musgrave‟s oppression, and he says he is going to begin shooting people to

complete the mission Musgrave started (3.1.96). After this moment, Hurst does not listen to

Musgrave‟s orders any more, which shows that the power and authority of Musgrave has been

destroyed first by his own soldiers. However, right at that moment, when the Dragoon officers

come, they kill Hurst which becomes Musgrave‟s second loss after Sparky for the sake of his

plan. Although Musgrave‟s mission is to show that war and death needs to be stopped, just for

the sake of his Logic, he loses two of his soldiers, Sparky and Hurst. Ironically enough,

7

despite the fact that the urge which moves Musgrave is to stop all deaths and wars, he

contributes to further killings as a result of his irresponsible behaviour. This also becomes

apparent when Attercliffe says at the end of the play that “Sparky died of those damned rules.

And so did the other one” (3.2.102).

The death of Sparky and Hurst symbolises the ultimate fate of a soldier. In relation to

this it is mentioned by Patterson that “once embroiled in a corrupt system, it is impossible to

avoid violence, however honourable one‟s intentions” (59). Musgrave does not seem to

experience any change by the end of the play as he still believes that death is an inescapable

outcome of the war and says that “[a] soldiers duty is a soldier‟s life” (1.1.14). That is, he

regards it quite normal for a soldier to lose his life for the sake of his country and his people.

All these wrong perceptions and his faults make Musgrave the “figure of a fanatic for whom

the world‟s fire must be fought with fire” (Gilman 59). As a result of the failure of his plan,

the destruction of Musgrave‟s power is finalised in the scene where Bargee stands behind

Musgrave and sticks his rifle into Musgrave‟s back. At that moment, Musgrave is both against

the Dragoon officers and he is helpless against Bargee which causes his arrest. After this

moment, he does not have anyone to support his ideas any longer.

At the end of the play, it is seen that there is no use of Musgrave‟s “Logic” as he is

imprisoned and his plan does not work. He is victimised not by the war this time, but by the

authorities of the town since he and Attercliffe are put in prison. He still does not seem to be

aware of his folly in trying to stop war by using violence as he is still trying to figure out why

his plan did not work. He thinks he has always followed the road of “[g]ood order and

discipline” (3.2.102); however, the order he followed seems to be the order of the system he

came against which became the cause of his failure. In order to make him realise that his was

not a practical idea, Mrs. Hitchcock tells him that the thing he wanted to stop was anarchy;

however, what he caused was also another kind of anarchy. She says that “[t]here was hungry

8

man, too- fighting for their food. But you brought in a different war” (3.2.102). When he

wants to defend himself and says that he did all these with good intention, his soldier

Attercliffe, now powerful enough to criticise Musgrave, warns him that “[t]o end it [war] by

its own rules: no bloody good. . .You can‟t cure the pox by further whoring” (3.2.102). John

Arden also mentions in one of the interviews that “[y]ou can‟t cure the pox that way, but the

pox has to be cured” (Gaston and Arden 169) which shows that the problem regarding the

wars needs to be solved; however, the practice applied by Musgrave is a fruitless one because

he becomes a man who is “a dangerous idealist, a driven man without a proper hold on

reality” (Patterson 56).

To conclude, the most important issues dealt with in the play are “the ugliness of war,

the corruption of political and economic structures, the horrors of imperialism and the evil of

violence” (Skloot 211). Stephen Lacey suggests that “Arden‟s plays are a libertarian critique

of hegemony” (131), and in Serjeant Musgrave’s Dance, he also tries to portray the

submissiveness of the weaker groups through the use of townspeople and the soldiers who are

victimised by the hypocrisy of their rulers. With Musgrave‟s failure at the end, Serjeant

Musgrave’s Dance leaves the reader and the audience with a message to be considered which

is voiced by Attercliffe: “All wars is sin, serjeant...” (1.3.33). In that respect, with the use of

some epic techniques, the play is functional in portraying the unavoidability of violence in a

corrupt society, and the shattering of an irresponsible ideology as well as criticising the

dominance of a corrupt system.

9

Works Cited

Primary Source:

Arden, John. Serjeant Musgrave’s Dance. London: Methuen, 1966.

Secondary Sources:

Gaston, Georg, and John Arden. "An Interview with John Arden." Contemporary Literature

32. 2 (1991): 147-70. JSTOR. Web. 22 Nov. 2012.

Gilman, Richard. "Arden's Unsteady Ground." The Tulane Drama Review 11.2 (1966): 54-

62. JSTOR. Web. 22 Nov. 2012.

Gray, Frances. John Arden. London: Macmillan, 1982. Print.

Hoke, Melvin A. "John Arden's "Serjeant Musgrave's Dance": A Highly Relevant Play for

Young People." The English Journal 59.5 (1970): 633-37. JSTOR. Web. 22 Nov.

2012.

Lacey, Stephen. British Realist Theatre: The New Wave in Its Context 1956-1965. London:

Routledge, 1995. Print.

Malick, Javed. Toward a Theater of the Oppressed: The Dramaturgy of John Arden. Ann

Arbor: Michigan UP, 1995. Print.

Patterson, Michael. Strategies of Political Theatre: Post-War British Playwrights. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 2003. Print.

Skloot, Robert. "Spreading the Word: The Meaning of Musgrave's Logic." Educational

10

Theatre Journal 27.2 (1975): 207-19. JSTOR. Web. 22 Nov. 2012.

Wulbern, Julian H. Brecht and Ionesco: Commitment in Context. Chicago: Ilinois U.P, 1971.

Print.