Muğla Üniversitesi

Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (Đlke)

Bahar 2006 Sayı 16

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF ETHICS: TOM STOPPARD’S

PROFESSIONAL FOUL
Mehmet TAKKAÇ*
ABSTRACT
The issue of individual freedom has always occupied human mind and has taken a
significant place in almost art forms including literature. Drama, too, has given great
prominence to the concept of freedom because the scene has traditionally been a place where
individual and social aspects of life have been considered with a focus on individual rights and
freedom. Tom Stoppard, a distinguished representative of modern British drama, dwells on the
particulars of individual freedom in totalitarian regimes in Professional Foul, and notes that
individual and state ethics may interpret the same issue in different ways, which ultimately
leads to opposing interpretations of one of the most traditional concepts of human experience
on earth: ethics.
Key Words: Tom Stoppard, individual ethics, state ethics.

Alternatif Etik Teorileri: Tom Stoppard’ın Professional Foul Oyunu

ÖZET
Bireysel özgürlük kavramı her zaman insan zihnini meşgul etmiş ve edebiyat dahil
hemen hemen bütün sanatlarda önemli bir yere sahip olmuştur. Tiyatro da özgürlük kavramına
büyük önem vermiştir; çünkü sahne geleneksel olarak yaşamın bireysel ve toplumsal yönü
üzerinde, bireysel haklar ve özgürlük kavramları da göz önüne alınarak durulan bir yer
olmuştur. Çağdaş Đngiliz tiyatrosunun seçkin temsilcilerinden olan Tom Stoppard,
Professional Foul (Kasti Faul) adlı oyununda totaliter rejimlerdeki bireysel özgürlük olgusu
üzerinde durur ve bu rejimlerde aynı konunun birey ve devlet tarafından farklı
yorumlanabileceğini, bunun da insan deneyiminin en geleneksel kavramlarından olan etik
olgusunun farklı yorumlanmasına neden olabileceğini belirtir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Tom Stoppard, bireysel etik, devlet etiği

Tom Stoppard (1937- ) is one of the most intellectual and prolific

playwrights of the last two quarters in Britain. He writes about political,
economic and social realities focusing on the theatrical aspects of life. He
wants the individual to discuss with himself and organizes his plays within
this context raising questions on the nature of life at large. Although his plays
may include comic elements in expression, they are serious as regards their
contents which include a large variety of domestic and international issues.
The overall condition of individual life is of significance for
Stoppard, whose analysis of human existence in detail is worthy of
consideration because of his mind-stimulating presentation of the affairs of
the world. Witnessing the never-ending power struggle in the history of the
world, caring for the realities of societies, contemplating the absolute need

*
Doç. Dr., Kâzım Karabekir Faculty of Education, Ataturk University.
 Mehmet TAKKAÇ

for freedom of the individual, and not neglecting the requirements imposed
on the individual by the social system, Stoppard takes notice of human life in
the real sense. He is in full grasp of the absolute need for change in every
sphere of human life and thought at present and future. And he believes that
it is absurd to inflict pain upon the individual by temporarily effective rules
and political preferences because he is of the strict opinion that many of
today’s rules will change in the future or will be changed by future
generations. This means that he finds it difficult to accept many things as
absolute truth in the present world. However, it should be noted that his
present stance is in favor of the moral standards acceptable and appreciable
by every single person in every society.
As a playwright bringing to the stage a different issue concerning the
affairs of the world in each single play, Tom Stoppard is deeply interested in
the reaction his plays are to evoke in the audience. He regards the stage as a
place intended to share mutual thoughts and ideals, and tries to convey as
many details as possible in his dramatic works. The subjects of Stoppard
plays are so versatile: from personal relations of individuals to social issues,
from philosophical discussions to utopian ideals, from the lives of journalists
to sexual preferences of persons, and so on. Being a Czech by birth, the issue
of totalitarian regimes existing in the twentieth century in Eastern Europe is
also among issues Stoppard deliberately focuses on. With an aim to present
the realities and grave difficulties of individuals under oppressive regimes in
certain parts of the world, he sees it as a must to acknowledge the audience of
what the essence of life is and what individuals are supposed to face in some
modern world countries with unfair systems. Professional Foul (1977) is to
be weighed up within the light of the dramatist’s dedication of his art to
human life within this framework. The play, the background of which is
based on real episodes, is a genuine reflection of the playwright’s interest in
human freedom and security in the modern world. It is a genuine dramatic
interpretation of personal and governmental approaches to the issue of liberty
by a perfectionist playwright who insists on “seeing a philosophical base to
political argument”. (Bull 2002: 146)
Professional Foul, a play with a focus on how things operate in
countries with undemocratic systems is also to be deliberated on, as almost
all other plays of the dramatist, as a work through which the writer conveys
messages of vital importance as regards moral principles and theories of
ethics. As stated above, the emergence of the play is based on a real
experience. The idea behind the play is a week’s trip to Moscow and
Leningrad, during which Stoppard accompanied a friend of his who worked
for Amnesty International. In Moscow, he came into contact with a number
of Russians concerned with human rights. He met Irina Orlow, the wife of
Yuri Orlow, who had been arrested three days before. She told Stoppard and
 Alternative Theories of Ethics: Tom Stoppard’s Professional Foul

his friends how K.G.B. men searched their flat and when she tried to get
help, she had her arm twisted behind her back. Stoppard was shocked to hear
such a story. He found it a very unpleasant experience in a modern world
country, and he was not sure whether she would be there the next morning.
That was not all; he had to be concerned about his own safety, he also knew
that he was being followed. Stoppard also heard in 1977 the arrest of Vaclav
Havel, the playwright whom he admired, an actor and a journalist in Prague,
because he, with a group of intellectuals, attempted to give the Czech
Government a document asking it to implement for the Czech people the
human rights that had been called Chapter 77, which was signed by 241
people (Schulman 1997: 109-110). In consequence, what he witnessed during
his visit to Russia and his reaction to Havel’s arrest were brought to the stage
as a play, which he promised to write by the last day of 1976 to mark
Amnesty International’s Prisoner of Conscience Year, which he dedicated to
Vaclav Havel, and which was first shown on BBC (Stoppard 1983: viii).
Why Stoppard chose not Russia but Czechoslovakia as the setting of the play
is most probably due to his being Czech by birth however much he is a
British citizen at present. Saying that he feels himself as Czech as Czech can
be, he notes: “So you can see that with my desire to write something about
human rights, the combination of my birth, my trip to Russia, my interest in
Havel and his arrest, the appearance of Chapter 77 were the linking threads
that gave me the idea for Professional Foul” (Shulman 1997: 110-111).
Although the iron curtain country brought to the stage with this play is
Czechoslovakia, the writer’s intention is to shed light on undemocratic
systems in general.
As a playwright with a deep interest in how things should work in the
modern world, Stoppard is of the opinion that social ethic should be based on
individual ethic. For him, what a person lives is his experience in the real
sense, and experiences of individuals should not be negatively affected by
social systems. Individuals are to be given the chance to direct their lives in
accordance with their beliefs and expectations. With this in the playwright’s
mind, the ethical centre of the play “resides in the feeling behind the reason
that prompts the action. There is a difference of quality between feelings.
Principles may sometimes be broken in the interest of the putatively higher
principle when they collide. Pragmatism must sometimes take precedence”.
(Hodgson 2001: 95)
Professional Foul is about a real place-Praque-and real dilemmas”
(Hebert 1997: 127). It starts with the scene of a tourist class cabin of a
passenger plane. Two British scholars of philosophy, Anderson and
McKendrick are on their way to Czechoslovakia, where they will present
papers in the conference, ‘Colloquium Philosophicum Prague 77’. In their
introduction of themselves to each other, aspects of their field of interest and
 Mehmet TAKKAÇ

study come to the forefront. When McKendrick says, pointing out

Anderson’s photo, that it is younger, Anderson replies: “Young therefore old.
Old therefore young. Only odd at first glance” (134). Their talk about the
country in which they are supposed to participate in a conference gives the
first clues of the regime to which Stoppard intends to attract attention.
Anderson happens to see in the same flight Andrew Chetwyn, a third scholar
of philosophy, who is understood to have ideas not favoured by those in
power in countries like Czechoslovakia because of his letters to “The Times
about persecuted professors with unpronounceable names” (136), and is
surprised the Czechs gave him a visa, which is also designed to call attention
to the regime of the host country.
The writer’s view of ethics, as reflected in the play, needs to be
considered from a variety of perspectives since it includes many sides. For
him ethics is a person’s freedom as well as a state’s right to defend its
political system. Yet, although the controversy in the definition of ethics may
have so many standpoints, Stoppard maintains that the ultimate aim should
be the benefit of individual persons. Thus, he focuses on the particulars of
freedom in an undemocratic country in order to give his messages concerning
human rights in general. The delineation of how things operate in
Czechoslovakia is important in that it prepares the background for the
writer’s approach to the balance between individual and state ethics.
Anderson and McKendrick’s dialogue reveal that Czechoslovakia is a
country, where unexpected things happen:
ANDERSON: There are some rather dubious things
happening in Czechoslovakia.
Ethically.
MCKENDRICK: Oh yes. No doubt.
ANDERSON: We must not try to pretend otherwise.
MCKENDRICK: Oh quite… (136)
Stoppard increases the tension of the play by adding a Czech citizen,
Pavel Hollar, into the action of the play. When Anderson is in his hotel room,
Hollar, Anderson’s former student from Cambridge, knocks at the door.
Anderson is both surprised and excited to see him. Hollar’s elucidation of his
living conditions indicates that things are not so good in Czechoslovakia.
Anderson is disillusioned to learn that his former student, once studying
philosophy, is working as a cleaner at a bus station: “Cleaning. Washing.
With a brush and a bucket… the lavatories, the floors where people walk and
so on” (142). And his disillusionment increases when he is informed of the
fact that Hollar’s problem is not the nature of his job. Hollar knows that he
has to support his wife and son. In fact, his present job does not seem to be
 Alternative Theories of Ethics: Tom Stoppard’s Professional Foul

his permanent job: he had to work in a bakery, in construction and many

other things to earn his and his family’s living so far. Hollar’s problem is the
system in his country, the system which does not let individuals lead free
lives. What makes him see Anderson is associated with this condition. He
needs his professor’s help to take his doctoral thesis out of his country.
On hearing that he is asked to do something illegal in the country
where he is staying as a guest whose expenses are paid by the government,
Anderson is discouraged to help Hollar, and even has the fear that it may not
be good for him to be seen talking with Hollar. He cannot help asking “Is it
all right for you to be talking to me?”(143), which is an expression that
actually reflects his fear also for himself. In fact, Hollar does not want to give
his old teacher any problem but has no other choice than to seek his help.
Letting Anderson know of the possibility that there may be hidden
microphones in Anderson’s hotel room, Hollar wants to prove that he never
wants to get Anderson into trouble. After a period of discussion about their
mutual condition, Anderson, still uneasy, wants to learn how he can help
Hollar:
ANDERSON: … I hope you’re not getting me in trouble.
HOLLAR: I hope not. I don’t think so. I have friends in
trouble.
ANDERSON: I know, it’s dreadful-but … well, what is it?
HOLLAR: My doctoral thesis. It is mainly theoretical. Only
ten thousand words, but very formally arranged.
ANDERSON: My goodness … ten years in the writing.
HOLLAR: No. I wrote it this month-when I heard of this
conference here and you coming. I decided. Every day
in the night.
…
ANDERSON: But can’t you publish it in Czech? … you
know, really, I’m a guest of the government here.
HOLLAR: They would not search you.
ANDERSON: That’s not the point. I’m sorry … I mean it
would be bad manners, wouldn’t it?
HOLLAR: Bad manners?
ANDERSON: I know it sounds rather lame. But ethics and
manners are interestingly related. The history of
 Mehmet TAKKAÇ

human calumny is largely a series of breaches of good

manners. (143-44)
Stoppard wants Professional Foul to be a play properly reflecting an
episode experienced in the real world by real people. For this reason he
brings to the stage the somewhat adventurous experience of three British
philosophers in Czechoslovakia. In a sense, the play is a journey “from a
more self-contained world into another, less comfortable one” (Jenkins 1987:
137). The playwright, sending British scholars to a country with a totalitarian
regime, aims to initiate a process of consciousness. In order to culminate this
consciousness, he tells about the life of Hollar, who had to escape from
Czechoslovakia crossing the mined border and studied philosophy in
England, who had to return to his country for some reasons unmentioned in
the play, and who now has no chance of going back to England. The only
probability for him to send his thesis to be published in England is to give it
to his former professor, Anderson. This is where Anderson’s dilemma
emerges and the playwright’s perspective is visualized. Anderson, as noted
above, tells Hollar that he is a guest of the Czech government, so he cannot
be involved in an act unapproved by Czech officials. However, what he
witnesses in the capital city paves the way for Anderson to help Hollar
although unwillingly at first, and to realize that he should reconsider his
belief of what truth and morality should be. The fact that Hollar is among the
oppressed citizens of the country because of his political and ethical views
convinces Anderson that he should somehow take Hollar’s thesis out of the
country. The play’s focus on the nature of moral principles is directly related
with Anderson’s assessment of this matter in question.
Stoppard suggests that whatever their mutual positions are, people
must care for each other, and presents Anderson’s experience to support his
belief. Anderson is thought to disregard academic neutrality not because he
ignores absolute moral values but because he is aware of the delicate
difference between right and wrong. (Delaney 1990: p: 97). Having discerned
the essence of the system with concrete evidence, he concludes that he should
dedicate his energy to morality. As a matter of fact, Anderson is not the only
character serving the playwright’s purpose: Stoppard discusses through three
philosophers “whether moral principles are relative or universal” (Hodgson
2001: 95). And he uses Pavel Hollar as “the catalyst for the play’s
illumination of the difference between moral theory and moral practice, how
moral actions must be judged in real-world terms… Hollar’s writing of his
thesis is itself a putting into practice of his belief that individuals have
inalienable rights that cannot be abridged by the state”. (Fleeming 2001: 130)
Stoppard is especially careful when reflecting the nature of ethics.
Anderson’s hesitation to help Hollar has mostly to do with this point of view.
He is invited to a conference in Hollar’s country by Hollar’s government
 Alternative Theories of Ethics: Tom Stoppard’s Professional Foul

(which indicates that as a nation they do not prefer to be isolated from the
world, and want to impress western scholars in some ways) and does not
want to be involved in an act not approved by them:

HOLLAR: But my thesis is about correct behaviour.

ANDERSON: Oh yes?
HOLLAR: Here, you know, individual correctness is defined
by what is correct for the state.
ANDERSON: Yes, I know.
HOLLAR: I ask how collective right have meaning by itself.
I ask where it comes from, the idea of a collective
ethic.
ANDERSON: Yes.
HOLLAR: I reply, it comes from the individual. One man’s
dealings with another man.
ANDERSON: Yes.
HOLLAR: The collective ethic can only be the individual
ethic writ big.
ANDERSON: Writ large.
HOLLAR: Writ large, precisely. The ethics of the state must
be judged against the fundamental ethic of the
individual. The human being, not the citizen. I
conclude there is an obligation, a human
responsibility, to fight against the state correctness.
(144-45)
Anderson’s belief in the meaning of freedom in the universal sense is
understood to direct his behaviour. He knows that there is the issue of
individual freedom to care. Yet, he is also well aware that there is also the
issue of state freedom. Which side is right or wrong depends on where one
stands. The playwright’s viewpoint on this controversy is clearly reflected by
the character, who plainly describes the framework of ethics:
The difficulty arises when one asks oneself how the
individual ethic can have any meaning by itself. Where does
that come from? In what sense is it intelligible, for example,
to say that a man has certain inherent, individual rights? Is it
much easier to understand how a community of individuals
can decide to give each other certain rights. These rights may
 Mehmet TAKKAÇ

or may not include, for example, the right to publish

something. In that situation, the individual ethic would flow
from the collective ethic, just as the state says it does.
(Pause.) I only mean it is a question you should have to deal
with. (145)
As indicated by Anderson above, Stoppard does not want to take
either side but leave the issue as an open-ended discussion. He knows that
there may be arguments corroborating or disproving either of the approaches.
Whether individual freedom is a matter decided by the individual himself or
the state is not clarified in the play. Besides, the point that a guest should not
betray those who have invited him to their country is overtly stressed by the
writer.
The playwright’s approach to the issue of host and guest reveals a
conclusion, as a result of which it becomes obvious to Hollar that Anderson
will not take his thesis, written in Czech, to England to be translated by one
of Hollar’s friends, Peter Volkansky, who also was Anderson’s former
student, now living in England. This at first sight gives the impression that
Anderson’s part in the play is coming to an end. Yet, things develop
otherwise. Hollar convinces Anderson that there may be agents following
him, and asks Anderson to keep the thesis with him and bring it to Hollar’s
house the next day. Believing that this will not be understood as breaking any
state rule, Anderson accepts it.
Yet, what Anderson meets when he takes Hollar’s thesis to his house
the following day is not what he expects. On arriving Hollar’s house, he sees
that Hollar has been arrested and the police are there to catch him as a
collaborator. When Hollar’s wife sees Anderson, she tells him that Hollar is
innocent and asks him to help them. Although Anderson tries to convince the
Czech police that he is a professor invited to speak at the Colloquium in
Prague, and that the reason for his being there is to visit a friend, he cannot
succeed in assuring the police. Besides, his request to call the British
Ambassador is refused. The police tell him that Hollar has been arrested for a
serious misdeed against the state.
Through this act of the Czech police, the playwright calls attention to
oppressive systems charging their citizens with crimes in which they are not
involved. The police decide to arrest Hollar for his political beliefs but since
they cannot find a reason to do so, they put the blame on him finding the
currency they themselves put in his house. The way a policeman explains this
is worth considering: “Hollar is charged with currency offences. There is a
black market in hard currency. It is illegal. We do not have laws about
philosophy. He is an ordinary criminal” (161). Interestingly, while the
policeman is uttering these sentences, they hear from the radio a penalty due
 Alternative Theories of Ethics: Tom Stoppard’s Professional Foul

to a foul in the football match between Czech and British national teams. It is
a penalty for the home side, that is, the Czechs. Anderson calls it a
“professional foul” (161), which is a footballer’s term for obstructing the
opponent from scoring a goal, and implies that what the police have done to
Hollar is also a professional foul. The police also accept that it is a
professional foul and know that they have done the same to Anderson, but
still they give the implication that they are determined to do it to protect the
political system of their country.
Anderson cannot do anything to rid Hollar of what the police have
done to arrest him. But now he faces another instance of professional foul
and needs to rid himself of a critical situation. He sees that it is not difficult
for the police to make up a reason to put him in trouble. The police saw that
Anderson came to Hollar’s house by taxi and told the driver to wait for a few
minutes so that he could leave Hollar’s thesis and then go to the football
match by the same taxi, and pay the fare there. But when he got off, the
police sent the driver away. Man 6, the policeman speaking English almost
fluently, says that they may accuse Anderson of not paying the driver. The
police have also questioned the taxi driver and learned that Anderson was
delivering something in his briefcase. Witnessing this unexpected instance of
professional foul, Anderson understands that things operate differently in that
country and tries to find the easiest way to get rid of the problem. “The
erstwhile professor of fastidious ethics does find that his cosy theories about
social contracts crumble before the policemen’s utilitarian sense of purpose
and the evident despair of Mrs Hollar and her son” (Jenkins 1987: 140). He
tells the police that it was one or two of the Colloquium papers that he put in
his briefcase, and takes out his colleague McKendrick’s and his own paper
and passes them over to the police. Man 6 reads the titles “‘Ethical Fictions
as Ethical Foundations’ … ‘Philosophy and Catastrophe Theory’”, (163) and
then, as if to do a favour to Anderson, lets him leave the house.
By calling attention to how oppressive systems of governments
invent crimes for their citizens who are regarded as opponents of the regime,
Stoppard brings to the fore what citizens who do not conform to the political
systems of their countries are to face when they try to do something not
accepted by the establishment. With this very thing in its centre, the play
“blends its call for active partisanship with three of Stoppard’s familiar
themes: the alteration of appearance by shifting perspectives, the ambiguity
of language, and the trickery of perception. These three overlap until they are
almost indistinguishable. The difference between a foul and a necessary
action is in the point of view” (Gabbard 1982: 144). Stoppard gives as many
details as possible to reflect the nature of oppressive regimes. Anderson’s
meeting Hollar’s wife and her son Sacha in the street is also to be mentioned
as one of the details indicating the nature of undemocratic systems. Mrs
 Mehmet TAKKAÇ

Hollar cannot speak English well but her son translates what she wants to tell
Anderson. There Anderson understands once more that Hollar’s future is not
so secure in such a system. He becomes fully convinced that the family as a
whole will have no good future in this country. Besides, he recognizes the
difficulty of taking Hollar’s thesis out of Czechoslovakia. However, he
knows that there is not much he can do to help them. He only asserts that as
soon as he goes to England, he will try to help Hollar, he will write letters to
Czech Ambassador and also to his own friends in the government. When he
meets his colleagues back in the hotel, he gives a definition of the case in that
country, which is another thing he can do to indicate the severity of life for
those in opposition in their host country, and notes that there “would be no
moral dilemmas if moral principles worked in straight lines and never
crossed with each other” (169) in this allegedly democratic country.
Professional Foul reflects the hindsight on the nature of human
behaviour under certain circumstances. Anderson’s ways of behaviour by the
Czech police, during his talk with Hollar’s wife and son, and with his
colleagues after all these are striking examples of different attitudes to
particular conditions. He has to tell lies to the police in order not to get into
trouble, he openheartedly confesses the wrongdoings of the police in his talk
with Mrs Hollar, and can think and evaluate the issue from a separate
perspective with his colleagues. This must have been purposely arranged by
the playwright in order to shed light on the nature of human behaviour
directed by instinct, fear, honesty, compassion, etc.
Stoppard maintains in the play that whatever the conditions may be, a
universal truth is to be sought when human life is in question. Anderson, who
may be regarded as the writer’s spokesperson, gives allusions concerning this
issue. In his talk in the Colloquium, starting with the expression “I propose in
this paper to take up a problem which many have taken up before me, namely
the conflict between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the
community. I will be making a distinction between rights and rules”, (177) he
stresses his thought on human rights in the universal sense. What he says is
the ultimate evaluation of the scenes he has witnessed in Czechoslovakia.
However much the chairman tries to intervene and remind that this was not
the paper Anderson would present, Anderson is decisive to tell Stoppard’s
views on this delicate issue. It is a good chance for him to change the content
of his paper to reveal the particulars of the regime in the country, which can
also be described as a professional foul:
If we decline to define rights as fictions, albeit with the force
of truths, there are only two senses in which humans could be
said to have rights. Firstly humans might be said to have
certain rights if they had collectively and mutually agreed to
give each other these rights. This would merely mean that
 Alternative Theories of Ethics: Tom Stoppard’s Professional Foul

humanity is a rather large club with club rules, but it is not

what is generally meant by human rights.
…
In our time linguistic philosophy proposes that the notion of,
say, justice has no existence outside the ways in which we
choose to employ the word, and indeed consists only of the
way in which we employ it. In other words, that ethics are
not the inspiration of our behaviour but merely the creation
of our utterances.
…
A small child who cries ‘that’s not fair’ when punished for
something done by his brother or sister is apparently
appealing to an idea of justice which is, for want of a better
word, natural. And we must see that natural justice, however
illusory, does inspire many people’s behaviour much of the
time. As an ethical utterance it seems to be an attempt to
define a sense of rightness which is not simply derived from
some other utterance elsewhere.
…
There is a sense of right and wrong which precedes utterance.
It is individually experienced and it concerns one person’s
dealings with another person. From this experience we have
built a system of ethics which is the sum of individual acts of
recognition of individual right. (179-81)
The play ends with the scene at the airport where the Czech police
search paper by paper the briefcases of two of the professors: Chetwyn’s,
whose political perspective is not in line with the Czech regime, and
Anderson’s, who was involved in an event unexpected of him. They find in
Chetwyn’s briefcase a dozen sheets of writing-paper and a photograph of a
man, and take him with them. Anderson and McKendrick leave safely. While
the plane is taxiing, McKendrick asks Anderson why the police searched him
and learns that Anderson put Hollar’s thesis in McKendrick’s briefcase lest
the police should not find it. He purposely hid it in McKendrick’s briefcase
because he knew that the Czech police had nothing to do with him.
Anderson, after explaining the reason for smuggling Hollar’s thesis in this
way, without permission, says “Ethics is a very complicated issue. That’s
why they have these conferences” (185). Anderson’s professional foul to the
Czech police, the last example of the fouls in the play, is as crafty as theirs to
him. Anderson “discovers that the important truths are not simple and
monolithic: his professional foul recognizes a set of problems rather than
 Mehmet TAKKAÇ

ready-made options” (Sammells 1988: 117). He comes to believe that ethical

values may sometimes change or be changed depending on where and under
which circumstances one lives.
For Stoppard, informing the audience of the impressions he had in
Moscow through this play is almost a duty. He is of the estimation that the
issue should be discussed in a wider perspective and some things should be
done for those under pressure. The truth is that playwrights can only
demonstrate the injustice in some societies. He, too, knows that this is not a
very effective thing to do; however, he knows that without plays and artists
the injustice will never be eradicated (Sandall 1995: 72). As assessed from
his perspective art “is important because it provides the moral matrix, the
moral sensibility, from which we make our moral judgements about the
world…The plain truth is that you are angered or disgusted by a particular
injustice or immorality, and you want to do something about it, now, at
once”. (Hudson, Itzin, and Trussler 1997: 66-67)
Stoppard believes that a political play may be either about a specific
or general political situation. Yet, it should be noted that Professional Foul is
about both. In it Stoppard leads the audience to grasp the moral basis of
political acts with stress on moral standards to be universally accepted;
attracting attention to the abuses of Czech political regime and violation of
ethical standards, he notes that there must be common not local or societal
principles as regards political attitude. To attract attention to the issue, his
main character, Anderson, in the effort of becoming wiser,
is not abandoning but is rather embracing at an experimental
level the importance of absolute moral values… What
happens in the course of the play is not that Anderson
abandons moral absolute values; rather he comes to abandon
dispassionate academic detachment as he recognizes that the
irredeemable difference between right and wrong requires
him to act. (Delaney 1990: 96-97)
Last but not least, in Professional Foul, Stoppard chooses
Catastrophe Theory as an alternative model to seeing flat. Through the use of
this model he presents an example of a sort of behaviour individuals find in
the real world. This is a round model enabling the playwright to stress the
significance of personal preferences and to reflect his priorities in cases of
moral dilemma. Anderson’s dilemma is a plain instance of the playwright’s
approach to the preference between his conviction that civil laws should be
obeyed and his natural humanitarian instinct to help a victim of political
oppression (Cobley 1984: 54-55). Stoppard seems eager to know: what
would any one of the audience do if he were Anderson in such a complicated
case of ethics and morality?
 Alternative Theories of Ethics: Tom Stoppard’s Professional Foul

Works Cited
Bull, John. (2002). “Tom Stoppard an Politics”, The Cambridge Compaion to
Tom Stoppard, Edited by Katherine E. Kelly. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cobley, Evelyn. (1984). “Catastrophe Theory in Tom Stoppard’s
Professional Foul”, Contemporary Literature, Spring 1984, Vol. 25,
Issue 1.
Delaney, Paul. (1990). Tom Stoppard: The Moral Vision of the Major Plays.
Hong Kong: The Macmillan Pres Ltd.
Delaney, Paul. (1990). Tom Stoppard: The Moral Vision of the Major Plays.
Hong Kong: The Macmillan Pres Ltd.
Fleeming, John. (2001). Stoppard’s Theatre: Finding Order amid Chaos.
Austin: University of Texas Pres.
Gabbard, Lucina P. (1982). Tom Stoppard’s Plays. New York: The Whitston
Publishing Company.
Hebert, Hugh. (1997). “A Playwright in Undiscovered Country”, Tom
Stoppard in Conversation. Ed. by. Paul Delaney. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Pres.
Hodgson, Terry. (2001). “Ethics and Politics in Eastern Europe”, The Plays
of Tom Stoppard for Stage, Radio, TV and Film. Edited by Terry
Hodgson. Cambridge: Icon Boks.
Hudson, Roger., Itzin, Catherine.,and Trussler, Simon. (1997). “Ambushes
for the Audience: Towards a High Comedy of Ideas”,From Theatre
Quarterly 4, in Tom Stoppard in Conversation. Ed. By. Paul
Delaney. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Pres.
Jenkins, Anthony. (1987). The Theatre of Tom Stoıppard. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Pres.
Sammells, Neil. (1988). Tom Stoppard: The Artist as Critic. London: The
Macmillan Pres Limited.
Sandal, Roger. (Jan/Feb 1995). “Tom Stoppard’s Progress”, Quadrant. Vol.
39, Issue 1/2.
Shulman, Milton. (1997). “The Politicizing of Tom Stoppard”, Tom Stoppard
in Conversation. Ed. by. Paul Delaney. Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Pres.
 Mehmet TAKKAÇ

Stoppard, Tom. (1983). Professional Foul, Tom Stoppard: Plays 3.

Contemporary Classics. London: Faber and Faber.
Stoppard, Tom. (1983). “Introduction”, Tom Stoppard: Plays 3 (A Seperate
Peace . Teeth . Another Moon Called Earth . Neutral Ground .
Professional Foul . Squaring the Circle), Contemporary Classics.
London: Faber and Faber.