Tiny Alice begins with a venomous exchange between a lawyer and a Catholic cardinal whose contempt for each other goes back to their school days. The lawyer offers the cardinal a billion dollars a year at the request of Miss Alice, the world’s richest woman. Julian, the cardinal’s secretary, is to come to Miss Alice’s mansion to complete the details, but while there, Julian falls prey to Miss Alice as she contrives to make him her lover. Eventually, the true scheme of Miss Alice, her butler and lawyer toward Julian is terrifyingly revealed, and the stage is set for the electrifying climax of this mysterious, compelling play.

Type: Full Length Play

Acts: Three

First Performed: 29 December 1964, Billy Rose Theatre, New York

Nominations: Tony Award for Best Author of a Play, 1965. Tony Award for Best Play, 1965.

Plot Summary and Critical Analysis by Celine Rafferty

Plot Summary

Edward Albee’s Tony Award winning play Tiny Alice opens in the garden of a Catholic cardinal’s residence with a conversation between a lawyer and the Cardinal, both of whom are known only by their titles. During their scene together, which “is perhaps the most skillfully [written] dialogue in the play,”[1] we learn they are former classmates who revel in insulting each other and take turns steering the conversation to their own motivations. Lawyer is there on behalf of Miss Alice, his “employer [who] wants to give some of her money to the Church.”[2] The two agree that the Cardinal’s secretary—a lay brother named Julian—will handle the details of the donation: a billion dollars a year for twenty years.

Cardinal’s garden pales in comparison to Miss Alice’s mansion’s library, the setting of the second scene: “pillared walls, floor-to-ceiling leather-bound books. A great arched doorway”[3] and two even less common pieces of home decor. The first is a phrenological head and the second a replica of the mansion, and not just its exterior. Julian is astonished at how detailed and exact the miniature’s interior is. The scene begins with Julian and Butler, the mansion’s caretaker, admiring the model, specifically the possibility of there being an even smaller model of the mansion inside the one that stands before them. Their conversation shifts to the fact that Julian is not an ordained member of the clergy, and how fitting it is that Butler’s name is also his profession. Lawyer then interrupts, mentioning he knows much of Julian’s history, save a period of six years about which he is strangely curious. While waiting to meet with Miss Alice, Julian confides in Butler that he had committed himself into an asylum during those six years because he lost his faith in God and “could not reconcile [himself] to the chasm between the nature of God and the use to which men put God.”[4] The scene ends with him telling Butler that his faith and sanity “are one in the same.”[5]

In scene three the audience gets its first look at an elderly Miss Alice, though after a few minutes she removes her wig, mask, and cane, revealing herself as a beautiful, younger woman. Julian goes into more detail about his stay in the asylum. He tells her of both his tendency to hallucinate and of another patient, a woman who believed herself to be the Virgin Mary. Julian describes a sexual encounter he may or may not have actually had with this woman and how a few days later she claimed to be pregnant with the Son of God. Julian then explained the woman was suffering from uterine cancer, and that she died a month later. Their conversation ends with Miss Alice saying she wishes to speak with Julian more. After he leaves, Lawyer comes in and implies that he, Butler, and Miss Alice are scheming against Julian to an unknown end.

Act Two begins with a fight between Miss Alice and Lawyer, and we learn that they have been lovers, despite how Miss Alice has a “loathing for [him] that [she] can’t describe.”[6] Lawyer accuses Miss Alice of sleeping with Julian, revealing his jealousy just before Julian and Butler come up from visiting the wine cellar. The ensuing conversation is about how the mansion they are standing in was once in England but was torn down, shipped to America, and rebuilt—which raises the question as to whether or not the building they are standing in is a mansion in its own right or simply another model. Julian then notices that the miniature model’s chapel has caught fire. Butler and Lawyer run to the actual chapel to put it out, with Julian following behind. While alone, Miss Alice prays for the chapel to be saved and for guidance in accomplishing her, Butler, and Lawyer’s ultimate goal, which is still unknown to the audience. Julian returns alone, confused as to how both chapels could be on fire.

The next scene is a conversation between Lawyer and Butler, who discuss whether they should tell Cardinal their plan. They then begin role-playing the exchange with Butler as Lawyer and Lawyer as Cardinal, and in it the hypothetical Cardinal is told that Julian will be taken from him and the Church. While the audience never sees the actual conversation take place, Cardinal’s “embarrassed”[7] and guilty demeanor the next time he is on stage implies Lawyer told him of their plan.

Julian and Miss Alice have grown closer over the course of the play, as suggested in the next scene when Miss Alice changes into lingerie during their conversation. Julian admits he longs “to be of great service” and “leave a memory” of said service, rather than of himself.[8] After this, Julian grows entranced as he describes to her how he would like to be martyred, and Miss Alice suggests they marry. He soon snaps out of his daze but is still unable to resist Miss Alice’s seduction.

Act Three begins just after Julian and Miss Alice’s offstage wedding. Julian and Butler are talking before Miss Alice enters, but she leaves when she sees Julian. Not long after, Cardinal enters and Butler leaves the two alone. Cardinal explains to Julian how the twenty billion dollars will now be donated to the Church thanks to his marriage and service. Slowly, all the characters come on stage and begin to surround Julian. They explain to Julian how he has not married Miss Alice, but “Alice,” the god that Miss Alice, Butler, and Lawyer worship. Refusing to accept this, Julian is shot by Lawyer in order to keep him from leaving the mansion’s model, i.e., to remain close to Alice. Cardinal leaves soon after and Miss Alice attempts to comfort Julian as he is dying. Lawyer and Butler force her to leave him, alluding to the fact they have done this many times before and will again. Alone on stage, Julian launches into a long monologue about his faith and imminent death, and simultaneously the lights of the model go out and the sounds of a heartbeat begin and grow louder. Julian then accepts Alice’s will and dies in a crucifixion pose.

Critical Analysis

First performed at the Billy Rose Theatre on December 29th, 1964, Tiny Alice is Edward Albee’s second original full-length play. Saturday Review critic Henry Hewes admired the drama and its production, saying that Albee “has tremendous feeling for rhythm” and that “the play is full of marvelous moments.”[9] Hewes’s review included comments from Sir John Gielgud and Irene Worth (who played Julian and Miss Alice, respectively), and from Albee about Tiny Alice. Hewes ends his review with the opinion that despite being written with “great skill” its message is still unclear.[10] In a 1966 interview with William Flanagan, Albee expressed discontent with how critics tainted audiences’ perception of the play: “the preview audiences . . . didn’t have anywhere near the amount of trouble understanding what the play was about; that didn’t happen until the critics told [audiences] that it was too difficult to understand.”[11] In that same interview, Flanagan credits Tiny Alice‘s short run to the plethora of reviews that diminished Tiny Alice as a “game of symbol-hunting”[12] rather than what critic Toby Zinman describes as a more nuanced commentary “on the spiritualizing of sexuality and the sexualizing of spirituality.”[13]

The irony in Flanagan’s comment is that exploring and evaluating the symbols in Tiny Alice is a large part of many scholarly essays and chapters written about the play. While Flanagan and the unnamed critics he references gloss over the use of symbols in Tiny Alice, Howard Livingston asserts the play “is about symbolism” and “the process of symbolism” in society.[14] He writes that “to act as if the symbol were the same as the thing it represents is to act . . . insanely.”[15] Julian has done this, and is told as much by Lawyer, Butler, and Miss Alice before they sacrifice him to Alice. Matthew Roudané shares a similar sentiment in his chapter on Tiny Alice when he says, “that for people like Julian, God becomes real when perceived as a prop or symbol, even though such emblematic reconstruction is an inadequate formulation of Him.”[16] Characters like Cardinal, as pointed out by Livingston, are symbols of symbols. By “kneeling” and “kissing [Cardinal’s] ring” after Cardinal enters the scene and Butler calls out “here comes the Church,”[17] Julian has made the mistake of confusing “the symbol with its referent.”[18] Cardinal is a clergyman; a clergyman is a representation of the Church, and the Church is a representation of God and Jesus Christ’s teachings, not Jesus Christ himself.

Tiny Alice‘s plot culminates with Julian being confronted with this false worship, and it is done so primarily through his relationship with Miss Alice, who is a “surrogate”[19] for Alice, the “true God.”[20] As Julian grows closer with Miss Alice, he is doing exactly what he admonished society for: misappropriating the dynamic between man and God. According to theologian Stanley Romaine Hopper, “[Julian] must not be permitted to worship the symbol and not the substance,”[21] which is why Miss Alice, Lawyer, Butler, and Cardinal confront him after the wedding. The wedding was Julian’s commitment to Alice, although he is led to believe he has married Miss Alice. After he still insists “there is no one [in the model]” to worship, [22] Lawyer is forced to shoot him. Circling back to Roudané’s assertion that Julian only believes in a higher power when it suits him, Julian only accepts Alice’s will when he is certain his god has forsaken him, and he faces death.[23]

Julian himself is also viewed as a symbol, as scholars repeatedly liken him to Everyman.[24] The term is used to say that a person or character is ordinary, but also traces back to the medieval morality play The Summoning of Everyman, or simply Everyman. While there is nothing overly groundbreaking about either type of comparison—with the former saying Julian is representative of humanity and the latter drawing religious connections—the latter’s implication is taken a step further by Hopper. Throughout his article he compares Tiny Alice to mystery plays, morality plays, and allegories, with each comparison having its own merit. A mystery play is a medieval retelling of a Bible story or a saint’s life, and Julian is the saint of Tiny Alice. For his morality reading, Hopper explains how each character personifies their own abstraction: Cardinal represents the Church; Lawyer “the law, in both secular and theological senses”; Butler is “both spirit and death”; and Miss Alice is the truth.[25] In terms of Tiny Alice as an allegory, scholars tend to vary on what the story’s hidden message is. Anne Paolucci explains that Albee’s “allegory is shaped into dramatic intuition rather than enigmatic meaning. And although the temptation to find exact correspondences is irresistible, the illusion of realism is equally demanding.”[26] In a similar vein, Leonard Casper proposes that “Tiny Alice resists being treated as an allegory because its meaning lies in the persistence, rather than the resolution, of mystery.”[27] Thus, the audience still has no answers to questions posed in the play: which came first, the mansion or model; did Julian hallucinate his sexual encounter with the woman in the asylum; how many men—or women—have been sacrificed to Alice; one could go on. Casper is saying there is no message because Albee leaves the viewer with more questions than answers, but in a good way. He “provides a continuous experience, rather than a philosophical discussion” that chooses a side on the matters discussed in the play.[28]

Paolucci and Casper’s analyses differ, however, on the subject of Lawyer, Butler, and Miss Alice, which they both refer to as the “unholy trinity.”[29] Unlike its Christian counterpart, the unholy trinity in Tiny Alice operates within a hierarchy, and while most scholars do not spend much time analyzing its dynamic, Paolucci places Butler at the top. She describes him as the director of “the hunt from a distance” while “Miss Alice is the bait and Lawyer the retriever.”[30] Butler serving as the mansion’s caretaker is a metaphor for his authority over his, Lawyer, and Miss Alice’s mission: he convinces Julian to talk about his time in the asylum; he pretends to be Lawyer in their hypothetical conversation with Cardinal; and he forces Miss Alice into the room to complete the sacrifice of Julian after she left.[31] He knows everything about everything going on in and out of the mansion. In their hierarchy, Lawyer is next and Paolucci describes him as “cruel . . . , impersonal . . . , [and] the most unattractive member of the trio.”[32] He holds no control over Butler, but subjects Miss Alice to his sexist and lustful possession when he is not toying with Cardinal and Julian.[33] He decides to shoot Julian, and he has the final word on not providing him with medical attention.[34] He authoritatively represents their collective to the outside world each time they conduct the sacrifice, but he does not have the calm authority Butler has, as he is quick to jealousy and not above petty bickering. Miss Alice, despite being the spiritually closest to Alice—having prayed to her for guidance and support [35] and acted as a stand-in for Julian’s seduction—holds the least power over her partners; and is in disbelief when Julian suggests otherwise.[36] Lawyer and Butler are constantly reminding her of their goals, and she is repeatedly criticized for playing her part too well; that is, she is the most emotionally involved with and affected by Julian, seeing herself as only the representation of a greater power. Casper, however, gives Miss Alice her due credit, saying, “it is the very real presence of [Miss Alice] which makes possible serious consideration of Tiny Alice as an argument that things visible may be evidence of things invisible.”[37] While this is something for the audience to pick up on, it is also the unholy trinity’s entire motivation. They represent how society misappropriates higher powers and want to guide others to the same epiphany they experienced. Just before shooting Julian, Lawyer admonishes Cardinal’s profession by asking him: “don’t you teach your people anything? Do you let them improvise? Make their Gods? Make them as they see them?”[38] The three of them and Julian are aware of this habit, but unlike Julian, they do not fall into it. As previously established, Julian does not worship or believe in Alice satisfactorily, but he has also made a similar mistake with God. While this message of Tiny Alice is that one shouldn’t confuse the representational with the actual, C.W.E. Bigsby believes Albee’s “thesis is . . . that the individual craves a spiritual distraction just as he craves a carnal one.”[39] Julian—and humanity—uses religion as an escape from the real world when needed. He secluded himself from society for six years in order to come to terms with his faith—to no avail—and when Miss Alice seduces him, he begs her to stop: “let me do my service, and let me go.”[40] Julian does not commit himself fully to service, and only does so when it suits him. He is perfectly content perusing the wine cellar and horseback riding with Miss Alice, forgetting that his present role, his service to the Church, is to secure Miss Alice’s donation.

Julian finds himself confused about his role and surroundings throughout Tiny Alice, but so is the audience at times. As mentioned previously, critics and audiences during the original production were not completely sure of what to take away from Tiny Alice. Casper, however, goes as far to say that “one begins to feel less ill at ease with Tiny Alice the moment one releases Albee from the box of Absurdism.”[41] Absurdism, a philosophy that contributes heavily to the theatrical genre The Theatre of the Absurd, plays a large role in many of Albee’s plays (e.g., The American Dream and The Sandbox). After a repeated reading of Tiny Alice, one will notice that there are very few elements of the play that support it as an Absurdist work. Casper’s position, however, is that perhaps it is better not to be caught up in how to characterize the play and instead work to understand its message. Without taking into consideration the labeling of genres, one can still understand how Albee views society’s misappropriation of religion as hypocritical and that things are not always what they seem.

Footnotes

[1] Hopper 36.
[2] Albee 431.
[3] Albee 437.
[4] Albee 452.
[5] Albee 453.
[6] Albee 472.
[7] Albee 517.
[8] Albee 503-4.
[9] Hewes 102.
[10] Hewes 104.
[11] Flanagan 56.
[12] Flanagan 56.
[13] Zinman 54.
[14] Livingston 3.
[15] Livingston 3.
[16] Roudané 76.
[17] Albee 515.
[18] Livingston 3.
[19] Albee 531.
[20] Albee 495.
[21] Hopper 37.
[22] Albee 532.
[23] Albee 548.
[24] Roudané 75.
[25] Hopper 35.
[26] Paolucci 68.
[27] Casper 84.
[28] Casper 87.
[29] Casper 84.
[30] Paolucci 73.
[31] Albee 451; 492; 523.
[32] Paolucci 81.
[33] Albee 471.
[34] Albee 536-7.
[35] Albee 487.
[36] Albee 502.
[37] Casper 86.
[38] Albee 535.
[39] C.W.E. Bigsby 57-8.
[40] Albee 505.
[41] Casper 86.

Works Cited

Albee, Edward. Tiny Alice, The Collected Plays of Edward Albee, Duckworth, Peter Mayer Publishers, 2007, pp 419-548.

Bigsby, C. W. E. Albee. Oliver & Boyd, 1969.

Casper, Leonard. “Tiny Alice: The Expense of Joy in the Persistence of Mystery.” Edward Albee: an Interview and Essays, edited by Julian Wasserman. University of St. Thomas, 1983, pp 83-92.

Hewes, Henry. “The Tiny Alice Caper.” Edward Albee: a Collection of Critical Essays, edited by C. W. E. Bigsby. Prentice-Hall, 1975, pp 99-104.

Hopper, Stanley Romaine. “How People Live Without Gods: Albee’s Tiny Alice.” The American Poetry Review, vol. 2, no. 2, 1973, pp. 35–38, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27774554. Accessed 29 Apr. 2022.

Livingston, Howard. “Albee’s Tiny Alice: Symbols of Symbols.” The North American Review, vol. 252, no. 3, 1967, pp. 3, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25116585. Accessed 29 Apr. 2022.

Roudané, Matthew. Edward Albee: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Paolucci, Anne. From Tension to Tonic: The Plays of Edward Albee. Southern Illinois University Press, 1972.

Zinman, Toby Silverman. Edward Albee. University of Michigan Press, 2008.