Greek Chorus

8/11/2019 Greek Chorus

1/9

The Function of the Tragic Greek Chorus

Author(s): Albert WeinerSource: Theatre Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2 (May, 1980), pp. 205-212Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3207113.

Accessed: 30/08/2014 03:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Theatre Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 168.131.53.85 on Sat, 30 Aug 2014 03:04:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3207113?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3207113?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/9

ALBERT

WEINER

The

Function

f

the

Tragic

GreekChorus

What

do we know for

certainty

bout

the

tragic

Greek

horus?

We know that

t

numbered

ifty

t

the

beginning

f

the

5th

century

.C.;

we

know

that t

was

prob-

ably Aeschylus

who lowered that number to

twelve,

and it was

probably

Sophocles

who

raised thatnumber o

fifteen,

here t

stayed

forthe

remainder f

the

entury.

We know

that he

horus

was

confined,

ither

ompletely

r

mainly,

o

that

part

of

the

theatre nown s the

orchestra,

nd since

the

meaning

f that

word

is

dancing

place,

we can

only

conclude that

dancing

was a

major

part

of

what the

chorus did. But

of

greater ignificance,

e know

that

the

poets

consideredthe

chorus

xtremelymportant;

e

know

that,

fforno

other

eason,

because all of the

extant

ragedies

ontain

horuses,

nd

because

of

the

arge

number

f

ines

given

to

the

choruses.

f

there s a direct

orrelation etween he

number f ines nd the m-

portance

ttachedto the

chorus

by

authors,

hen

Aeschylus

onsidered he

chorus

more

mportant

han either

ophocles

or

Euripides,

ut

clearly

hey

ll

considered

the chorus

mportant.

We

therefore

now what the

chorus

did;

it

danced and

sang.

How it

danced and

sang

s a

question

hat an never e

answered.

But to whatend

did it

dance and

sing?

What was its

role,

whatwas its

function?

What did it do

that he ctors

did not

do?

Aristotle's

rincipal

in

truth

is

only)

statement

n the

tragic

horuscomes

in

Chapter

18

ofhis

Poetics.Here

s theButcher

ranslation:

Thechorus

oo

hould

e

regarded

s oneof

he

ctors;

t

hould e an

ntegral

art

f

he

whole,

nd

share n

the

ction,

n

themanner

ot

of

Euripides

ut

of

Sophocles.

s for

the

ater

oets,

heir horal

ongs ertain

s little o

the

ubject

f

the

iece

s to that f

any

ther

ragedy.

hey

re,

herefore,

ung

s mere

nterludes-a

ractise

irst

egun y

Agathon.

et what

difference

s

there etween

ntroducing

uch horal

nterludes,

nd

transferring

speech,

r even whole

ct,

from ne

play

to

another?1

The

paragraph egins

with

major ambiguity:

The

chorustoo should

be

regarded

as

one

of

the

actors.

Who is to

regard

t

so?

The

audience?

the

poet?

the other

characters?

he

chorus

tself?

his

aside,

Aristotle eems to

be

saying

hat omeone

ought

to

regard

he

chorus

s a

character,

collective

haracter o be

sure,

but a

character o the same

degree

as

Oedipus

or Heracles or

Medea are

characters.

Albert Weiner s

Professor f

Theatre t the State

University f

New York at

Albany.

1

(New York:Hill & Wang, 1961), 18. 7.

205

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

206

/

TJ,

ay

980

assume hat rofessor

eter rnott

grees

with

his,

or

have

een t east hree f

his

marionettereek

ragedies

nd t eems lear o

me

that

e

regards

is

horus

s

another haracter.rofessoritto ertainlygreeswith his nterpretation;nhis

translationf this entence e

even

etains

utcher's

mbiguity:

The

horusmust

be

regarded

s one

of the

ctors. 2

Many

theories ave taken n the

qualities

f

known ruths

nd

thus re difficulto track own at their

ources.One hears

somewhere

long

he

way

that he

horus

xists o

elevate

ommonplace

etails

nto

universal

erities. ne

hears

hat

he

horus

cts s a

bufferetweenctor nd

au-

dience.

his

heory

eems o

mply

hat here ill

lways

e some lack etweenhe

two,

nd t

s

the

ole

fthe

horus

o

take

p

that lack.One hears hat he

horus

exists

o transformhe

passions

f the

haracters,

hich re

necessarily

iffused,

into

harp

ocus.

One hears hat he

horus

s

an

Ideal

Audience,

hat he

udience

maymeasuretsresponseothat f the horus. utthis s surely rong, or re-

quently

horuses

isunderstandhat s

happening

n

the

ragedy

hile he udience

understands,

nd

frequently

horusesmake ommentsn the ctionwhich

eem

positively

tupid

r

inappropriate.

urthermore,

he deal Audience

heory

must

giveway

to

Artistotle,

ho eems

o

have

aid

that

he

horusmust e

regarded

s

an actor.

east,

ut

erhaps

ot

ast,

nehears hat he horus

unctions

s a decora-

tion.

But

what,

we

may

well

sk,

s it

supposed

o

decorate?

As

diverses these heories

ay

e

detect

t east ne ommon

hread:

he

more

closely

he

horus

s

integrated

nto

hefabric f

the

play,

hemore t resembles

collective

haracter,

he etter. nd

because

uripides'

horuseseem o

be

less

collectiveharacter han hose fSophocles,heSophocleanhoruses re often

praised

while

hose f

Euripides

re

criticized. ichmond

attimore,

or

xample,

has

said that

uripides

wrote

ome

ovely yrics

in

hischoral

des]

butoften

..

they

ave

nothing

odo

withwhat

s

going

n

n

the

play.' 3

rofessorrnott

sks f

Euripides'

horuses,

Do

they

ot .

grow

omewhat

edious,

articularly

n

ome

of

the

plays

f

Euripides

here he

ontent

s

negligible ?4

itto,

who s

unusually

severewith

uripides'

horuses,

hinkshat

heMedea

horus,

ecause

t

s not ele-

vant

o

the

play,

s

a

total

ailure.5

The

basic

notion, hen,

s

that he

choruses'

ines

ought

necessarily

o have

something

todo withwhat

s

going

n n the

lay.

Moreover,

ecause

uripides'

choruseseemto have less to do withwhat s goingon in theplaysthando

Sophocles',

hey

re

necessarily

ess uccessful.

his s all somewhat

onfusing.

at-

timore,

or

xample,

ould

have

us

believe hat

uripides

as

capable

of

writing

lovely

yrics,

ut

that

e

was

not

apable

f

ncorporating

hemntohis

tragedies;

he

could

write

ovely yrics,

ut

not

elevantnes.ThenAristotle

oncludes

yrap-

ping

he

nuckles

f he later

oets

whose

horusesre o

nondescript

hat

hey

it

2

H.

D.

F.

Kitto,

Greek

Tragedy:

A

Literary

tudy

Garden

City,

N.Y.:

Doubleday,

1954),

p.

167.

3

The

Complete

Greek

Tragedies,

avid Grene

nd Richmond

attimore,

ds.

(Chicago: University

f

Chicago

Press,

1959), III,

vii.

4

The LostDimensionof GreekTragedy, ETJ11 (1959), 101.

5

Kitto,

pp.

275-6.



4/9

207

/

THE GREEK TRAGIC

CHORUS

into

one

tragedy

s well as

another;

hey

ave

nothing

o

do

with

what

s

going

n in

the

play;

their ontent

s

negligible.

hus

lacking

relevance nd

therefore

ramatic

quality,

the choral odes are

sung

as mere

nterludes,

s theatrical

as

opposed

to

dramatic)

lements.

Everyone,

t

seems,

prefers

ramatic

horuses

o undramatic

nes.

Indeed,

Pro-

fessor

Kitto

goes

so far

as

to

say

that

Sophocles

invented

new function

or

the

chorus,

nd

thatfunction

was to make t

always

dramatic. 6

think hat

t

might

be

wise

at

this

point

to define

what we mean

by

dramatic.Dramatic

elements n

a

play

are

intrinsically

unctional

lements,

lements

without

which he

play

could

not

operate.

use

the

word dramatic

s an

antonym

f

theatrical.

A dramatic

lement

must

ctually

work toward

furthering

r

developing

lot

or

character;

t is

literary

and is unrelated

o

production.

A novel or a

poem

may

be dramatic.

Theatrical,

n

the other

hand,

is not

directly

elated o drama. It derivesfrom

OtaTQov,

seeing

place;

indeed,

the variant

eOaTrl

is a

looker-on,

viewer.

Hence,

that which

s

dramatic

s abstract

nd

is concerned

olely

with the art

of

telling

story.

That

which

s theatrical

s

concrete,

s

in thevisible

ealm,

nd is concerned

with

llustra-

tion.

f

a dramatic

lementwere

removed

rom unified

lay

tcouldnot

operate

fully

or it

would

lack coherence.

On the other

hand if a theatrical lement

were

removed

the

production

might

uffer,

ut

the

reader

would

miss

little.

The

plot

would

still

operate

with

ts full

force.

Thus,

the

Tyrannos

would

be unthinkable

without he

characters

f

Oedipus

or

Jocasta;

o,

if

the

chorus

s,

as Kitto

says,

dramatic,

f t were

expunged

he

tragedy

ught

to be

equally

unthinkable.

We can

certainly

est the dramatic-ness f the

Tyrannos

horus

(the

model

Greek

tragedy

with the

model

chorus).

The

chorus's

first tterance

oes

not even

approach

being

dramatic.

t

s

a

lyric

de

of

ome 115

ines

n

which

t

merely

peaks

of ts

uffering.

his could

certainly

e deletedwith

no

loss

to

the

tory.

At 1.276

he

chorus

begins

a

dialogue

with

Oedipus

in which

it

seems

to

be

functioning

dramatically.

t

suggests

hatTeiresias

be

summoned,

ut

by

Oedipus's reply

hat

he

has

already

sent

for the

seer,

he denies the

chorus

a

functional ole.

During

the

Oedipus-Teiresias pisode,

the

chorus

tries

unsuccessfully

o

intrude tself

nto

the

conversation

y

offering

latitudes

which

go

unheeded nd

unacknowledged.

ur-

ing

the nterval etween

eiresias's

xit

nd

Creon's

ntrance

he

horus

ings

nother

lyrical de,utterlyackingndramatic alue. Itsings f the racking own ofLaius's

murderer,

nd reiteratests

oyalty

o

Oedipus.

During

the

Oedipus-Creon pisode

the

chorus

nterrupts

he conversation

with

such

meaningless ommonplaces

s,

His

words

re

wise,

king,

f

one

fears

o

fall.

Those

who

are

quick

to

temper

re not

safe. 7

But

there s

no

need

to

go

on;

the

horusdoes

not

greatly

hange

n

this

egard.

n

a

word,

if

my

definition f

dramatic

s

correct,

he

Tyrannos

horus

s

simply

not

dramatic;

urely

t

s notmoredramatic han

many

of

Euripides'

horuses,

nd

it

s

6

Kitto,

p.

165.

70.

T. 11. 16-7.All

quotations

from he

tragedies

re from heGrene nd Lattimoredition, ndwill

be cited

n

the

text.



5/9

208

/

TI,

May

1980

considerably

ess

dramatic

han,

for

xample,

he

choruses

f

the

on

and the

Bac-

chae. Either

Aristotle

s

dead

wrong

when,

referring

o

the

Tyrannos

s

the model

tragedy,

e suggests hatthechorus houldbe regarded s one of theactors as is

clearly

he

case

with

Aeschylus's

ragedies)

r

our

interpretation/translation

f

the

Poetics s

wrong.

Our

test

f the

dramatic-ness

f

the

Tyrannos

horushas

shown

t

to

be

a

total failure.

But

there s even more

obe

said about

the

failure

f

choruses

o

be

dramatic;

hey

are

frequently

nti-dramatic.

As a

single

and almost random

example

of

a

phenomenon

hat

occurs

again

and

again

and

again

in

Greek

tragedy,

ake the

heated

quarrel

between

Creon

and

his son

Haemon

in

the

Antigone.

At

one

point,

after

fine

peech

by

Haemon

in

whichhe

respectfully

hides his

father,

ointing

out

that

t

s

not

a

disgrace

o

make

a mistake

nd

later

to

recognize

nd correct

t,

the chorus

nterrupts

iththisbland (and

dramatically

orthless) omment: Oh,

king,give

heed

f

ensebe

in

his

words;

/

Heed

thou

thy

ire

too--both

have

spoken

well

11.724-5).

he

intrusion

eemsbad

enough,

or t

seems

to

destroy

he

rhythm

of the

scene

without

dding anything ecessary,

ut this

comment

s

positively

bathetic;

t reduces

the

sublime

to the

ridiculous.As a matter

f

fact

Creon

has

spoken

badly

and

foolishly,

nd Haemon

has indeed

spoken

well,

but

the

chorus

will

not

even

udge

whether ensebe

in

his

words;it

imply

wants

to

end the

quarrel

without

offending

nyone.

The

previous speech

by

Creon ended

with

these

pig-

headed

words:

So I must uard hemenwhoyield oorder,

And

not

et

myself

e beaten

y

a

woman.

Better,

f t

must

appen,

hat man

Should

versetme.

I

won't e calledweaker

han

womankind.

[11.

77-80]

To this he

horus

replies:

We

think--unless

ur

age

is

cheating

s-/

That what

you say

is sensible

nd

right

11,

81-2).

n

the

previously-quotedouplet

he horus

could

not

even make

up

its

mindwhetherHaemon was

making

ense;

here

t

does

commit tself

o

a

judgment,

ut a

palpably

wrong udgment.

n this ase the

horus

(the

deal

Audience?)

would

be the

only

one

in

the

theatre,

n

either ide of

the

or-

chestra,who wouldthinkhatCreonwasbeing ightnd sensible. utthemajor ost

of

such

insipid

remarks

with

which

Greek

tragedy

bounds)

is that

they

eem

to

constitute

n

interruption

n

the

action.

Even Professor

Kitto,

that

taunch

ham-

pion

of the

ophoclean

chorus,

annot

xplain

uch nti-dramatic

ehavior.

Even

he

calls the

above-quoted

ines tedious

emarks. 8

If Aristotle

id

not mean that he

tragic

horus hould be

regarded

s

a collective

characterwhat

did he mean?

Perhaps

the

first lue

that

a

reinterpretation

f this

point

s

necessary

s

the

very

act

hathe has saidso little boutthe horus. t would

seemthat ecause

the horus's

ines n even the eastchoric

ragedies omprise

uch

large

portion

f thetotal ines

not

ess

than

/5),

that

Aristotle ould

have devoted

8

Kitto,

p.

168.



6/9

209

/

THE GREEKTRAGIC CHORUS

at least a

proportionate pace

to

it n the

Poetics. We should

not allow

thisvoid

to

pass

unnoticed. Because Aristotle

eems to dismiss

thechorus n a

single,

short

paragraph,

ne

might

e led to believethat

part

of the

manuscript

s

missing,

s we

assume

s the

case

with

his

discussion

f

comedy.

Yet

thetranslation f

this

passage

by

Professor

lse makes

t

clear that

nothing

s

missing,

hat

verything

hat

Aristo-

tlewishedto

say

about the horusvis-a-vis he

omposition

f

tragedy

s contained

in that

paragraph.

Here s that

mportant

irst entence

n the

Else translation:

And

one

[the

tragic

oet]

should

go

on

the

premise

hat he

chorus lso

is

one

of

his

ac-

tors:

t

should

be

a

part

of

the

whole

enterprise

nd an

aid

to him

n

winning

he

competition,

not the

way

it

was

to

Euripides

but rather

the

way

it

was to

Sophocles.

9

The

crucial

word

in

the

sentence s

ovvaywovLtoOat,

hich Butcher

ranslates

s

share n action, but Else arguesto do so creates

syntactical

ifficulty

ith the

datives

oted

Q1iQLnt6rl.

.

oaTne~.Io+o)o,.d

forcing

he

phrase

o be

translated

ith

n

interpolated

aQa.

Moreover,

nd forme of

overwhelming

mportance,

he temof

theword

n

question

s

aywv

which

Aristotle

lways

uses to refer

o

the

tragic

om-

petitions.'

Thus share

n

the action

becomes

aid

.

. .

in

the

competition,

nd

suddenly

he

paragraph

oses most of its

ambiguity

nd

obscurity.

The

key,

it

seems to

me,

to

understanding

his

passage

and

ultimately

o

understanding

rtistotle's

houghts

n

the

horus,

s

to

construe

t

as

referring

ot to

playwriting

ut

to

production.

We

must

not

allow

ourselves

o

forget

he

meaning

of

floLr7TrlX7.

he

Poetics is concerned

olely

with the

art of

poetry,

he craft f

dramaturgy,hemechanics f

writing

uccessful

ragedy.

he Poetics

rarely

efers

to

production,

nd when it

does

it

is

only

n

passing,

nd then

lmost

n

a

casual

manner.

This

fact

n

itself

might o

fartoward

xplaining

why

Aristotle

as

said

so

little

bout the

horus:

he did

not

consider

t

dramatic

lement.

He

considered

t

an

element

of

production.

By interpreting

he

above

passage

to

mean

that

Aristotle

considered he

horus o be like

one of

the

ctors nsofar

s

it

should

be a

part

of

the

whole

enterprise

nd an

aid

to

winning

he

ompetition,

e

suddenly

ealizethat

he

saw the

horus s

a

practical

lement.

Coming

s

late as

it

does

in

the

Poetics,

fter

the

principalpart

of

the

theory

was

expounded,

this

paragraph

seems

to

come

almost as an

afterthought

nd not

as

part

of

the

theory

tself.

A

paraphrase

f he

passagemight o

something

ike

his:

The

poet

hould

compose

his choruseswiththe

same care and

attention hat

he

devotes

o

his

actors,

or f

he

hopes

to win

the

ompetition

hewhole

must eflect

reat

are.

Sophocles,

who

took s

much

are with

his

choruses s

he

did withhis

actors,

won

many

ompetitions,

hile

Euripides,

ho

did

not,

won

few.

Euripides'

horal des

frequently

ad little o

do with

what was

going

on

in

the

plot,

while

Sophocles'

werewell

ntegrated.

owadays

t

s

even

worse.

Agathon egan

the

practice

f

nserting

ongs

nto

his

tragedies

hich

had

9

Gerald

F.

Else,

Aristotle's

oetics: The

Argument Cambridge,

Mass.:

Harvard

University

ress,

1967),pp. 551-2.

10

Else,

pp.

551-3.



7/9

210

/

TJ,

ay

980

nothing

o do

withwhat was

going

on in

the

plays,

nd that s

just

as

bad as

taking

songs

from

ne

tragedy

nd

inserting

hem

n

another.'

What

s

important

s

not

that

Aristotles sayingthat well-integratednd relevant horus s essential o a

good

tragedy;

e

is

saying,

owever,

hat t

s

essential

o

winning

he

ompetition.

n

other

words,

he rt

of

writing ood

choruses

s not

part

f the

heory

f

tragedy;

t

s

part

f

the

theory

f

production.

Aristotle eems to have

premised

he chorus and its

songs

much as we

might

premise

ostume

design.

The

poet

may

approach

the

chorus

n

either f two

ways:

he

may,

as

is the

practice

nowadays, imply

nsert

ongs

which

he

borrowed rom

another

fhis

or

someone

lse's)

tragedies,

ongs

which

have

no

organic

onnection

to the

plot.

Or,

in

the

manner

f

Sophocles,

he

may compose

each

chorus

pecifi-

cally

for

each

tragedy,

ntegrating

he

songs

into the

fabric.

n

the

analogy

with

costumes, hedesignermay simply pull costumesout of stock,some of which

might

ot be

appropriate

or he

production.

ut

t

s better

o

design

nd buildeach

costume

or

ach

production.

o

dressMalvolio

in

a costume

riginally esigned

or

Horatio

might

ulfillome

requirements,

uch s

period,

but

t

would be

basically

n-

appropriate.

t would

not

harm the

play Twelfth

ight,

but

it

would

not

help

the

production.

In

this

regard,

hen,

how

does

the

Sophoclean

chorusdiffer

rom

he

Euripidean

chorus?

t

does

not,

as I have

shown,

differ

n

the

degree

of

dramatic-ness.

oth

choruses

re

basically

undramatic.

ut

the

Sophoclean

choruses

re

more

relevant

to

the

plot,

more

ntegrated

nto

the

tragedies.

or

example,

the

Tyrannos

horus

representshe itizens f Thebes whosewell-beingsdependent pon Oedipus;most

of

what

t

says

is

in

response

o

Oedipus.

Indeed,

t

is the chorus's

uffering

hat

s

behind

Oedipus's

investigation

f

themurder

f

Laius.

The

Ajax

chorus

represents

the

ailors

who

serveunder

Ajax

and

who are

dependent

pon

him.

The

Philoctetes

chorus

represents

he

sailors,

under

the nominalcommand

of

Neoptolemus,

who

must

help

their

aptaincapture

Philoctetes

n

order

hat

heymight

e victorious

n

Troy.

Euripides'

horuses,

n the

other

hand,

with everal

xceptions,

eldomhave

a

vested

nterestn the

protagonists'

uccessor failure.

hey

are moreoften hannot

merely

ystanders.

requently

he failure

f

the

protagonist

as

no

greater

ffect

upon

the chorus than

to

make

it

unhappy.

Sophocles'

method s

better,

Aristotle

would say, justas appropriate ostumes re better: tadds something,lbeitnota

dramatic

lement,

o

the

generalpleasure

nd

understanding

f

the

audience.

If

my theory

s

correct-that

the

chorus

in

the

tragedies

of

Sophocles

and

Euripides

s

significant nly

in the

theatre,

not

in

the

study-

I must

turn

to

theatrical

ractice

n

order

o

conclude

my

argument.

xactly

what

function

oes

the

chorus serve

there?

In his well-known

essay,

Verfremdungseffekte

n

der

chinesischen

chauspielkunst,

recht escribes

he effect

f

watching

Chinese

ac-

tors:

The

efforts

n

question

were

directed o

playing

n

such a

way

that

the

au-

dience was hindered

rom

imply dentifying

tself

with

the characters

n

the

play.

Acceptance

or

rejection

f

their ctions

nd utterances as

meant

o take

place

on

theconsciousplane, nsteadof,as hitherto,n the udience's ubconscious.

11

he

11

Brecht

n

Theatre,

ohn

Willett,

d.

and

trans.

N.Y.:

Hill nd

Wang,

964),

.

91.



8/9

211

/

THE GREEK

TRAGIC CHORUS

Alienation

Effect,

s

it s

called,

has become

o

important

hat he theatre

f

Brecht

and,

indeed,

n entire

vant

garde

theatremovement ould

not

have come

into

be-

ing

withoutt. Western

echniques

f lienation, owever, re

dependent

esson act-

ing style,

the

method

on which

Chinese

alienation

s

based,

than

on

production

methods,

uch as

interrupting

he action

with

irrelevant

ongs,

dances,

and ser-

mons.

That

is

the

way

it

s done

in the

modern

heatre,

nd I am

suggesting

hat he

classic Greek chorus

played

exactly

his

role.

This

theory,

then,

might

go

far toward

explaining

the

many

choral

interruptions

e

find n

Greek

ragedy. pecifically,

hose have mentioned

n

the

Tyrannos

nd

the

Antigone

hould

be

viewed not

as dramatic

nterruptions,

ut

lyric nterruptions.

am

suggesting

hat these

nterruptions,

hen

they

re most

commonplace

nd

insipid,

were

composed

by

the

poets

not for

ensebut

for

music.

In otherwords,a

couplet

uchas, ' We hink-unlessourage is

cheating

s-/That

what

you say

is

sensible nd

right

houldnot

be read

dramatically

s

though

ts ole

value

were

in

its verbal

sense.

Rather,

t

should

perhaps

be

sung

and

danced,

perhaps xpanded

to

several

minutes,

nd

resulting

ot

n

a mere

nterruption,

ut a

full

reak,

n interlude

f

alienation

uring

which

ime he udience

ould

stop

feel-

ing

nd

begin

to

think. n cases

such as

this,

how the

horus

performs

hese

ouplets

is more

mportant

hanthat

t

performs

hem.

The

longer

horal

odes

were

possibly

major

nterludes

f

alienation

during

which

he udience

could

readjust

tself, elax,

watch

the

dancing,

isten

o the

music,

nd

perhapsponder

what

t

had

just

seen.

In

suggesting

hat heGreek

horus's

olewas that f

alienating

he

udience,

am

not

attempting

o

expound

ome chic new

theory

hatEuripidesndSophocleswere

Brechtians

n

disguise.

On the

contrary,

he Alienation

Effect,

which

Brecht er-

tainly

id

not nvent ut rather

merely ecognized

nd

named,

s an ancient

evice,

one

which artists-not

only

dramatists-have

always

subconsciously

nderstood

and used.

It s

perhaps

hemost fficientnd directmethod

f

arousing

he

motions

and

passions

of

the udience

while

forcing

t

to

think t the ame

time.

Through

his

technique

hedirector

we

should

not

forget

hat he

tragic

oets

were lso

directors)

can

simultaneously

ive

an action

specific

nd universal

ignificance.

eter

Brook,

who used theAlienationEffect

o

brilliantly

n

his

production

f

Marat/Sade,

aid

alienation s

a call

to

halt:

alienation

s

cutting,nterrupting,olding

omething

p

tothe ight,making s look again.Alienationsabove all an appeal tothe pectator

to

work

for

himself,

o

to

become

more

responsible

or

ccepting

what

he

sees

..

A

normal

tage

action

will

appear

real

to

us

if

t s

convincing

nd

so

we

are

apt

to

take

t,

temporarily,

s

objective

ruth.P 12nd

of

coursewhen

the

udience

begins

to view the

tage

ction

s

objective

ruth

t

begins

o

delude

tself.

lienation

uts

n

end

to

that.

The

greatest itfall,

tseemsto

me,

n

directing

reek

tragedy

s

to

takethe iteral

meaning

f the horus'swords too

seriously,

o

think

f t

as

another

ctor,

to

try

o

make thechorus eem dramatic.

My

own

theatregoing

xperiences

ave

taught

me

that uch effortsre

totally

wasted.To

emphasize

what is

unimportant

o

theun-

12Peter

rook,

he

Empty

pace

N.Y.:

Atheneum,

968),

p.

72-3.



9/9

212

/

TI,

May

1980

folding

f

the

plot

can

only

vitiate he

power

of

that

which

s

truly

mportant.

o

long

as

thedirector an

teachthechorus

o

communicatets

meaning hrough

ong

and dance the

major part

ofthebattle swon. Far more

mportant

hanthe iteral

meaning

f

thechorus's

ines

s

the

emotional

mood

or

tone

of

a

given

ode.

Surely

the

body

is the

most

mmediate

nd directmode

of

communication,

nd

it

s on

this

plane,

the

physical,

that the chorus exists.

Here,

I

believe,

we

may give

some

credence

o

Nietzsche's

heory

hat

ragedy

s

a

childof

the

marriage

etween he

op-

posing

ttitudes

f

Apollo

and

Dionysus.

The

one

represents

he

ntellect,

heother

the

body;

one

contemplation,

he

other he

dance;

one the

dream,

heother

ntoxica-

tion; and,

to

introduce reud nd take

t

a

step

further,

he one the

Superego,

he

other

he

d.

The

secret,

t

seems

to

me,

of

producing

reek

tragedy

n

an

essentially

Greek

manner

s to

think

f

thecharacters s

Apollonian

and thechorus s

Diony-

sian,toapproacheach as a distinctntity ith distinctunction,uteachbeing n

integral art

of

the whole

production.

The characters nhabit

dream

world,

a

world

of

myth

nd

contemplation

nd

intellect;

heir

rresistible

pell

draws the

u-

dience

nto

their

world,

and the

udience s abused

into

believing

t

s

a

real world.

And

when

the

audience

s most

deeply

nvolved

n

the

mythological

orld,

when

their ouls are

being

seared

by

the

suffering

f

an

Oedipus

or

a

Heracles,

then

he

chorus

explodes

them

out

of their

nightmare

nd

into

the

real world

of

sight

nd

sound,

nto

a

world

where

they

an

think,

onder,

ontemplate,

elax.

The chorus

does

not

act as a

concilliating

nfluence etween

character

nd

audience as

some

believe.

To the

contrary,

t

is

an

alienating

nfluence,

orking

o

insist n

thedif-

ferences

ot

the imilarities etween

he

two

natures

f

man.

The

characters,

n

that

they

mitate he

plot

arethe

very

oulof

tragedy,

nd this oul iseternal or texists

whether e read

the

tragedy

r

see

it on

the

tage.

The

chorus,

n

the

other

hand,

s

a

purely

heatrical

lement,

nd

it

exists

nly

n

the

theatre.We

must ee the

horus

dance and hear

t

sing

or

it

does

not

exist.

This content downloaded from 168 131 53 85 on Sat 30 Aug 2014 03:04:28 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Documents

Greek Chorus