Zlatomir Moldovanski March 5, 2012 Text Analysis Examination of the Authorial Point of View and Action in The Caucasian Chalk Circle When reading a Brechtian text, we must always look for the authorial point of view as well as the arrangement of plot events through which the action is completed. Brecht’s aim is not catharsis. He is not interested in his audiences’ becoming emotionally involved with the characters’ journeys or personal relationships. Instead, we must find the political and societal arguments that are presented in the text. In order to achieve this effect, Brecht requires his theatrical events and performances to have a certain level of artificiality. The characters do not adhere to psychological realism. Therefore, the audience is able to remove its emotional attachment to the experiences on stage and look at the larger issues objectively. If there is any emotional involvement, it is derived from the arguments that the event at hand raises rather than the personal experiences in it. Another important characteristic that makes a play Brechtian is its lack of resolution. The viewers must exit the theatre with questions rather than answers. They must be challenged to make choices and change the way their world works because of the problems raised in the imaginary world. In The Caucasian Chalk Circle, Brecht’s arguments focus on rights of ownership, societal division, morality, and government. Although the plot is not linear in the Aristotelian sense, the play’s events are arranged in a way to support the authorial point of view and manipulate the audience’s reaction. Brecht creates a world deprived of logic and morality. It is an environment in which making the moral choice gets one nowhere. In such a system, one must find ways to act illogically to achieve real justice. Absurdity calls for absurdity. The action of the play is to follow the moral choice despite the consequences. In the prologue, Brecht presents the issue of ownership. Members of two villages meet to establish who will receive a piece of land—the village that rightfully inherited it or the one that will make better use of it. The entire scene is surprisingly mundane. The arguments, or rather discussions, are peaceful and somewhat uneventful. There is no dramatic tension that can pull in the audience. That way, we can clearly and objectively see the logical, almost obvious nature of the scene’s outcome. Brecht’s point of view is also clear. Inheritance has nothing to do with just ownership. Those who will make best use of the land will justly acquire it. The scenes that follow the prologue are a telling of a story that demonstrates how the lack of such logic is destructive to people; and, in a system that lacks justice and is full of governmental absurdity, one must be an outlaw in order to preserve morality. In the first scene, Brecht achieves the alienation effect by having the singer make “it clear that he has told his story over and over again.” The songs, which serve as subtitles in this play, tell us what is going to happen so that we do not focus on the plot but rather direct our attention to the issue that it raises. The first elements that are introduced are the government and societal class system in the world of the play. The environment is described in the song: So many beggars on his doorstep So many soldiers in his service So many petitioners in his courtyard ……………………………………………………… He enjoyed his life. The lower classes are suffering while the rulers are living in luxury, completely unconcerned with the welfare of the people. In an almost demonstrative way, the Governor’s Wife and the Fat Prince only show concern for trifles and fully disregard serious matters: “I love a gay sky, a simple heart, Natella Abashwili.”; “All those wretched slums are to be torn down to make room for the garden.”; “Sometimes things go well, sometimes not. Such is war. Doesn’t mean a thing, does it?” Brecht paints a very clear picture of the political system in the play. It is a world in which the lower classes work, fight, and suffer the most while those who rely on them the most are oblivious to their problems. By setting up this environment, Brecht manipulates the way the audience views the characters and their actions. The absurdity of the events that follow is plausible because one must cope with the way the world works— the individual changes completely when his environment changes. Therefore, we must not judge the characters as people but as products of their political and social atmosphere. What follows is a coup. However, in this world, true change is impossible. The leaders in the government may be switched, but the system itself remains exactly the same. The obvious disregard for the commoners’ sufferings comes from the fact that people in the government do not realize that the lower classes provide the foundation of their luxury: O blindness of the great! They go their way like gods, Great over bent backs. The only outcome of the coup is more misfortune for the working class. Someone must be blamed and someone must bear the consequences of military action. Those who suffer the most when rulers lose are their servants: Those who had no share in the good fortunes of the mighty Often have a share in their misfortunes. The argument that Brecht is presenting is quite complex. There is no hope for change in this world because the two classes have almost no dealings with one another. There is no communication about what the actual issues are. Everyone tries to cope with the environment while remaining oblivious to its flaws. The audience is therefore urged to examine their own lives and determine for themselves if they are satisfied with their own world. In the scene between Grusha and Simon, we see how soldiers are used as tools and not humans. Their choices are arbitrary because they are strictly defined by their obligation to fulfill their job. Simon contently describes himself as a tool: “Isn’t the stabbing dangerous for the knife?”; “I have my orders, and I go.” The relationship that is developing between Grusha and Simon must wait until his task is completed. The war must be fought; therefore love has to wait. However, despite this adversity, Grusha makes the human choice and commits to wait for Simon: I shall wait until the last soldier has returned And longer When you come back from battle No boots will stand at my door The absurdity of the Governor’s Wife’s actions when she is making her escape makes the entire situation almost satirical. Her main concern is preserving her priceless wardrobe. She refuses to take care of her child personally and hands it off to a servant. She feels insulted when asked to ride on horseback. She cannot be blamed however. As an audience, we are not asked to hate her or sympathize with her. Rather, we understand that she truly does not possess any motherly or survival instinct. She has never had to use them. The environment and the political system of her world have disabled her basic human skills and feelings. When Grusha faces the difficult decision whether or not to take the baby, her journey is highlighted by the narration of the singer. This interferes with the possible empathetic emotional attachment of the audience, and allows for examination of the situation. Grusha’s choice is difficult and does not come immediately: Only till she would have to leave, for the danger was too great, Fearful is the seductive power of goodness. In a world such as this, making the moral choice is dangerous. One must be willing to face the consequences of adhering to morality. Grusha becomes a criminal for doing the right thing—a thief who will be prosecuted: As if it was stolen goods she picked it up As if she was a thief she crept away. In the second scene we see just how much common people are influenced by an absurd political system. Human generosity and care are unknown ideals to the Milk Man who isn’t willing to help a starving infant. He is a product of his world. He cannot be generous when his own survival is in danger. He even mocks Grusha for suggesting that he should help. Her expectation of a helping hand is perceived as absurd: “And for a God-bless-you, eh?”; “Kill the soldiers if you want milk.” Brecht’s point of view on military service in an immoral world is that as soon as a man puts on a uniform, he is reduced to the most basic carnal and animalistic instincts. The Corporal’s vulgarity borders the grotesque: “A good soldier has heart and soul in it. When he receives an order, he gets a hard-on, and when he drives his lance into the enemy’s guts, he comes.” A good soldier is a blood-thirsty animal. He is a tool of a system he does not understand. As she faces more and more obstacles, Grusha’s commitment to morality becomes more difficult. When she is at the bridge, she encounters the danger of being caught by the soldiers, falling into the precipice, and even “tempting God” (as the Merchant Woman warns her). However, Brecht does not believe that religion or fate have anything to do with the choices people make. Grusha continues on her path of serving her human motherly instinct while those who fear God and think about the afterlife seem ignorant. Grusha bravely crosses the bridge, and the Merchant Woman disapproves: “I still think it was a sin.” In Brecht’s eyes, concerning ourselves with what is sinful and what deities think of our actions is useless. It even gets in the way of courage and determination. In the third scene, the absurdity of social convention completely takes over Grusha’s journey. Her own brother is hesitant to help her and the boy because it would be inappropriate to house a mother and a child of there is no father. His argument for this fear is that his wife is “religious”. Therefore, lies must be made up in order to give Grusha shelter. We are faced with a political system that one must learn to manipulate if he is to survive. Grusha’s brother insists that she marries in order to keep the child and herself out of danger. Concerning one’s self with love or personal commitment is unimportant: “You don’t need a man in bed—you need a man on paper.” Ritual and religion are presented as utterly ridiculous and superficial. The monk, assigned to Grusha’s wedding, is the only religious character. He is a drunk who uses up the fee he is collecting from the ceremony at the tavern. The holiness of matrimony is reduced down to a means of manipulating a corrupt and unjust system. The groom is expected to die shortly following the wedding ceremony. Therefore, the musician must play “something that could be either a subdued Wedding March or a spirited Funeral Dance.” Ritual and tradition are worthless because life takes its course regardless: I thought I’d be happier, wed. But my husband is old And remarkably cold So I sleep with a candle instead. Throughout the play, we are continuously reminded how war and transfer of power from one ruler to another can only have a negative effect on regular people. Those regular people will never be allowed an actual voice in the world of this play. They are the pawns by which the system works: “The leaders on one side can win a war, the soldiers on both sides lose it.” Brecht’s plot is not linear and does not present a slice of life. The play moves from one event to the next, and time lapses are not smooth transitions. We move from one argument to another which is the Brechtian ideal. The following transition is simple. The Singer simply says “With the passing moons the child grew up”, and we have a scene in which the boy is playing a “government” game with his peers. The simplicity of the game offers a satirical representation on the absurdity of the political system. Brecht is making an argument that a government such as this can be reduced to a naïve child’s game. In the end of the scene, after the Ironshirts take the boy away, the singer brings up the question of ownership once again: She who had borne him demanded the child. She who had raised him faced trial? Who will decide the case? To whom will the child be assigned? Who will the judge be? A good judge? A bad? Who deserves a child more? The biological mother or the woman who raised and cared for him? If the law determines that it is the biological mother, is the law logical? Is it logical for such a decision to be left in the hands of one man? Is it normal for the outcome of a case to depend on the “goodness” or “badness” of just one man? These are all questions that we are left with at end of Scene 3. They must be asked before the play can continue in the way that it does. In the following scenes, we see how acting absurdly and making seemingly illogical choices are the only ways of being just in an absurd and unjust world. We see the story of Azdak as a parallel to Grusha’s journey. The drunken commoner’s path toward becoming the judge for the trial highlights the idea that only absurd choices and illogical behavior can achieve real justice in this world. Azdak is the only character in the play who acknowledges the contradictions in the system and is therefore capable to manipulate it. He understands what one must do to evade the unjust law and willingly gives advice to others: “Finish your cheese, but eat it like a poor man, or else they’ll catch you. Must I even explain how a poor man behaves?” Azdak is the voice of Marxist revolution in this play. He tells the story of the Persian revolt after which “a peasant ruled when the Vizier was hanged.” The “Song of Injustice in Persia” is a calling for the transfer of power to the lower working classes—something that cannot happen in the world of this play but is Brecht’s point of view that the audience must acknowledge. Azdak understands that hierarchy in his world is an unjust system of inherited authority that must be mocked: “Always was commander-in-chief. At birth shouted at wet nurse. Was trained drop turds in toilet, grew accustomed to command.” There is a great deal of truth in the comedy. Brecht raises the question of just how fair is it for anyone to inherit power. Ability and hard work are not the way to move up in this world. The government is in the hands of people who are oblivious to such concepts. Azdak’s view of war and judicial system is also full of truthful cynicism: “War lost only for Grusinia, which is not present in this court.” The court does not belong to the people but to those who run it. When the Grand Duke comes back to power, Azdak must find a way to survive. His wellbeing is in danger because he has helped so many peasants which is against the law in Grusinia. Brecht does not believe in pride or “being the hero” when it isn’t necessary. If Azdak were to proudly step forward and heroically admit his doings, it would not serve anyone. It would be “the end”, and “they’d enjoy seeing what a Great Man” he is. In order to continue on his moral journey, he must “beg for mercy”. The trial that determines who will gain custody over Michael once again brings up questions of ownership. Grusha has brought up the child; she has gone through numerous obstacles to make sure he is healthy and alive. The Governor’s Wife, on the other hand, is the biological mother. However, that is the only claim she can make. There is absolutely nothing else that makes her the true parent of the boy. In the world of The Caucasian Chalk Circle, that is enough. The law would suggest that she is the rightful winner in this case. Brecht calls on our judgment whether or not that should be the case in our world. We also see that the Governor’s Wife does not want Michael because of her motherly devotion to him. She is only concerned about gaining the estate that she would inherit if he were her son. The lawyer’s case sounds absurd but is actually something that can be considered in this particular court: “The revenue of her estates is blocked, and she is cold-bloodedly told that it’s tied to the heir. She can’t do a thing without the child. She can’t even pay her lawyers.” Azdak, the only judge who understands the system, mockingly replies—“The Court is touched by the mention of estates. It’s a proof of human feeling.” Azdak asks Grusha provocative questions about the child’s upbringing. Grusha’s answers highlight Brecht’s point of view that heredity says absolute nothing about the individual: “He’s an ordinary child”; “He had a nose on his face.” Finally, Azdak tests the mothers’ true intentions by the game of the Chalk Circle. Grusha refuses to pull on Michael’s hand even if it means that she would lose the trial. Her choices are always dictated by the child’s wellbeing: “I brought him up! Shall I also tear him to bits? I can’t!” This is enough for the seemingly rash and unjust judge to proclaim Grusha as the child’s true mother. Azdak’s absurd actions continue to follow the path of morality. He “mistakenly” divorces Grusha from her previous marriage rather than make a decision on the actual divorce case presented at him. This rash judgment allows Grusha and Simon to continue their loving relationship and become loving parents to Michael. Even though The Caucasian Chalk Circle has a seemingly happy ending, the questions that Brecht presents are not answered in the end of the play. Azdak is able to help the poor by being irrational— which is required in the political system of Grusinia. The period of his appointment as judge is “almost an age of justice.” His mission to help the poor is an incident. It does not restore stasis in the play. Brecht calls his audience members to decide for themselves and in their own lives what makes one deserving of ownership; what morality means and why it is always imperative to make the moral choice.
