Caucasion chalk circle

The chalk circle is a symbol of truth. Within the circle, all will be revealed. In the play, Azdak cannot come to a rational decision on who should have the child. His methods of justice are not by the Book of Statutes he sits upon. By putting the women in a circle and observing them act towards the child, he can see which woman is best for it. The circle levels the playing ground, removing the advantage of money or rank or history. There are no distractions to the problem or its solution. Azdak lets justice reveal itself. Similarly, the play opens with another circle of justice, when the members of the two communes sit together to decide who should have the valley. The Expert from the Government Reconstruction Commission is like Azdak, who announces the outcome but does not push; he observes. Within this friendly circle where the communes have equal social status, they can impartially decide the best use of the valley, and it is peacefully and mutually decided for the fruit growers. This circle symbol is reinforced by the Wheel of Fortune brought up by the Singer in Scene 2. He sings about the downfall of the Governor, who was so secure in his power and assumed he would always have it. â€Å"But long is not forever. / Oh Wheel of Fortune! Hope of the people! † (p. 15). This wheel of change is always turning and fits the Marxist message of the play. The Wheel celebrates the historical dialectic where the center of power is always shifting from one group or class to another. It is the hope of the people because eventually, this turning circle of fortune produces justice, as we see in the first scene. The first scene depicts the same landscape where the medieval civil war had taken place that we observe through the rest of the play. In the present time in Scene One, however, there is a socialist society that strives for fairness to all. Looking back, the people perform their own history and see how the Wheel of Justice kept moving until the people were free of their class bondage. When the artificial constructs of society are removed that favor the few, then it is clear who deserves what. Christian Symbolism Brecht often criticizes the Christian church as a tool to support the upper classes and keep the lower classes in their places. The historical church subverts the original teaching of Christ who treated all humans with respect. Brecht uses Christianity symbolically in this play, either to criticize religion, or else to transpose Christian rites into secular ceremonies of brotherhood. For instance, critics have pointed out use of the sacraments of the Catholic Church. The sacraments are the sacred ceremonies that convey God’s grace: Baptism, Communion, Confirmation, Penance, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction (Last Rites or the Anointing of the Sick). In the play the first sacrament performed is the engagement of Simon and Grusha on Easter. He gives her a cross that belonged to his mother and asks her to wait for him. It symbolizes a true marriage. Later, the sacrament of marriage is made a farce when Grusha is forced into marrying Yussup, and he crudely tells her the purpose of marriage is for her to serve him in bed and in the fields. Simon on the other hand, stands by Grusha, â€Å"for better or worse. † When Grusha flees with Michael to the mountains, she finally decides he belongs to her and performs a Baptism, saying: â€Å"Ill wash you and christen you/ With glacier water† (Scene 3, p. 39). This is not the Church’s baptism but a human bond recognized by Grusha towards the child. At Jussup’s farm in the mountains, the drunken priest represents Holy Orders, and he performs a wedding and offers to do Extreme Unction on the groom. These rites are a parody of religion, but at the same time, they ensnare Grusha into the exploitive social structure that keeps her a slave. She is blackmailed into being respectable for the sake of the child. Another sacrament is Penance, comically performed by Azdak when he rushes into town with his confession that he let the Grand Duke escape. The sacrament of the Eucharist, or Communion, happens when Azdak shares wine with Granny and the bandit, Irakli. Finally, Brecht makes the fool Azdak into a type of Christ figure. He is beaten by the soldiers and almost hung, but is â€Å"resurrected† by the Grand Duke. The Singer says, â€Å"To feed the starving people/ He broke the laws like bread/ There on the seat of Justice/ With the gallows over his head . . . a poor man judged the poor† (Scene 5, p. 80). Azdak is no saint or supernatural figure. He is humane, performing acts humans can do, and is thus both hero and example. The Garden In Scene Two, Governor Abashvili is remodeling and enlarging his palace, in honor of his newborn son, whom he wants to carry on after him. He proposes to knock down the peasant shacks on the estate to do this. Natella says, â€Å"All these miserable slum houses are to be torn down to make room for a garden† (p. 11). This will be a garden for the privileged at the expense of the poor. The slum people are of no account as humans. In fact, in Scene Six, Natella complains about their smell, as if they were animals. Ironically, this same estate is confiscated for the state in Scene Six when Azdak declares it will be given to the people and made into a playground for children. He calls it â€Å"The Garden of Azdak† (p. This is a human Eden, and the Singer speaks of it as a brief â€Å"Golden Age† (p. 96). The garden is also evoked in Scene Three as Grusha is fleeing to the mountains. She meets a carriage of aristocratic women from the south, who stay at an inn. The innkeeper describes the beauty of the land to the ladies, saying, â€Å"We’re planting fruit trees there, a few cherries† (p. 28). He shows them farther away where the land gets more stony, and that is where the shepherds have their flocks. The ladies say, â€Å"You live in a fertile region† (p. He asks what their land is like, and they say they don’t know. They have not paid attention. This scene reinforces the first scene where the fruit growers and goat herders argue over the same valley. The common people have a relationship with the land and are contrasted to the aristocratic ladies who have not paid attention to the land at all. They are just trying to get through it to someplace else. The Rosa Luxemburg Commune wins the valley in the Prologue because they will make great orchards there, a garden for everyone. Making the land into a garden is the symbol of making the land productive and the sscene of social harmony and justice, so everyone can share the fruits. When the Abashvilis try to make a garden for themselves alone, there is only war and misery. The fact that it is Easter Sunday is thus the first of the many religious themes present in the play. For example, the fact that the Fat Prince is the Governors brother brings to mind the Biblical story of Cain and Abel. Grusha goes through ten developmental steps that start in this act. Each of these steps requires that she sacrifice a part of herself to Michael. She does this financially, emotionally, in terms of her promises to Simon, and in terms of her life. The first step occurs when she gives up her money for the child, paying two piasters for milk. The second is when she decides to go back for Michael after leaving him with the peasant woman. The third is when she hits the Ironshirt over the head. Four is when she adopts Michael, the helpless girl adopted the helpless child. Five is when she is offered the chance to leave the baby with the merchant woman so that she can cross the bridge and save herself. Six is when she risks her life and Michaels life to cross the bridge. The remaining developmental steps occur in the next act. This is almost a direct comparison of Azdak to Christ. Brecht will continue this comparison in the next act, when Azdak is killed, resurrected by the Grand Duke, and finally disappears. Theme Analysis Class Warfare The Grand Duke of Grusinia (Georgia) is involved in a foreign war in Persia when the play opens, yet the action focuses on the civil war at home caused by the coup of the Princes. While the aristocratic regimes come and go during the action of the play, the common people are always regarded as less than human. They suffer no matter who is in charge. The Singer uses Governor Abashvili who is executed by his brother, the Fat Prince, as a warning to other aristocrats: â€Å"Oh blindness of the great! They walk like gods/ Great over bent backs, sure/ Of hired fists, trusting/ In their power which has already lasted so long† (Scene One, p. 15). The soldiers or â€Å"hired fists,† like the Ironshirts, change loyalties with regimes and let themselves be used by the rich to persecute the poor. Simon Chachava is an exception to this, remaining loyal to the Duke. One of the most passionate denunciations of the upper classes is by the maid Grusha in Scene Six when she denounces Azdak the Judge and the justice system itself as a servant of the rich. She complains that the wealthy â€Å"drag our men into their wars† (p. 92). Simon’s memories of the war in Scene Four reinforce her complaint as he witnessed his brothers slain around him for the sake of the Duke’s cause. Grusha tries to disguise herself as an upper class lady when she escapes, but she is found out when she knows how to make beds. The women look at her hands and know she works for a living. The servant at the inn sympathizes with her, saying, it is hard to pretend to be â€Å"a lazy useless person . . . once they suspect you can wipe your own arse . . . the game’s up† (Scene Three, p. 32). Natella Abashvili becomes the stereotyped and heartless noble lady who can only run around picking out the right dresses to pack and berating the servants while her husband is being executed and her son is abandoned. In court, Natella’s notion of motherhood has to do with station. She wants her son back so they can be restored to their estate. She only notices what the child is wearing and is shocked to see him in rags. When Azdak asks Grusha if she wouldn’t like the child to be rich, she thinks to herself it is better for him to be poor than to mistreat the poor: â€Å"Hunger he will dread/ Not those who go unfed† (Scene 6, p. 94). He will not always have to be afraid of who is going to chop off his head, as was done to his father, because of a power struggle or because he was unjust to others. Human Sympathy What is it that can heal class divisions? The play answers that human sympathy makes everyone equally valuable. Grusha does not hate Michael because he is the son of the Governor, who oppresses everyone. She is won over because he is a baby, like any other: â€Å"He looks at you like a human being† (Scene 2, p. 23). When Grusha sits with the baby all night trying to consider what to do with it, she hears it call to her as if saying: â€Å"Don’t you know woman, that she who does not listen to a cry for help/ But passes by shutting her ears, will never hear/ The gentle call of a lover† (Scene 2, p. 24). When she risks her life for the child’s, the Singer asks, â€Å"How will the merciful escape the merciless/ The bloodhounds, the trappers? Grusha does get some sympathy along the highway. A peasant woman was willing to take the child until the Ironshirts came. The servant at the inn tried to give her food. The merchants wanted to help her cross the ravine or take the child so she could go on. Her brother gives her a roof for as long as he dares and arranges a marriage for her. Yussup takes in both her and the child without asking questions. She is given partial help but she is the one who has to sacrifice her whole life for Michael. The child would not have survived but for her. She wants to tell Simon this when he comes for her but only thinks it: â€Å"I had to tear myself to pieces for what was not mine/ But alien. / Someone must be the helper† (Scene 4, p. 60). Grusha deserves to be Michael’s mother because of what she passes on to him. From her, his inheritance will not be money or rank, but wisdom: â€Å"I’ve brought him up according to my best knowledge and conscience . . . I brought up the child to be friendly with everyone. And from the beginning, I taught him to work as well as he could† (Scene 6, pp. 88, 89). She wants him to treat others humanely, and that is a priceless gift for him and the future. Azdak recognizes this humanity in Grusha, demonstrated by her unselfish letting go of the child’s arm so she won’t hurt it. Azdak himself is the other great example of human sympathy as he risks his own life for two years to help the poor. It is a great and comic juggling act he performs with great humility. In the case of Granny, for instance, who claims the stolen cow, ham, and waiving of the rent were â€Å"miracles,† Azdak fines the farmers for not believing in miracles. He sits on the floor with Granny and the bandit, treating them as equals. He calls Granny â€Å"Little Mother† or â€Å"Mother Grusinia,† seeing her as the suffering poor. The Singer says, â€Å"So, so, so, so Azdak / Makes miracles come true† (Scene 5, p. 77). Miracles are not supernatural events for Brecht, but human acts. Justice The play uses the dilemma of the child, and the debate of the communes over the valley, to ask, what is Justice? Who should get the child? Who should get the land? Azdak the fool, who is made into a Judge, works his way through to an answer. It is not an expected or a ready-made answer, for, as the Singer comments, â€Å"Truth is a black cat/ In a windowless room at midnight/ and Justice a blind bat† (Scene 5, p. Justice will never come from â€Å"willing Judges† like Prince Kazbeki’s nephew ( Scene 5, p. 75). Azdak’s antics, such as demanding bribes in the court from the rich, comments on the accepted corruption. He says, â€Å"It’s good for Justice to do it in the open† as he moves around in a caravan among the people (Scene 5, p. 75). Everything he does or says satirizes the court system. He asks Grusha, â€Å"You want justice, but do you want to pay for it? When you go to the butcher, you know you have to pay (Scene 6, p. 91). The rich are used to equating money and rank with truth, but it is their truth, not impartial Justice. Out of Azdak’s comic theater in the courtroom, he creates a crazy logic so that the people who need help get it, despite the law. â€Å"His balances were crooked,† says the Singer (Scene 6, p. 77). Grusha, not understanding Azdak’s intent, scolds him for being corrupt. She claims that what would be true justice is to choose â€Å"only bloodsuckers and men who rape children† for judges as a punishment to make them â€Å"sit in judgment over their fellow men, which is worse than swinging from the gallows† (Scene 6, p. Judging is a punishment to an unjust man who will only blacken himself with hypocrisy. This is the justice the poor are used to. Azdak’s reply to her is, â€Å"I’ve noticed that you have a weak spot for justice† (Scene 6, p. 93). After Azdak rules in Grusha’s favor, the Singer states the principle of Justice that Azdak uses: â€Å"what there is shall belong to those who are good for it, thus/ The children to the maternal . . . the valley to the waterers† (Scene 6, p. 97). The play opens and closes with true justice served. Essay Questions What is Brecht’s concept of epic theater? Because Brecht was a Marxist, he did not like the classical Aristotelian concept of theater as a drama focusing on the story of individual characters. In traditional drama, the audience has a vicarious experience through identification with certain characters that ends with an emotional catharsis. The audience leaves with its personal experience of the drama and does not think about society as a whole. Brecht’s epic theater hopes to do the opposite—it increases the scope to let the audience witness, rather than identify with, the forces of history, and thereby creates a rational reflection on social conditions. Brecht wanted a critical response that would make spectators want to change the world. Theater should be a teaching and political forum. In order to create this new theater, Brecht breaks the dramatic illusion of reality. The spectators should be reminded they are watching a constructed play (such as the play within a play in Caucasian Chalk Circle), because they should understand that all reality is a human construct, and thus can be changed. One way to break the dramatic illusion is through the â€Å"alienation† or â€Å"defamiliarization† effect. The event portrayed is made strange in different ways, such as having characters address the audience directly, or by the use of harsh lighting, by having songs comment on the action, by using camera projections and signs, by speaking the stage directions aloud, or by having a narrator on stage. Brecht also uses what he called â€Å"separation of the elements,† in which the words, music, and sets are self-contained artistic expressions, combining to produce an overlapping montage rather than a unified effect. Brecht was influenced by the subject matter and techniques of Charlie Chaplin and Soviet filmmaker, Sergei Eisenstein. He learned the techniques of avant-garde theater from his mentor, Erwin Piscator. In addition, his epic theater expressed Marxist ideals by being a theater collective rather than the work of individuals. The playwright exchanged ideas with composers, artists, singers, and actors. Brecht wrote the text with such collaborators as Elisabeth Hauptmann, Margarete Steffin, Ruth Berlau, and Emil Burri. Brecht’s techniques have influenced other writers and filmmakers such as Peter Brook, Peter Weiss, Robert Bolt, Jean-Luc Godard, Nagisa Oshima, and Lars von Trier. How does Marxism influence The Caucasian Chalk Circle? Brecht was a Marxist, and his work reflects this philosophy, formulated by Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), the most famous statement of which is The Communist Manifesto (1848). Marxism is a materialist philosophy that denies any supernatural forces shaping human life. History is therefore a struggle between classes for the means of production and distribution of goods. Marx criticized capitalism as exploiting the workers, because ownership was in the hands of the few. The laborers have to sell their services to capitalists and are not given a fair share of what they themselves produce. Private ownership, Marx felt, must be abolished to create a fair society. Marx advocated revolution by the proletariat or workers against the bourgeoisie, or capitalists, to advance to the next stage of civilization in which the workers would dominate. He saw civilization evolving in stages (the historical dialectic): first, primitive or tribal communism; then slavery with an aristocracy; feudalism with peasants and lords; capitalism with bourgeosie and proletariat; socialism where private property was abolished; and finally, true communism where there would be no property and no supervising state. Inequality would be abolished for good. Exploitation is demonstrated in the play with Grusha and the other servants and peasants doing all the work, and the Governor and his wife doing nothing to contribute to society. The Marxist concept of alienation is demonstrated by the ruling classes losing their humanity or feeling of kinship with others. The Governor’s wife only sees her child as the means to get the inheritance. The ruling classes are contrasted with the common people who appear more human; the rulers seem monstrously selfish and insensitive. The military and the judges support the princes and governors. Even as the princes fight among themselves for power and create chaos with their wars, the common people suffer, and no government is better than another. According to Marxism, however, the forces of history are not static, and we hear of the revolt of the carpet weavers in Nukha in Scene Five. Their revolt is short-lived, but when Azdak becomes the Judge and rules in favor of the poor people, it predicts the time coming when the people will be victorious. What is the underlying structure of the play and what is the purpose of the prologue? Brecht uses a frame story in the prologue, where the workers of the Rosa Luxemburg Commune are putting on the Chalk Circle play. In the main drama, Brecht cobbled together two tales into one: part one sets up the chalk circle motif of the rival mothers derived from a fourteenth century Chinese play and the judgment of Solomon in the Bible (told in scenes 2-4, 6), and part two is Azdak’s story that resolves the dilemma (scenes 5-6), apparently derived from Brecht’s own imagination and folklore. There had already been a version of â€Å"The Chalk Circle† in German by Alfred Henschke (also known as Klabund) in 1925, which differed from Brecht’s by making the biological mother win the test. Brecht disliked Klabund’s sentimental tone and worked on his own revision of the story, experimenting with settings in Denmark and Germany, before choosing to set the story in medieval Georgia, with the prologue in Soviet Georgia, after World War II. At first, the frame story took place in 1934 without reference to the Nazis, but then, he moved the time of the frame story to after the war. Using Soviet Georgia as the frame in the prologue caused problems in the United States where the play was first performed in English during the Cold War. The play had to be performed without the prologue referring to the Soviet communes, leaving it as a mere retelling of the fables. Brecht felt this destroyed the play and thereafter the prologue was treated as a vital part rather than a tacked-on afterthought, as some claimed it was, to make the play more Communist. The prologue is necessary because it sets up the occasion for the telling of the chalk circle story, and Brecht wanted the setting to be a real one: â€Å"this parable-like play has got to be derived from real-life needs† (Notes by Brecht, p. 104). Brecht claimed that the fable the Singer tells the workers is not meant to be a literal parable. The two Communist collectives arguing over a piece of land solve their differences amicably without war before the play starts, and the story is a simply a celebration of their just decision. Brecht calls the prologue a â€Å"background† and the fable a â€Å"true narrative† that contains â€Å"a particular kind of wisdom† (Notes by Brecht, p. The Singer Arkadi says, â€Å"old and new wisdom mix very well† (sc. 1, p. 8). The foreground of the play (the chalk circle story) and the background of the play (the modern Soviet communes) come together to display the forces of history. The workers in present-day Soviet Georgia hear a tale about their ancestors in medieval Georgia who were exploited. The fair judging of Azdak in favor of the peasants foretells their own time of greater justice under the Soviet collective system. How are the characters of Grusha and Azdak important to the message of the play? Brecht comments on Grusha that she is a â€Å"sucker† (Notes by Brecht, p. 100) for taking on the child since it nearly costs her own life and dreams. Grusha, like the workers and peasants, only pays and pays and pays without getting anything back, for the child is not even hers. She is a â€Å"producer† who gets none of the fruits, like the proletariat. Brecht comments that Grusha does not expect justice from Azdak; she just wants â€Å"to go on producing, in other words to pay more† (p. 101). After the hearing, â€Å"She is no longer a sucker† (p. 101). Like the other poor people Azdak has helped, she gets back some of the fruits of her labor and gets back her self-respect. She is accepted by Simon, though she had to break her promise to wait for him, for the sake of the child. Their new family unit represents a constructed or just family that rejects the old prejudices and notions of ownership. The child is divorced from a mother that only wants to gain money from it and given to the woman who loves it. Grusha is divorced from the farmer who married her for his own convenience and given to a man who loves her. Simon takes on a woman and a child who are not technically â€Å"his† in the conventional sense, but he appreciates them and is the proper father and husband. This accords with the Marxist idea of economics and justice, of reassigning property and social roles to be more just and fair. It does not matter what went before or who has â€Å"owned† something in the past. On the other hand, Grusha has earned her reward. Brecht remarks that â€Å"Bit by bit, by making sacrifices, not least of herself, Grusha becomes transformed into a mother for the child† (p. 104). Like the people themselves who make sacrifices, suddenly the tide turns, as Marx predicts. Through small quantitative changes, there is a sudden qualitative change. This is the historical dialectic, the process of evolution, and the character of Azdak becomes the means for that to happen in the play. In every case he judges, there is a sudden shift from the side of the dominant landowner to the poor peasant. Azdak is the trickster figure who turns the law upside down. His Robin Hood justice is the Marxist kind that will be rendered by the sudden shift of history, illustrated by the carpet weaver’s revolution in Nukha. Brecht’s directions call for an actor who can portray â€Å"an utterly upright man† (p. 102) to play the part of Azdak. He is â€Å"a disappointed revolutionary posing as a human wreck, like Shakespeare’s wise men who act the fool† (p. 102). But, Brecht comments, â€Å"Azdak is the disappointed man who is not going to cause disappointment in others† (p. 105). He risks his life, like Grusha, to be human and to make a difference. That is the only way justice can come, Brecht insinuates. The Caucasian Chalk Circle by Bertolt Brecht Leave a reply The Caucasian Chalk Circle by Brecht uses epic theatre to bring forth an idea or meaning for the audience to consider while entertaining the audience. Epic theatre involves the use of alienation techniques to distance the viewer from the story but still concentrate on the overall meaning. The person who just views the story would likely take it as fantasy and not reach the true depth of the play. Brecht shocks the viewer by making the events and actions in the play â€Å"strange and abstract† this contrasts with dramatic plays where the audience sympathises and relates to the characters of the play. The theme throughout the play is natural justice versus class justice. The title has links to other parables and stories before it. The Chalk Circle, a Chinese play involved a legal action where the false claimant was granted custody due a bribe to claim her dead husbands estate. This however was overturned by the emperor, the guarantor of the law, in a retrial as the emperor was the father. This particular story is a whisper to the result of Grusha’s trial. The emperor is portrayed as the epitome of justice and gives a true verdict. The trial scene is also adapted from the parable of King Solomon. Solomon the paragon of justice and truth oversees the trial of two mothers, one child is dead the other alive, they seek custody of the alive child. The king asks the child to be cut in half, the real mother relinquishes her claim and thus gains custody of her rightful child. In these two whispers the law is shown to be equated with justice, however Brecht seeks to highlight that within Grusinia this is not the case and it takes a greedy Azdak who despises the upper classes to give a just Verdict. The class justice presented in the novel has close links to the Marxist view of the law, with the law serving all, but in reality it protects and secures the interests of the ruling classes. The play seeks to emphasise that within this class justice the poor can only gain justice under exceptional circumstances. Azdak as the judge and arbiter of justice has come to this position only through a matter of chances and mistakes. Firstly he harbours the Grand Duke from Shauva, then he confesses to the Ironshirts only to be made judge because the Duke escaped. Then through shear chance just before his execution the Duke redeems him and makes him judge, finally making him the arbiter of justice between Natasha Abashvilli and Grusha. This shows that the poor class can only get justice under a system of whims and extraordinary circumstances and that justice is intrinsically linked to a series of chances and not linked to the law as it should be in a feudal regime. Azdak finally decides in Grusha’s favour on the spur of the moment, the chalk circle is a real test, and it is through this test that Azdak decides the child’s fate. In order to entertain the audience, Brecht sought to keep the verdict in flux, keeping the audience in suspense as to the final outcome. Azdak although seen as the arbiter of justice between Natasha Abashvilli and Grusha is shown throughout the play as greedy and corrupt when dealing with the upper classes. The humour that Azdak displays toward the upper class is entertaining, he constantly refers to them as â€Å"arse-holes.. sows.. well-born stinkers. † This anal imagery is continued right through the novel. Azdak is so disgusted by the odours the upper classes emit that he occasionally â€Å"before passing judgement, I went out and sniffed the roses. † This helps Azdak give the verdicts he gives to the â€Å"monied classes† such as the Invalid, and the landowner. He swindles them into giving him money for a bribe then turns about and gives a contradicting verdict against the upper classes. This duplicity when passing judgement is seen by the audience but the lower classes see that for once the law is on their side. This is the final hint that Grusha will get the child, as she is good for the child and will continue to do good for the child, contrasting to Natasha Abashvilla’s intent to get the child only to keep her late husband’s estate. The singer sums up the meaning of the entire play, linking the prologue with the stories of Azdak and Grusha. â€Å"That what there is shall belong to those who are good for it, thus the children to the maternal, that they thrive; the carriages to good drivers, that they are driven well; and the valley to the waterers, that it shall bear fruit. † Brecht in the play seeks to highlight the difference between justice and the law within Grusinia. The feudal society, or Marxist society, is shown to have harder implications for the poor than the even distribution of wealth which is the main emphasis of the Marxist state. The Marxist law is not equated with justice for all rather justice for the upper classes, or class justice, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.