"Weeping for Hecuba": Is It a "Brechtian" Act?

In the period between the two world wars, Bertolt Brecht constructed, both through his plays and stage-productions as well as through his theoretical writings, an elaborate model of dramaturgy and theatrical performance which he labelled "epic theatre." Its central tenets developed as a conscious reaction against the type of drama which he termed comprehensively "Aristotelian" theatre, denoting thus the Western theatrical tradition which goes back to fifth-century Athenian drama. In Brecht's evaluation the cornerstone of the Aristotelian theatre is the notion of "Einfühlung," i.e., the spectator's tendency to empathise with characters and action (see, e.g., Brecht 1964.87), while his own ideal drama appeals first and foremost to the viewer's reason.¹ In this type of theatre the indispensable prerequisite for understanding is the spectator's "alienation" from the stage-world (Brecht 1964.71):

The spectator was no longer in any way allowed to submit to an experience uncritically (and without practical consequences) by means of simple empathy with the characters in a play. The production took the subject-matter and the incidents shown and put them through a process of alienation: the alienation that is necessary to all understanding.

Lack of empathy on both the performer's and the spectator's parts enables the latter to envisage social alternatives (see, e.g., Brecht 1964.137), to explore the possibilities of building a different reality: "It [i.e., epic drama] must not believe that one can identify oneself with our world by empathy, nor must it want this" (Brecht 1964.25). It forces the viewer to take decisions, arouses his capacity for action and protest (cf. Brecht 1964.37), and therefore creates the conditions for social criticism. Moreover, "epic" theatre enhances the formation of class-consciousness, as its actor "does not address himself to everybody alike," but "allows the existing divisions within the audience to continue, in fact he widens them" (Brecht 1964.143; cf. 139).

As I have argued elsewhere (Lada 1993), Brecht's conception of empathy as lying at the opposite extreme to reason is dangerously misleading when applied to the workings of the classical Athenian drama. For, although Greek culture shapes the predisposition of Greek audiences as highly empathetic, in so far as we can get an insight into the Greek perception of representation-frames, many a time empathy and bewitchment seem to be considered as thoroughly compatible with cognitive processes. Taking therefore my inquiry a step further, I propose to focus on Brecht's conception of the broader consequences of the "Aristotelian" spectator's identification with the world of fiction, with a view to investigating whether the entire range of connotations that he perceived as corollary to the conception of aesthetic "Einfühlung" are applicable to fifth-century Athenian drama. For Brecht saw empathy as the principal obstacle to the spectator's social understanding; "involvement" with the stage-world blunts his critical awareness, obscures the lucidity of his judgement (Brecht 1964.26):

If the seance is successful it ends up with nobody seeing anything further, nobody learning any lessons, at best everyone recollecting. In short, everybody feels.

By enwrapping the spectator in the web of empathy, the "Aristotelian" type of drama functions as a "pacifier," inducing him to accept unquestionably the play's world and the reality that it reflects (Brecht 1964.71):

The dramatic theatre's spectator says: Yes, I have felt like that too-Just like me-It's only natural-It'll never change-The sufferings of this man appal me, because they are inescapable …

Furthermore, emotional response causes individuality to merge with the prevailing mood of the spectating body. Losing perspective on himself as a social entity, the viewer tends to forget what differentiates him from his fellow spectators (Brecht 1964.60):

In calling for a direct impact, the aesthetics of the day call for an impact that flattens out all social and other distinctions between individuals. Plays of the Aristotelian type still manage to flatten out class conflicts. . . . A collective entity is created in the auditorium for the duration of the entertainment, on the basis of the...