There is a situation in the history of Greek art which is strikingly
familiar even if profoundly divergent, to the scene of a totem feast
discovered by Robertson Smith. It is the situation of the oldest Greek
tragedy. A group of persons, all of the same name and dressed in the
same way, surround a single figure upon whose words and actions they are
dependent, to represent the chorus and the original single impersonator
of the hero. Later developments created a second and a third actor in
order to represent opponents in playing, and off-shoots of the hero, but
the character of the hero as well as his relation to the chorus remains
unchanged. The hero of the tragedy had to suffer; this is to-day still
the essential content of a tragedy. He had taken upon himself the
so-called ‘tragic guilt’, which is not always easy to explain; it is
often not a guilt in the ordinary sense. Almost always it consisted of a
rebellion against a divine or human authority and the chorus accompanied
the hero with their sympathies, trying to restrain and warn him, and
lamented his fate after he had met with what was considered fitting
punishment for his daring attempt.
But why did the hero of the tragedy have to suffer, and what was the
meaning of his ‘tragic’ guilt? We will cut short the discussion by a
prompt answer. He had to suffer because he was the primal father, the
hero of that primordial tragedy the repetition of which here serves a
certain tendency, and the tragic guilt is the guilt which he had to take
upon himself in order to free the chorus of theirs. The scene upon the
stage came into being through purposive distortion of the historical
scene or, one is tempted to say, it was the result of refined hypocrisy.
Actually, in the old situation, it was the members of the chorus
themselves who had caused the suffering of the hero; here, on the other
hand, they exhaust themselves in sympathy and regret, and the hero
himself is to blame for his suffering. The crime foisted upon him,
namely, presumption and rebellion against a great authority, is the same
as that which in the past oppressed the colleagues of the chorus,
namely, the band of brothers. Thus the tragic hero, though still against
his will, is made the redeemer of the chorus.
When one bears in mind the suffering of the divine goat Dionysos in the
performance of the Greek tragedy and the lament of the retinue of goats
who identified themselves with him, one can easily understand how the
almost extinct drama was reviewed in the Middle Ages in the Passion of
Christ.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account