An ongoing dialogue...1

Let us make the hypothesis that the Ancient Greek Mode of understanding “theatre” has to do with how tragic is interweaved with democracy and the role of citizens from the point they start entering -en masse- in history. History always withholds bad things: depression, terror, violence. Dionysian brotherhood was aware of this treacherous face of History and even more of the obscure places of the deities of mass. I have made a comment about “alter populus” and how much fear can trigger to every political establishment.

These deities and heroes were supposed to comfort the pain which was produced from failures, discriminations, chasms which separated mass from power and obstructed democracy. For that brotherhood was clear that mass was out of history and this could not change. Mass was an a-societal entity which had to rely before democracy was embedded only in symbolic forms and through mythic uprisings -even rebellions.

At that point, when man realizes that his existence as a natural being and as a historic, societal being are “problematique”, difficult to harmonize, at that point the tragic element is born. Symbiosis and reconciliation with the Negative led, up to a certain point, to the admission that man has no more an only optimistic perspective. Plato, a typical representative of “classic mind” passed from his “Socratic” – optimistic period to Theaetitus” where he recognized the ontological existence of Badness. Man is no more mastering his fate but he is “Theou paegnion”. Plato, at the same time made a prophecy: in Gorgias and Republic he spoke about a power which can save the world, not exactly the Good but Dike.

But the world had to keep on through a constant dichotomy and man could not anymore be satisfied by himself. Tragic implies that man had to learn through suffering.

The ancient tragic experience, modern art and psychoanalysis opened a new Universe in front of us. So the closed naïve world of classicistic thought was no more capable of understanding human complexity. The classicistic model of man recognized as “real” only what was disciplined, ordered, rational. Tragic, in the before mentioned classic sense and in the sense of Aeschylus, Sophocles, the creators of “classic”, became for classicistic thought synonymous to anarchy! Social stability and order, scientific optimism were threatened by Oedipus, Phaedra, or Hercules Furens! Incest or anthropophagy were indigestible for the European classicists.

The audiences of ancient Athenian citizens, watching Persae, the audiences of Racine or Corneille and the audiences of Marlow and Shakespeare show clearly, in their difference, the role of mass (its presence or absence) and its connection with the Tragic.

Take a look at www.demothen.blogspot.com