Misuse of Power and Injustice Served in Brecht’s Caucasian Chalk Circle

Brecht’s source for the play “The Caucasian Chalk Circle” evolves from the play that he saw in Berlin: Li Qianfu’s medieval Chinese play “The Circle of Chalk” in an adaptation by the German poet Klabund. Brecht wrote the play during the World War II in 1944 when he was in exile in California, America. Before this was the time when he was a Nazi detester and Hitler’s army followed Brecht at many places. The play was first performed by the students at Carleton College in Minnesota University of United States in 1947. Bertold Brecht created a theatre to inspire social change in the society. As he followed communism, he was a greatly influenced by the writings of Karl Marx, the German philosopher and co-author of the Communist Manifesto. This influence let Brecht to believe that if the workers and the poor could understand how the rich oppressed and exploited them, the lower classes could use that knowledge to change the world — to demand higher wages and better working conditions, to stop wars, and to protect their rights. To help educate his audience, Brecht created a theatre where they could examine the events on stage like scientists conducting an experiment.

Moreover, his theatre can be assigned as the laboratory of human choices, where constantly his characters are given chances from time and again to choose from the situations that could change lives and urged his characters to think. So, this theatre known as the “Epic theatre” created a sense to detach the audience from the play and to experience the emotions of the play in a detached manner. He did not want to trick the audience into mistaking theatre for reality. Hence, this theatre appeals less to feelings and more to the reason, leads the audience to ‘think’. This epic theatre uses ‘V-effect’ which creates the feeling of alienation and detachment in the play. Whereas, this play also have a certain similarity with King Solomon’s Bible, where towards the end like Solomon deals with two mothers fighting over the ownership of a child, similarly over here Azdak has been related to king Solomon to whom Natella and Grusha goes for the official custody of the child and though Azdak acts like a clown but favours what is right by the child rather what is the truth and just. Many characters of the play give a certain significance like Grusha being the virgin mother as virgin Mary and an official father called Jussup (recalling 'Joseph‘), whereas Azdak being the clown like Christ figure.

Brecht was a writer writing at the time of Nazism where many people used to ignore the things happening in the surrounding and many people believed to just ignore the sufferings in front of their eyes and move out with their heads down and collars high. Hence, we should not be awestruck with the fact that why people did not think of helping because charity was only afforded by the rich as it is luxury, if being practical then poor can only see the drama from far. Brecht’s theatre had the capability that makes us stop, notice, and critically challenge our own assumptions about why the world is the way it is. This play is generally surrounded around how much difficult it is for the world to act in a certain prescribed moral manner and how important it is today for everybody to just do the right thing in a society that is constructed around the idea that there can only be winners and losers, so is doing right the only justice? Justice is not by doing right, but by finding out what would result from the right decision and what would not. Though Azdak by his misuse of power gave a corrupted judgement in favour of Grusha, claiming Michael to be her son not Natella’s, it was somewhere for the greater good of the child because though he did not perform the right act but he knew what would result into the right decision for the child. Brecht always thought for the greater good.

Selflessness and motherly instinct of Grusha is shown as commendable with the motherhood and love she presents to Michael in the play, which he lacks to receive from his blood mother, Natella. This inspiration by Brecht has been taken from Solomon’s bible and Christ’s story, as her being the reflection of one of the mothers from Solomon’s story who gives up her child to the other women in the fear of her child being cut into two. Similarly, as Grusha’s act of pulling the child mildly in the chalk circle, as though the child was not her own but still cared for him more than her own blood. The sacrifices she makes for him defines her selflessness for the child, this selfless nature results in a lovable character, a person who has the capacity to adore a person endlessly, on a certain verge where she gives up the love of her life and marries a stranger knowing that he is on his death bed.

Misuse of power is when a person is given power but the person uses it for its own interest in the falsified manner, although Azdak misused his power but it was for the right of the child and for other needful people of Grusinia. Whereas, he is not like the Governor or Natella or the Fat Prince or the soldiers, who under the shadow of their powers, misused it to assault the innocents. The Governor of Grusinia in the beginning misuses the power in a way where he enjoys his life at the expense of other people’s misery as he has many horses at this stable, thousands of beggars at his doorstep, many people who complain about the unnecessary increment of taxes and asks for mercy, these issues instead of being considered by the authority are neglected by him and the people are in turn whipped off from his palace. He instead of considering the big problems as important has these petty subjects at consideration where he worries about the lost body parts in the Persian war and allows the water inspector to take bribes. Where people are constantly pleading for reducing the corruption and the unnecessary taxes levied upon them, he has two doctors appointed for the baby Michael unnecessarily. The Governor again misuses his power by having a plan to have all the slums demolished to give way for construction of the East wing Garden, which will belong to baby Michael. Even Natella, the governor’s wife is seen misusing her position where she mistreats the servants and orders them around, insults them and even uses physical violence on them. For example, she beats up a young woman whom she accuses of almost tearing up her dress. She tells her, “I’ll kill you; you bitch!” (p.24. scene 2)

The Fat Prince abuses power in many ways, He intends to over throw the Governor (his brother) from power. He beheads him and had his head hanged at the entrance of his palace for all to see. When Grusha escape with baby Michael, he orders the Ironshirts to follow Grusha in order to bring Michael back, the heir of the palace in order to execute him. He also takes the advantage of his position to make his nephew the judge despite his incompetence. This incompetence is revealed in the mock trial and he loses the opportunity and Azdak is made the judge.

Misuse of power is also shown in the play within a play where Adzak as a judge abuses power by exemplifying gross misuse of power and position. He exploits court clients by first demanding bribes before presiding over cases and accept the bribes openly. After each case he says ' .......i accept' and stretches his hand. His abuse is also visible through hiring five hundred lawyers to defend him. He also takes advantage of the clients like Ludovika where, he suggests that he accompanies Ludovica, the innkeeper’s daughter-in-law to the scene of rape in order for the court “to inspect it”. He fines Grusha and Simon for contempt of court and pockets the proceedings saying he will need the money later. He demands for forty Piasters from Grusha and Simon after signing Grusha’s divorce papers. He adopts a very unusual way of running a court where he never uses the status book and often asks the granny to sit on the judge’s seat, which should never happen. Hence, Azdak is a mere civilian and without any education he is made to sit on the seat of a judge, it is normal that he will display his lack of competence. He exposes abuse of power by the Grand Duke when he orders officials to flog soldiers, rob cash and land owners to sleep with peasants’ wives. Though Azdak is seen misusing all his powers and making people a victim of his greed and incompetence to education, but has a certain experience and fairness by thinking through the means of heart for the poor classes. Class injustice is a topic that Brecht dealt with strongly in all his plays as communalism was an important belief that was greatly seeded into his mind by Karl Marx’s learnings and philosophy. Though Azdak uses his power unwisely, but he uses his power to rule in favour of the poor. Adzak, the exceptionally fair character of Brecht shows justice through his misuse of power, where though he takes form the rich but he gives to the poor and needy. Hence, he makes poor believe that they too can gain justice under exceptional circumstances.

The soldiers and the Ironshirts are also shown misusing the power. They use their whips to whip away the crowd waiting to give their petitions to the governor, when the crowd wants to have a look at the heir, baby Michael, they are whipped away. As Grusha travels Northwards, the Ironshirts whom the singer refers to as ‘Bloodhounds’, Trap-setters’ and ‘Butchers’ are on the highway after her. They harass Grusha ruthlessly with the barrage of questions, an indication of their vindictiveness and orientation of sexuality, thus abusing power. The corporals are also portrayed as people who misuse power. The corporal who is going after the Governor’s child takes advantage of his position to harass the soldiers and members of public. He abuses the soldiers, forces them to sing and forbids them to limp after selling the horses they were supposed to use at a high price. He also commands the Ironshirts to grab and kick the fat girl’s husband in the belly and reprimand them for not enjoying it saying that they will never be promoted because they are not committed to their job.

For the debate of the justice, the play uses the dilemma of the child and the debate of the communes over the valley. Whereas to ask what is justice? Who should get it? It can not only be accorded as something being right or belonging to the rightful owner rather it has a sentiment towards which the righteousness is subjected to. Though Azdak is shown as a clown figure who is a fool but the justice he does is up to the utmost right and it is not an expected or a ready-made answer out of him, even with the fact of him being corrupted and famous for taking open bribes.

Justice will never come from the “willing Judges” like Prince Kazbeki’s nephew, though he is well confined and educated than Azdak but Azdak’s antics are different, such as demanding bribes in the court from the rich, comments on the accepted corruption but though he is taking full from the contented ones but he is at the same time giving widely to the needy. He says, “It’s good for Justice to do it in the open” as he moves around in a caravan among the people. Everything he does or says satirizes the court system. He asks Grusha, “You want justice, but do you want to pay for it? When you go to the butcher, you know you’ll 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 theatre in the courtroom, he creates a crazy logic so that the people who need help get it, despite the law. “His balances were crooked,” says the Singer. Though Grusha has a fear of not getting the child she has wept her sweat and blood for, she intents on scolding Azdak for being corrupt as was his character known throughout. But when Azdak according to his status of not being an impartial justice maker in case of poor, rules the judgement in favour of Grusha , the Singer states the principle of Justice that Azdak uses: “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.

Justice in Grusinia is difficult to find, where the honest and just person like Grusha was punished and the corrupt people like the Fat Prince, the Governor, his wife were awarded with money, good food and a palace as a shelter for them. Whereas these people were getting the best of the things and the one’s honest had to suffer. To speak of the justice; The play and the Prologue basically deal with two similar contradictions. First of these is— who should own the farm, those who have legal possession of it but have left it unguarded against the invaders or, those who don‘t have legal claim but have protected it and have better plans for its collective use? And the other is— who should have the child, the one who gave birth and left it to die or to the one who didn‘t give birth but saved it from all perils and can teach it to be a better citizen? Both conflicts are resolved by way of finding which side of the conflict holds the general good of the society.

Brecht criticizes judiciary in the play because for him justice works for the welfare of the maximum and not something which is just and right. Brecht points out to the corruption, prejudices, alignment to the ruling power and the partiality in the legal system experienced by the people everywhere of Grusinia . In this time of the war where all the ruling systems of the state were drawn back and suspended, the seat of the judge was vacant, which Azdak filled. This was the time when Grusinia was under utter chaos . For such bloody, corrupt and lawless times, Azdak comes to deliver justice. His judgments are unjust by the current standards of justice but just by the Utilitarian theory of justice. As already discussed, the Fat Prince wants to install his nephew as the judge. This nephew also keeps a spying watch on the Fat Prince which again shows that the ruling classes are at a constant warfare amongst themselves and for the same it is the poor who have to suffer. There are many illegal things, as Azdak puts it, covered under the cloak of the justice.

We have always seen that the inherited property is transferred from one generation to the next on the basis of birth in a family. Such distribution of the property keeps the have-nots forever so. Whereas, if the property is distributed on the basis of the social good and on the basis of who has worked for it more than the rest then, such a distribution of the means of production will give an equal chance to all the people of the society to have access to it. By the same standards, Grusha has earned the child and so have the people of Rosa Luxemburg collective farmers, by defending it from the Nazi invaders.

The traditional concept of “private Property” is summarized by Jeremy Walderon in A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory in the these words: “The law of property involves individuals having the right to make decisions about the use of resources – the land and the material wealth of a country – without necessarily consulting the interests and wishes of others in society who might be affected”. But this will be a very wild and basic concept of private property as it permits the harm to the others. Against this will be the welfare-maximization theory of distributive justice where the individuals may have to sacrifice their rights to the property for the sake of the welfare of the maximum. Brecht‘s concept of justice is of this type where he shows a clan of farmers transferring the piece of land on the basis of its better use for the welfare of the maximum. This theory of justice, Brecht argues, was the wisdom of the old times. It was a cry of the oppressed and the deprived to have the justice through equality in the society.

Brecht’s play has been viewed and talked about by many critics like Maria Shevtsova, who talks about the moral of the play which is made by referring to the observation granted by many critics, is that the play is ‘liberating, and life-enhancing’ as well as it bears a ‘unified understanding’. Also another critic Meg Mumford says that Brecht collided the epic theatre with the Aristotelian theatre where we can see the collided elements of the ancient Greek and the Asian theatre, so as it has both the elements submerged in one theatre we can see that the play created is a certain kind of melodrama where justice happens by only the quirk. As such, the play is bound to create the effect on the audience either of identification or alienation, depending on how the play is staged and performed. Mumford also speaks of the masked identity and the unmasked identity in Brecht’s plays. He found that the masks were useful as they hide the facial expressions and gestures that can make the spectators identify with them. They also helped to reduce complexity arising out of a large cast. He was attempting to set the classes apart and masks proved useful in separating the classes apart. Hence, he classified some characters as full masked and some without them. As the full masks hide the identity and individuality of the characters and put them into a category or class.

Works cited:

1. Bertold Brecht’s “The Caucasian Chalk Circle”; Bloomsbury edition; (pub: 1 jan 2012)
2. Mumford, Meg. Bertolt Brecht. Oxon: Routledge, 2009. Print.
3. Shevstova, Maria. ―The Caucasian Chalk Circle: the View from Europe. The Cambridge Companion to Bertolt Brecht.
4. Walderon, Jeremy. A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory: Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Limited, 2010. PDF