Dimensionamiento de la cámara de fermentación

Com prehension of a dram atic production relies equally on the distinct yet related roles of both verbal and visual impressions. G.K. H unter suggests that w e feel no discomfort about attending a dram atic perform ance in a 'theatrical

auditorium' despite the fact that the 'etymology of the w ord theatre tells us

that this is a place for using our eyes, for seeing th in g s. . . [while] the etymology of the w ord auditorium tells us the opposite, that here is a place for hearing'.2i In fact, the dual implication of a theatrical auditorium is significantly apt: action, or the telling lack of it is an indispensable complem ent to the spoken w ord in dram atic perception. Ultimately,

however, despite the undoubted significance of the non-verbal, H.C. Baldry affirms that 'the magic of the theatre [w as]. . . achieved on the slopes of the Acropolis or in the Globe, not by any scenic realism or trick of lighting, b u t by the spoken w ord' (p. 72). Despite the lack of evidence of the w ay in w hich the Attic plays w ere enacted, the predom inance of voice and the spoken w ord is generally accepted. H.C. Baldry affirms that the actor in the theatre w as

a striking, though distant spectacle for the eye. But above all he was a voice, reaching out over the

orchestra to the m ost rem ote rows of the vast

auditorium . We are uncertain of the actor's

appearance and know little or nothing of his moves and gestures; b u t there is ample evidence to show that it w as the voice that m attered most.

p. 61 In the huge am phitheatres, excellent acoustics m eant that m em bers of the audience were able to hear m ore clearly than they could see. M ovements and gestures w ere formal and obvious, the actors' faces w ere covered, b u t the actor's voice, his m ost versatile m eans of communication, could be used to express subtle nuances. Integrally linked to the voice, the w ords and language of the dram a are naturally of fundam ental importance. In Sophocles,

’practically every w o r d . . . [springs]. . . naturally and directly from dramatic circumstance and characterization, [and] helps develop a num ber of themes at once. The ch aracters. . . say m ore than they intend or realize’.^

It is almost impossible to envisage the dram atization of a Greek tragedy as it m ight have been in the fifth century B.C. Similarly, it is difficult to perceive from even the m ost precise translation a complete experience of the original Greek poetry and dram a. Any translation of a Sophoclean play cannot

comm unicate as im m ediate an appreciation of the w ords and language as an inform ed reading of the Greek original w ould do, b u t a com parison of several authoritative translations facilitates a w ell-grounded perception into the original. A lthough even the m ost skilful translation, as E.F. W atling remarks, ’inevitably omits, or transm utes, som ething of its o rig in al,. . . it can ease the opening of doors that w ould otherwise rem ain, for some, perm anently

closed’.23 Thomas W oodard rem arks that provided ’translations give m any of the essentials of dram atic effect and larger m e a n in g . . . the quality of the scholar’s response m atters m ore than the quantity of his erudition’.^^ A n attem pt to assess the w ords and language used in the Ajax and the Antigone is necessarily ham pered to some extent by the use of translations, b u t the fundam ental issues underlying the dialogue emerge clearly from com petent translations.^^

a. T he use of language

Language establishes m ost immediately the ethos of a dram atic

presentation: the m anner in w hich language is used, the choice of w ords, and the tone and m ode of expression, are of the utm ost im portance in the

comm unication betw een characters and betw een characters and audience. The personality of the hero is as fundam entally related to the language he uses, as it is to the style, the m ovem ent and the atm osphere of the whole.

Coriolanus has been m uch criticized for being a h arsh and unm usical play,

w ith an unattractive hero. Violence and dissension in the action are reflected in the discordant language of the play, and in the hero’s uncom prom ising nature and m anner of speech. The language is inextricably bound u p w ith the thematic significance of Rome, the nature of w hich plays an integral part

in the dram a. Rome in Coriolanus is a small, prim itive w arring city-state, constantly embroiled in internal and external conflict. Even peace is spurious, for the m utinous citizens constantly carry 'staves, dubs, and other weapons' (S.D. 1.1.1), and the prevalent ethos in the city is the reciprocal dissension betw een all sections of the community.

There is no fundam ental difference in language, imagery, o r behaviour in peace or in war: Caius M ardus, defender and saviour of Rome, is also 'chief enem y to the people’ (I.1.6-7). A ppropriate to an austere lifestyle, the

language of the play is essentially unadorned. Rhythms are m ost frequently martial, and there are few m oments of lightness or lyricism. Predom inantly inflexible im agery evokes an atm osphere w hich is as intractable and as form idable as is the nature of Rome's leading citizen. Paradoxically, despite the rigidity, Rome is presented as a city of unpredictable instability, of continual restlessness, of noise, conflict and confusion. Criticisms of the dram a or of the hero on the basis of their harsh nature or language, fail to recognize that these are essentially the features w hich distinguish Coriolanus as 'one of the m ost taut and pow erful tragedies Shakespeare ever

conceived'.26

The 'difficulties' critidzed in the language of Coriolanus, as Derek

Traversi affirms, are 'part of Shakespeare's intention and result in an artistic su ccess. . . [a] tragedy m ore new and interesting than m any have realized '.^ It is fundam ental to an understanding of the dram a to perceive that the

breakdow n and unreliability of all forms of comm unication in Rome

contribute substantially to the ultim ate collapse of all that pertains to the past glory of the city. Rome becomes a social setting which no longer reflects, nor is it compatible w ith, the nature of the hero it bore.

Coriolanus's contempt for the 'tongues o' th' common m outh' (HI. 1.22) and for w ords w hich merely 'make m otion th ro u g h . . . lips' (III.2.118), sets him apart from patricians and plebeians alike. His disdain for excessive and untrustw orthy w ords forms an ethical signpost for an insight into the ethos of the play, the nature of the hero, and, m ost essentially, the role which w ords and language play in the communication of the dram a. The inadequacy of the populace is reflected in the implication of their reduction as adequate

Romans to the ineffective exhalation of their breath. Coriolanus associates the insufficiency of the citizens w ith the futility, the irrelevance of their verbal approbation. The scars he earns, and his conduct in the defence of Rome are expressions of his integrity, and are ow ed to no m an. H e cannot regard approval from those he considers to be unw orthy as confirmation of the value of his actions. O n the contrary, he perceives such needlesss

approval to be demeaning:

Show them th' unaching scars which I should hide. As if I had receiv'd them for the hire

Of their breath only!

n.2.146-148

He rejects the authority given the voices w hich judge him , in the same

m anner as Ajax rejects the validity of the general decision to aw ard Achilles's arm s to Odysseus,

Despite the fact that 'm any critics feel that the play's rhetoric is chill, and that this corresponds to som ething uninviting about both the play's ambience and its hero - a lack of w arm th or generosity', Michael G oldm an feels th at in order to understand Coriolanus, an audience m ust find 'the passion hidden in the chill rhetoric, the richness of spirit beneath the m any signs of

p o v e r t y '.28 Coriolanus, so often accused of being inarticulate, is in fact bo th

eloquent and articulate w hen he chooses to be. His observations o n the Rom an political situation, and the cowardly or inconsistent behaviour of the citizenry in w ar and peace reveal, apart from his harsh contempt, his sound grasp of the circumstances, which he expresses w ith coherent fluency. W hen com pared w ith the opportunistic verbosity of both patricians and tribunes and the capricious opinions of the plebeians, his much-criticized

straightforw ardness appears to be an ideal rather than a fault.

Virgilio M alvezzi states that Plutarch 'saw Coriolanus w ith a Greek eye',2^ and it is thus that Shakespeare portrays him. His taciturnity and bluntness, mislabelled inarticulate churlishness, is typical of Sophoclean heroes. The poet Pindar, w hose account of the tragedy Sophocles follows, and w ho had great regard for Ajax, describes him as a m an 'w ith no gift of tongue, b u t stout of heart’.^ Ajax is m isunderstood and m isjudged because he, like Coriolanus,

is unable to adapt his w ords or behaviour to that w hich w ould be acceptable to his society, b u t Bernard Knox notes further that Ajax is at tim es able to speak w ith 'the tongue of a great poet'(p. 44) as indeed Coriolanus can. Coriolanus's greeting to Virgilia in Act V scene 3: 'm y wife comes foremost . . . best of my flesh' (22,42), is a rem arkable expression of intense and sensitive love. John Arthos quotes Professor Price as considering 'best of my flesh' to be the m ost glorious expression of love in all Shakespeare.^^ 'My wife comes foremost', is an equally evocative declaration of Coriolanus's profound and tender devotion for his wife: an extraordinarily perceptive and revealing com m ent on Virgilia's priority in his esteem. These are not the w ords of an inarticulate man.

Like Coriolanus, the Ajax has been judged through the years to be a harsh play, w ith an alm ost unbroken atm osphere of hostility. The hero has

similarly been criticized as unattractive, even repellent and b r u t a l . ^ 2 it i s

im portant, however, to discern that beneath the apparent rough

aggressiveness 'Sophocles does not m ean to m ake of Ajax m erely a brutal k ille r. . . there is a nobility in Ajax' language, a strength and constancy, that is

u n m i s t a k e a b l e ' . ^ ^ Charles Segal states:

in the A ja x. . . the hero’s relation to society is deeply involved w ith language. Ajax is silent and

uncom m unicative. . . [he] is isolated in the silence of his g rie f Everyone speaks to Ajax b u t no one really m akes an impression. He has to w ork out his decision in his ow n terms, through his ow n essentially private, uncomm unicative meditations. ^

The taciturnity which prom pts Ajax's critics to label him as a limited, disagreeable, even unsociable character, is in fact evidence of an assiduous honesty, an inability to use w ords w hich m ight m islead, or m ight pervert the truth. Im pressive rhetoric or dishonest assertions are as foreign to Ajax's custom ary m anner of speech as they are to Coriolanus's. His essence is

revealed in his verbal reserve, for every w ord he utters carries the full w eight of its precise meaning. His reticence masks a complete, sensitive hum anity, w hich is all the more surprising for being inexplicit. His rough speech, especially to Tecmessa, often conceals intense emotional torm ent, especially

in his crucial resolution to end his life. H e silences her appeals tersely, b u t the severity of his w ords reveals his m ental stress. His final w ords to Tecmessa: "You're a fool, Tecm essa,/ To think th at I could change m y nature n o w / On your instructions’, m ay appear to be stern and unloving, b u t his later

adm ission that her w ords touched him, reveal a m an capable of tender affections despite his resolve to stand firm, his ostensibly h arsh words:

now my edge is blunted By a w om an’s soft persuasion. I am loth To leave a w idow and a fatherless child Here among enemies.

11. 600-602,652-655

Com pare Jebb:

I . . . felt the keen edge of m y tem per softened by yon w om an’s w ords; and I feel the pity of leaving her a w idow w ith m y foes, and the boy an orphan.

11.651-653

It is not an inability to express himself w hich sets the Sophoclean hero apart from his community: it is, more significantly, a lack of m oral accord w hich irrevocably precludes any m utual understanding. In the Antigone there is a conspicuous lack of communication, and consequently of concord, betw een Antigone and everyone around her. She deplores Creon’s edict, is contem ptuous of Ismene’s lack of courage, and criticizes the people’s hesitation to express w hat they feel:

ANTIGONE: Have you heard how ou r dearest are being treated like enemies?

He has no right to keep me from m y ow n.

ISMENE: I cannot act

Against the State. I am not strong enough. ANTIGONE: Let th at b e y our excuse, then. I w ill go '

And heap a m ound of earth over m y brother.

All these

W ould say that w hat I did w as honourable. But fear locks up their lips.

11.12,48,75-78,503-505

m isinterpret her integrity: lack of understanding results from - and in - lack of communication. The gap in m oral intuition betw een Antigone and Creon is unbridgeable, and w ithout any m utual basis there can be betw een them neither com prehension nor communication. H e is as unable to understand the m oral im peratives on w hich she bases her conduct as is the chorus. She is charged w ith im piety b u t she has a m ore fundam ental understanding of true dutifulness than he does:

CREON: I am king, and responsible only to myself.

11.737

ANTIGONE: W hat help or hope have I

In w hom devotion is deem ed sacrilege?

U. 915-916