THE BRADFIELD " OEDIPUS " [To the Editor of THE
SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Although undertaking to reply to Mr. MacNeice's criticism of Oedipus Tyrannus, I will first make clear that I am no more than an ordinary Bradfieldian, and have no connexion whatever with the play. But I have seen the present perform- ance in process of construction, and know something of its character and details.
It seems to me that Mr. MacNeice errs from the outset, when he describes Oedipus as a " geometrical " play. It is true that the grandeur of its characters, cadences and emotions give it a very impersonal atmosphere. Sophocles drew few definite types. The producer's imagination is therefore given much scope. But when read, the Oedipus Tyrannus appears to have no more than one clearly defined character.
Surely these facts provide no reason for Bradfield to copy the original Greek plays ? It would be almost impossible to surpass the Greeks by their own methods. The " rigorous " production, desired by Mr. MacNeice, would portray characters so austere as to seem separated from us by the extremes of human nature. Surely Mr. MacNeice would find it even harder to identify himself with a chorus grouped in conventional patterns ? And why may not Oedipus wring his hands ? I consider so ordinary a gesture to show that even he is no greater than ourselves, and is levelled through despair.
By countless details, in fact, the Bradfield production of Oedipus Tyrannus shows us the characters as living persons, capable of error, with an added austerity which is not so cold that we cannot identify ourselves with it. Bradfield is not pulling Sophocles out of the grave. His message is still living, and though Ars est celare artem has been well observed by the producers, Sophocles' moral has a wider field than " enter- tainment and education." Mussolini and Antiochus Epiphanei would profit equally from seeing Oedipus.—Yours very truly,
The Close, Bradfield, Berks.
R. G. ADAMS.
Previous page
