ABSTRACT
Peter Brook coined the term “holy theatre” to describe performance that aspires to the communication of intangible, universal levels of experience: “the currents that rule our lives,” “a reality deeper than the fullest form of everyday life” (1969:40). This desire to penetrate the surface of experience characterizes not only Brook’s work but that of his predecessors Jacques Copeau and Antonin Artaud, and his contemporary Jerzy Grotowski.1 The writings of these men, all directors as well as theorists, define two concepts of theatre that share the lofty goal of renovating the human spirit through the revelation of universal truths. One conception, which descends from Copeau and finds echoes in Brook’s writings, is of a communal theatre that brings its spectators into emotional harmony with one another by celebrating their common identity as human beings. The other “holy” theatre, defined by Artaud and Grotowski, is a therapeutic theatre designed to accomplish spiritual renewal by unmasking repressed psychic materials. “Holy” theatre in its various forms may be the modern equivalent of classical tragedy because it is overtly concerned with altering the audience’s affective state, with achieving catharsis (Innes 1981:253-4). For my present purpose, that of distinguishing communal from therapeutic theatre, I will employ two notions of catharsis, one derived from Aristotle, the other from psychotherapy.
