QUESTION 1
What are the differences and similarities between medieval Carnival, modern Carnivals (including Mardi Gras), and carnivalesque political demonstrations? Does the subversion/containment mechanism operate in Carnivals today?
All carnivals, past and present, and carnivalesque political demonstrations serve a societal purpose. They are meant to juxtapose and reverse social roles and expectations. However, the reason this occurs in all of them varies based on the specific purpose. Medieval Carnivals were meant as a major purge from the very rigid social order that was present at the time. People would wear masks so as to be free to act as they please, free from restrictions and consequences of their social class. One of the largest Carnivals was before Lent, a time of self-deprivation. In contrast, the Carnival was a time of unrestricted self-indulgence. While the tradition of indulgence is still highly prevalent today, Carnivals have a smaller significance then they had in the past. We are no longer so entrapped by a social class we are born into. We have less society-forced deprivation. Therefore, Carnival is not thought of as such a significant purge as it was, so it would most likely not be accepted to indulge during Carnival to the extent as once was acceptable. I would argue that the subversion containment mechanism does still operate in Carnivals, but at a much lower level. It is a day for people in a community to come together and blow off steam, resulting in a settling of the dust in its wake.
Carnivalesque political demonstrations, on the other hand, shake things up in order provoke action. Unlike Carnivals, in which the wished result is to settle and contain people, carnivalesque political demonstrations are trying to leave people unsettled and rowdy. They reverse social roles to prove the inequities between the social classes and the need for change. Carnivalesque political demonstrations also differ from Carnivals because they often have a divide between demonstrators and spectators, whereas Carnivals involve everybody. Carnivals are also generally tied to a holiday and occur annually, whereas carnivalesque demonstrations occur when the need arises.
QUESTION 2
There’s a belief by some that ritual in oral culture (e.g., Egúngún), the Abydos Passion Play, and Rabinal Achi have theatrical elements or aspects, but shouldn’t be considered theatre in a strict sense. What are the pros and cons of this viewpoint?
It is often argued whether pre-literate performances can be considered theatre or not. Examples of such pre-literate performances include Egúngún (Yoruba), the Abydos Passion Play (Egypt), and Rabinal Achi (Maya). Egúngún is the furthest from our present day idea of theatre and the closest to ritual. Egúngún can happen annually, biannually, or at a funeral and the performance varies in a great number of ways depending on the given circumstances. It is much closer to a festival, as there is no set position for the audience; there is an intermingling of performers and spectators. This allows performers to surprise spectators and interact with them in a far less traditional sense. Egúngún beacons spirits of ancestors to come visit. The Abydos Passion Play had no set text, but rather an outline of events that would occur over a series of eight days. It told the story of Osiris, an Egyptian god, who through a series events decides to leave to become the ruler of the afterworld. A manuscript for the Abydos Passion Play was never located. Like rituals, the Abydos Passion Play had impersonations of Gods. Unlike rituals, there was a lengthy narrative, typically found in storytelling. Rabinal Achi was a sung dance-drama that commemorated the history of the political and military events that occured in the town of Rabinal. The Mayans never wrote a script for Rabinal Achi; that was until Mayan scribes wrote an outline of it to counteract the full scripts Spanish conquerors were creating. Rabinal Achi had an audience on all four sides. Most of the play is a narrated past by the characters rather than a dramatic present. It is presentational and often does not even attempt realism. The story is sometimes simply told through dances. The play ends in a final dance followed by a prayer to the ancestors. Now; should these performances be considered theatre?
Egúngún is arguably the furthest from our current perception of theatre. Typically theatre has a defined playing space, whether indoors or outdoors, whether on a stage or not and there is an audience. Egúngún is interwoven into the crowd so it has no parameters or clear audience. It also is not trying to communicate something to the audience, as theatre is, but rather trying to communicate with spirits of ancestors. Also, typically theatre cannot vary to the extent that Egúngún can. It is either improvised, in which it is brand new, rather than a variation, or it is relatively set. It is theatre solely in the sense that it is a performance that is watched by some amount of people.
The Abydos Passion Play is far more similar to what we see today as theatre. In fact, if it was consolidated and made more consistent, I would regard the Abydos Passion Play as theatre. However, what definitively sets the Abydos Passion Play apart from theatre is that it takes eight days to complete. Also, more dialogue would need to be incorporated, rather than having so much narration. On the flip side, although impersonating Gods is ritualistic, it is also highly prevalent in many Greek dramas, so this would not stop me from calling the Abydos Passion Play theatre. Also the fact that there is a consistent story trying to be imparted as speaks towards it being theatre.
Rabinal Achi is basically theatre in my eyes. It has a playing space and an audience. It has consistent story to tell, although it may need to be slightly more codified. Although much of the story is narrated past, some ancient Greek playwrights have much of the play as narrated past. Oedipus is one of these examples. Rabinal Achi is not realistic, but neither is all forms of theatre. The only thing that could make it more like modern ideas of theatre is a codified script.
That being said my analysis of these plays is just that; my analysis. There are a large variety of definitions of theatre and my view of it is no more correct than anyone else’s. It is also difficult to judge some of these as there is not much evidence about them in their origin. Also my concept of theatre is very ethnocentric. I am not familiar with many types of theatre outside of the United States other than the ones I’ve learned about in this class. To someone of another culture, all of the above may very well be considered theatre. It also depends on your concept of the origin of theatre. It depends whether you see ritual and storytelling as separate from theatre or whether you see theatre as a progression but still having roots in ritual and storytelling.
QUESTION 3
To what extent are the plays discussed in Chapter 2 used as tools by those in power to train audience members for specific social roles considered important in their respective cultures? What are these roles?
Roman society was broken up into to classes: the patricians (the wealthy aristocrats) and the plebeians (the lower class). Roman comedy catered to the desires of the masses. Plautus wrote bawdy comedy, which had a very carnivalesque manner about it. His plays flipped social roles, most likely has a method of subversion and containment, keeping people in their place. Seneca wrote Roman tragedy, which reflected the philosophy of Stoicism, which is about being self-sufficient and avoiding high emotion. Roman tragedy catered to a higher class audience, in which it was important to teach Stoicism to. His plays often contained gruesome scenes of sensational violence. This could have been to condemn excessive emotion by showing the horrific consequences of it. However, it may have also been due to the upper class sharing in the plebeian love for bloody spectacles. This shows how the lower class influenced the upper class. Horace, anther Roman playwright, believed that drama should adhere to what is socially acceptable, coining the term “decorum”. Roman drama was meant to separate people by social class. However, I believe that if anything it proved the similarities in taste between the plebeians and the patricians. Plautus used subversion and containment to try to remind people of their place. Seneca tried to impart the philosophy of Stoicism upon his audience. Lastly, Horace tried to teach people what is appropriate within society.
Sanskrit drama was always trying to teach the audience a moral lesson. The scripts of Sanskrit plays directly reflected the social hierarchy present at the time. It went so far as to separate the classes by language; only high class men would speak Sanskrit in plays. Everyone else would speak in other various dialects evolved from Sanskrit. People of all castes most likely went to theatre during the origins of Sanskrit, as the rigidity of the caste system was only created by the British for their own gain. Along with reaffirming social classes, Sanskrit drama also reaffirmed religion, as it always ended in a benedictory prayer. Indian drama was quite focused on audience reaction, as seen through the concept of bhava and rasa.
In the late thirteenth century in Japan dengaku (“field music”) was popular. However, it was caused political turmoil and times of mass hysteria, called “dengaku madness”, as people of all classes would commit inappropriate, crude behavior. Sarugaku came after this, deriving from calm Buddhist burial rites.
Japanese drama reflected new political realities as power shifted from the aristocrats to the samurai.
QUESTION 4
Despite the shogunate’s fears of class mingling and social rebellion, they didn’t ban kabuki outright because they believed people might commit “serious crimes” if they were not distracted by entertainments like kabuki. Do entertainments today ever serve as a similar distraction?
While the entertainment today continues to serve a purpose of distraction, I don’t think it will stop any one from doing a serious crime. In today’s society, it is a chance for people to escape their mundane lives and for however long, venture into a world of fantasy. Having this distraction allows people to survive rough jobs and situation as they can go home and watch their favorite TV show, immersing themselves in a new world. Entertainment is important to boost the morale of the masses.
QUESTION 5
What is the purpose of comic elements in a serious play in which all three of the female characters are violently killed?
Comic elements in a serious play are carnivalesque in nature. They are meant to give the audience a moment of release in the middle of a tense or emotional moments. Most people would struggle to sit through a play in which every single scene is heavy. You as an audience member need comic elements to cleanse your palate and prepare yourself to delve back into the serious moments. The comic elements within Dulcitius serve the same purpose as the kyogen plays in between the noh plays. For example, the comic part with Dulcitius getting it on with the pots and pans serves as a nice break in between the girls imprisonment and their death.
QUESTION 6
How does the play exploit the theatrical possibilities of the “Terence stage”?
A Terence stage was meant to be ambiguous, allowing the space to be representative of many different kinds of scenery. The space was simple in design, creating no realistic depiction of any specific place. Dulcitius has very little clues and references to the scenery in which the play takes place in. Therefore she exploits the ambiguity of the Terence stage by having her writing mirror this ambiguity, allowing for the imagination of the audience to run wild.
Dulcitius is perhaps Hrotsvit’s most Terentian play. She mirrors Terence’s own style in order to make a clever commentary on his work. While she admired Terence’s literary elements, she wished to correct his misogyny. She used Dulcitius to mend Terence’s ways, creating a play in his own style with chaste, virtuous females. Hrotsvit exploited the stage that Terence had set to improve upon his ideologies.
QUESTION 7
Does this seemingly subversive play actually reinforce the values of the dominant ideology?
In analyzing Lysistrata, it is important to remember the time period that this play was written and the fact that it is a comedy. While at first glance this play can appear to be proto-feminist, it is actually meant to reaffirm the patriarchal hierarchy of Ancient Greek society. This play is meant to be incredulous, gaining some of its humour from the far-fetched nature of the plot. Men came to theatre to laugh at such an idea. It is also important to note that the women characters would have been played by men. Despite the female protagonists, Lysistrata is deceptively supportive of the patriarchy. The carnivalesque role reversal is used as part of a subversion and containment mechanism, settling the dust after the past years spent fighting the Peloponnesian War.
QUESTION 8
What is the “happy idea” or premise of the play?
The happy idea in Lysistrata is her idea to withhold sex from the men. Lysistrata plots to have all the women on both sides of the war stop having sex with their husbands until the war is over. She hopes to force peace by sexually influencing the men. She sees this as an opportunity for the women to band together and make a difference that will benefit everyone.
QUESTION 9
Why does Oedipus continue to hunt for Laius’ murderer despite warnings to stop from Tiresias and Jocasta?
Oedipus continues his hunt for Laius because of his fatal flaw; his hubris. He has such a great need to prove his superior intellect by solving Tiresias’s riddle that he completely disregards clear warnings from Tiresias and Jocasta. He is blind to his own “red-hands” because he holds such a high opinion of himself that he could not possibly think that he could have any involvement in this terrible curse, until the truth is blatantly presented to him. If Oedipus had been able to contain his hubris; either his need to solve the riddle or his own self-image; he would have been able to save himself from his own demise.
QUESTION 10
How do the plot elements of recognition (anagnorisis) and reversal (peripeteia) drive the dramatic action?
Oedipus Rex is a very clear example of the concepts of recognition and reversal. In this play, Oedipus is the king who is blind the truth of his own involvement in the past king’s death. He spends the majority of the play searching for the past king’s killer, too blinded by hubris to see that he himself is the killer. It is not until the end of the play that he realizes the truth; he killed the previous king, his father, and he is currently married to his mother. When the truth is finally made clear to Oedipus, this is the moment of recognition. Oedipus is so disgusted by the truth that he stabs himself in the eyes and banishes himself. This is the reversal (of fortune). Oedipus goes from being King to being blind and exile. His fortune has completely reversed. The recognition and reversal drive the dramatic action, as they are the climax of the show. The whole play Oedipus is searching for the truth; once he gets it, it initiates the sequence of recognition and reversal. The entire play is driving toward that moment.
QUESTION 11
How do the rasas add up and speak to the essence of this Eastern drama?
A rasa is the “taste” meant to be left in the audiences mouth after a performance. In this multifaceted drama, there are moments in which it is possible to experience all of the nine rasas. The fact that all rasas may be experienced speaks to the complexity and meaningfulness of this piece. The most present rasa is most likely the shringara rasa, or the erotic rasa. Much of the play is romantic so it evokes this rasa. Although there are many subplots that allow for the other rasas to be present, the extent of the shringara rasa’s presence speaks to the essence of this Eastern drama, which is a love story.
QUESTION 12
How does the cart function both as a metaphor and a major plot device?
The cart is used as a metaphor for the notion of wealth, questioning what true wealth is and where it is found. At first, Charudatta’s son is sad that he has but a little clay cart while the boy next door has a golden cart. However, when Vasantasena fills the cart with pearls, the little boy is happy. This brings into question wealth and what we define it as. This question is present throughout the play, with the answer being simplicity, honesty, and an unwavering commitment to the truth. I also the cart is a metaphor for the mobility of social classes. In the time The Little Clay Cart was written, the caste system was not as rigid as it was post-British invasion. People were able to have a more flexible notion of wealth and caste. The adding of jewels to a seemingly dull cart shows that improvement in this system is possible. The cart is also a major plot device, as it shows Vasantasena’s fondness for Charudatta and his son. She is willing to help him, sacrificing some of her own wealth.