Perversion, Pedagogy and the Comic

A Survey of the Concept of Theatre in the Christian Middle Ages

Soumick De

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN:
  9781032292151
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000608748
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Theatre

Perversion, Pedagogy and the Comic studies how the idea-of-theater shaped western consciousness during the Christian Middle Ages. It analyses developments within western philosophy, Christian theology and theater history to show how this idea realized itself primarily as a metaphor circulating through various discursive domains. Beginning with Plato's injunction against tragedy the relation between philosophy and theater has been a complicated affair which this book traces at the threshold when the western world became Christian. By late antiquity as theatre was slowly banned, Christian theology put the idea-of-theatre to use in order to show what they understood to be the perverted nature of worldly existence and the mystery of the Kingdom of God. Interrogating the theological teachings of some of the early Church Fathers like St Augustine, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria the book offers a new look at how the idea of theater not only inspired Christian liturgical practices but Christian pedagogy in general which in turn shaped the nature of Christian religious drama. Finally the author tries to demonstrate how this hegemonic use of the theatre-idea was countered by a certain comic sensibility which opened the idea of theatre in the Christian Middle Ages to a new and subversive materialist possibility.

Please note: Taylor & Francis does not sell or distribute the Hardback in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

Part 1 Prelude to a Problem

Chapter 1 “The Artist is Branded While the Art is Extolled”¹: The Differential Reality of Persona and the Question of Theatre in Ancient Rome

Introduction: Ethics of the Stage

When we consider the movement of the concept of theatre from the late Roman antiquity to the time when the ‘world became Christian’², we cannot but be amazed by both the continuities and discontinuities of certain discursive practices. Theatre was a prominent social and cultural reality of the pagan world at the time of this ‘transformation’. However, the moral condemnation of theatre by the early Christian apologists and church fathers resonated with many of the pagan philosophers and statesmen of the time. The tendency to disparage theatrical shows for being deceptive, licentious and anti-social, continues from Cicero to Augustine yet with one significant difference. Theatre would no longer be allowed as part of Christian civic practices. Christian theology however, like pagan philosophy would continue to use the theatrical image to develop and disseminate its doctrines. This chapter would examine the ambiguous role theatre played in Roman Society which is seen reflected in the philosophical equivocity of the meaning of theatre before being appropriated into Christian theology which develops a new meaning for the theatrical image. The ethical concern for the self came to be the defining link between theatre and philosophy within stoic philosophy. The ethico-philosophical concept of role was elaborated by what would latter me called theatre of life (or of the world). This chapter would try to locate the “social” and “civic” problem of theatre within Roman City (society) which is expressed in the equivocacy of the meaning of role that the metaphor of theatre conveyed within stoic philosophy. We would further try to illustrate how this ambiguity was recalled by Christian apologists of the period to denounce the pagan world in its totality. Calling the Roman city (world) inconsistent and deceptive like theatre these Christian thinkers would re-deploy the metaphor of theatre on the basis of another divine city (world) which they argued to be consistent and free of all deception. Systematized by Augustine’s thesis on the two cities—civitas terrena and civitas dei—in his The City of God against the pagans such a world view would not only found the structure of medieval Christian society and provide the logic for all catholic interpretations of history to come but also alter the meaning of the metaphor of theatre for ever.

The relation between philosophy and theatre within stoic philosophy is primarily ethical. Of course the basis for such an ethical understanding of theatre remains Platonic. However in Plato the metaphysics of the role and its theatrical connotation is always mediated through myth. As Hans Von Balthazar remarks “the concluding myth of his Republic sketches the basic plan of a philosophy of what in the west, will be called “theatre of the world” (Balthasar 145). In Plato the philosophy of a theatre of the world represents the problem of freedom and necessity. As he illustrates by the end of Republic the free souls choose the kind of life they want to have on earth based either on habit or experience. However the ethical imperative remains the necessity to live that life truthfully—play the role once chosen with commitment and diligence—with the moral fortitude and courage of the individual soul.

The concept of freedom is not, however, included in the stoic vision of the self represented by the image of theatre. The stoic metaphysics of the role is primarily governed by an ethics of the stage where the role assigned to the individual has to be played properly. However it is a role which the individual is not free to choose but is assigned through fate or destiny. Epictetus remarks for example

Regard yourself as an actor in a play. The poet gives you your part and you must play it, whether it is short or long. If he wants you to play a begger, act the part skillfully. Do the same if you are to play a cripple, a ruler or a private person. Your task is only to play well the part you have been given, the choosing of it belongs to someone else

(Balthasar 1988, 141)

This ‘someone else’ is the divine Giver who controls man and god equally because classical treatment of man and god is logically determined by the eternal and divine cosmos. Theatre of the world represents this natural order of the cosmos. Moreover the cosmic order represented by nature covers all domains and connects them according to the continuity of ends. Unlike the Greek idea of nature as phusis whose meaning is not dependent on man but denotes the ‘coming into being’, or ‘becoming’ of things which remain outside human intervention, the Latin concept of nature as universal order encompasses both the city (human domain) and the natural domain. The cosmos carries the signature of this harmony of the great concatenation of being which is bound together through the sovereign authority of ends. Cicero makes it quite clear when in Laws he writes “nothing so conforms to statues and to the order of nature, by which I mean the law and nothing else, as does this power to command (imperium) without which no family, no city, no nation, nor even the human species, nature or world would be able to subsist” (Schürmann 2003, 192). The eternal cosmsos bound together by natural law assigns man its role which man is not free to choose. Nature is the sovereign ‘poet’ offering man only the freedom to play the prescribed role with total commitment conditioned by alert attention and inner reserve. But to be able to play his role freely and with dedication man has to distance himself from the character he is suppose to play being always aware that the truth of life is in the very distance taken from it so that one never becomes too involved in the outer appearance of things. Thus Marcus Aurelius returns to the stage metaphor inspite of his aversion for theatrical spectacles describing life as “an empty pageant, a stage play…puppets, jerking on their strings—that is life. In the midst of it all you must take your stand, good-temperedly and without disdain, yet always aware that a man’s worth is no greater than the worth of his ambitions” (Balthasar 1988, 143). On the one hand the role assigned to man is unequivocally a product of the web of fate which is spun in the rhythm of a cosmic harmony to which one must unflinchingly subject oneself “Submit yourself to Clotho with good grace and let her spin your thread out of what material she will” (ibid.). One must not separate oneself from the organic whole but play ones role with seriousness. However the Emperor realizes that the only way to play the role assigned by the cosmic order of the universe with the required seriousness and thereby act freely is to adopt the distance of the spectator; “survey, as from some high watchtower, the things of earth” (ibid. 143). This is the vision of the sage who in his wisdom gains the distance which guarantees the commitment necessary to play the role assigned to him with seriousness. To acquire this distance is to freely submit oneself to the law of nature and play the role no matter how long or short it is without malcontent, trying to undo the course of events. Freedom, in this sense is the freedom to align oneself with the cosmic process. The emperor writes

O man, citizenship of this great world-city has been yours. Whether for five years or five score, what is that to you? Whatever the law of that city decrees is fair to one and all alike. Where in then is your grievance? You are not ejected from the city by any unjust judge or tyrant but by the self same Nature which brought you in it; just as an actor is dismissed by the manager who engaged him. “But I have played no more than three of the five acts”. Just so; in your drama of life, three acts are all the play. Its point of completeness is determined by him who formerly sanctioned your creation and today sanctions your dissolution. Neither of those decisions lies within yourself. Pass on your way, then, with a smiling face, under the smile of him you bids you go

(ibid. 144)

The individual plays his part in the great chain of being which is structured by a telic continuity where the individual is linked to the city which is linked to nature and to the cosmos. Nature and city are not antithetical to each other. Natural, here also encircles both the city and nature. This order of ends is determinded by a teleological law where every element in the chain finds its end in what comes after while serving as the end of what comes before. Man is therefore connected to the city as the city is connected to nature and to play one’s part with freedom is to submit to this ‘given’ order of the cosmos which is not created but which eternally renews itself. Nature provides the ultimate legitimacy for the law which grips man because the source of all authority is not posited by man but is always already there. Although the source of this order lies with nature which is outside man and not within his grasp. He can participate in it “freely”. Therefore what the Emperor urges man to do is obtain the knowledge/perspective which would enable him to participate in the great chain of being. This is the source of the paradox between commitment and distance which creeps its way into the theatre metaphor where one is obliged to be the actor and the spectator to the same play of one’s own life.

What is fascinating about the Roman situation is that this ambiguity between commitment and distance which informs the metaphor of theatre is also mirrored in the very treatment of actual theatre within roman society. Equivocacy determines the fate of the ‘theatrical substance’ oscillating between a certain commitment towards theatre as part of the civic practices of the city (euergetism) and a certain distance from theatre seen as place of moral degeneration. To be more specific the problem of theatre revolves around the question of whether it is part of the “Roman persona” or whether it is alien, degenerate and dangerous. The problem of theatre was ultimately whether it belonged to the ‘natural’ order of the city embodied in the “roman persona” or whether theatre was a form of transgression to the teleological law of ends and therefore brought about disorderliness and chaos.

Section I Persona

Laying Out the Problem: A Topological Consideration

The least one can say about the ambiguous status of theatre in the Roman city is that it posed a problem to the Roman way of life. By problem we mean a particular situation where opposing forces gather together as if on a threshold. Problema, the Greek word carries the meanings of both protection and projection⁴. Here problem connotes the idea of sheltering something, marking out the boundary within which something is protected, a place which comes ‘before’ the thing marking it out and even disavowing or hiding it within its folds. But problem also refers to the idea of being thrown or projected outside and transgressing a border or a threshold thereby being discarded or made into something else, elsewhere. So implicit in the idea of a problem is the topological notion of a border, a place whose boundary is marked. In the same semantic spirit, the general idea of a problem being nothing other than an obstacle carries this play of forces—a force which seeks to enclose upon itself or close down its boundaries by making it impossible to pass, thereby marking the place clearly by fortifying it, and an opposing force which wants to overcome the obstacle and open up to an elsewhere. This topological ambiguity marked by a play of opposing forces is something which theatre seems to represent in the Roman world.

We know that in 67 BCE, a tribune of the plebs proposed what is known as les Roscia theatralis (Roscian law on the theatre) under which the first fourteen rows of seats in the theatre were to be reserved for the senators and equestrians (Edwards 2002, 111). This was later reiterated by Emperor Augustus in his lex Julia theatralisi (Julian law on the theatre). According to Seutonius, it contained the following provisions:

The resulting senatorial decree provided that at every public performance, wherever held, the front row of seating must be reserved for senators. At Rome, Augustus would not allow the ambassadors of independent or allied states to sit in the orchestra, when he discovered that some were only freedmen. Besides this, his rules included the separation of soldiers from civilians, the assignment of special seats to married common people, to boys not yet of age and, close by, their tutors; and he refused to allow those in dark cloaks to sit anywhere but the black rows. Also, although until then, men and women had always sat together, Augustus made women sit behind, even at gladiatorial shows.

(Ibid., n.d., 112)

On the one hand, this law is a testimony to the class and gender divisions which marked Roman society. But even more than that it illustrates other social divisions based on relations of power and even ethics like the relation between student and tutor. On the other hand, such prescriptions on seating arrangements are also indicative of the topological organization which not only clearly demarcates and makes visible the socio-political hierarchy of Roman society, but also enframes, within the boundary of the theatre space, this hierarchicized unity of Roman society itself. In other words, topologically speaking theatre not only marks out and represents the social and political divisions within Roman society but symbolizes that society as a unified whole. Theatre in this sense anticipates the desire for making visible and hence strengthening and protecting social and political cohesion where everybody is assigned respective places according to their roles in this hierarchy. The assignment of such roles is dependent on a number of factors based upon naturalized power relations which in the final analysis are historically determined. This enframing procedure which marks theatre as a paradigm or an example of Roman society is merely a topological analogy to other instances which mark the importance of theatre in the Roman world. For example, theatre as a place of public opinion or theatre being an integral part of Roman liturgical practices all re-affirm the significance of theatre in Roman society.

Now for our second topological example from a contrary perspective.

It has been pointed out by scholars that unlike Greek cities, there were no permanent theatres in Rome—though plays were performed at least since the middle of the 3^rd century BCE—till one was built in 55 BCE by Pompey. This reluctance to build a permanent theatre within the city walls is testified by Tacitus’ spiteful remarks while discussing Nero’s interest in theatre.

Some remembered the reproaches made against Pompey by his elders for building a permanent theatre, while previously performances had been held using an improvised stage and auditorium or (in the remoter past) spectators had stood since it was feared that seats would keep them idle for days on end.

(Ibid., n.d., 122)

These remarks not only highlight the moral suspicion against theatre but also a reluctance to shelter theatre within city boundaries. Catherine Edwards points out this difference between Greek and Roman cities when it came to the questing of housing a theatre. “In Athens the theatre was situated on the slopes of the Acropolis, within the precincts of the god Dionysius, in the heart of the city. When Pompey’s theatre was built in Rome, it was constructed in the Campus Martius, that is, outside the city of Rome” (Ibid., n.d., 122). Theatre was not merely marginalized morally but was thrown outside the border of the city. The two theatres constructed under Emperor Augustus were both outside the pomerium, the religious boundary of the city, while Emperor Constantius in an edict described theatre as being “outside the wall”. (Ibid., n.d., 123). Clearly we have two opposing topological aspects here which quite literally embodies the problema of theatre—as being expressive and protective of the boundary of the Roman society and being projected outside the boundary of the Roman city. This threshold position of theatre becomes all the more obvious when we consider it from a diverse set of perspectives starting from the legal status of actors (as we shall discuss in a while) to the moral attitude towards the actor’s voice.

Our hypothesis is that this ambiguity regarding the theatre in Roman society can be traced back to a certain crisis of the relation between the public and private, which in turn points to a problematization of the process of subjectification at work in the Roman world. Without going into the historical details, we can briefly summarize the problem as follows. With the gradual disintegration of the city states due to a number of social, political and economic reasons, the nature of politics underwent a shift from the Hellenistic period onwards reaching its apex in imperial Rome during the first few centuries of the Common Era. The structural transformations that took place politically during this period saw the emergence of a cult of monarchy which was neatly blended with the administrative and municipal functions of the aristocracy. On the othe...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Foreword by Soumyabrata Choudhury
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Concept, Problem and Movement: A General Introduction
• Part 1 Prelude to a Problem
• Part 2 The Problem Made Possible
• Part 3 The Actualization of the Problem
• Conclusion: To Get Past the Critic
• Appendix I: The Birth of a Concept by Anup Dhar
• Appendix II: The ‘Worlding’ by/of Theatre by Milind Wakankar
• Bibliography
• Index