Chapter 1: The Origins of Theatre

Performative elements (including dramatic and theatrical) are present in every society; no matter how complex or how unsophisticated a society may be. These elements are evident in our political campaigns, holiday celebrations, sports events, religious ceremonies, and children's make-believe, just as they are in the dances and rituals of primitive peoples. Nevertheless, most participants in these activities do not consider them to be primarily theatrical, even when spectacle, dialogue, and conflict play large roles. Consequently, it is usual to acknowledge a distinction between theatre (as a form of art and entertainment) and the presence of theatrical or performative elements in other activities. This distinction is crucial here, since it would be virtually impossible to write a coherent history of all the human activities that through the ages have made use of performative conventions. Therefore, this book is concerned primarily with the origin and subsequent development of theatre as an autonomous activity.

THE THEORY OF RITUAL ORIGIN
But how did theatre originate?

In seeking to describe its origins, one must rely primarily on speculation, since there is little concrete evidence on which to draw. The most widely accepted theory, championed by anthropologists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, envisions theatre as emerging out of myth and ritual. The process perceived by these anthropologists may be summarized briefly. During the early stage of its development, a society becomes aware of forces that appear to influence or control its food supply and well-being. Having little understanding of natural causes, it attributes both desirable and undesirable occurrences to supernatural or magical forces, and it searches for means to win the favor of these forces. Perceiving an apparent connection between certain actions, performed by the group (or its shamans) and the results it desires, the group repeats, refines and formalizes those actions into fixed ceremonies, or rituals.

Stories (myths), which explain, disguise, or idealize, may then grow up around a ritual. Frequently the myths include representatives of those supernatural forces that the rites celebrate or hope to influence. Performers may wear costumes and masks to represent the mythical characters or supernatural forces in the rituals or in accompanying celebrations. As a people becomes more sophisticated, its conceptions of supernatural forces and causal relationships may change. As a result, it may abandon or modify some rites. But the myths that have grown up around the rites may continue as part of the group's oral tradition and may even come to be acted out under conditions divorced from ritualistic concerns. When this occurs, the first step has been taken toward theatre as an autonomous activity, and thereafter entertainment and esthetic values may gradually replace the former mystical and socially efficacious concerns. This, in brief summary, is the traditional view of how theatre developed out of ritual.

A few points need to be made about those who formulated this theory. First, their views were grounded in "cultural Darwinism"-that is, they extended Darwin's theory about the evolution of biological species to include cultural phenomena-and consequently they assumed that human institutions (including theatre) evolved through a process in which there was a steady development from the simple to the complex. Second, they assumed that societies that had evolved such autonomous arts as theatre were superior to those in which the arts had not been separated from ritual. Therefore, their accounts of primitive cultures were written with the unconscious (but nevertheless condescending) assumption that the European was the cultural model toward which all lesser societies would evolve, although local conditions might inhibit or stall that evolution. Third, they believed that, since all societies evolve through the same stages, those still-existing primitive or less advanced societies can serve as valid evidence about how European culture had developed during its prehistorical phase.

After World War II, doubts grew about the superiority of a technologically based society (which had created the atomic bomb, seriously threatened the planet's ecological balance, and been divided into alienated, and violent factions). Primitive, less "advanced" societies, because of their cohesiveness, came to be seen by many as embodying alternative social models, different from but perhaps more effective than the European which had long served as the standard. Consequently, several of these societies (including their myths and rituals) were studied more to uncover their modes of thought, communication, and social structuring than to define their developmental stage in relation to a supposed evolutionary model. Myth and ritual came to be looked upon as tools, comparable to language, through which a group discovers, promulgates, and reaffirms its values, expectations, and societal relationships. A number of anthropologists argued that patterns comparable to those found in primitive societies were also still evident in advanced societies (including our own), especially in secular rituals.

Thus, all societies came to be seen as developing sets of conventions (or rituals) which enact relationships and serve as unconscious guidelines for behavior. As examples, wedding rituals redefine relationships between two people, between two extended families, and within the society at large; and criminal trial rituals, through which decisions about guilt and innocence are reached, redefine the accused person's place within society. Although we may think of these two examples as legal proceedings rather than as rituals, we do so only because their conventions are so embedded in our consciousness as to have become societal guide-lines about certain relationships, whereas our lack of familiarity with the wedding conventions or modes of determining guilt and innocence in other societies may make them seem to us merely bizarre and irrational. Thus, each society develops numerous conventions which may be viewed as rituals that define societal relationships, and it seeks validation of these conventions through religion, morality law, or social utility.

Ultimately, many post-World War II anthropologists tended to see almost all human transactions as basically performative-as enactments of relationships with specific purposes-involving a number of elements (which are also those found in ritual and theatre). Thus, the earlier concern for the relationship between ritual and theatre was transformed. Both ritual and theatre came to be seen as merely different ways of organizing and using elements that are basic in almost all human activity Therefore, theatre was not seen as necessarily originating in ritual; rather ritual and theatre were viewed as coexisting modes in which the same elements might be used for differing functions within the same society.

PERFORMATIVE ELEMENTS AND FUNCTIONS
Performative activities (which encompass most human transactions) make use of a number of common elements: time, place, participants (players/audience), scenario (agenda/goal/text/rules), clothing (uniform/ costume/mask/makeup), sound (speech/music), movement (gesture/pantomime/dance), and function or purpose. How each of these elements is treated, combined with others, and for what ultimate purpose distinguishes one kind of transaction from another. Although not all of these can be examined at length here, a few examples may clarify the flexible interrelationships within and among these elements.

On one level, all transactions occur in clock time- the amount of actual time it takes to complete an event. But within the event itself, time may be manipulated in niany different ways. In most religious ceremonies, time has at least two dimensions: time as immediate (the length of the ceremony) and time as eternal (the never-ending relationship between the human and the divine). In drama, time is fictional, allowing months or years to be telescoped into the couple of hours required by the performance. In many games, strict time limits may be among the most important rules; contrarily, in jury deliberations, time is extendable until a verdict is reached. Time is significant in still other ways, since by convention some events occur in the morning, others at night, some on certain days of the week, or during particular seasons of the year. Similarly, place may vary from spaces designed to meet the specific needs of one type of event, or they may be adaptable to multiple needs. Events, such as a ritual, might take place in one space, or they might involve a procession with portions of the ritual being performed at various places along the way; the place may be arranged to keep the performers and spectators wholly separated or to intermingle them.

It should be clear, without discussing them separately, that each element of a ritual can vary widely and can be combined with others in many ways. It should also be clear that almost any event involving societal interaction can be viewed as manipulating the same basic set of performative elements. A business conference, for example, is scheduled for a particular time in a particular place; there is an agenda that sets forth the scope of the discussions; those asked to participate know what dress is appropriate, what type of behavior is acceptable, and what the hierarchy within the group is; and they know what the purpose of the conference is. Thus, the event is governed by a set of conventions that the participants understand and ad-here to; failure to adhere to them usually results in some type of sanction. Ritual and theatre employ the same basic elements as other human activities do but, having different purposes in mind, choose the par-ticular form needed for each element and then organize these elements to achieve the purposes of ritual or theatre.

According to Joseph Campbell, most rituals are related to one of three basic concerns: pleasure (food, shelter, sex, children); power (conquest, aggrandizement of self or tribe); or duty (to the gods, the tribe, or the mores and values of society). Together, these concerns include sustenance, continuation of the family and tribe, prestige, defense against enemies, integration of the individual into society, and the good will of supernatural powers. Individual rituals are concerned witb only some portion of these concerns, and the rituals of each tribe differ in specific content and focus from those of other tribes. Many primitive tribes (meaning those that have not yet developed a written language) use initiation rites, some occupying only a few days and others extending over years, to acquaint the young with the tribe's sacred beliefs, taboos, mores, and history. Such rites are still common in Aus-tralia and Africa and were once traditional among Native Americans. Rituals may also be intended to influence or control events. A fundamental premise of many rituals is that a desired result-such as success in battle, adequate rainfall, or tbe favor of a god-can be achieved by acting it out.

Masks and costumes are often used to represent supernatural powers in the belief that a spirit is attracted by and enters into its likeness. Masks or body paint may also be used to represent an animal to be killed or as an aid in bring-ing about desired events. Other rites are related to the seasonal and life cycles of birth, growth, maturity, death, and rebirth. The myth of the god-as-human who is killed and resurrected occurs in almost every society. Most societies also have rituals that glorify-a supernatural power, victories in hunt or war, the society's past, a hero, or a totem (that is, an animal, plant, or natural element with which the group thinks itself closely related). All rituals reflect in some way the society's understanding of its relationship to the powers that govern its well-being and its own interrelationships. Ultimately, rituals also include elements that entertain and give pleasure. Even the most solemn ceremony may give pleasure through spectacle, the repetition of familiar patterns, and the skill of the performers. Pantomimic dances and rhythmical musical accompaniment are often primary means in ritual, as are imaginative costumes and masks.

As should be evident, much that is found in ritual is also present in theatre. In ritual, beyond those elements already mentioned, there must be "actors"- those who enact the rites or stories-and those who exercise control over the performance ("directorial" functions often undertaken in rites by initiates, elders, or priests). Both theatre and ritual also use an "acting area" and an "auditorium," the shape, size, and organization of which may vary considerably from one society or period to another.
But, though ritual and theatre may use many of the same elements, the distinction between them ultimately depends on their functions. Perceptions about the function of an event may vary widely, depending on one's relationship to the event and familiarity with its conventions. As members of our own society, we may easily recognize the distinctions among church services, theatrical events, athletic games, and political rallies, but someone wholly unfamiliar with our cultural conventions might perceive all of these as essentially theatrical, just as we might those of some African tribe about whose religious and societal conventions we are entirely uninformed.

It is probably true that ritual preceded theatre as au-tonomous activity, since it seems unlikely that the earliest societies made clear distinctions among the functions of their activities. As societies became more complex, activities became more specialized and distinctions among functions became clearer. The recognition of specialized function seems a nec-essary condition for the separation of ritual and theatre, but where the line between them is to be drawn is difficult to specify since it depends primarily on our perception of the function of an event or activity. . .


OTHER THEORIES OF ORIGIN
Although origin in ritual has long been the most popular, it is by no means the only theory about how the theatre came into being. Storytelling has been proposed as one alternative. Under this theory, relating and listening to stories are seen as fundamental human pleasures. Thus, the recalling of an event (a hunt, battle, or other feat) is elaborated through the narrator's pantomime and impersonation and eventually through each role being assumed by a different person.

A closely related theory sees theatre as evolving out of dances that are primarily pantomimic, rhythmical or gymnastic, or from imitations of animal noises and sounds. Admiration for the performers skill, virtuosity and grace are seen as motivation for elaborating the activities into fully realized theatrical performances.

In addition to exploring the possible antecedents of theatre, scholars have also theorized about the motives that led people to develop theatre. Why did theatre develop, and why was it valued after it ceased to fulfill the functions of ritual? Most answers fall back on the ones about the human mind and basic human needs. One, set forth by Aristotle in the fourth century B.C., sees humans as naturally imitative-as taking pleasure in imitating persons, things, and actions and in seeing such imitations. Another, advanced in the twentieth century, suggests that humans have a gift for fantasy, through which they seek to reshape reality into more satisfying forms than those encountered in daily life. Thus, fantasy or fiction (of which drama is one form) permits people to objectify their anxieties and fears, confront them, and fulfill their hopes in fiction if not in fact. The theatre, then, is one tool whereby people define and understand their world or escape from unpleasant realities.

But neither the human imitative instinct nor a penchant for fantasy invariably leads to an autonomous theatre. Therefore, additional explanations are needed. One necessary condition seems to be a somewhat detached view of human problems. For example, one sign of this condition is the appearance of the comic vision, since it requires sufficient detachment to view deviations from norms as ridiculous rather than as serious threats to the welfare of the entire group. Another sign is the development of the esthetic sense. For example, some early societies ceased to consider certain rites essential to their well-being and abandoned them; nevertheless, they retained as parts of their oral tradition the myths that had grown up around the rites and admired them for their artistic qualities rather than for their religious usefulness. Two other conditions are also important: the appearance of people who can organize performative elements into theatrical experiences of a high order, and a society that acknowledges the value of theatre as an autonomous activity.

Another perspective on theatre history is provided by the notion of static and dynamic societies. In every society some forces seek to maintain the status quo, while others promote change. Usually one tendency is dominant in a given society or during a particular time span. A society may also be dynamic for a time and then become static. Those societies called primitive are ones that became static at an early stage of development. But some advanced societies, such as ancient Egypt or Japan from the fourteenth to the nineteenth century, became relatively static after a period of dynamism. These societies tend to establish and perpetuate ritualized conventions that alter little over centuries of time. Still other societies, such as those of western Europe, emphasize progress and view stasis as an invitation to decay and dissolution. Their dramatic and performance conventions are always in flux.

Joseph Campbell's analysis of the differences between Western and Eastern thought throws some light on these contrasting conditions. In Western myths, the dominant concern is the relationship between two types of beings-gods and humans-and the tension between the roles assigned to each. The roles, which are not fixed, vary considerably from one period and group to another. Sometimes major emphasis has been placed on the supreme power of one or more gods, with humans relegated to a position of total dependence. This, in essence, is the religious view. At others, primary stress has been given to the ability of human beings to manage their own affairs-the humanistic view. Primitive, ancient Near Eastern, and Egyptian peoples tended to emphasize the religious view and to see the world as controlled by divine will emanating from some eternal, unchanging realm. The Greeks first enlarged the human role and established the dominant strain of Western thought, in which humans (sometimes as agents of the gods but often quite independently) are assigned a major share in action and control. After the Renaissance the humanistic view was increasingly accepted and the notion of divine interference steadily diminished. Thus, in Western thought the world came to be seen primarily from the human point of view-as a place of conflict, change and progress-with humanity as the principal agent both for good and evil.

On the other hand, the dominant strain in Eastern thought recognizes no basic dichotomy between god and human. In Eastern myths, people seek to transcend temporal limitations and achieve oneness with the mystery of being, in which all divisions-including human and divine-disappear. Although on the surface everything may seem tempestuous and ever-changing, behind this apparent flux lies a harmony so complete as to defy all attempts to define it. The Eastern view encourages a conception of world order in which all duties, roles, and possibilities are fixed; it does not see reality as a series of constantly changing relationships (as does the West) but as a fixed state of being. Humanity cannot influence this being; it can only seek to become one with it. Consequently, to the traditional Eastern mind change and progress seem illusions, whereas to the Western mind they seem inevitable.

These differences help to explain why the theatrical traditions of Asia and Africa have in the past been most attuned to tradition and stasis, whereas those of Europe and America have been dominated by change and progress, and why, as electronic media have disseminated much the same ideas throughout the world, the former differences between East and West have lessened. . .