Vol. 2, No. 1, Fall 2003

[page 131] The re-creation of theatre by the Church

The main thesis of this theory is that theatre was recreated in the context of Christian ritual ex nihilo, in the tenth century AD, after a prolonged cut-off from the Classical tradition and the disappearance of any trace of early medieval theatre. It would appear that this approach is based on the CSA theory of development of ancient Greek theatre from Dionysiac ritual, while in fact it is of earlier origin.

Seemingly, the almost absolute absence of documentation on any form of theatre towards the tenth century AD, unquestionably supports the recreation thesis, which is endorsed by the vast majority of scholars to this day. Nonetheless, two outstanding scholars, Edmond Chambers and Benjamin Hunningher, claim implicitly or explicitly that recreation within the framework of the Christian Church could not have happened.

Theories of recreation in the context of the Christian Mass are of romantic source. In 1809 Wilhelm von Schlegel declared that drama could not be found in all Europe throughout the Middle Ages.(47) In 1839 Charles Magnin, in his book Les Origines du Théâtre Moderne, claimed that the new theatre was created from the festivals of the Christian Church during the tenth and eleventh centuries, exactly as it was created from the religious festivals in ancient Greece during the fifth century BC.(48) Magnin established thereby an analogy between Christian Europe and ancient Greece on the grounds of a parallel creation of theatre from religious ritual//sources. In 1849 Edélestand du Méril, in his book Origines Latines du Théâtre Moderne, adopted this analogy and suggested the Church as the cradle of European theatre.(49) In 1886, [page 132] Leon Gautier, in his book Histoire de la Poésie Liturgique au Moyen Age, conjectured - most cautiously - that the origins of European theatre reside in the tropes of Easter,(50) especially those of the tenth century, and that these developed later into mystery plays and other religious works, until they eventually became plays in the spoken language. Tropes are non-official texts, inserted in the sacred macro-text of the Mass; but only a few of them were adapted to dramatic form. Moreover, even if they were sung in dialogic form, they usually did not feature enacted characters. Thus Gautier set the foundations for conceiving the description of the stage performance of the "Quem Quaeritis" trope as the document that bears witness to the recreation of theatre by the Church. Many years later Karl Young, in his book The Drama of the Medieval Church,(51) expressed the view that in itself there is nothing in the tropes that could potentially recreate theatre.(52) Despite this, the cautious thesis of Gautier swiftly became an accepted truth. Since then the "Quem Quaeritis" is conceived in most books of theatre history as the source of modern European theatre. In 1929 Gustave Cohen, in his book, Le Théâtre en France au Moyen Age, made a "dramatic" theoretical move in formulating his "law" that "[a]ll religions generate drama by themselves and all rituals willingly and spontaneously take dramatic and theatrical shape."(53) He thereby set the foundations for conceiving the "Quem Quaeritis" as a particular instance of a universal law. Since all the above-mentioned theories presupposed that religious [page 133] theatre eventually developed into secular theatre, Cohen's law bestowed upon it further validity. It is noteworthy that Cohen published his book in France in 1928, a year after Pickard Cambridge had demonstrated the groundless nature of the CSA theories. In addition, it transpires from the early phases of the recreation theory that the idea of development of theatre from Dionysiac religious festivals was suggested prior to the CSA, and that the latter only attempted to lend it scientific/anthropological foundation.

Against the background of Chambers' illuminating research,(54) Hunningher set out to refute the recreation thesis.(55) In his book The Origin of the Theater, he claims that the Church could not have recreated European theatre for two reasons: a) the supposed discontinuity from the tradition of Classical theatre did not happen and, therefore, there could not have been recreation; and b) there is an essential opposition between the nature of the Christian faith and theatre; therefore, the latter could not have developed from the former.

Indeed, in order to claim in favor of re-creation, a total break in the continuity of the theatre tradition that originated in Classical culture, even if that underwent a process of decay during the Middle Ages, has to be demonstrated. The main methodical problem is that the settling of this historical and theoretical controversy depends on the nature of the evidence we now possess. From the beginning of the third century AD until the tenth century, the only sources on the existence of theatrical activities are the condemnations of Church authorities and councils. Those continuously and consistently denounced the art of the mimes (mimi), their [page 134] followers and successors, and blamed even the clergy for indulging in these "Satanic" activities. From these objections alone it is possible to infer their existence. While the frequency of condemnations reached its peak by the ninth century AD, there is a pronounced decrease in them during the tenth century. It is during this century that the description of the performance of the "Quem Quaeritis", widely considered to be the first evidence on the recreation of theatre by the Church, was composed. The usual explanation is that the relative silence of the Church indicates that theatrical activities had completely disappeared. However, a diametrically opposite interpretation can also be suggested: that this silence offers evidence of the mitigation of hostility within the Church itself toward these activities, and a growing awareness of their potential, if subordinated to the promotion of its own ends. Hunningher assumes that "the Church has always, with wisdom and discretion, adopted and sanctified worldly elements from which the people, the congregation, would not willingly be parted."(56)

It is not at all clear what were the actual professions of the mimes, against whom the Church was so critical. "Mimes" is a collective name for a set of stage artists who performed a program of short items, each belonging in a different art,(57) similar to a variety show. Such a performance included animal-tamers, rope-walkers, escape artists, ventriloquists, magicians, puppeteers, musicians, singers, dancers, storytellers, and possibly actors too. We may safely conjecture that the objection of the Church focused not on the musical or circus-like performances, but on those who reflected an explicit heretical attitude to matters sacred to it. Probably, those included actors who specialized in comic or even satirical sketches, whether the object of derision was an individual or an institution. Such a performance, if it indeed made use of the theatre medium, in the sense of actors enacting characters, even if their quality was [page 135] extremely low, could explain the hostility of the Church and ensure the minimal continuity required for the revitalization of the art of theatre. In general, it is plausible that the Church was not opposed to theatre in itself, but to its pagan connotations.

With regard to Hunningher's second objection, concerning the essential disagreement between Christianity and theatre, the facts reveal the opposite: Christianity and theatre were excellent partners for quite a long period. Hunningher is aware of that and, therefore, his claim is restricted to the necessary conditions for the recreation of theatre ex nihilo. He endorses the widely accepted view that theatre developed from Dionysiac ritual,(58) because of its ecstatic nature, but he does not accept the thesis of recreation in the context of an essentially symbolical religion.(59) In his view, following Kirby's approach,(60) while ecstasy is a necessary condition for the creation of theatre, Christian symbolism precludes it, because the symbolic element of the Mass substitutes for the sacrifice, and the word substitutes for the deed; e.g., prayer replaces trance.(61) For Hunningher, in the context of a non-ecstatic religion, only temporary adoption of theatre, and its eventual rejection can be conceived.

Hunningher also opposes the assumption that the Mass features theatrical elements. On this issue he found support in Carl Young,(62) who suggested a crucial criterion for the definition of a dramatic medium: "impersonation", in the sense of an actor enacting a character who is not [page 136] himself.(63) In Hunningher's view, this does not characterize the Mass, and acting is essentially contradicted by its nature: its performance can not be conceived as an enactment of the crucifixion, but as the actual thing. From the very beginning, the Christian faith considered the Mass a real sacrifice. Its underlying intention was not to represent or describe the crucifixion, but to reincarnate the experience.(64) However, it is difficult to accept that there is an essential opposition between a religion and a medium, which can serve any purpose and communicate any message, including diametrically opposite ones. Whereas Hunningher's claim that the church could only have adopted (or rejected) the medium of theatre is acceptable, his line of argumentation is not.

For Hunningher the performance of the "Quem Quaeritis" - whose description appears in the Concordia Regularis,(65) - can only be understood within the context of a continuous dramatic tradition and as bearing witness to the adoption of theatre by the Church. In contrast, Nagler, who published the text in English translation,(66) claims that "[i]n the Concordia Regularis, the birth of medieval drama from the spirit of liturgy lies clearly before us".(67) In my opinion this document clearly supports Hunningher's thesis. Close analysis of the description of this performance reveals a fairly good acquaintance with all aspects of theatre art and a level of sophistication that contradicts the claim of spontaneous recreation ex nihilo. We should [page 137] distinguish between being the first theatre performance, which recreated the medium of theatre after a period of total ignorance of the past, and the earliest document in our possession that bears witness to theatrical activity in the Church.

The main theoretical contribution made by Hunningher resides in that he suggests, by implication, a pattern of relationship between ritual and theatre, alternative to that of creation or recreation: adoption or rejection in any possible order. This pattern presupposes an essential difference between ritual and theatre medium and the option of making use of this medium by any ritual. A thousand years of rejection, and a few centuries of co-operation, even if their ways eventually parted, supports the validity of this pattern. The question is, therefore, whether or not this pattern is also valid for rituals that supposedly did generate theatre, in particular ecstatic rituals, such as the Dionysiac one?(68) I believe that the adoption-rejection (or vice versa) pattern better accounts for the relationship between ritual and theatre in the Classical period too, on the grounds of the essential difference between these two domains. This alternative pattern conforms to the conception of theatre as a medium that can serve any theological/philosophical/ideological idea or purpose, even opposing ones. To claim that theatre was created or recreated by a ritual that employed it - just as it employs other media - is as absurd as claiming that natural language, poetry or music originated in ritual.

Hunningher demonstrated that it is extremely difficult to accept Gustave Cohen's "law", that any religion naturally and spontaneously generates theatre, when almost a millennium had passed between the first encounter of the Church with pagan theatre and the establishment of the Church theatre. A similar phenomenon, of lengthy rejection and eventual adoption, is found in the Jewish culture, which managed to sustain its hostility towards theatre for a few [page 138] more centuries.

The charm of ritual theories of origin

Evidence of the influence of the ritual theories of origin on the practice of theatre is reflected in the works of a vast group of theatre directors who advocated the revitalization of theatre by restoring the ritual elements that it had allegedly lost. This trend was/is led by such prominent directors as Peter Brook, Jerzy Grotowski, Ariane Mnouchkine, Richard Schechner and Eugenio Barba. However, in fact, the elements introduced by them were not genuine ritual elements, but stagecraft inventions inspired by principles thought to underlie ritual behavior in any possible culture. Schechner was aware of the artificial nature of what he himself termed "home-made" rituals:

This is a wonderful insight. Unfortunately, Schechner was not consistent with it and, in other contexts, he continued to maintain that this tendency to reintroduce and reintegrate ritual elements is characteristic of avant-garde theatre. In my opinion, these "home-made" ritual elements are foreign to both ritual and theatre, because they originate in erroneous conceptions of both ritual and theatre medium. Despite all his staging innovations, Schechner could not have succeeded in reintroducing ritual elements into theatre, because to begin with these were not part of theatre. His innovations could not have transformed a [page 139] theatre performance into "an efficacious event upon which the participants depend."(70) Ritual can employ the medium of theatre as one of its components, but theatre cannot employ ritual because it is a medium. Theatre can describe a given ritual, or parts of it, but a ritual cannot describe a theatre production because it is not a medium. All in all, "home-made" ritual elements are no more than formal "ceremonial" stage behavior, which undoubtedly has a specific impact on the audience, and whose nature has yet to be investigated. I believe that these elements deserve specific research.

I have suggested elsewhere an alternative answer to the problem of the theatre medium origin in terms of the necessary psychological, behavioral and institutional conditions that made the creation of the theatre medium possible.(71)

I believe that all ritual theories of origin are clearly of an ideological character; i.e., there is no scientific truth in them. They are fallacious and do not stand rational criticism. I also believe that the ritual elements allegedly reintroduced to theatre are obviously spurious. The main question is, therefore, what is the secret of the appeal of claims based on a profound relationship between ritual and theatre, whether in the form of development or shared basic nature? In my view, the only answer is that it is a matter of a metaphorical aura that, for romantic reasons, people wish to attribute to theatre. This metaphorical aura is supposed to lend theatre a numinous quality that not only does it not always radiate, but that perhaps less than anything else defines its nature. Between this aura and theatre historical reality there is nothing. In this respect, Vince's words are illuminating:

It is indeed possible that this metaphorical aura reflects a genuine nostalgia for primeval ritual or communal participation, which is so lacking in modern and post-modern society. Whatever the answer, I believe that the true object of research should be not the supposed ritual origins of theatre, but the actual necessity for such a theory and the misguided devotion to the idea of an umbilical link between ritual and theatre, other than the possible use of this medium of theatre for the sake of ritual purposes. Despite this appeal, the medium of theatre could not have originated in ritual.

Endnotes

Dr. Eli Rozik is professor of theatre studies. Twice head of the Department of Theatre Studies and until recently Dean of the Faculty of the Arts at Tel Aviv University. He specializes in theatre theory, particularly in non-verbal communication in performance analysis. He published many scientific articles in international leading journals, in Europe and the USA, and four books: Metaphor in Theatre and Poetry (1981 - Hebrew), The Language of the Theatre (1991), Elements of Play Analysis (1992 - Hebrew) and The Roots of Theatre (2000). Prof. Rozik was the editor of the international journal Assaph - Studies in the Theatre.