Final Project on The Tempest
In my re-imagination of The Tempest, I hope to emphasize the role of human free will and power in light of a divine presence. This interpretation and analysis will work by focusing on the doer of each action and the causes and effects throughout the play. To give Shakespeare’s classic a new perspective, I have chosen to recast Prospero as a professor who was ousted from tenure by his brother, and now spends his days on a small island “working on a dissertation,” but never truly getting anywhere. He longs for his position at the prestigious Catholic university he loved and harbors resentment toward his less-qualified brother who forced him out. This recasting of Prospero’s role, from a former duke to a former professor, places emphasis on knowledge, just as Shakespeare did in the original text. Prospero’s power comes from his books and cloak, items which both also mark professors at universities whether it be in the classroom or graduation ceremonies. Prospero asserts control over the other characters due to his knowledge. Instead of marrying Miranda to Ferdinand, Prospero hopes to secure her a research fellowship with him at the university, so that she can be set for future success. By setting this play in the political realm of higher education, Shakespeare’s play has greater context to the modern audience. The struggle between reasoning, knowledge, power, and religion will also be made more prominent.
The Tempest remains one of Shakespeare’s most complex and notable plays due to its themes of justice, forgiveness, and power. The Tempest blurs the lines between god and man through Prospero’s use of magic and control over his subjects, Ariel and Caliban, on the island. The water motif used throughout the play unites all the characters in the island in their first encounter since Alonso betrayed Prospero and usurped the throne. Water has kept them apart, Prospero on the island, Alonso in Milan. This play illustrates liminality in Prospero’s change from a scorned professor seeking power to a brother working toward reconciliation. Prospero’s plans in commanding the tempest seem unclear to the audience, and they are also unclear to himself. Prospero seeks this opportunity to encounter his estranged family as they journey back from Africa and pass his island on the sea. Prospero knows he needs to act on his relationship with his brother, but he does not know where his plot will lead. At its core, The Tempest relates to its characterizations on the divine as a question of control and power in terms of the supernatural and forgiveness.
Click here for further analysis.
The Tempest remains one of Shakespeare’s most complex and notable plays due to its themes of justice, forgiveness, and power. The Tempest blurs the lines between god and man through Prospero’s use of magic and control over his subjects, Ariel and Caliban, on the island. The water motif used throughout the play unites all the characters in the island in their first encounter since Alonso betrayed Prospero and usurped the throne. Water has kept them apart, Prospero on the island, Alonso in Milan. This play illustrates liminality in Prospero’s change from a scorned professor seeking power to a brother working toward reconciliation. Prospero’s plans in commanding the tempest seem unclear to the audience, and they are also unclear to himself. Prospero seeks this opportunity to encounter his estranged family as they journey back from Africa and pass his island on the sea. Prospero knows he needs to act on his relationship with his brother, but he does not know where his plot will lead. At its core, The Tempest relates to its characterizations on the divine as a question of control and power in terms of the supernatural and forgiveness.
Click here for further analysis.
So... What do these plays mean?
The plays we have covered in this course all attempt to make sense of religion and faith’s place in our world and in our lives. They try to explain why we need faith and how it functions in the context of modern issues, events, and dilemmas. Throughout time certain questions have remained essential. Why is faith necessary? How can religion affect quality of life? Who does God call? Can we make meaning out of life? These questions may not be able to be answered, but they deserve to be considered.
Reflection on The Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon can easily be written off as a crude, insensitive satire mocking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but a closer look into the themes of the text raise some very poignant questions on how society utilizes religion. How can two sheltered men new to missionary work relate their faith to villagers in Uganda? The situation in and of itself is inherently comical. Two young men expecting to change the world and have great success face the grave realities in a world full of suffering. They aren’t in Utah anymore.
The play juxtaposes the necessity of relating faith to the people being served and the conflict that often comes with the literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon. When Elder Price and Elder Cunningham, along with all the other missionaries who have attempted to teach their religion, try to explain the text literally, the villagers show no interest. What do the teaching of Joseph Smith have to do with the struggles of war, poverty, and HIV that the villagers face everyday? The villagers cannot possibly care about a literal interpretation of Mormonism when they must face the realities of living in fear for their lives.
The tension in religion between literal interpretations and application to real life issues leads to a greater issue; can religion and faith actually improve quality of life? What effect does the teachings of Elder Cunningham truly have on the villagers? Does his introduction to the Mormon faith help solve the villagers problems, or does it help in another way? The play examines the role of faith in the face of adversity. In The Book of Mormon, while Elder Cunningham laughably misrepresents the teachings of the Church, he holds true to larger truths that keep faith functioning as a moral, unifying system for the villagers.
The Book of Mormon takes an outlandish characterization of modern religion and causes its audience to question how faith can relate to modern issues. The play does not apply only to Mormons, but can be expanded to all religions. Church teachings often tell fantastical stories, often not any more believable than Cunningham’s web of stories, and ask their congregations for absolute faith and belief.
The play juxtaposes the necessity of relating faith to the people being served and the conflict that often comes with the literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon. When Elder Price and Elder Cunningham, along with all the other missionaries who have attempted to teach their religion, try to explain the text literally, the villagers show no interest. What do the teaching of Joseph Smith have to do with the struggles of war, poverty, and HIV that the villagers face everyday? The villagers cannot possibly care about a literal interpretation of Mormonism when they must face the realities of living in fear for their lives.
The tension in religion between literal interpretations and application to real life issues leads to a greater issue; can religion and faith actually improve quality of life? What effect does the teachings of Elder Cunningham truly have on the villagers? Does his introduction to the Mormon faith help solve the villagers problems, or does it help in another way? The play examines the role of faith in the face of adversity. In The Book of Mormon, while Elder Cunningham laughably misrepresents the teachings of the Church, he holds true to larger truths that keep faith functioning as a moral, unifying system for the villagers.
The Book of Mormon takes an outlandish characterization of modern religion and causes its audience to question how faith can relate to modern issues. The play does not apply only to Mormons, but can be expanded to all religions. Church teachings often tell fantastical stories, often not any more believable than Cunningham’s web of stories, and ask their congregations for absolute faith and belief.
Reflection on Corpus Christi and Doubt
Corpus Christi and Doubt both challenged long-held views on religion and faith. By using modern events and issues to frame their messages, these plays made issues in Christianity relatable to their audiences. The plays’ focuses on controversy, such as homosexuality and an alleged priest sex abuse scandal, can be seen as an attempt to garner attention based on shock value, but truly, the authors wanted to contextualize their messages in a meaningful way that would resonate with a wide array of people.
Corpus Christi utilized the plight of homosexuals facing persecution, especially in Christianity, to demonstrate that God’s message s intended for all people, not just those who fit the status quo. God can be found in any relationship, whether it be friendship or romantic love, with any person, whether they be straight or not. The gospels focus on Jesus’s work and illustrate his care and compassion for the marginalized in society – the lepers, tax collectors, and prostitutes. If God can find good in all people and choses to associate himself with the outcasts, shouldn’t the modern Church do the same? In his introduction, Terrence McNally says that he does not mean to offend anyone with his play, but rather, he hopes to give all people a connection to Jesus, especially those who never have seen themselves as close to God in past representations of Jesus. At its core, Corpus Christi is about finding God in the love of friendship and through interactions with others.
Unlike almost any other work before it, Corpus Christi portrays Jesus in his most formative teenage years. The audience sees him struggle with his sexuality and subsequent taunting in high school. Joshua, the character of Jesus in the play, acts as a typical teenager, making mistakes, facing bullying, and trying to fit in. McNally also portrays Jesus’s sexual maturation and identity in Joshua’s relationship with Judas. This very explicit tie of Jesus to homosexuality challenges any preconceived notions one had about Jesus’s identity. Jesus’s coming of age story is messy and complicated, not like the man Jesus is characterized in the gospels. The Bible doesn’t even mention Jesus’s adolescence. By taking a new perspective on faith and sexuality, McNally makes finding God in relationships accessible to all people, especially the homosexual community who can be ostracized from organized religion.
Doubt does not give any definitive answers or one right interpretation. The audience is left as confused as the main characters are in the play. No one can know for sure what happened between Father Flynn and Donald Muller, but that is what John Patrick Shanley intended. The audience in turn must struggle with their own doubt on the situation and question what they themselves believe. In the play’s opening sermon, Father Flynn says, “Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty.” What does this actually mean? How can one act justly in the face of doubt? Does this mean no one can truly trust one another? The doubt and confusion in this play drives the entirety of the plot and leads to the build up in the major conflict between Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn. Sister Aloysius’s doubt in Father Flynn drives her to protect her students, but what if she is wrong? We will never know.
Both plays work to engage their audience by challenging them. The audience must address their preconceived notions on faith in order to truly immerse themselves into the plays.
Chris gave a great interpretation of both of these works in the context of the theater. He says, "Herein, too, is where the importance of theatricality as a creative medium for the expression of personal religious beliefs, rather than the blind perpetuation of the dogmatic teachings of the church." Chris's knowledge of theater and production gave me a new perspective on these readings and how they can transcend the stage to real life.
Corpus Christi utilized the plight of homosexuals facing persecution, especially in Christianity, to demonstrate that God’s message s intended for all people, not just those who fit the status quo. God can be found in any relationship, whether it be friendship or romantic love, with any person, whether they be straight or not. The gospels focus on Jesus’s work and illustrate his care and compassion for the marginalized in society – the lepers, tax collectors, and prostitutes. If God can find good in all people and choses to associate himself with the outcasts, shouldn’t the modern Church do the same? In his introduction, Terrence McNally says that he does not mean to offend anyone with his play, but rather, he hopes to give all people a connection to Jesus, especially those who never have seen themselves as close to God in past representations of Jesus. At its core, Corpus Christi is about finding God in the love of friendship and through interactions with others.
Unlike almost any other work before it, Corpus Christi portrays Jesus in his most formative teenage years. The audience sees him struggle with his sexuality and subsequent taunting in high school. Joshua, the character of Jesus in the play, acts as a typical teenager, making mistakes, facing bullying, and trying to fit in. McNally also portrays Jesus’s sexual maturation and identity in Joshua’s relationship with Judas. This very explicit tie of Jesus to homosexuality challenges any preconceived notions one had about Jesus’s identity. Jesus’s coming of age story is messy and complicated, not like the man Jesus is characterized in the gospels. The Bible doesn’t even mention Jesus’s adolescence. By taking a new perspective on faith and sexuality, McNally makes finding God in relationships accessible to all people, especially the homosexual community who can be ostracized from organized religion.
Doubt does not give any definitive answers or one right interpretation. The audience is left as confused as the main characters are in the play. No one can know for sure what happened between Father Flynn and Donald Muller, but that is what John Patrick Shanley intended. The audience in turn must struggle with their own doubt on the situation and question what they themselves believe. In the play’s opening sermon, Father Flynn says, “Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty.” What does this actually mean? How can one act justly in the face of doubt? Does this mean no one can truly trust one another? The doubt and confusion in this play drives the entirety of the plot and leads to the build up in the major conflict between Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn. Sister Aloysius’s doubt in Father Flynn drives her to protect her students, but what if she is wrong? We will never know.
Both plays work to engage their audience by challenging them. The audience must address their preconceived notions on faith in order to truly immerse themselves into the plays.
Chris gave a great interpretation of both of these works in the context of the theater. He says, "Herein, too, is where the importance of theatricality as a creative medium for the expression of personal religious beliefs, rather than the blind perpetuation of the dogmatic teachings of the church." Chris's knowledge of theater and production gave me a new perspective on these readings and how they can transcend the stage to real life.
Reflection on The Last Days of Judas Iscariot
Stephen Adly Guirgis uses the life of the Bible’s most famous sinner to comment on forgiveness as a whole. Through his use of a trial setting, the play gives the audience a chance to judge Judas for themselves. They are able to witness the testimonies and interrogation as if they themselves are the jury. This mock court situation gives such a new perspective on Judas from the typical teachings of the Bible.
Judas is an outcast – a sinner. He seeks forgiveness and understanding, but is met with opposition. How could someone give up Jesus Christ, our savior and redeemer? It’s not so much what Judas did that irks people, but who he did it to. Ironically, Christ, the one who everyone wishes to protect, is the only one to show Judas unconditional love and forgiveness, even in the wake of his actions. This biblical interpretation shows that God is the most right and forgiving example for humans to imitate. Christ is able to forgive all of those involved in his death, even his friend who betrays him.
The use of witnesses gives Judas a more relatable characterization than can be gleaned from the Bible alone. St. Monica must petition God for Judas, a change from his all-forgiving portrayal in the Bible. Satan also denies that he made Judas betray Jesus. Satan’s testimony gives the impression that Judas is truly the villain. Mary Magdalene counters Satan by saying in her testimony that Judas and Jesus had an intense friendship and that Judas could not have been all bad. Sigmund Freud then enters the court and claims that since Judas committed suicide, he is not responsible for his actions by means of mental illness. Yet another testimony gives claim that Judas did not act alone and did not know Jesus would be killed. Judas also may have attempted to return his payment and save Jesus. The testimonies continue the argument of Judas’s guilt, until Jesus himself comes forward.
Jesus tells Judas that he is in all of us, the good and the bad, and loves us all unconditionally. Jesus says that he has never left Judas, but his own despair kept him from seeing what was right in front of him. Butch’s later explanation of his own betrayal by cheating of his wife, gives universality to Judas’s trial and story. Judas’s sins are not so different from that of everyone else. Judas’s are just more well-known. The play gives a new look into the treatment of wrong doers, hypocrisy, and forgiveness.
Tess gave a great perspective on the tension between faith and intelligence showcased in the examination of Freud. El-Fayoumy questions that Freud can have intelligence in the absence of faith.
EL-FAYOUMY: He wasn't wrong like you either, was he? Was he??!!
SIGMUND FREUD: Intelligence and Faith are two different things!
EL-FAYOUMY: Are they, Doctor Freud? Because I would say that you can't have one without the other. But, of course, I'm not a brilliant genius expert like you, am I?
SIGMUND FREUD: I had a wonderful vibrant mind and my intellectual curiosity was boundless.
This passage provides the outline of a broader issue this play only touches on. Tess makes a compelling argument that while faith and intelligence can exist separately, they enhance each other when existing simultaneously. Tess brought forward a great point from the text that I had hardly considered in my reflection and analysis.
Judas is an outcast – a sinner. He seeks forgiveness and understanding, but is met with opposition. How could someone give up Jesus Christ, our savior and redeemer? It’s not so much what Judas did that irks people, but who he did it to. Ironically, Christ, the one who everyone wishes to protect, is the only one to show Judas unconditional love and forgiveness, even in the wake of his actions. This biblical interpretation shows that God is the most right and forgiving example for humans to imitate. Christ is able to forgive all of those involved in his death, even his friend who betrays him.
The use of witnesses gives Judas a more relatable characterization than can be gleaned from the Bible alone. St. Monica must petition God for Judas, a change from his all-forgiving portrayal in the Bible. Satan also denies that he made Judas betray Jesus. Satan’s testimony gives the impression that Judas is truly the villain. Mary Magdalene counters Satan by saying in her testimony that Judas and Jesus had an intense friendship and that Judas could not have been all bad. Sigmund Freud then enters the court and claims that since Judas committed suicide, he is not responsible for his actions by means of mental illness. Yet another testimony gives claim that Judas did not act alone and did not know Jesus would be killed. Judas also may have attempted to return his payment and save Jesus. The testimonies continue the argument of Judas’s guilt, until Jesus himself comes forward.
Jesus tells Judas that he is in all of us, the good and the bad, and loves us all unconditionally. Jesus says that he has never left Judas, but his own despair kept him from seeing what was right in front of him. Butch’s later explanation of his own betrayal by cheating of his wife, gives universality to Judas’s trial and story. Judas’s sins are not so different from that of everyone else. Judas’s are just more well-known. The play gives a new look into the treatment of wrong doers, hypocrisy, and forgiveness.
Tess gave a great perspective on the tension between faith and intelligence showcased in the examination of Freud. El-Fayoumy questions that Freud can have intelligence in the absence of faith.
EL-FAYOUMY: He wasn't wrong like you either, was he? Was he??!!
SIGMUND FREUD: Intelligence and Faith are two different things!
EL-FAYOUMY: Are they, Doctor Freud? Because I would say that you can't have one without the other. But, of course, I'm not a brilliant genius expert like you, am I?
SIGMUND FREUD: I had a wonderful vibrant mind and my intellectual curiosity was boundless.
This passage provides the outline of a broader issue this play only touches on. Tess makes a compelling argument that while faith and intelligence can exist separately, they enhance each other when existing simultaneously. Tess brought forward a great point from the text that I had hardly considered in my reflection and analysis.
Reflection on Angels in America
Tony Kushner uses the lives of two couples dealing with issues pertaining to sexuality and community to comment on the nation as a whole in his Tony-award winning play, Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes. At first the play seemed to be just about the spread of AIDS and the stigma of homosexuality in the late 80’s, but as I read deeper into the text, I was able to identify with the national themes of the work. The struggles that the main characters face – loyalty, the presence of God, illness, care for all people – are not limited to gays. Kushner was able to use the plight of the gay man in the U.S. to contextualize his message, but his point is that everyone is united in the human condition.
The theme of community stretches throughout the play from the individual relationships formed by the characters. By the end, their lives are completely interwoven. The interconnectivity shows that no one is truly alone. All of the character’s actions influence the others. Many times the characters seem to feel that they are alone in their pain and suffering, but truthfully, they are all dealing with similar troubles. They are more similar than they each realize, but they tend to have trouble addressing their struggles to others. Out of the overall community in the play, the characters also face the obstacle of realizing their own identities. What really makes them who they are? Is it that they’re gay, or have AIDs? Is it their religions? Is it their work? They each face inner turmoil with what they see as conflicting notions about their identity and how they function in society. The political undertones of the play also tie into the notions of community and identity. Roy is the prime example of his personal life contradicting what he stands for politically. He even goes to his grave denying his sexuality. The ghost of Ethel Rosenberg also gives another perspective on the politics of the time. Do political beliefs unite or divide the nation as a whole?
Finally, the theme of migration and change gives the plot direction into the characters’ futures. The angels in the play say that God has left the earth after the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. The angels also advise the characters not to leave their problems. Is this an issue with running away, or do the angels want the characters to stay the same? The theme of migration also parallels the flight of the Mormons and early Jews.
Brynne offered a great perspective on Angels in America’s relation to organized religion. I had trouble trying to wrap my mind around what the play truly said about religion in the context of the play. Brynne said, “To me, it seems that the playwright is challenging a huge aspect of organized religion. ... how should you feel when that religion, one you have grown up believing in, tells you that you will be punished and possibly go to hell for being your true self.” This insight is still especially relevant as we read the text today in light of the recent movements for gay rights.
The theme of community stretches throughout the play from the individual relationships formed by the characters. By the end, their lives are completely interwoven. The interconnectivity shows that no one is truly alone. All of the character’s actions influence the others. Many times the characters seem to feel that they are alone in their pain and suffering, but truthfully, they are all dealing with similar troubles. They are more similar than they each realize, but they tend to have trouble addressing their struggles to others. Out of the overall community in the play, the characters also face the obstacle of realizing their own identities. What really makes them who they are? Is it that they’re gay, or have AIDs? Is it their religions? Is it their work? They each face inner turmoil with what they see as conflicting notions about their identity and how they function in society. The political undertones of the play also tie into the notions of community and identity. Roy is the prime example of his personal life contradicting what he stands for politically. He even goes to his grave denying his sexuality. The ghost of Ethel Rosenberg also gives another perspective on the politics of the time. Do political beliefs unite or divide the nation as a whole?
Finally, the theme of migration and change gives the plot direction into the characters’ futures. The angels in the play say that God has left the earth after the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. The angels also advise the characters not to leave their problems. Is this an issue with running away, or do the angels want the characters to stay the same? The theme of migration also parallels the flight of the Mormons and early Jews.
Brynne offered a great perspective on Angels in America’s relation to organized religion. I had trouble trying to wrap my mind around what the play truly said about religion in the context of the play. Brynne said, “To me, it seems that the playwright is challenging a huge aspect of organized religion. ... how should you feel when that religion, one you have grown up believing in, tells you that you will be punished and possibly go to hell for being your true self.” This insight is still especially relevant as we read the text today in light of the recent movements for gay rights.
Reflection on JB
“Is God to be forgiven?” This line is central to understanding JB. The text raises questions of divinity, such as, is God infallible, who has control, and, essentially, why do bad things happen to good people? There is no easy answer to these questions or right way to interpret JB. It is the human condition to try to rationalize and make sense of tragedy. The complexity arises in trying to understand why God does not intervene in the devil’s work against Job. If he sees the evil happening and Job’s suffering and pain, why does he not protect Job? Why does he not save Job’s children?
For my interpretation, JB posed more questions than it answered. Archibald MacLeish brings a new perspective in the characterization of divinity in JB. In the play, God seems to be more relatable in terms of humanized characters than previous examples of divinity in theater. The juxtaposition of sarah’s doubt and Job’s unrelenting faith also gives separate perspectives for the audience to identify with. Sarah has as what many may see as the appropriate response to pain by questioning her fait. Job’s positivity unsettles and angers Sarah, until the end of the play when she accepts his view.
The final sense of understanding and peace in the play is highlighted by MacLeish’s motif and use of light in stage directions. During the more tragic and solemn parts of the play, darkness creeps into the stage and shadows the characters, but the play ends with Job and Sarah’s reunited enshrined by light filling their house. The light symbolizes God, understanding, acceptance, and peace.
I found Betsy’s interpretation of JB to be a phenomenal insight on the theme of choice in religion that I previously didn’t see as clearly. Betsy saw Job’s persistent faith as his choice to overcome him obstacles and continue in his life. Sarah, on the other hand, chose anger, which led her into more frustration. Eventually, she too, choses to move on past the loss of her children in order to continue living.
For my interpretation, JB posed more questions than it answered. Archibald MacLeish brings a new perspective in the characterization of divinity in JB. In the play, God seems to be more relatable in terms of humanized characters than previous examples of divinity in theater. The juxtaposition of sarah’s doubt and Job’s unrelenting faith also gives separate perspectives for the audience to identify with. Sarah has as what many may see as the appropriate response to pain by questioning her fait. Job’s positivity unsettles and angers Sarah, until the end of the play when she accepts his view.
The final sense of understanding and peace in the play is highlighted by MacLeish’s motif and use of light in stage directions. During the more tragic and solemn parts of the play, darkness creeps into the stage and shadows the characters, but the play ends with Job and Sarah’s reunited enshrined by light filling their house. The light symbolizes God, understanding, acceptance, and peace.
I found Betsy’s interpretation of JB to be a phenomenal insight on the theme of choice in religion that I previously didn’t see as clearly. Betsy saw Job’s persistent faith as his choice to overcome him obstacles and continue in his life. Sarah, on the other hand, chose anger, which led her into more frustration. Eventually, she too, choses to move on past the loss of her children in order to continue living.
Reflection on Murder in the Cathedral and Waiting for Godot
T.S. Eliot explores temptation and the duty to live out God’s will in Murder in the Cathedral. Thomas Becket is faced with the struggles of overcoming naysayers in his own congregation and facing “tempsters” in the play. Much of the action of the play, such as scenes between the tempsters and Becket, actually portrays Becket’s inner-dialogue and represents personal struggles of the mind. In the understanding of the role of divinity, the play centers on the importance of self-reflection and evaluation, not true action. The only action Becket takes in the play is returning to England and refusing to overturn his excommunications. The play centers around the conscience and religious temptations. Even the knights who kill Becket reflect on their actions and provide context for the situation. In this understanding of divinity, motivations for actions count more than the actions themselves to God.
Samuel Beckett strips the action in Waiting for Godot down to its core. The play focuses on two main characters passing time waiting for an unknown person and interacting with by passers. Because of its simplicity, Waiting for Godot can be interpreted many ways. In my reading of the text, I noticed numerous existential qualities and understandings of Vladimir and Estragon’s musings. The lack of time markers and the play’s fluidity symbolize the passage of time in one’s life. While the play seems to take place over two days, it could actually be a lifetime of waiting. Vladimir and Estragon also have no clear objective other than to wait. They also do not even know what they are waiting for and they say they only know Godot “by his reputation.” They look for salvation from their endless waiting from something outside themselves that they do not know. This equates to someone looking for religious salvation from something else while taking no steps to advance their lives. Godot, then, symbolizes the “idea” of God, whereas fulfilling action that would end Vladimir and Stragon’s boredom would symbolize heaven or salvation.
Both works focus on the importance of self-actualization in life’s fulfillment and the context of religion. These plays reject the notion that life can be saved from some exterior being by faith alone. Reaching meaning in life requires action and reflection from the main characters in these plays. One cannot passively await God, but instead work for His will and actively search for him.
Ben Wagner’s insights into the use of language in plays brought me a new perspective as to how these messages are conveyed to the audience whether by reading or acting. Ben made an argument that Waiting for Godot would be better understood as a text than a play, but I tend to disagree. Eliot’s use of motifs such as time elements and the lack of change in setting would be best understood on stage and would bring new ways of understanding the themes than the text alone could.
Samuel Beckett strips the action in Waiting for Godot down to its core. The play focuses on two main characters passing time waiting for an unknown person and interacting with by passers. Because of its simplicity, Waiting for Godot can be interpreted many ways. In my reading of the text, I noticed numerous existential qualities and understandings of Vladimir and Estragon’s musings. The lack of time markers and the play’s fluidity symbolize the passage of time in one’s life. While the play seems to take place over two days, it could actually be a lifetime of waiting. Vladimir and Estragon also have no clear objective other than to wait. They also do not even know what they are waiting for and they say they only know Godot “by his reputation.” They look for salvation from their endless waiting from something outside themselves that they do not know. This equates to someone looking for religious salvation from something else while taking no steps to advance their lives. Godot, then, symbolizes the “idea” of God, whereas fulfilling action that would end Vladimir and Stragon’s boredom would symbolize heaven or salvation.
Both works focus on the importance of self-actualization in life’s fulfillment and the context of religion. These plays reject the notion that life can be saved from some exterior being by faith alone. Reaching meaning in life requires action and reflection from the main characters in these plays. One cannot passively await God, but instead work for His will and actively search for him.
Ben Wagner’s insights into the use of language in plays brought me a new perspective as to how these messages are conveyed to the audience whether by reading or acting. Ben made an argument that Waiting for Godot would be better understood as a text than a play, but I tend to disagree. Eliot’s use of motifs such as time elements and the lack of change in setting would be best understood on stage and would bring new ways of understanding the themes than the text alone could.
Reflection on The Tempest
Shakespeare’s The Tempest exemplifies the mysteriousness of divinity, magic, and the supernatural. The play raises the questions how do we know if God is just, and where does divine power stem from? Shakespeare transforms his setting of Prospero’s island into that of another realm where deceit and revenge rule.
In the play, Prospero holds all the power on the island as he has magic from his books and slaves to carry out his orders. In some ways, Prospero is a representation of the divine. As a ruler, he controls the fate of the shipwrecked and uses his forces to act in ways in which they cannot. Prospero also seems to be able to see and know more than any other character. Even his positioning in his castle as the rest of the characters make due in the wilderness of the island conveys his power and role above them.
If Prospero is in fact a representation of the divine, what is this play’s message? Prospero acts unlike any god-figure we have encountered in the course readings thus far. He is manipulative, cruel, and scornful. He even uses his daughter, Miranda, as a pawn to take back his title by facilitating her marriage to Ferdinand.
The master and slave dynamics set forth in The Tempest create a motif of power, order, and fairness. While Prospero seeks revenge for his brother’s usurpation of his throne, how can he justify his actions toward Ariel and Caliban? Prospero treats his subjects as a means to an end, his retaking of his place in Milan, and does exactly what Antonio did to him. This version of justice seems completely one-sided to Prospero’s favor. As a symbol of divine power, Prospero acts alone and in his own self-interest. He does not work in any way to benefit those around him. His only moments of positive action are when he forgives his previous attackers and when he sets his slaves free and relinquishes his magic powers to return to Milan. Although these actions are seemingly good, the audience cannot forget his previous wickedness and that he is only to free Ariel and Caliban because he had captured them before and held them as his slaves, something which we do not typically attribute to the divine.
In the end, The Tempest raises more questions than is attempts to answer. The play illustrates moral ambiguity and gives an interpretation of religion that is not as defined as before. Shakespeare is one of the first playwrights to explore the grey area of religion, divinity, and justice.
Naomi focused her reflection on Johnson's Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue. Naomi connects the use of masques with divine powers the wealthy seem to have over others. The theme of entitlement that Naomi illustrates in her response also directly correlates with Prospero's actions in The Tempest. These divides in power and whose "side" divinity is on seem to be major themes in both works.
In the play, Prospero holds all the power on the island as he has magic from his books and slaves to carry out his orders. In some ways, Prospero is a representation of the divine. As a ruler, he controls the fate of the shipwrecked and uses his forces to act in ways in which they cannot. Prospero also seems to be able to see and know more than any other character. Even his positioning in his castle as the rest of the characters make due in the wilderness of the island conveys his power and role above them.
If Prospero is in fact a representation of the divine, what is this play’s message? Prospero acts unlike any god-figure we have encountered in the course readings thus far. He is manipulative, cruel, and scornful. He even uses his daughter, Miranda, as a pawn to take back his title by facilitating her marriage to Ferdinand.
The master and slave dynamics set forth in The Tempest create a motif of power, order, and fairness. While Prospero seeks revenge for his brother’s usurpation of his throne, how can he justify his actions toward Ariel and Caliban? Prospero treats his subjects as a means to an end, his retaking of his place in Milan, and does exactly what Antonio did to him. This version of justice seems completely one-sided to Prospero’s favor. As a symbol of divine power, Prospero acts alone and in his own self-interest. He does not work in any way to benefit those around him. His only moments of positive action are when he forgives his previous attackers and when he sets his slaves free and relinquishes his magic powers to return to Milan. Although these actions are seemingly good, the audience cannot forget his previous wickedness and that he is only to free Ariel and Caliban because he had captured them before and held them as his slaves, something which we do not typically attribute to the divine.
In the end, The Tempest raises more questions than is attempts to answer. The play illustrates moral ambiguity and gives an interpretation of religion that is not as defined as before. Shakespeare is one of the first playwrights to explore the grey area of religion, divinity, and justice.
Naomi focused her reflection on Johnson's Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue. Naomi connects the use of masques with divine powers the wealthy seem to have over others. The theme of entitlement that Naomi illustrates in her response also directly correlates with Prospero's actions in The Tempest. These divides in power and whose "side" divinity is on seem to be major themes in both works.
Reflection on Luther and A Man for All Seasons
Both Luther and A Man for All Seasons illustrate the lives of well-known religious figures and their commitment to their faith in the face of adversity. Both men combat their authority figures and challenge their powers. These plays show a shift from institutionalized religion to the reformation and personal challengers. The uprising of the educated men, as shown in these plays, will lead to changes throughout religion for all.
A common theme in both plays is the protagonists’ unrelenting faith and respect for God. The divinity shown in these plays does not have a character representing it, but is shown in More’s and Luther’s actions. This reading of the text requires more interpretation in understanding the role of divinity. God’s presence must be inferred from the plot of the play and how the protagonists react to opposition. Some direct knowledge of the divine is shown through scenes of prayer and direct dialogue from More and Luther.
These plays also do not characterize More and Luther as perfect. Rather, the authors try to humanize these heros. We are able to see their moments of doubt and fear. This representation makes them relatable to the audience. Because they are not idealized, it can be suggested that anyone can act as they have. Their actions are not supernatural, but daily choices we all can make to defend our faith. These plays can call their audiences to live their lives as More and Luther.
Luther and especially A Man for All Seasons also depict how easily seemingly good men can become acquainted with evil and corruption. Many of More’s allies turn against him for promises of power and for fear of being the next victim of tyranny. Luther, as a monk and priest, sees his peers putting up with practices of indulgences and relics. Luther is the one among them who makes his grievances known. While many characters in Luther and A Man for All Seasons do not have any outward action against the protagonists, their inaction shows their lack of courage and cowardliness. These plays show that the majority of men, while not true agents of sin, commit sins of omission for not standing for what is right and just at all times.
A recurring theme throughout the texts in this course is the allure of power. Who has it, who wants it, and how it affects religion seems to come into play in all the works. Here, these plays memorialize the actions of two men: Martin Luther and Thomas More. These plays give them power even after their deaths. These works also take power away from religious institutions by highlighting their wrongdoings.
Jackie's reflection offered another perspective to my reading of Luther by addressing familial duties and expectations, as evidenced by the role of Luther's father, and the role of faith vs. reason in Luther's decisions. These factors help to explain Luther's internal struggles and inherent humanity. He is a vulnerable and relatable character because he must wrestle with his father's expectations and disappointment in his role as a clergy member. Luther's decision-making can be better understood in considering the competing interests of his strong faith and reason. This may also help to interpret Staupitz's advice to act moderately.
A common theme in both plays is the protagonists’ unrelenting faith and respect for God. The divinity shown in these plays does not have a character representing it, but is shown in More’s and Luther’s actions. This reading of the text requires more interpretation in understanding the role of divinity. God’s presence must be inferred from the plot of the play and how the protagonists react to opposition. Some direct knowledge of the divine is shown through scenes of prayer and direct dialogue from More and Luther.
These plays also do not characterize More and Luther as perfect. Rather, the authors try to humanize these heros. We are able to see their moments of doubt and fear. This representation makes them relatable to the audience. Because they are not idealized, it can be suggested that anyone can act as they have. Their actions are not supernatural, but daily choices we all can make to defend our faith. These plays can call their audiences to live their lives as More and Luther.
Luther and especially A Man for All Seasons also depict how easily seemingly good men can become acquainted with evil and corruption. Many of More’s allies turn against him for promises of power and for fear of being the next victim of tyranny. Luther, as a monk and priest, sees his peers putting up with practices of indulgences and relics. Luther is the one among them who makes his grievances known. While many characters in Luther and A Man for All Seasons do not have any outward action against the protagonists, their inaction shows their lack of courage and cowardliness. These plays show that the majority of men, while not true agents of sin, commit sins of omission for not standing for what is right and just at all times.
A recurring theme throughout the texts in this course is the allure of power. Who has it, who wants it, and how it affects religion seems to come into play in all the works. Here, these plays memorialize the actions of two men: Martin Luther and Thomas More. These plays give them power even after their deaths. These works also take power away from religious institutions by highlighting their wrongdoings.
Jackie's reflection offered another perspective to my reading of Luther by addressing familial duties and expectations, as evidenced by the role of Luther's father, and the role of faith vs. reason in Luther's decisions. These factors help to explain Luther's internal struggles and inherent humanity. He is a vulnerable and relatable character because he must wrestle with his father's expectations and disappointment in his role as a clergy member. Luther's decision-making can be better understood in considering the competing interests of his strong faith and reason. This may also help to interpret Staupitz's advice to act moderately.
Reflection on Theater and Jesuit Spirituality
Reading these articles on the relationship between theater and Jesuit education and spirituality made me reflect on my own experiences. Now as a senior, I have been in Jesuit schools for close to eight years. While I have not been exposed to as much religious theater, I have seen art as a whole central to my Jesuit education. In high school I was a member of the Dumbach Scholars Program, an honors program for students. Dumbach Scholars focused on art with each year having a specific genre they related to: great art, great books, and great film. We were also rewired to attend trips to various museums, art galleries, and plays. The thought behind the program was that art is central to learning and “developing the whole person” as Jesuit tradition likes to call it.
Pedro Arrupe (a personal favorite Jesuit of mine) gives context to my experiences with art in the Jesuit tradition. Why is art so important to cura personalis and A.M.D.G.? He says, “Because St. Ignatius would tell us, the earth, like the heavens, narrates the glory of God. The average man, however, is both a poor viewer and a poor narrator. Therefore he needs the artist to direct his view and to speak for him.” (87) Arrupe says that we need art in order to interpret our faith and beliefs. We cannot separate the two because art attempts to give meaning to whatever it is depicting. Arrupe goes on to say that art serves a purpose of teaching to “enrich humanity.” (88) This further explains Jesuit schools’ focus on art in education and why early Jesuit theater was so didactic in nature. For the Jesuits, art is anything but frivolous. It truly saves souls.
William H. McCabe, S.J., also explores the role and purpose of theater to the Jesuits. McCabe gives much historical context and depth to theater’s past in religious purposes. McCabe also addresses what some saw as an issue in Jesuit plays - the humanization of religion. While some Jesuit theater focused on didactic biblical representations, many works addresses the human condition, which upset some other church authorities. These traditions, in my experience, still influence the role of theater in Jesuit spirituality today.
Where will Jesuit theater move in the future? What issues, themes, and religious topics will it address? These readings will be important in interpreting texts to come.
Alex Coddington's reflection opened my mind to the theory that theater can be used to enact social change and justice, a concept central to Catholic Social teaching and Jesuit ideals. Without much experience with Marquette's theater programming, I am impressed by the curriculum's and theater faculty's commitment to Jesuit education and justice.
Pedro Arrupe (a personal favorite Jesuit of mine) gives context to my experiences with art in the Jesuit tradition. Why is art so important to cura personalis and A.M.D.G.? He says, “Because St. Ignatius would tell us, the earth, like the heavens, narrates the glory of God. The average man, however, is both a poor viewer and a poor narrator. Therefore he needs the artist to direct his view and to speak for him.” (87) Arrupe says that we need art in order to interpret our faith and beliefs. We cannot separate the two because art attempts to give meaning to whatever it is depicting. Arrupe goes on to say that art serves a purpose of teaching to “enrich humanity.” (88) This further explains Jesuit schools’ focus on art in education and why early Jesuit theater was so didactic in nature. For the Jesuits, art is anything but frivolous. It truly saves souls.
William H. McCabe, S.J., also explores the role and purpose of theater to the Jesuits. McCabe gives much historical context and depth to theater’s past in religious purposes. McCabe also addresses what some saw as an issue in Jesuit plays - the humanization of religion. While some Jesuit theater focused on didactic biblical representations, many works addresses the human condition, which upset some other church authorities. These traditions, in my experience, still influence the role of theater in Jesuit spirituality today.
Where will Jesuit theater move in the future? What issues, themes, and religious topics will it address? These readings will be important in interpreting texts to come.
Alex Coddington's reflection opened my mind to the theory that theater can be used to enact social change and justice, a concept central to Catholic Social teaching and Jesuit ideals. Without much experience with Marquette's theater programming, I am impressed by the curriculum's and theater faculty's commitment to Jesuit education and justice.
Reflection on Doctor Faustus
Of all the plays in the course thus far, “Doctor Faustus” brings a new level of sophistication and finesse to the art of the play. Marlowe uses the characters of the good and evil angels as a form of Faustus’s own introspection, something which we have not yet encountered. As the audience, we are able to see and experience Faustus’s conscience decisions and inner turmoil. This shows a shift from the previous plays that showed only direct action to an inner dialogue that illustrates the personal relationship one has with divinity.
While Marlowe breaks barriers in developing the conscience factors of religion, he also uses the play as somewhat of a warning to those seeking power. Faustus brings about his own downfall because of his desire to be “greater than God.” Born into a humble upbringing, Faustus used his education to move up the ranks of society, but he know feels stuck. He wants more. His hunger for power drives him to strike a deal with the devil and turn his back on God. Faustus does not seek redemption for his sins until the last hours of his deal. Faustus is brought into hell by the devils and God does not make an effort to save him. This acts as an example of sinner that Marlowe does not want the audience to emulate. The message is clear – do not seek power over God.
This play could also be an effort to assert power of the people from the monarchy. Marlowe was carefully tied to Queen Elizabeth and even possibly acted as a spy on Catholics in France for England. His experience may have influenced his writing. “Doctor Faustus” encourages the audience to live their life as they’re told and not to seek more than they should. This lesson also applies to the monarchy and class systems of England. The power struggle central to the play can place it into the genre of a containment play, out not so much as “Everyman.”
“Doctor Faustus” is a great example of the shift in plays from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance period. It requires a higher level of thinking and interpretation to gain all the meanings Marlowe has to offer in the play. The play also allows for one of the first interpretations of a personal relationship with God and the decision making process in following religion. The play also seeks to warn the audience to obey God and other authorities above them.
While Marlowe breaks barriers in developing the conscience factors of religion, he also uses the play as somewhat of a warning to those seeking power. Faustus brings about his own downfall because of his desire to be “greater than God.” Born into a humble upbringing, Faustus used his education to move up the ranks of society, but he know feels stuck. He wants more. His hunger for power drives him to strike a deal with the devil and turn his back on God. Faustus does not seek redemption for his sins until the last hours of his deal. Faustus is brought into hell by the devils and God does not make an effort to save him. This acts as an example of sinner that Marlowe does not want the audience to emulate. The message is clear – do not seek power over God.
This play could also be an effort to assert power of the people from the monarchy. Marlowe was carefully tied to Queen Elizabeth and even possibly acted as a spy on Catholics in France for England. His experience may have influenced his writing. “Doctor Faustus” encourages the audience to live their life as they’re told and not to seek more than they should. This lesson also applies to the monarchy and class systems of England. The power struggle central to the play can place it into the genre of a containment play, out not so much as “Everyman.”
“Doctor Faustus” is a great example of the shift in plays from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance period. It requires a higher level of thinking and interpretation to gain all the meanings Marlowe has to offer in the play. The play also allows for one of the first interpretations of a personal relationship with God and the decision making process in following religion. The play also seeks to warn the audience to obey God and other authorities above them.
Reflection on The Holy Family in Medieval Cycle Plays
In the play Joseph’s Trouble about Mary, Joseph, a representation of humanity, struggles with his understanding of the divine and Mary’s immaculate conception. Joseph needs the help of Mary and angels, both representations of divinity in the earthly realm, to come to terms with God’s mysterious works. As noted in the introduction to the play, the audience identifies with Joseph's confusion in trying to comprehend the divine and acts out of one’s control. Eventually, Joseph puts his trust into God’s message, and although he does not have all the answers, he has faith in Mary’s loyalty and believes that she has conceived God’s son.
The audience of these cycle plays sees the representation of the holy family on stage as the ideal for themselves. These plays are learning experiences for them as they see biblical figures characterized by their community and responding to events they may identify with. The audience further identifies with Joseph in this particular play because he is the only one with mistakes. After numerous explanations from the angel as to who the father of Mary’s child is, Joseph says, “Yea, Mary, I am to blame...” (58). The play’s introduction says, “Joseph’s serious function is that of the ‘natural man,’ ... with whom the audience can sympathize in his struggle to comprehend the divine mystery of the virgin birth ... he is presented by turns as pathetic, comic, and aggressive.” (48). This movement to showing human characteristics in biblical figures is a large leap in providing access to understanding the divine for the common person. Instead of only the elite being able to interpret texts on theology, cycle plays brought them to a forum most people could comprehend and interact with in order to gain further knowledge of the divine. The cycle plays are the first time we have seen divinity brought down to common language and accessible to almost all people.
As Father Pilarz notes in “‘I Have Our Help Here in My Arms’: The Holy Family on the Medieval Stage,” the use of familial portrayal in entertainment is still in use today, typically on sitcoms such as The Simpsons. What has changed our focus from the holy family to magnifying dysfunction? Is our attention to comedies rather than religious representation merely for entertainment purposes? It seems that entertainment with religious elements has fallen to the wayside in favor of the absurd. How, then, does the imitation of what we see, especially given as an ideal family in the representation of the holy family, fit in with our understanding of the divine today? Pilarz wrote, “In their construction of the Holy Family in the Corpus Christi cycles, the women and men of the Middle Ages might well have been acting our their hopes and dreams for domestic life?” I wonder what future scholars will interpret from our society’s popular culture and familial representations.
The audience of these cycle plays sees the representation of the holy family on stage as the ideal for themselves. These plays are learning experiences for them as they see biblical figures characterized by their community and responding to events they may identify with. The audience further identifies with Joseph in this particular play because he is the only one with mistakes. After numerous explanations from the angel as to who the father of Mary’s child is, Joseph says, “Yea, Mary, I am to blame...” (58). The play’s introduction says, “Joseph’s serious function is that of the ‘natural man,’ ... with whom the audience can sympathize in his struggle to comprehend the divine mystery of the virgin birth ... he is presented by turns as pathetic, comic, and aggressive.” (48). This movement to showing human characteristics in biblical figures is a large leap in providing access to understanding the divine for the common person. Instead of only the elite being able to interpret texts on theology, cycle plays brought them to a forum most people could comprehend and interact with in order to gain further knowledge of the divine. The cycle plays are the first time we have seen divinity brought down to common language and accessible to almost all people.
As Father Pilarz notes in “‘I Have Our Help Here in My Arms’: The Holy Family on the Medieval Stage,” the use of familial portrayal in entertainment is still in use today, typically on sitcoms such as The Simpsons. What has changed our focus from the holy family to magnifying dysfunction? Is our attention to comedies rather than religious representation merely for entertainment purposes? It seems that entertainment with religious elements has fallen to the wayside in favor of the absurd. How, then, does the imitation of what we see, especially given as an ideal family in the representation of the holy family, fit in with our understanding of the divine today? Pilarz wrote, “In their construction of the Holy Family in the Corpus Christi cycles, the women and men of the Middle Ages might well have been acting our their hopes and dreams for domestic life?” I wonder what future scholars will interpret from our society’s popular culture and familial representations.
Reflection on Summa Theologica
As our courses moves into the medieval sect of plays attempting to address to role of divinity, the works have started to logically explain and address the divine, or “the other,” in terms of philosophy. The move from unquestioning faith to explanation can be traced directly to Thomas Aquinas and his work, the Summa Theologica. Aquinas systematically took claims in religion and applied them to fundamental questions concerning human nature. Instead of blindly following Catholic teachings, Aquinas gave reasoning and interpretations of the Church's teachings, making the Catholic understanding of divinity it more accessible to everyone. Instead of characterizing God as an unreachable source of power one should fear, Aquinas depicts God as a fundamental part of understanding life and nature. Aquinas encourages these questions into philosophies of existence and brings the role of divinity into more understandable terms. This new interpretation of the role of the divine gives playwrights a new view to interpret into their works, as can be seen in Spectacles and Hrotsvit of Gandersheim.
While the Summa Theologica brings more concrete knowledge of the divine to Catholics and philosophers, it also raises other questions and concerns. What evidence does Aquinas use for his claims? Is the Summa Theologica the only true understanding of the divine? Is it even the best understanding? These questions lead to new topics for writers to discover and actors to interpret. While Aquinas made great leaps in bringing divinity down to the level of the people, it isn’t perfect. How can theatrical interpretation of God move forward from Aquinas? In what ways are we still tied to this medieval understanding of God in philosophy today? These are questions to consider as we move forward into the modern interpretation of the divine in theater.
Although Aquinas answers, or at least narrows, questions concerning God in Catholicism, many more questions continue to present themselves, moving the cycle of questions of philosophy forward. Because this understanding of God led more people to interpret the divine, this allows for more people to struggle with this notion, and therefore more viewpoints are put into the mix. It is no longer just the role of the educated elite to define God. People can now establish their own personal relationship with the role of God in their lives. The continued presence and perseverance of Aquinas’s ideas and thoughts throughout the world have also brought about a new slew of critics and challengers. If not all questions can be answered, even by Aquinas - an educated theologian dedicating his life’s work to these questions - why do we continue to try to answer them?
While the Summa Theologica brings more concrete knowledge of the divine to Catholics and philosophers, it also raises other questions and concerns. What evidence does Aquinas use for his claims? Is the Summa Theologica the only true understanding of the divine? Is it even the best understanding? These questions lead to new topics for writers to discover and actors to interpret. While Aquinas made great leaps in bringing divinity down to the level of the people, it isn’t perfect. How can theatrical interpretation of God move forward from Aquinas? In what ways are we still tied to this medieval understanding of God in philosophy today? These are questions to consider as we move forward into the modern interpretation of the divine in theater.
Although Aquinas answers, or at least narrows, questions concerning God in Catholicism, many more questions continue to present themselves, moving the cycle of questions of philosophy forward. Because this understanding of God led more people to interpret the divine, this allows for more people to struggle with this notion, and therefore more viewpoints are put into the mix. It is no longer just the role of the educated elite to define God. People can now establish their own personal relationship with the role of God in their lives. The continued presence and perseverance of Aquinas’s ideas and thoughts throughout the world have also brought about a new slew of critics and challengers. If not all questions can be answered, even by Aquinas - an educated theologian dedicating his life’s work to these questions - why do we continue to try to answer them?
Reflection 0n The Bacchae
Throughout The Bacchae, the characters representing and expressing the divine carried a common theme: disruption. At first, the presence and nature of divinity seem incongruent to the nature of the world. The source of the divine challenges the norm and the rest of the cast. The works typically follow this theme and attempt to find meaning in these differences and disruptions presented by the divine.
In The Bacchae, Dionysus challenges the order and society’s structure in his new position as a god. The characterization of Dionysus suggests that the irrationality that comes with the divine can indeed find a place in the rational world even though it cannot be fully understood. Pentheus represents those who reject the unfamiliar, in this case Dionysus. He does not attempt to understand the unknown or that which changes his reality. In the first scene Pentheus is introduced to, Tiresias warns him of his lack of acceptance. He says, “This new god, whom you ridicule - no words of mine could well express the ascendancy he will achieve in Hellas.” (200) Tiresias explains that although he cannot fully comprehend Dionysus’s place in their world, he tries to make sense of the situation and accepts his divinity.
Dionysus allows his followers freedom to become something else through theater and the use of masks and costumes. In a way, this allows them to transcend reality and break into the realm of the divine as Dionysus is the god of theater and holds plays as sacred. Because of he has not attempted to understand the divine, Pentheus loses control of himself in the new reality – the theater. It can be interpreted that ignoring the meaning of divinity in all realms of life, both rational and irrational, will ultimately lead to self destruction, in Pentheus’s case, castration and death. When Pentheus ultimately faces a world other than the one he has organized in his mind as “correct,” he cannot handle the divine and the irrationality that comes with it. The use of theater in The Bacchae represents the state of religious ecstasy, a transformation into the world of the divine, or in Plato’s language “the world of the forms.” In a parallel to the allegory of the cave, Pentheus represents the prisoners who accepts the shadows as truth without question. He criticizes the others’ belief in the realm of the forms, but when he is faced with a reality without the shadows, he is left behind. While the others could never actually enter the realm of the forms, they climbed and sought another realty. This is the same as with Dionysus’s believers. Although they cannot fully comprehend the world of the divine, they fair much better in the irrational world of the theater than Pentheus.
In conclusion, The Bacchae communicates the importances of finding a place for the divine and irrational in our rational world, for one day they will connect. Mortal questions on the place of divinity and God cannot be answered, but that does not mean we should not ask them. Pentheus represents the man who rejects divinity’s presence in the rational world. The disruption that divinity presents should not be criticized or ignored, but we must try to understand it.
In The Bacchae, Dionysus challenges the order and society’s structure in his new position as a god. The characterization of Dionysus suggests that the irrationality that comes with the divine can indeed find a place in the rational world even though it cannot be fully understood. Pentheus represents those who reject the unfamiliar, in this case Dionysus. He does not attempt to understand the unknown or that which changes his reality. In the first scene Pentheus is introduced to, Tiresias warns him of his lack of acceptance. He says, “This new god, whom you ridicule - no words of mine could well express the ascendancy he will achieve in Hellas.” (200) Tiresias explains that although he cannot fully comprehend Dionysus’s place in their world, he tries to make sense of the situation and accepts his divinity.
Dionysus allows his followers freedom to become something else through theater and the use of masks and costumes. In a way, this allows them to transcend reality and break into the realm of the divine as Dionysus is the god of theater and holds plays as sacred. Because of he has not attempted to understand the divine, Pentheus loses control of himself in the new reality – the theater. It can be interpreted that ignoring the meaning of divinity in all realms of life, both rational and irrational, will ultimately lead to self destruction, in Pentheus’s case, castration and death. When Pentheus ultimately faces a world other than the one he has organized in his mind as “correct,” he cannot handle the divine and the irrationality that comes with it. The use of theater in The Bacchae represents the state of religious ecstasy, a transformation into the world of the divine, or in Plato’s language “the world of the forms.” In a parallel to the allegory of the cave, Pentheus represents the prisoners who accepts the shadows as truth without question. He criticizes the others’ belief in the realm of the forms, but when he is faced with a reality without the shadows, he is left behind. While the others could never actually enter the realm of the forms, they climbed and sought another realty. This is the same as with Dionysus’s believers. Although they cannot fully comprehend the world of the divine, they fair much better in the irrational world of the theater than Pentheus.
In conclusion, The Bacchae communicates the importances of finding a place for the divine and irrational in our rational world, for one day they will connect. Mortal questions on the place of divinity and God cannot be answered, but that does not mean we should not ask them. Pentheus represents the man who rejects divinity’s presence in the rational world. The disruption that divinity presents should not be criticized or ignored, but we must try to understand it.