The medieval scholars’ (back to Dionysius, the Pseudo-Areopagite, AD 500) awareness and realization of the idea of hidden beauty in art has been referred to in the article.

      The art was perceived as a cognitive reality and no longer an admirable reality. This was the key context for the judgement of the medieval scholars of Armenian decent, starting from Hovhan Mandakouni and David the   Invincible    (5^th century) to Nerses the Lambronese (12^th century). The point is, what should be considered as primary when it comes to the formal foothold in the art: the tangible substance as a sensibly perceived reality or the idea as a product of spiritual contemplation. This appears to be referring to the timeless issue of the correlation of matter and form in the framework of the transitional period in terms of the understanding of art.

Translated by   Astghick H.Hovhannissian

     Тwo pages in paragraph 13 of Theon’s Rhetoric not available in the original text in Greek have survived in the Armenian translation (5^th century). In it a description of a naturalistic play of a Greek actor Povlos by name is given as a rhetorical criterion. This is an irrefutable evidence of the early medieval existence of the school drama. guidelines for acting can be found in Byzantine scholia, Aphenaeus’s work and also in medieval Armenian scholia. Theon’s Rhetoric elucidates not only the early medieval grammatical heritage, but also later periods, such as that of Stratford Grammar School and is presented by Shakespeare’ Hamlet ( “…Tears in the eyes, distraction in‘s aspect, A broken voice, and his whole function suiting…”). Rowse, Shakespeare’s biographer points out Aphenaeus’s above-mentioned work as being one of the textbooks of Stratford Grammar School, in the rhetorical guidelines of which Theon’s impact is obvious.

                                     …this player here,                                                   …այս խաղարկուն այստեղ

But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,                                 Բայց սոսկ հորինված կրքի երազում

Could force his soul so to his own conceit                           Իր ձևացմանն է ենթարկում հոգին,

That from her working all his visage wann’d;                      Եվ կամքի ուժով դեմքն է գունատվում,

Tears in his eyes, distraction in’s aspect,                              Աչքն է արտասվում, հայացքն այլայլվում

A broken voice, and his whole function suiting                   Ու ձայնը դողում…

With forms to his conceit?  

Shakespeare,   Hamlet,                                                           Շեքսպիր,   Համլետ,

               Act II, scene II.                                                                    գործ. 2   տես. 2:

                    …актер, при тени страсти,

При вымысле пустом, был в состоянье

Свим мечтам всю душу покорить;

Его лицо от силы их бледнеет

В глазах слеза дрожит, и млеет голос.

В чертах лица отчаянье и ужас…

                   Шекспир,  Гамлет,  акт II,  сцена II

                                                  (пер. А. Кронеберга).

Translated by   Astghick H.Hovhannissian

Մարտիրոս Մնակյան մաս2

թատրոնը միջնադար. հայաստանում-մաս2

The theatre was a lively, artistic symbol of medieval town life both Western Europe and Asia Minor- the cradle of early feudalism. With the coming of Christianity and the end of the ancient world Armenia found itself in a region of tremendous cultural activity at the crossroads between East and West. As the ancient classical theatre began to disappear in the countries of Asia Minor, a new type of theatrical art developed, later to be called the medieval theatre. This form had to origins – the theatrical traditions of late antiquity and the Asiatic folk epic. Having broken with literature, the early medieval theatre retuned to its first principles. The origins of the early medieval Armenian theatre went back be-yond the Middle Ages to the folk-epic traditions of the Armenian people. It can only really be called medieval in the sense that it was well documented in the medieval literary sourced and seems to us to be medieval in conception and character. Before finally coming to Western Europe, This theatre had passed through Syria, Capppadocia, Bysantium and Armenia (4^th-9^th centuries).

 The external life of feudal society has a definitely theatrical appearance with its established customs,   rituals and etiquettes. But the theatricality of social life should not be identified with the theatrical art of  the same social environment. In medieval town life the theatre figures as an autonomous phenomenon, free from religious social purposes. The theatre occupies a special place in the social consciousness of the epoch, without blending, in to the official ideology of the Middle Ages. But it should not be confused either with church liturgy or popular customs and games. Armenian medieval writers designate it by the specific term թատր (tatr), which comes from the classical Greek “θέατρον” and the Syrian “tatra”. This term relates neither to liturgical drama (whose early forms were known in Armenia from the 5^th century) nor to any other kind of ritual or custom. From the 9^th century in both the Byzantine and Armenian churches an embryonic type of spiritual drama, the բանագերծութիւն – (banagortsutyun) was formed.  This word “banagortsutyun” is the lexical equivalent of the classical Greek “δραματουργία”. However,  the present review is concerned with the lay theatre and those forms of oral literature such as  popular  satire and folk-epic, which were called by the medieval grammarians “comedy”  կատակերգութիւն  (katakergutyun) and can be compared and identified with the theatre.

 The term կատակերգություն was first used in the ancient Armenian translation of the “Grammatici” of Dionysius Thrax. In the medieval texts this term acquires a universal moral and philosophical significance and relates basically to ethical and occasionally artistic conceptions. Among medieval historians the word “comedy” is applied to those phenomena and concepts that do not correspond with the established cultural, official, class and individual relations. The “comic” means the everyday, the commonplace, the out–rageous and the amoral, i.e. an attitude to God-given reality that was free from ethical norms. In accordance with this comedy was used describe the non-religious and ordinary themes in both literature and folklore and also in theatrical spectacles. All forms of the medieval popular professional theatre, irrespective of their differences of genre, wore included under one heading by the medieval theoreticians: կատակերգութիւն – զկատարանաց նուագել խօսս – (katakergutyun – zkatarakans nuagel khoss) which literally translated means the “songs of mimers or actors”. The early medieval Armenia grammarians used the word “comedy” to refer notonly to all kinds and types of oral composition and popular satire (շէր-sher, սռինչ -srynch), but also to the ancient epic poems, called հագներգութիւն (hagnergutyun). The word also signified mythological and historical subjects performed by actors of the vulgar theatre. The word  հագներգությիւն  in medieval texts and in the dictionaries of classical Armenian corresponds to the ancient Greek ραψώδία. This type of choral art տաղ պարանցիկք երգոցն (tagh parantsikk yergotsn) is directly compared by the grammarians to the classical Greek “rhapsodia”. The identification of “comedy” with “rhapsodia” is not accidental. It determines some of the specific features of the early medieval Armenian theatre and its similarities whit ancient choral drama and oriental epic traditions.

 Among the sourced of folklore mentioned in Movses Khorenatsi`s  “History of Armenia” mention is made of an ancient choral drama entitled: երգք ցցոց և պարուց (yergk tstsots yev paruts). An approximate exegesis of these words we find in almost all studies of ancient Armenian folklore. But the interpretation seems to us to be incomplete and largely doubtful. In considering the etymology and history of the word պար (par) and ցուցք (tsutsk) we come to the conclusion that their coincidental use demonstrates the existence of a single object. In the Classical Armenian translation of the Bible and other ancient texts (Dionysius Thrax, John Chrysostom, Plato etc.) the word պար (par) corresponds to the Classical Greek χορός. Being close lexical equivalents both these correspond to the Syrian “habla” (row, group, flock etc.). But the word ցուցք (tsutsk) is a fusion of two meanings μίμος (mime) and μίμησις (mimesis). In the dialects of Armenian this word has been retaisned in the two meanings of “comedian” and “theatre”. Evidently ցուցք was the ancient original name for the theatre in Armenian. The term երգք ցցոց և պարուց – (tr. miming, singing and dancing) we are inclined to see as one of the most ancient forms of dramatic art, which was still retained in early medieval Armenia. It is one of the unique prototypes of choral drama, which has become separate from religious activity and its special functions. An examination of available material leads to the conclusion that choral drama in its earliest form existed not only in ancient Greece. It is common phenomenon in the folklore of the peoples of Asia Minor and Eastern Europe.

 Choral drama become the basis for the development of dramatic folklore. Dramatic folklore developed within ancient syncretic poetry and the traditions of the oral epic. The religious and philosophical roots give particular place to the cult of the goat. The goat, as the zoomorphic emblem of classical Greek tragedy, is a highly enigmatic phenomenon. According to folklore and literary legend, this cult had its origins in Asia Minor and according to archeological and ethnographic studies the image of the goat was one of the universal symbols in the agrarian cults of Asia Minor. Before arriving in the world of classical antiquity, this mythological spirit wandered in Palestine, Babylon, ancient Israel, Phrygia and the Caucasus. We find the symbolic figure of the goat on Armenian bronze age monuments. Medieval Armenia still retained the ancient peasant custom of the “goat liturgy” “այծից պատարագ” at the yearly festival of St. George. In Armenian legends, fairy tales, parables and proverbs the goat is the symbol of contradiction and conflict.

The ancient and early medieval folk-epic cycles are steeped in dramatism, both in terms of content and form. The fragments of folklore contained in Movses Khorenatsa`s “History of Armenia” show clear traces of choral drama, as do the subsequent epic cycles found in the works of Pavstos Byusand (5^th century) and Ioann Mamikonyan (7^th century). The subjects and dialogues (particularly inPavstos Byuzand) of these epic cycles show instead of epic objectivity, the active will of the subject, as the freely acting force of the dramatic individual. The analysis of certain passages of the text brings us to the conclusion that ancient popular drama pulsed in the veins of the early medieval epic cycles. But this idea is not only the result of our theoretical analysis. According to Grigor Magistros (10^th – 11^th centuries) the mythological and historical legends were performed in theatrical fashion, in the town squares and streets” – ի հրապարակս գռեհից և քաղաքաց – and that one of the most imporsant themes of these performances (հանդէս – handes) was that of the semi-mythological eponymous hero of the Armenian people, Haik.

The remnants of popular choral drama can also be seen in the Armenian epic, “David of Sasun”. The Armenian epic does not within the framework of the Hegelian definition of epic poetry. In many of the fragments it appears as a collection of heterogeneous elements of expression. The medieval story tellers transmitted from generation to generation almost all of the characteristics of the choral performance of the epic. Choral, choreographic, vocal and dialogue elements were still maintained by the story-tellers in the late Middle Ages and early Modern Era (1870). The means of conveying these epics show clear indication of the conventions employed by the ancient oriental epic theatre.

No less viable then the choral epic theatre was the professional theatre of medieval mimers and comedians (the original name for the Armenian actors was կատակ – katak). Not only town sguares were used for performances, but special buildings were erected which are mentioned in the sourced from the 7^th to the 15^th centuries. The actors of the medieval Armenian professional theatre were very similar to the Western European Jugglers. There were, however, important differences characteristic of the early period of the art mime and the improvised circus.

Communications in medieval society were carried out not by the written word, but by specific activities and rituals. These visible means of comunication as well as the visible forms of theatrical activity acquired a special social and artistic significance in early medieval town life. In the early forms of the medieval theatre the principles of artistic reproduction were based on direct (sometimes primitive) sensory perception and association. The expressive forms in this type of theatre amount to a phisical ‘mimesis’ and a demonstration of the unbelivable and impressive, the amusing and the grotesque, a combination of the miraculous with the frightening and the erotic.

The essence of the early midieval Armenian theatre (as well as Syrian, Cappadocian and Byzantine) was the presentation of an intuitive generalized impression of human characteristics and the symbolic embodiment of social contuct. These impresssions were established in there composite characters: the woman-heroine-mistress depicted in the form of a semiclothed dancing girl (վարձակ-vardzak) as the personication of love and voluptuousness; the man-hero-miracle worker, in the form of a juggler, acrobut, lion-tamer or tight-rope walker (գուսան, աճպար, լարախաղաց, ձեռնածու); the clown-comedianwearing the mask of the fool and embodyng the funny, the crude and the material. The name of the mask (Փալյանչո –palyancho) is of porticular interest, resembling as it does the Italian ‘pagliacco’. This of course comes from the ancient Roman comedy «fabula plliata» which was retained in Syria and Byzantium until the 6^th century. These composite figures of the medieval theatre, which show the primordial essence of theatrical activity exist in the embryonic form of the drama and in the contemporary circus which is fundamentally based on the medieval theatre.

Armenian games at the end of the 19^th and beginning of the 20^th  century still retained some echoes of the early medieval square theatre. One of the clearest examples of this is a game consisting of a dialogue between the tight-rope walker – “hero” and his “servant-clown”. The former is tragic, being in physical danger, the latter is comic, parodying the movements of the “tragic hero” on the ground in complete safety. The tight-rope walker is supposed to be in an imaginary cloud under the protection of St. Karapet (John the Baptist), but the clown is rooted to be ground and remains a prosaic figure. This circus act, symbolizing the eternal theme of the unity of contradictions is expressed both by the physical situation and the dialogue. The symbolized opposition of sky and earth, the ideal and the material in the later development (and no longer restricted to Asia Minor alone) becomes symbolized in more complex such as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, Lear and the Clown, Don Juan and Sganarel, Schastlivtsev and Nyeschastlivtsev.

Armenian medieval theatre, resembling as it does certain aspects of the late classical theatre and the oriental epic is a unique expression of the improvised folk theatre, which historically preceeded the Western European medieval theatre of the 10^th -16^th centuries. Its chronological boundaries cover a period from the beginning of the 4^th century (302 – the conventional date for the conversion to christianitcy of the Armenian state) to the end of the 17^th century (1668 – the beginning of the Armenian school of theatre). The importance of the Armenian medieval theatre in the Christian world was historically limited to one millennium (4^th -14^th centuries). With the fall of the Kilikian kingdom in 1375 and the end of city life, particularly during the Turco-Persian domination, the theatre too ceased to develop. At the end of the 17^th century, the theatre in Armenian existed in the ancient form of improvisation, mime and the circus. The last performance of the medieval Armenian professional theatre was a spectacle given in Yerevan in 1674, described by the French traveller, Chardin. This was considered something exotic and a relic of the ancient oriental theatrical traditions. But in was the last reflection of a historically isolated artistic phenomenon, bearing all the characteristics of a bygone Asiatic theatre, which existed between the classical Greek and Roman and the Western European world.

Թատրոն. հին ու նոր արժեքներ մաս2

Հայ հին դրաման և նրա պայմանաձևերը մաս2

A story narrated in Middle Ages, an old ceremonial legend, language evidence and some analytic essays that create a dramatic atmosphere, trace back to the pre-Christian age and reach the new era. By saying old, we mean conveying the old, bringing antiquity and narrating of antiquity.

Such is the subject of our study.

We neither have nor seek for ancient evidence: we proceed from medieval references of the phenomenon. We attempt to view antiquity in the medieval light, taking into consideration the survived written and oral pieces of folk legends.

Our purpose is to examine the historical-typological and thematic interconnections of ancient Armenian drama in a particular frame, searching for semasiological and internal relations between mythological, ritual modifications and folk dramatic games, viewed in comparatively later periods. We mean the type of the phenomenon, its description and those features that bring the Armenian folk drama close to the ancient theatrical system, and the folk-dancing (choral) drama. We do not intend to identify the ancient mystic drama with the medieval folk drama, but we are prone to think that these two different types have the same roots.

We are interested in the vein hidden in the Armenian dramatic folklore, its mythological source, its trends to religious outlook, its cult symbols ( that will be thoroughly examined) and the most important of all, with its ritual and game modifications.

The most apparent of the discussed facts is the folk drama. This is an expression of game folklore that has passed through Middle Ages, bears various social-historical influences, and is rough and simplistic by appearance. But it is much more than can be judged by its appearance. It includes such depths, such invisible layers, that in order to recognize the subject it is necessary to turn to indirect parallels, to remove far from facts and sometimes to put together signs seemingly incompatible in terms of time and environment.

But shall we take into account all the rites originating in pre-written language age, all the known forms of syncretic folklore, all those expressions of conventionality of ways that include elements of action, play and rituals? Usually this is how the ancient drama is examined. This examination method creates a mode of uncertainty and the boundaries of the subject remain indefinite. Yet, our purpose is specific.

By realizing the significance of cult signs and ancient beliefs, by turning over the pages of Lives of our Fathers, the Gospel and Agathang, by paying attention to some old sites and restaurated memorials, we attempt to reflect on a certain problem in a particular direction. The purpose is to consider the general pre-theme of the drama, to examine its expressions in the folkloric environment, and its religious and artistic modifications.

Considering the historical-typological and mainly historical-philological examination of Armenian and ancient folk drama, we look for its complete, typologically constructed expressions on one hand and its literary references, signs and reflections on the other. As for the ritual and game bases of drama, we mean the dramatic structure and not the dramatic sense (it is a wider sphere). We must not confuse the two sides of dramatics: one of them is dramatic as a general strain level of an emotional state, the other is the structure-formation of contexts. In the first case, the dramatic structure is an aesthetic feature meaning an internal tension and a possibility of movement and excitement. It may be typical to all literary genres and it can be expressed in all forms of artistic mentality. This is dramatics as an aesthetic expression, and a structure characterizing its genre. The position of the subject and its relations to the reality can be dramatic, when the subject is viewed and reproduced from the spectra of “action liberty of a subject”(Hegel) as a relationship between “I” and “You”.

We think that we may use a situation or a state, for example a dramatic state of speech and an epic (narrative) situation instead of the genre.

Dramatic sense is the state or the situation where the practical will of an individual is expressed or when it possesses a potential of expression; the situation is a present condition (not past as in epic genre) and the action is its aim.

If dramatics does not lead to drama as a category of expression, then it conveys the idea of an immediate possibility or a dramatic model. If the situation can be generally repeated, i.e. it has parallels in everyday life, in history and in literature, especially in folklore and in games, and emerges into different plot structures, it is called a dramatic model or modification. For instance, two goats meet on the narrow bridge of a small river: they face an unavoidable conflict and involuntary guiltiness. This is a fable modification of a drama, its most simple and precise model which has its folklore-game variation: the children’s game called “goats’ fight.”

If the mode of the logical expression is not the result of situations, it does not cause dramatic modifications. But mediated signs and indirect references exist in Armenian song-epic folklore. They are not various and cannot be so. Dramatic modifications are limited by their typology and seem diverse because they appear in different contexts.

Considering the logical and folk-dancing extracts of ancient Armenian drama we do not intend to make it a narration, but instead find special signs that characterize the typology of the drama.

Dramatic modifications are more obvious in the game folklore. The contention for priority and the struggle to become the master of the situation, where the special spiritual strain is expressed in the form of physical activities, brings to drama. Such games are the obvious expressions and reflections of national psychology, though their semantics are not visible.

The meaning of the game is mainly incomprehensible or forgotten both for the player and the viewer. But the game is neither an endless pastime nor a mere sports activity, no matter how it is perceived. If the perception and the essence are on the same level, there is a need for research.

Each emotional situation, either a usual-ceremonial game or an unusual-circus type, has a theatrical element and consists of signs. Behind each sign there is always an invisible meaning questing for explanation.

Of course, there is not a direct link between a game and a drama. They are not isomorphous, side by side, do not replace or follow each other although they have the same origins. The environment creates the metaphysics of the drama. Ancient Indian dramas are not dramatic, but not because of the fact that the ideas of decadence and victory have been expressed in one genius game. Official religious ideology has accepted the ideas of danger and death as inseparable from the ideas of salvation and resurrection, and this reconciliation was put in the base of Brahman poetics. Card reading is a result of an environment which is dramatic both in reality and in theatre. The provision of the Angel is quite acceptable in Europe: “the dramatic action requires the realization of three principles- that of the individual liberty, self-motivation and the sovereignty of the free will responsible for personal actions and their consequences.” Hegel means the classic tragedy and the social environment for its existence, i.e. Sophocles and the polis democracy of Athens. The example of classic Greece provided Hegel with an opportunity to create a harmonious state and define the ideal regulations. Yet, the course of the history and life seems capricious.

The ideal basis for the drama (if it ever existed) has disappeared, and drama has changed the sphere and the level of expression. Hegel’s theory of drama remains a stable indicator, a conventional apparatus revealing the structure and the logic of the phenomenon, that explains by far no conceptual phenomena.

What Hegel considers a condition for tragic action, occurs in drama and in game and play- folklore, but in what sphere of life, in what spiritual space and mode of expression?

This is the starting point of our critique.

This is where we want to widen the boundaries of drama and the comprehension of dramatics. Consequently, by saying old and folk drama, we mean the song-epic and game folklore, the discovery of the completed phenomena, the transformations of the phenomenon, its potential conditions and models.

Not all kinds of Armenian folk games may be called dramatic or are adjusted to dramatic models. But there are games dramatic by nature where the phenomenon we are looking for is evident, prompting drama by semasiology. Such is for example, the mace game, rough by appearance and symbolic conflict by content, where the right of position is contended for by obvious physical means but not for the objective of physical victory. Rope-dancing is dramatically much more moderate, theatrically impressive and profound, and is the eccentric-objective and symbolic reproduction of human attitude towards the reality, the visible idea of harmony and perhaps the semasiological base of circus.

If the fable of two goats is the simplest model of drama then rope-dancing can perhaps be considered to be the main determinant of the theatre. This is a folk miracle and morality; on one hand it is a manifestation of the ambiguity of human existence and on the other, a symbolic resolution of the relation between humans and the supernatural spirits of the air.

The study of Ancient and Medieval theatre convinces that folk-dancing is the most viable and perhaps the preliminary trait in folk dramatic art. Many features of the ancient drama have faded and disappeared but this one reaches the new era. The signs of folk-dancing as an ancient theatrical system exist in folk-game, in epic narratives, in various modifications of lifestyle and in ecclesiastical ritual.

All this is mentioned in the previous research of the author, but there is a need to reveal separately the spheres of folk-dancing and to revitalize their meaning in accordance with the universal typological features.

We do not want to be repeated (the reader may get this impression in some places), we simply attempt to develop the question.

We have considered folk-dancing drama as one of the types of early medieval theatre and have searched for its survivals in song-epic folklore.

Now we attempt to interpret the same phenomenon as the main type of ancient Armenian folk drama. We choose the theatrical universality as a historical-typological orientation. This is the axis of the research. Consequently, not all facts of theatrical and game folklore are connected with ancient drama. The question is, in what kind of game and rituals does the content-structural principle of folk-dancing drama exist as a main and decisive peculiarity?

Starting with the national interpretation of mystic drama, the known ancient themes (mythological modification), linguistic facts of folk-dancing drama, as well as the general bases of the religious outlook of the drama, we try to view the branch of game folklore in the new era by the light of antiquity, called oral literature, folk ritual ( G. Srvandztyants, S. haykuni, E. Tievkants, V. Ter-Minasyan, E. Lalayan, and others) and later a game (V. Bdoyan), folk theatrical play (A. Arshakuni), theatrical performance (Srbuhi Lisityan), and further on folk dramatic work and folklore theatre.

From the ritual and other types of games we separate a definite kind of game, that is_ judge-games and circle-type games constructed by the same logic, where the opsis of folk-dancing drama is obvious.

In this games we assume the existence of an individual and the environment, a conditional conflict, an agreed action (ritual) and elemental (game) performance, creativity, eccentric change of conditions and such representational modifications, where we perceive the object and the subject (action and actor), the limits of reality and conventionality, the spectator and the actor. Calling them folk-drama, we try to clarify the types and peculiarities of these games and differentiate the drama or the dramatic models from the other forms of game folklore and dramatic rites from non dramatic ones.

It eases the comprehension of theatre as well.

Theatricality, no matter how wide the concept is (and it is), it cannot be independent from the dramatic (the dramatic action). The perception of this unity as we have mentioned, is weak in modern Armenian theatre study, although the distinction and the connection of those two features exist in dramatic theories of the past century, particularly in the theoretical analysis of France Grilpartsen.

Defining the ancient and folk drama and recognizing the ancient dramatic theme in Armenian folklore, we try to reach the basis of the ancient Armenian theatre and, find its historical (although distant) ties with the folk drama of the new era. This is one of the main questions of this research.

The concept of folk drama was not included in our philological literature. Theoretically, drama has not been distinguished from the other types of game-folklore. Documentary material has been collected and published since the end of the last century ( by P. Proshyan, Raffi, G. Srvandztyans, E. Tievkans, V. Ter Vardanyan, H. Malkhasyan, E. Lalayants, etc.). The material is systemized (V. Bdoyan), and it is difficult to input new data into it today. (The national way of life does not have the previous ethnographic richness, it moves from rural to urban areas). However, there has been no theoretical examination and especially no typological distinction of folk drama. Every ritual phenomenon, such as the wedding for example, has been called a folk theatrical play so far. This is a disputable approach which dates from the last century. One of the reasons is the disregard to the practice of the dramatic and theatrical as well as the classic esthetical theories. It has brought to the confusion of the boundaries, concepts and objects which also exists in the Russian theatrical study of the past, in the works of P. Morozov, Yu. Veselevski, V. Vsevolodski-Gernross. New authors so far have inherited the views of the past century without a theoretical revision. We think it more extraordinary when a funeral is considered as drama or theatre.

Garegin Levonyan and following Georg Goyan consider the description of Gnel’s funeral and Parandzem’s wailing in Faust Buzand’s “Armenian History” as a tragedy of the Fourth century, in case when the mystic rite as a component of Navasard holiday existed among Armenians earlier, according to Khorenatsi, during the King Vagharsh I (117-140 B.C.).

As we will see in the book, the mysterious type of the theatre already existed during the Armenian Arshakuni dynasty and that no drama could have been created from the barbarian forms of pagan wailing (described by Faust). What a poverty of spiritual life should it have been especially in the period of the prosperity of the Armenian ministry!

Life, especially in ancient and medieval centuries, had a variety of ritual expressions, if was not completely ritual. No reasons to identify the lifestyles, no matter how theatrical they were, with oral elaborated and existing composition within the life. The rite sometimes has the expression of mechanical beliefs deprived of meaning, it creates an environment of social contact and stable ways for oral literature, particularly for drama, and does not become such by itself. The study of rituals is by  far not an unimportant task from the perspective of our issue, but let us not confuse the environment with the phenomenon existing in it. We had a chance to talk about it.

In the study of the Armenian ancient and folk drama, we proceed both from rituals and games considering them as factors deciding the structure of the drama or the different levels of dramatic expression. But here too, a distinction should be made. The dramatic sense is rather a result of an eventuality and an element, i.e. of the state of playing, than of an agreement- the ritual state. The rite is an agreed and stable phenomenon which implies theatrical sense. Therefore, the rite and the game are assumed to have the same relations as those existing between theatrical and dramatic senses.

Therefore, the rite and the game are assumed to have the same relations as those existing between theatrical and dramatic senses. Rituals are the regulation of the game, like theatricality for dramatic sense. Theatrical art is the internal dialectic tie between two of them. The perception of the contradicting unity of those first principles of rituals and games, are actually new and brought the theatrical artists of the beginning of the Twentieth century the idea that theatre was the solidarity of the temple and the playground, and the agreement between “the heathen priest and player.” In this work, we attempt to view those two principles separately and together according to sign links.

As an order and sequence of the inquiry, we accept the six parts of the drama defined by Aristotle: 1) fable or fabula, 2) customs or character, 3) speech, 4) idea, 5) vision or opsis and 6) play (music).

In fact these are not parts but synchronous- structural elements and layers, and the exclusion of any of them will result in a distortion of the subject. Aristotle imagines drama as literature without opsis which is “typical to a poem least of all”. The visible world, i.e. the theatre is independent. It is a formation existing beyond the speech. On one hand it is an assumed reality (according to Roman Ingonden’s interpretation), and on the other hand, it is the theatrical orchestral public realization of the literary material and its subjective determinant.

According to the six structural elements in the sequence defined by Aristotle, the base of the drama is first of all the theme, and the myth is the mythological modification (modus) in today’s terminology. According to Aristotle’s logic, the character (person, archetype) is subject to myth and plot regulation. According to Aristotle, accepting this principle, we must note that the character gets materialized when the myth is subjected to opsis and surpasses the boundaries of literature (poetry). So we arrive at the idea of ritual modification, which, in its turn, results in game modification.

The internal logic of the phenomenon, as we have noticed, has been viewed long time ago, and the bases for interpretation have already been given. Thus, it dictates us to classify the inquiries in the following sequence: a) mythological modification, b) ritual modification, c) game modification. Hence, in the first chapter we discuss the myth, the archetype (ethos) and the idea (dianoya) in the second, the ritual traces and metamorphoses in the third chapter and later, we examine the evidence of the game modifications, that is to say the folk drama with its models. We follow the sequence of historical facts, according to the opportunities provided by the material. This sequence is conditional, of course. The structural elements of drama are found in different time periods and places, far from one another and disconnected. And the purpose of our study is to review the existing connections.

Resume

The subject of our study is the ancient Armenian mysterial drama with its mythological and ritual bases and symbolic and thematic-plot typology.The Armenian version of the “Chained force” with the mysterial name of the principal personage, that is to say the ritual embodiment of Syderian year (solar-astral year), which is connected with the holiday of Navasard (pre-Christian Armenian Holiday, linking old and coming year, called Kaland) is chosen as a universal modification or model for drama. The Chained Force has three names in Armenian mythological legends: Shidar, Artavazd and Mher.  All  this  three are symbolic-mysterial names. The study reveals the unique nature of phenomenon which is typical for the region, universal traits and typological references to Ancient Eastern and Balkanian folkloric-mythological mentality, to cosmogenic notions and rituals.

The thematic model of Ancient Armenian drama and its ritual and game modifications-metamorphosis are examined in this work. The first modification was narrated in the pre-Christian mystery Navasard, officially adopted in the Second century BC and interrupted in 301AD by the adoption of Christianity. The second modification is the Christian cleric drama, the liturgy and its formal connections with ancient rituals of Near East and ancient Greek drama.

The third modification is the comic mystery created by the Armenian monks, the “Abeghatogh” with its parallels in folk-games, i.e. the so called “Judge games.” These three trends show the historical evolution of Ancient Armenian drama on one hand, and the universal base of the dramatic mentality on the other hand. Finally, the study leads to the question:  were the sources of Ancient drama and its symbolic opsys are. This question brings us to an undeclared conclusion that the roots of ancient drama can be found in Near East and Mesopotamia and that the Ancient Armenian drama is the prototype of Syderian mystery.

Դերասանի արվեստի բնույթը-մաս2

The nature of acting

An aesthetic view

Summary

This book is the first attempt of a theoretical insight into the art of acting considered as an independent system of art. What is the stage taken as a metaphysical space, and how is the live presence of the actor as a person implemented as a state of secondary importance, a sort of a game and an aesthetic purpose? The research covers not merely the external aspect of the acting, but its internal organization and its basically persistent though historically changing components.

The introduction of the book is an ethical, psychological and aesthetic research of the actor’s pursuit, considering him to be the carrier of the theatre art specifics. Personally, the actor is taken as a substantial base, a unique entity of form and substance, in aesthetic goal. The point is that how well he associates with the literary background and how self-dependent he appears to be under symbolic acting conditions. His public behaviour makes the means and the purpose, the substance and the form replete. Literature being the basis of this form of art is eliminated on the part of the art of acting in terms of its form, thus changing into a totally different poetic reality. The six chapters of the book reveal the determining conceptions of this very reality.

The first chapter contemplates the metaphysics of the stage, i.e. the problem of the real and conditional dimensions of space and time, the interrelationship of the stage and the audience, as well as the position of the actor under the conditions of supposed reality.

The stage is considered to be out of the actual dimensions of space and time. It is a separate condition suggested by the play thus creating mystical emotions in the audience and behind the scenes. Here things are introduced and apprehended symbolically. What is placed in the space and what is used to force the time to move on, the latter considered as time in time (as a second dimension of time), is the supposed realty of acting, a so-called subjective condition of sense. The stage space is not confined to its visible frame. It also embraces the supposed realty away from the actual stage space. This is conditioned by the behaviour of the dramatis personae, i.e. where they are coming from, what they are intended to do and what they see in their imagination. The same is whit the stage time. It is conditional, too, even if it is identified with the actual time of which the audience is aware. The supposed period of time covered in the play exactly corresponds to the actual period of time, and the public takes it for granted. Whereas in another performance the sun rises, and then it gets dark, and the audience is observing all this, and this is also, conditionally though, taken for granted. Time is motionless on the stage before acting, it moves on during the play, as well as during the intervals, behind the curtain, and at the end of the play it vanishes, evaporates and fades away. This is also called a condition, of which both parties are subconsciously aware.

Space and time are conditions for both the actor and the audience to get into silent consent. They are pure forms in their unity, never mind whether they are mediated by things or situations or self-consciously perceived. This works in the course of acting as a live presence of the person, which is physical and suggests a meaning, which is not-physical.

The second chapter considers the state of acting as a current instant and personal presence in public.

The conception of stage occurs whenever a human faces the public and is expected to justify the absurdity of his situation. The art of acting is accomplished by the fever of the current instant and the personal presence. Here is the inherent relation-ship between the reality and the stage as a state of being and an affinity of situation. One keeps being introduced to himself and the people around him and gets an approval of his own identity, regarding himself as an object of contemplation. He is constantly searching or contriving reasons for his situation, a sort of justification, the latter being both an inner form and a basis of external revelation. Situations that he faces away from the stage are often conditioned by societal prejudices, manners or the mask and the acting behavior he is doomed to accomplish.

Conditioned situations on the stage are based on their counterparts in real life aesthetically arranged. The art of acting occurs where personal presence in public gets sense, and where a human is comprehended In terms of his ethic and aesthetical value. The definition brings forward the inner condition – what is man escaping from, and what is he intended to do? (according to Aristotle).

It dictates definite appearance, i.e. a sign of will, which is determined to be the smallest unit of the stage behaviour. It is called an element of acting. A sign of will can be found away from communicative situation involving the use of language, although their background quite often appears to be the inner speech, a word or a phrase that is not pronounced aloud. The silent appearance of a person gains a particular meaning only this way. This image is never lost in the crowd on the stage.

Another essential of theatrical presence is the so-called “fourth wall”. This invisible bar is permanently in game as a major condition for conditionality. Its being real is closely associated with the reality of the interrelationship between the stage and the audience. The role of the “fourth wall” is dual: it can be present in one case and in another case it can be not. This condition is being realized and only during the performance, but also at the rehearsal as everything here is being done with a full awareness of the existence of the audience.

The third chapter discusses the notion of action taken not as a succession of events but as an implemented will, the personal behavior under conditioned circumstances in response to the supposed situation. The two aspects of action are considered: the real and unreal conditions. The real conditions are observed in the circus where everything seems to be physical. Real is the dramatic state of a person which tends to gain a metaphysical meaning (a subconscious state for the performer of the action).The circus is the deformation of human life, it stands above the reality of human life and shows an irony towards that reality. A physical action at the circus pursues a not-physical goal. At the theatre of drama in the logic of action is the same, while the suggested conditions are different. The action is seemingly real, the conditions are supposingly suggested, the substantial reality is rejected. Things are not introduced as things, they are merely symbols serving as conditions. Thus, an action is a relation with an imaginary evidence occurring in an emply space and motionless time. The action is composed separate steps (deeds) and signs of will, which gain sense in a verbal context or in a space of silence. The obviousness of the action is determined by particular specific details with the help of symbolic meanings and it is a also psychologically justified.

This chapter covers the concept of the “little role”, too. The famous saying “…there are no little roles, there are little actors” means the role can be little in terms of the period of the actual time it can be seen on the stage. The good part of its life is over there, in the outer world, and it’s going on, and only a tiny episode is displayed on the stage. The example of the “little role” comes to elucidate a very important principle of acting: much more can be supposed in the background, i.e. the past life is incomparably richer, and the ultimate is  supposed  to be in the prospective, rather than in the obvious presence of the character.

The textual base is viewed in terms of stage action. This means that the drama is the projection of the stage action. The dramatic speech (the language of drama) is recognized as a sort of clothing for supposed, while the situation is it inner form. The situation occurs in the speech in the present tense and in the first person suggesting the following “grammatical pattern of the narrative genre, i.e. “He was, <…>.” The pure form of drama is modified by the famous fable about the two goats who all of a sudden meet on a narrow bridge: the two forces face each other and appear to be in opposition not on their subjective will. Both tempers are reluctant to give way, and the situation is objectively irretrievable. The person, the condition and the behaviour are a single entity and the speech is a situation itself. The characters enter the action in one state of being and leave in another state of being . The situation gains more importance in dramatic speech, as it is the main reason for this very speech, it has no wording and is the driving force of the stage action. However. Words are words in their inner ecstasy, independent of the situation. In this respect the action is subject to the dominance of logos, and words are valued never depending on the situation and having impact on the situation. This is the inevitable paradox of literature and theatre, which has occurred throughout ages. So, the text becomes a source of theatrical inspiration independent of the situation. Being a complete poetic reality, the force of speech leads to poetic emotions thus   eliminating the role of emotions occurring in real life situations in a stage action. Therefore, the stage acting can also be fruitful in terms of the speech ecstasy, which in its turn eliminates the notion of  “pure” action.

The concept of theatrical speech (chapter five) relates to the stage action on the one hand and the specifics of the drama on the other hand. The speech covers a rather wider space in a literary form than the supposed background situation is. While with the theatrical form it’s just on the contrary. This is the universal doctrine. The poetics of theatrical speech can be characterized as a paradox and a confluence of literary and theatrical forms. The silent reality created by the insubstantial paintbrush of words is beyond the borders of space and time, but it gets confined when the word is taken out of the sea of silence. The monotonous reading in a low voice, which is the beginning of the dramatization of the speech, touches upon the literary form and serves as an invisible bridge leading to live situations. The speech itself is the progenitor of the situation and is subject to situations on the stage thus being accomplished as a state of being, an action, a mise en scene. In this absolutely exstra- linguistic environment words acquire the most unexpected tone of utterance, unforeseen shades of meaning, even with meta-semantic colouring. The power of the speech may have an influence as well. It’s the quality developed by the tone, the sounds, the rhythm and the prosody. Thus the declamation becomes an aesthetic goal itself. The behaviour of the actor carried out on the stage in term of its appearance is not the result or the accomplishment of his speech. It’s another laver in the artistic pattern. The synchronous and diachronic states of speech and motion are taken into consideration. But there is also the originality and the independence of plastic movements when the text becomes irrelevant and is thrown away. This is another example of a principal opposition of literature and theatre, which seems to be inevitable.

All the components of the actor’s behaviour  (performance) bring to the ecstasy of play. The sixth chapter of the book is about this. The theories of play are generally and historically considered, starting with Schiller’s theory of play up to modern theories as the famous “Homo Ludens” by Johann Huizinga in particular. Play is defined as an aesthetic form of human freedom, a self-sufficient activity, an utmost passion, and the stage is regarded to be a product of art, which is ultimate and perfect. The ultimate goat of play itself, as art is created for art’s sake, and the product of the relationship is the form serving as a procedure developing a meaning in the theatre. In this chapter the incarnation, the ecstasy, the trance are rejected. And the idea of artistic inspiration is confirmed. The play is looked upon as a dominated, state as an inspiration and exact production, pathos and moderation, artistic balance, a realization of aesthetic emotions.

թատրոն և թատերախոսություն մաս1-1

թատրոն և թատերախոսություն մաս2-2