The Plays of Roswitha: A Note on the Acting of the Plays
THE evidence that Roswitha's plays were intended for representation has already been
discussed. If they were ever acted in her own time at Gandersheim by members of the
community, we need not assume that the performances were ludicrously artless. We have only
to read contemporary descriptions of the celebrations of great feasts in monasteries in
the so-called "dark ages," or to observe how strong is the element of
sign)ficant and controlled "action" in the ceremonial of the Catholic Church as
it exists to-day, to imagine that people accustomed to take part in these dramatic
services would have little difficulty in giving an impressive~performance of a religious
play. Even if we discard the theory that such performances took place, an imaginative
conception of what they might have been like will save us, if we desire to act these plays
now, from adopting an exaggeratedly primitive method. It is our duty to do our best for
them neglecting no means of emphasizing their dramatic strength and helping their dramatic
weakness. As we have no authority in a known "convention" to guide us, the least
we can do is to refrain from inventing a comically crude one based on an arrogant
condescension to past ignorance of what in any century is dramatically effective.
When Callimachus was brought on to the modern stage a misleading impression of
Roswitha's ability as a dramatist was created by a calculated childishness in the
interpretation. All the characters were kept in view of the audience whether they were
concerned in a scene or not, and the end of each scene was marked, as the end of an over
is marked in cricket, by a general change in positions. Roswitha's piety was held up to
ridicule, and her glorification of chastity burlesqued to the satisfaction of those to
whom jokes at the expense of old-fashioned virtues never fail to appeal. Drusiana's prayer
that she might die rather than yield to Callimachus was greeted with shouts of laughter.
And it was said that the mirth was natural and inevitable because Roswitha's manner is so
naive! Yet if she is treated on her merits, not as an archaic freak, she can be impressive
enough on the stage as Edith Craig's production of Paphnutius proved. In this production
the abrupt transition from scene to scene was bridged by the singing of plainsong
melodies, derived from MSS. of the ninth century. The suggestions for action in the lines
were examined with sympathetic insight, and developed with imagination. lhe actors and
actresses took their task seriously and used all their skill in making the characters
live. The old story of the conversion of Thais became new, and although many found
Roswitha's treatment of it unpalatable, none found it ludicrous. A comparison of the
divergent impressions made by the Roswitha of Callimachus and the Roswitha of Paphnutius is a lesson in the cliffficulty of sifting what the dramatist has done from what the
interpreter has done, a difficulty all the greater when the text of a play is not
available. Now that Callimachus can be read it will be easier for those who saw its
solitary performance to recognize that it was travestied on the stage.
Imagination, sympathy with Roswitha's uncompromising religious faith, a few sets of
curtains, or an interchangeable scene, actors capable either by nature or training of
extracting a pound of effect out of an ounce of dialogue, are the foundations on which
performances of these plays can be built. Paphnutius, Abraham, and Callimachus are obviously more actable than the others, but I feel that a great deal might be done
with Sapientia. Perhaps one day it will be possible to arrange a Roswitha
"cycle" for the edification of a few enthusiasts. Meanwhile those who share my
belief that plays are not plays until they are acted, can amuse themselves by thinking
over different methods of representation.
Source.
Hrotsvitha, ca. 935-ca. 975. The Plays of Roswitha. Translated by Christopher
St. John, with an introduction by Cardinal Gasquet and a critical preface by the
translator.(London, Chatto & Windus, 1923)
Scanned in and HTMLed by C. Liang <cliang@carleton.edu>
This text is part of the Internet
Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and
copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational
purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No
permission is granted for commercial use.
Paul Halsall, October 1999
halsall@fordham.edu
The Internet Medieval Sourcebook is part of the Internet History Sourcebooks Project. The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet
Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at
the Fordham University Center
for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the
Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in
providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University.
Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not
the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.
© Site Concept and Design: Paul Halsall created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 5 January 2025 [CV]
|
