28 The Symbolism OF THE Theater
We have just compared confusing a being with its outward and profane manifestation to wishing to identify an actor with the role he is playing. In order to clarify the exactness of this comparison, some general considerations on the symbolism of the theater will not be out of place, although they do not pertain exclusively to the initiatic domain proper. This symbolism may of course be linked to the original character of the arts and crafts, all of which used to possess an initiatic value by virtue of their attachment to superior principles, from which they were derived as contingent applications; they only became profane, as we have often explained, because of the spiritual degeneration of humanity in the course of the descending movement of its historical cycle.
One can say in a general way that the theater is a symbol of manifestation, the illusory character of which it expresses as perfectly as possible; [1] and this symbolism can be envisaged either from the point of view of the actor or from that of the theater itself. The actor is a symbol of the 'Self' or the personality manifesting itself through an indefinite series of states and modalities which can be considered as so many different roles; and one should note as an exact expression of this symbolism the importance in antiquity of the use of the mask. [2] Under the mask, the actor in fact remains himself in all of
his roles, just as the personality remains 'unaffected' by all of its manifestations; the suppression of the mask, on the contrary, forces the actor to change his own physiognomy, and thus seems to alter his essential identity in some way. In every case, however, the actor remains fundamentally other than he appears to be, just as the personality is other than its multiple manifested states which are only the outward and changing appearances that it adopts in order to realize according to the various modes befitting their nature the indefinite possibilities that it contains within itself in the permanent actuality of non-manifestation.
From the other point of view we can say that the theater is an image of the world; both are 'representations', for the world itself, existing only as a consequence and an expression of the Principle, upon which it essentially depends in all its aspects, can be seen to symbolize the principial order in its own way; and this symbolic character confers upon it a higher value than that which it possesses in itself, since it is through its symbolism that it participates in a higher degree of reality. [3] In Arabic, the theater is designated by the word tamthil, which like all words stemming from the root mathl denotes resemblance, comparison, image, or figure; and certain Islamic theologians use the expression 'àlam tamthil, which could be translated as 'imaginal world' or 'world of representation', to designate everything that is described symbolically in the sacred scriptures and should therefore not be taken in a literal sense. It is worth noting that some use this expression particularly of angels and demons, who indeed 'represent' the superior and inferior states of the being, and who can only be described symbolically in terms borrowed from the sensible world; and by a coincidence that is at the very least striking, there is the considerable role played precisely. by these angels and devils in the religious theater of the medieval West.
Indeed, the theater is not necessarily limited to representing the human world, that is to say a single state of manifestation, for it may
also represent at the same time the higher and lower worlds. In the 'mystery plays' of the Middle Ages the stage was for this reason divided into several tiers corresponding to different worlds and gencrally arranged according to the ternary division: heaven, earth, and hell; and the action portrayed simultancously on these various tiers really represented the essential simultaneity of the states of the being. Their failure to understand this symbolism leads the moderns to consider as 'naivete', not to say a blunder, what precisely had the most profound significance; and what is astonishing is the rapid spread of this incomprehension, so striking among the writers of the seventeenth century. This radical break between the mentality of the Middle Ages and that of modern times is certainly not one of the least enigmas of history.
Since we have just spoken of 'mystery plays', we do not believe it profitless to point to the singularity of this designation, which has a double sense. In all etymological strictness one should write 'mistery', for this word is derived from the Latin ministerium, meaning 'office' or 'function', which clearly indicates to what extent theatrical representations of this sort were originally considered to form an integral part of the celebration of religious holidays. [4] But it is strange that this name should have been contracted and abridged so as to become a homonym of 'mystery', and finally to be confused with this other word, which has a Greek origin and an altogether different derivation; is it only by allusion to the 'mysterics' of religion, staged in the plays so designated, that this assimilation can have come about? This may no doubt be plausible, but if on the other hand one considers that analogous symbolic representations occurred in the 'mysteries' of antiquity, as in Greece and probably also in Egypt, [5] it is tempting to sce here something going back much further in time, a sign of the continuity of an esoteric and initiatic tradition that has been outwardly affirmed at more or less
distant intervals of time by similar manifestations, and adapted as required by the different circumstances of time and place. [6] Besides, we have frequently had occasion to point out the importance of phonetic assimilations between words that are philologically distinct as a modality of symbolic language; indeed, there is nothing arbitrary in this, whatever most of our contemporaries may think, this method being related more or less directly to the modes of interpretation based on the Hindu nitukta; but the secrets of the intimate constitution of language are so completely lost today that it is scarcely possible to allude to them without being suspected of indulging in 'false etymologies', or even in crude 'plays on words', and even Plato, who had recourse at times to this type of interpretation, as we noted incidentally in reference to 'myths', receives no mercy at the hands of the pseudo-scientific 'criticism' of those whose minds are limited by modern prejudices.
In order to conclude these few remarks, let us mention still another point of view in the symbolism of the theater, that of the playwright. The various characters, which are his own mental productions, may be considered to represent secondary modifications and prolongations of himself as it were, in almost the same way as the subtle forms produced in the dream state. [7] The same consideration could be applied to every product of the imagination, of whatever type; but in the particular case of the theater there is a special factor: the production is realized in a perceptible manner that gives it the very image of life, as happens also in dreams. In this respect, therefore, the author fulfills a truly 'demiurgic' function, since he produces a world drawn entirely from himself; and for that reason he may be considered as the very symbol of Being producing universal manifestation. In this case, as in that of dreams, the essential unity of the producer of 'illusory forms' is not affected by this multiplicity of accidental manifestations, any more than the unity of
Being is affected by the multiplicity of manifestation. Thus, from whatever point of view it is considered, the most profound reason for the theater, unknown though this may be to those who make of it something purely profane, is that by its very nature it is one of the most perfect symbols of universal manifestation.