DEEPER INVESTIGATIONS INTO SHADOW
THEATRE AND PUPPETRY
by Keith Rawlings, April 2003
Updated March
2011
A Note to my
Readers Concerning this Update:
The information
on my main web pages is focused on Asian puppet forms for the most part. Except
for the shadow play below, I have written these essays to include some
additional European data, plus some of my new findings and theories, the result
of further studies. I have not added a bibliography for these articles, as I
mention the titles, dates, and authors in the body of the text. However, should
it be required to know the exact sources of any of the information here or
anywhere on my site, please do not hesitate to contact me at: kewi2001@gmail.com.
Contents:
More
on the Ancients
Early
Evidence of the “Swazzle”?
The
Real Origins of Puppets and Other Thoughts
The
Origins of Shadow Theatre
The
Earliest Records of Shadow Plays in Europe
MORE
ON THE ANCIENTS
It
may be odd to consider, but there is much evidence to indicate that the modern
marionette was preceded by a more complex device, namely the neurospasta,
worked by cords running through and inside the figure, pulled by the
demonstrator, either from below, above, or to the side. Consider the following
ancient texts, quoted from Michael Byrom’s The Puppet Theatre in Antiquity, 1996, with the
words for “puppet” re-translated to a more literal meaning:
“...the outside
is moved from within like a [moving figurine, sigillario].” Quintus
Septimus Tertullian(us), De Anima, Chap 6, Sec 3, c. 155 - 220 AD.
“Slavery cannot
make you do anything, there is nothing outside that can draw the strings
within.”
Aulus Persius Flaccus, Saturae, 5, c. 34 - 62 AD.
“This is the
device, I think, that is used in moving [images] with cords; for passing over
their articulations, the cords are fastened to the beginning of the parts
beyond, so that the [images] readily obey the force of the upward pull
when the cords are tightened.” Claudius Galen(us), De usu partium,
Book 1, Chap 17.
“For just as
those who move [images] with cords attach them beyond the joints to the heads
of the members to be moved, so Nature long ago used the same device at all the
joints.”
Ibidem, Book 3, Chap 16, c. 129 - 199 AD.
It
is generally true that simpler forms are usually followed by more complex ones,
but here the opposite seems to have occurred. There is more documentary
evidence of complex self-moving figures (automata), and at an earlier date,
than manually manipulated puppet figures. (Ancient Egypt and Greece used mobile
statues in their religious cults - moved by any number of devices.) And this is
true not only in ancient Greece and Rome, but also in ancient China and India.
To understand how this came about, we can view this as follows.
The
earliest mention of neurospasta is by Herodotus describing an Egyptian practice, and
the procedure of these in Egypt was that of a wooden figure held aloft on a
long pole, which figure had a phallus presumably worked by a string hidden
inside the pole, pulled from below. Many historians have mentioned that such
figures were known in ancient Rome, but until recently I had not located the
original texts. I had recourse before this only to puppet historians who do not
supply the precise references. I quote their conclusions here: “...colossal
animated effigies which were used in the victory parades and processions that
preceded the circus games at Rome. Among these was the Manducus, a human monster
with horrific jaws and teeth which could be made to clash terrifyingly together
by means of hidden cord” (Byrom, 1996). “In Rome during the religious
ceremonies preceding games in the circus wooden statues were carried which
moved their heads and pretended to attack one another” (Joseph Spencer Kennard
in his Masks
and Marionettes, 1935). Now finally, I have located the original
references, through Magnin’s famous book, Histoire des marionnettes en Europe depuis
l’antiquité jusqu’à nos jours, second edition, 1862. The most detailed
reference is in Pompeius Festus’ De Verborum Significatu, under Manduci. This
work is a Latin lexicon, written in the second century AD. My rough translation
of this entry follows (I have used an English quote of Plautus from another
source):
Manduci: effigies with
great, gaping jaws, used by the ancients in processions, making noise with
their teeth, inciting laughter in others and causing fright, of which Plautus
says [in Rudens
(The Rope),
act II Scene, VI, verse 51]: ‘How about hiring myself out at some fair as a
wild man [manduco]’
‘Why that?’ ‘Because of the grand way I gnash my teeth.’
Also
enlightening in this regard is a passage from Rabelais’ Gargantua and Pantagruel, Book 3, Chap
31, written in 1546 AD:
In this order
they moved [in
a procession]
towards Master Gaster, after a plump, young, lusty, gorbellied fellow, who on a
long staff fairly gilt, carried a wooden statue, grossly carved, and as
scurvily daubed over with paint; such a one as Plautus, Juvenal, and Pomp.
Festus describe it. At Lyons [France] during the Carnival it is called Maschecroute or
Gnawcrust; they call’d this Manduce.
It was a
monstrous, ridiculous, hideous figure, fit to fright little children; its eyes
were bigger than its belly, and its head larger than all the rest of its body;
well mouth-cloven however, having a good pair of wide, broad jaws, lined with
two rows of teeth, upper tier and under tier, which, by the magic of a small
twine hid in the hollow part of the golden staff, were made to clash, clatter,
and rattle dreadfully one against another; as they do at Metz with St.
Clement’s dragon.
His
mention of the name Manduce, obviously derived from Manducus, shows perhaps
that ancient Roman “puppetry” and theatre survived in the amusements of the
common man up to and through the Middle Ages. Whether or not drama and theatre
died out completely after the fall of Rome is a much-disputed point among
theatre (and puppet) historians. On the side of those who do not believe
theatre continued underground after Roman times, is the fact that Rabelais
himself was familiar with classical literature, as seen by his frequent
references to the classical authors in his fictional writings. He may be
describing real activities of his contemporaries, i.e., the Manduce procession,
or these may be all fictional, influenced by his reading of the classics (he
does indeed refer to those very classical authors who are the source of our
limited information on Manducus).
Next,
we have mention of private entertainments (see Xenophon, in my Chapter One) using neurospasta. The practice of showing
these is mentioned as laughable, so either some kind of humor was involved, or
perhaps the figures just looked and moved comically. Plato, in his Laws (Book
II) mentions what is normally translated as “puppets” given as an entertainment
that was shown to children. Again, I have replaced the translations as
“puppets” with the literal meanings:
ATH. [Athenian
Stranger]:
…suppose a man were to organize a competition, without qualifying or limiting
it to gymnastic, musical or equestrian sports…and, proclaiming that this is
purely a pleasure-contest in which anyone who chooses may compete, should offer
a prize to the competitor who gives the greatest amusement to the spectators, -
without any restrictions as to the methods employed…what do we suppose would be
the effect of such a proclamation?
CLIN. [Cleinias]: In what respect
do you mean?
ATH.: The
natural result would be that one man would, like Homer, show up a rhapsody,
another a harp-song, one a tragedy, and another a comedy; nor should we be
surprised if someone were even to fancy that he had the best chance of winning
with a [wonder-show,
thaumaston]. So where such
as these and thousands of others enter the competition, can we say who will
deserve to win the prize?…do you wish me to supply you with the answer to this
absurd question?
CLIN.: By all
means.
ATH.: If the tiniest
children are to be the judges, they will award the prize to the showman of [wonders, thaumata] will they not?
The
Athenian Stranger goes on to discuss the other entertainers and which other
kinds of audiences would award these other entertainers the prize.
From
this text, we can extract that the showman (a conjuror or acrobat, jongleur)
performed alone, and that it was an entertainment popular with children. But
the term thaumata
in this text is very ambiguous. As no mention here of figures or strings
accompanies the word, thaumata could be referring to magic tricks or acrobatics
- the root meaning of thauma is “wonder, marvel.” But elsewhere, Plato does use this word
in connection with figures, namely in his Republic, Book VII (see my Chapter One for a discussion of the reference to thaumata in
the Republic, and my Chapter Two for a more extensive section of the
same text). In addition, Plato, in his Laws, Book I, uses this word in
connection with string-controlled figures:
Let us imagine
that each one of us is a [wonder, thauma] created at the hands of the Gods for their own amusement…The impulses
that motivate us are like so many strings pulling in different directions.
Following
this, we have notices of more complex movements - the neck, the eyes, the arms,
etc. The Roman physician Galen notes for us that these figures were internally
strung, and says so in very precise language (see above), so that there is no
doubt about it. Whether or not these figures performed plays and farces, and
whether or not they spoke any dialogue, is another much disputed point.
The
questions confronting us are:
* Did these puppets speak? - implying that they performed
plays
*
Were they
merely mechanical dancing figures (automata)?
* Are these ancient puppets the “fathers” of our modern
puppets? In other words, did our modern puppets descend directly from the
ancient Greek and Roman?
The
above questions summarize the main issues raised by puppet historians Michael
Byrom in England (in his The Puppet Theatre in Antiquity) and Hans
Richard Purschke in Germany (in his Die Anfänge der Puppenspielformen und ihre
vermutlichen Ursprünge, 1979)
concerning
the puppets of antiquity. (I have already touched upon the question of direct
unbroken descent from ancient Rome for puppets, above. As for the other
questions I will attempt to present some evidence for discussion.)
*
Byrom
believes that there was a puppet theatre and farces performed using puppets in
ancient Greece and Rome
*
Purschke
believes there were no plays or dialogue, the figures were only capable of
dancing, and further, were fixed to a box upon which they danced
* Byrom concedes, from his own investigations, that these
figures were internally strung, but believes they were operated from above and
moved about the “stage”
*
Purschke
believes that they were internally strung and operated by pulling the strings
horizontally from inside the box
* Byrom believes that the Roman tradition of puppet theatre
continued underground by wandering entertainers after the fall of Rome
* Purschke believes that after the fall of Rome, puppet theatre
(if there were such in those times) died out completely, as there is no mention
of real marionettes until the 16th century
An
easy way of determining something definite is to avoid the error of translating
Greek and Latin references to string-pulled figures as “puppets” or
“marionettes” and their operators as “puppeteers”. For instance, the Greek neurospasta and
the Roman sigillario
are normally translated into English as “puppets” or “marionettes,” and neurospaston
as “puppeteer”. This procedure causes no end of problems in attempting to prove
or disprove the contention that the Greeks and Romans possessed a puppet
theatre as we know it today. Byrom takes advantage of this in attempting to
prove the ancients had a real puppet theatre. He simply follows the old way and
translates neurospasta
and sigillario
as “puppets” or “marionettes,” and of course one is easily lead from this to
his point of view. But to be fair, he is not alone in this. Practically every
translator, whether a puppet historian or not, translated these passages using
our modern words “puppet” or “marionette”. This practice seems to go back as
far as the Renaissance, when the ancient texts were rediscovered by the Italian
humanists. This only shows us that marionettes were known at the time of the
translations. But the literal translation of the Greek neurospasta (and like words) is
“string-pulled,” and the Latin word sigilla is, in any Latin-English dictionary,
defined as a small statue or figurine only. However, the contexts of some of
the passages definitely indicate motivated figures of some kind. With this in
mind, we will attempt to determine whether or not there was indeed a puppet
theatre as we know such today in ancient Greece and Rome.
An
important text for this whole controversy is that of pseudo-Aristotle called De Mundo.
This text is now known to have been written by a 2nd century author named
Lucius Apuleius. (Helen Hagan, Moroccan Anthropologist, says "Apuleius was
not a Roman, but a North African educated in Latin and Greek. He is the very
famous author of The Golden Ass, among other works." For further
fascinating information, refer to her website concerning Apuleius, at:
http://www.tazzla.org/apuleius.htm. Many thanks to Ms. Hagan for the
information.) De Mundo was a translation into Latin of an original Greek work,
Peri Kosmon, once attributed to Aristotle. This reference has been given an
honored place by historians of the puppet theatre. The Latin translation
follows:
Those who
direct the movements of the little wooden human figures [ligneolis hominum], when they pull the
string controlling a limb, the neck bends, the head nods, the eyes look, and
hands lend themselves to any action required and the whole body moves
gracefully like a living thing.
This
quote is a paraphrasing of the original text. The original Greek is translated
into English as follows: “...just as the cord pullers [cordas trahunt], by pulling a single
string make the neck and hand and shoulder and eye and sometimes all the parts
of the figure move with a certain harmony...” George Speaight says that “this
work was freely translated,” and “the original Greek, which was probably
written in about A.D. 100, refers not to puppet showmen, but to ‘machinists’,
and the whole passage probably alludes to automata rather than ordinary
puppets.”
The
history and attribution of De Mundo is confusing, to say the least. There is even an entire
book on all the textual history of this work entitled The Text Tradition of Pseudo-Aristotle “De
Mundo,” by W. L. Lormier. We can safely say that Apuleius was translating a
passage from Greek to Latin in terms of the “string-pullings” of his day, but
the original Greek does not necessarily refer to real marionettes. The original
Greek text mentions only one string, while his translation (commentary?)
implies a few strings, one for each part that was moved. Today’s puppet
historians use this text as proof of marionettes in Roman times, but they are
looking at the words through modern eyes. The strings must have been threaded inside
the figure itself (as shown above), and not strung from above as with today’s
marionettes. The texts, if read without modern preconceptions, do not
necessarily invoke images of true marionettes.
An
interesting comment in this regard (in French) is by Bernard Suzanne, at http://plato-dialogues.org/fr/tetra_4/republic/caverne.htm
, where he says, about Plato’s Allegory of the Cave (many thanks to Mr. Suzanne for his invaluable
assistance with the translation):
The French “Les
faiseurs de prodiges” [English: “the wonder makers”] translates as the Greek tois
thaumatopoiois, a compound word in which can be found the word thauma
(plural thaumata),
“prodige, merveille, objet d'étonnement” [in French; “wonder, marvel” in
English]. This word is undoubtedly not chosen by chance, since in the Theaetetus,
155d2-4, Socrates makes thaumazein, the act of wondering, the origin of philosophy. The
“phenomena” that we see must provoke our wonderment if we are to start looking
behind appearances to one day have a chance of beginning our journey
toward light. That is why translating the Greek thaumatopoiois in French as “montreurs
de marionnettes” [English: puppeteers], as do most translators ([in French:] E.
Chambry, Budé ; L. Robin, Pléiade ; R. Baccou, Garnier ; B. Piettre, Nathan ;
M. Dixsaut, Bordas ; P. Pachet, Folio ; T. Karsenti/Y. Prélorentzos, Hatier ;
or, in English, “exhibitors of puppet-shows,” P. Shorey, Loeb ; “puppeteers,”
G. M. A. Grube, Hackett ; “puppet-handlers,” A. Bloom, Basic Books), using the
context to select from all the possible meanings of the Greek word a
specialized meaning and rendering it in French, or English, by a word which doesn't
carry the other meanings of the Greek word as well, is to “trivialize” a text
which leaves nothing to chance and deprives the reader of “resonances”
precisely meant to arouse his wonderment.
[...]
The Greek “hôsper tois
thaumatopoiois pro tôn anthrôpôn prokeitai ta paraphragmata, huper hôn ta
thaumata deiknuasin,” I translate [in French] as “semblables aux palissades
placées devant les hommes par les faiseurs de prodiges, par dessus lesquels ils
font voir leurs prodiges” [English: “similar to those fences put in front of
men by wonder makers, above which they show their wonders”.]
None
of the ancient Greek and Roman texts can be used to demonstrate conclusively
that a real puppet theatre existed in those times. Even the passage by
Athenaeus (see my Chapter One), mentioning Potheinos the
string-puller performing in the theatre of Dionysius, cannot prove the
existence of actual puppet theatre, although this passage is often used just
for that purpose. About this passage, Byrom says the following: “A puppet
theatre as we know it there must have been; indeed we have the well known
testimony of the physician Athenaeus in confirmation of this....” But Potheinos
could have been displaying automata, as Heron of Alexandria and Philo of
Byzantium (another mechanician like Heron) had done before him. Granted these
shows were demonstrations before an audience by persons classed with
entertainers, but there are no references to any characters acting as in a play
- none are ever mentioned in any connection to motivated figures. They could
have been rather like the department store window displays of animated figures
that we see during Christmastime today. And, a single operator is almost always
mentioned, so a simple and easily portable entertainment must have been the
norm. In W. Beare’s The Roman Stage, 1964, quoting from Heron of Alexandria (c. 100
AD), we find wonderful and clear images of the “wonder show” of antiquity.
Beare says “This seems to have been a box mounted on a pillar. The box had
folding doors, which, when opened, revealed moveable figures seen against a
painted background.” Heron’s words follow.
The problem is
to make the puppet show [original Greek word(s) not available] open of its own accord and reveal the
figures inside in motion befitting the theme of the story; then the pinax [panel] is to close
automatically and after a short interval to open again, revealing other
figures, some or all of which are if possible to be in movement. This process
is to be repeated several times. The arrangement employed by the early
designers was simple. When the pinax was opened, there appeared in it a painted
head. This moved its eyes, raising and lowering them repeatedly. The pinax was
shut and then opened again; the head had disappeared, but painted figures were
seen arranged in accordance with some story. The pinax would shut and open once
more, revealing another arrangement of figures to complete the tale. There were
thus only three different movements: that of the doors, that of the eyes and
that of the curtains.
But in our time
designers have introduced interesting tales into their puppet-shows [original Greek
word(s) not available], and have made use of many and varied movements. As I promised, I will
describe one show which seemed to me to be the best. The story set forth in it
was that of Nauplios. This is how it was divided up:
At the
beginning the pinax opened and displayed twelve painted figures, arranged in
three rows. These represented some of the Greeks preparing their ships
and getting ready to launch them. These figures moved, some sawing, some
chopping…. They made a loud noise, as in real life. After a sufficient time had
elapsed, the doors shut and opened again, and there was a new arrangement. It
showed the ships being launched by the Greeks. The doors again shut and opened,
and nothing was visible in the pinax except sky and sea. Presently the ships
were seen sailing by…. Again the pinax shut and opened. There were now no ships
to be seen, but Nauplios was there brandishing his torch and Athene standing
beside him. A flame burned above the pinax…. Again it shut and opened,
revealing the wreck of the fleet and Ajax swimming in the sea. A mechanism in
the top of the pinax was raised, there was a peal of thunder, a lightning flash
fell on Ajax, and his figure vanished. The pinax closed, and the story was
ended.
Aristotle
in his De
Motus Animalum (On the Movements of Animals), Book 7, gives us some finer details
of how the figures were moved in these shows.
The movements
of animals may be compared with those of automata, which are set going [i.e., set in
motion] on the
occasion of a tiny movement; the levers are released, and strike the twisted
strings against one another; or with the toy wagon. For the child mounts on it
and moves it straight forward, and then again it is moved in a circle owing to
its wheels being of unequal diameter (the smaller acts like a centre on the
same principle as the cylinders). Animals have parts of a similar kind, their
organs, the sinewy tendons to wit and the bones; the bones are like the wooden
levers in the automaton, and the iron; the tendons are like the strings, for
when these are tightened or leased movement begins.
Allusions
to the concealment of the demonstrator are also to be found, but these can also
be interpreted to refer to the non-interference of the showmen, who never seem
to touch the figures directly to make them move, and possibly also to the
concealment of the figures’ means of motion.
For as in the [wonder show, thaumati] all those things
which are visible are inanimate while that which works the [string-pullings,
neurospastei] is invisible ….
In the same way, the Creator of the world sends his powers from an eternal and
invisible place so that we are moved like [wonders, thauma] toward that which pertains to us, namely
seed and procreation. (Philo, Quaestions et solutiones in Genesin, Bk 3, Sec
48.)
From him (God)
they come, if indeed from him and not rather from Achamoth herself, from her in
secret, he perceives nothing of her, and like a [figurine, sigillario]
guided from
the outside, he is moved in all his activities. (Tertullian, Adversus
Valentinianos, Chap 18.)
Another
passage as to the operation of certain moving statuettes is by the 4th century
AD Roman Bishop of Ptolomais, Synesius, in his De Providentia: “And just as the
[conjuror’s figures, praestigiatorum sigilla] which are moved by strings are still
animated even when he who has given the impulse has stopped doing so, but are
not animated for long because the source of motion is not incorporated in them
so that they move only so long as the energy imparted to them persists or until
it is dissipated by the continuance of the movement....” This likely describes
a kind of automaton, which by the yank of a string, sets the figure in motion.
This description of Synesius also calls to mind the passages above from Peri Kosmon,
and Aristotle’s De
Motus Animalum.
It
is my belief that what we have seen here described by Heron and Aristotle, are
exactly the neurospasta,
sigilla, thaumata,
etc., mentioned by the other writers of ancient Greece and Rome. More than
this, a seamless continuity can then be demonstrated from ancient Greece and
Rome to Medieval times for automated figures, as indeed this type (the cabinet
of moving figures) were the earliest known in Medieval churches. It is probable
that there were in existence, at the same time, less sophisticated neurospasta,
performed by the wandering street entertainers. These, instead of using weights
and counterbalances, likely utilized the simple pulling of strings to affect
all the automated movements and transformations.
Alas,
we are not here in the realm of certainty, so we must leave these
investigations and hope that sometime in the future new evidence, perhaps
actual ancient string-pulled figures, or new texts will be discovered that
throw some much-needed light on this field of research.
EARLY
EVIDENCE OF THE “SWAZZLE”?
Besides
the word koree
mentioned in my Chapter Three as being evidence of the possible
existence of glove puppets in ancient Greece, the reference in Plato’s Allegory of the
Cave to the figures over a screen by entertainers can also be used as
further indication of this possibility (it is admitted the evidence is very
slim). We can go further in that even the swazzle (in Italian pivetta) may
have existed in ancient times (the swazzle is an English word denoting an
instrument placed in the mouth of a glove puppeteer to alter his/her voice to a
squeak, as for the well-known Punch character). The recent and valuable book by
Henryk Jurkowski, A History of European Puppetry from its Origins to the End of the 19th
Century, tells us that such devices were not known before the beginning of
the seventeenth century, according to the research of Frank Proschan. However,
Duchartre, in his famous book on the Commedia dell’Arte, The Italian Comedy, states that “It was
from Maccus also that Pulcinella (one of the Neapolitan Pulicinellas) acquired
the habit of peeping like a frightened chick - a sound which his father
[meaning Maccus] had exaggerated by means of a sgherlo or pivetta.” Maccus, a character of the
Attellan farces of ancient Rome, is considered by many historians of the
theatre to be the ancient Roman ancestor of Punch, or Pulcinella, as he was
originally named.
Of
a more definite nature, Victor H. Mair in Painting and Performance, page 64, says “In
China, from at least the eleventh century, performers who worked articulated
puppets made them speak in a shrill, nasal voice.” In a footnote to this on
page 211, Mair mentions “In the T’ang-yin pi-shih there is a particular legal
case that cites Shen Kua (1030-1094), Meng-hsi pi-t’an, fascicle 13, for this
information about the whining, nasal quality of puppets.” In addition, we have
the following from the researches of John Cohen in his Human Robots in Myth and Science:
...they [the teraphim,
household idols mentioned in the Old Testament] may have resembled the ob and yidde’oni, used by Biblical
necromancers, and considered by some to be phantoms under celestial influence
which one could converse with men and give them counsel. Ob is one who speaks from between the
joints of his body and his elbow joints, while yidde’oni is one who places the bone of
a yid’oa’
(a beast or bird) in his mouth where it speaks of itself.
The
ob seems
then to be some sort of ventriloquism, but yid’oa’ sounds suspiciously like the swazzle,
especially as there is mention of a bird, for which use the swazzle is
sometimes put, i.e., to imitate bird whistles.
If
the above confirms the existence of a swazzle instrument in ancient times, then
we would have here practically a proof that glove puppets existed in those
times, as the swazzle was associated almost exclusively with glove puppeteers,
and, in addition, that dialogue between puppet characters was used in ancient
Rome, and, that therefore there existed acting and plays in a real puppet
theatre. But we are here in the realm of pure speculation. There are hints
rather than proofs. Suffice it to say that the swazzle instrument was in use by
the Chinese since at least the 11th century.
THE
REAL ORIGINS OF PUPPETS AND OTHER THOUGHTS
That
puppets were known by prehistoric man is proved by the fact that articulated
figurines, many operated by the pulling of strings, were found already existing
in the New World (North and South America) upon the arrival of the Europeans.
Further, actual artifactual proof of the existence of articulated figures in
prehistory can be found in the 26,000 year-old ivory figurine, now possessing
only one articulated arm, that is actually nicknamed “the marionette” by
archaeologists. This figurine was discovered in Europe, in Brno, Czech
Republic. (See http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/dolnivenus.html
“The Mammoth Ivory Male statuette from Brno” for details and pictures, and also
The National
Geographic Magazine, Vol 174, No 4, October 1988.)
Bil
Baird in his book The Art of the Puppet tells of Amerindian masks with jaws that open
and shut by pulling strings. The fact that nearly all peoples worldwide had
puppets and masks (used in ceremonies and rituals) since antiquity, indicates
that prehistoric man in his ancient migrations around the globe brought these
arts along with him. So puppetry is likely over 100,000 years old!
The
first puppets were ritual figures. There is not much evidence to show how
moveable idols were used in ancient times, but a quote from the Old Testament
may assist us in visualizing this. In Habakkuk 2:19 (7th century BC):
Woe unto him
that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach!
Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath
at all in the midst of it.
A
Bible commentary by John Calvin (1509 – 1564) gives a more literal translation
of this passage, followed by an explanation by the editor:
Woe to him who
saith to the wood, "Awake, Arise;”
To the dumb
stone, "It will teach:”
Behold, it is
covered with gold and silver!
Yet there is no
breath within it.
The two verbs,
"Awake, Arise,” stand connected with "wood,” [in Calvin’s
original Latin source] and they are so given in the Septuagint; and there is a striking
contrast between the dumb stone and teaching. -- Ed.
So
the ancient priests in the temples of the Middle East spoke to their idols made
of wood, imploring them to awake and move. Which they likely did, as moveable
idols and statues were known since far back before this time. In fact, in the Encyclopaedia of
Religion and Ethics (1908-1926), by James Hastings, editor, Vol. IV, page
792 – 796, under “Divination (Egyptian),” we find much information about the
ancient Egyptian moveable idols.
Recent
Egyptological discoveries show that all traits of this curious ceremonial [of
Ethiopia, previously described by the writer of the article, George Foucart] were borrowed
by Ethiopia from the divinatory ritual of Egypt. On the tomb of Nib Uonnaf at
Gurneh (see Sethe, Z.A. xliii [1906] 30 ff.) there is an account of the
election of the high priest of Amon-Ra. The candidates were led before the
statue of the god. They were all shown to it in turn, ‘and not to a single one
of them did it make the motion hanu [see below for the actual gesture] except,
said the King, when I pronounce thy name.’ Then, Nib Uonnaf being thus chosen,
the statue conferred the power upon him by four magic passes. A second text,
discovered later, proves that the custom was in existence even in the time of
Amenhotep III., and it is quite logical to suppose that it goes back to a much
earlier period; it may perhaps be even as ancient as the worship of the god
himself.
Foucart
ponders on the meaning of the motion hanu, that it “may have been a movement of the
arm of a jointed statue, accompanied perhaps by a sound, a whistling, or a cry,
of suitable strength,” and that “even though hanu means a shaking of the head, the
statue certainly moved or stretched out its arm….” He goes on to say that
[G.] Maspero, in all
the works in which he discusses these ‘prophetic statues’ (…), holds that they
were actual jointed dolls, with strings attached to their arms and heads, and
that the officiating priest pulled a string for each response and each gesture.
In his earliest works (…) he even seems to admit the existence of actual
machinery, worked, when required, by fire or steam. The explanation that the
statue had a jointed head seems to be generally accepted.
In
Japan, even today, we find puppets still being used in rituals. A survey of
these was published by Jane Marie Law in her Puppets of Nostalgia, 1997, which may
assist us in imagining the puppet ritual ceremonies of early civilizations.
* a substitute to remove pollution from persons (Hitogata)
* substitutes for fetuses, infants, and children to protect
them from evil influences and disease (Amagatsu and Hoko [or Boko])
* as an effigy or ritual substitute for a dead child (Kokeshi)
* in rites for aborted or miscarried children (Mizuko Jizo)
* washing the body of the bodhisattva (a “being of
enlightenment,” essentially a “Buddha to be”) in effigy as an act of pious
devotion. “The merit of this action can be transferred to the practitioner in
the form of a healing” (Law).
* naked puppets as imitative magic in fertility rites (in
Noroma performances of ningyo [dolls, puppets])
There
was no puppet theatre (plays with dialogue and/or narration) until perhaps
Medieval times. The earliest mention of string-pulled figurines is by Herodotus
in Greece c. 400 BC (see my Chapter One) and this was in the context of an
Egyptian procession, not a puppet play. Many figurines were found during
excavations of ancient civilizations which possessed articulated limbs. These
have been investigated and it seems the earliest were used in rituals and
ceremonies, either of a religious or magical nature. Another possibility was
that they were amulets and charms - or perhaps all of these together. It is
even possible that the articulated figures of ancient Greece and Rome with
stiff wires extending out of the crowns of their heads were hung from the necks
of men and women as amulets. One can imagine the hooked ends of the rods
attached to a chain or string to be placed around the neck as a good-luck
charm. The ancient Greek and Roman figurines were certainly small enough for
such use. (Of course, the relation between these and the modern-day Sicilian opera dei pupi,
which still use an iron rod at the heads to move the puppets, cannot be denied,
but a direct line of descent is not discernable between these figures in
antiquity and the puppets of the Renaissance. The opera die pupi style of show is generally
thought to have originated in Italy during the 19th century, or slightly
before.) Small dolls have been used as charms since ancient times by shamans,
warriors, and soldiers and were tied to their persons to offer protection from
evil influences and for good luck during their travels and forays into other
lands.
Later,
of course, dolls developed as children’s playthings. We see many of these in
ancient Egypt, India, and then Greece. Along with the human theatre developed
the puppet theatre, starting in ancient Greece and the Far East. However, in
the Far East, including India, human theatre developed along quite different
lines in comparison to the West. At the start of the Christian era, human
theatre in the Orient was still at a pantomimic stage compared to Europe, i.e.,
mimed acting with narration provided. Many folk theatre forms in Asia even
today are of this type.
Much
can be gleaned about the sources of puppets and dolls in different countries by
looking at the etymology of the words used to refer to them. The first and most
obvious would be the Medieval English word “poppet,” which originally
meant “doll” (c. 1413), and was a reflex of the French poupette, of
the same meaning. According to David A. Pharies in his article “The Etymology
of the Spanish Titere
‘Puppet’,” published Fall 1985 in the Journal of Hispanic Philology, Vol X, no.1,
The later form
puppet was for a time ambiguous (‘puppet’ 1538, ‘doll’ 1562), […], but by the end
of the 19th century has lost the etymological meaning.
Besides
Pharies’ article showing that the English “puppet” (actually a doll) was
derived from France, he explains that the Spanish titere for “puppet” was derived from the
French petite,
“little one”. The oldest reference to titere in Spanish appeared in the writings of
Bernal Diaz del Castillo, ca. 1560. The English word “doll” came into general
use only in the 18th century, and was likely derived from the nickname for
“Dorothy,” which was “Doll,” or the German “Docke” for a doll. This last could be a sign of
heavy German influence on English dolls, causing the name for them to change
from “puppets” to “dolls”.
As
the French poupette
was derived from the Latin pupa, meaning “doll,” it seems the path of diffusion of dolls
was from ancient Rome to France (and Spain?), then to England. Ultimately, the
use of dolls was a legacy of the Roman occupations of Europe. Although puppets
were known in Europe since at least the 12th century, there was no single word
for stringed puppets until perhaps the 17th century, when the word
“marionette,” meaning “little Marie,” was applied to these theatrical figures.
There is some disagreement whether the word was originally French marionnette
or Italian marionetta,
however, the word in France means all types of puppetry, whereas in Italy and
England only the stringed variety. This possibly indicates that the English and
Italians had seen French puppeteers arrive in their countries with stringed
puppets, so borrowed the word to designate that type only. This kind of thinking
can be applied to the first English mentions of the Italian Commedia dell’Arte
character Pulcinella (later Anglicized to “Punchinello” then shortened to
“Punch” in England), in Pepys’ Diary of the 17th century spelled variously
“Polichinelli” or “Polichinello,” referring to puppet shows he had seen
featuring this personage. The spelling is very close to the French
“Polichinelle,” indicating that the Italian puppet character came to England
from Italy via France.
In
The Lost
Civilizations of the Stone Age, by Richard Rudgley, 2000, there are
outlined two words of great interest that, according to some linguists, existed
in the proto-language, the Mother Tongue as it were, of prehistory, used
perhaps 15,000 years ago. These are KUNA for “woman,” and PUTI for “vulva”.
Many languages of the world today show these roots in words of the same or
similar meaning. KUNA also appears in some form in various words for puppet
and/or doll, such as in kukla (Turkish, Russian, Greek), ku’ei lei (Chinese), and kundhei (Oriya
in India). This may indicate that the first dolls and puppets were originally
female figures, perhaps going back to the almost universal prehistoric Mother
Goddess cult. PUTI appears in various languages as puppet (English), poupée
(French), Puppe
(German), pupa
(Italian), putrika,
puttali, puttalika, putul, putli
(various languages in India), etc. The meaning “vulva” in the root PUTI is
perhaps another throwback to the Mother Goddesses of prehistory. As indicated
by the reference to a woman’s sexual organ, it is even possible that before
history, women, perhaps even temple dancers and courtesans, were engaged in
puppet playing, or at least, were connected to puppet performances in some way.
This would explain some of the contempt, even hatred, shown puppets and puppet
shows in most of the world today. It could go back to the old contempt and
hatred for womankind and the practitioners of the “oldest profession.” In
ancient times courtesans and temple dancers were also entertainers. In the book
Bunraku,
Japan’s Unique Puppet Theatre, 1964, Shuzaburo Hironaga says in this regard
At the dawn of
civilization in Japan, maidens in the service of Shinto shrines operated a pair
of simple dolls, male and female, as they recited a prayer. Around the 7th
century wandering puppeteers migrated to Japan from the Asian continent via
Korea. Treated as hinin (outcasts), they toured from one province to another in the
country and were known by the name of kairaishi or kugutsumawashi.
These
travelling entertainers carried in front of them a wooden box hanging by a
strap from the neck. Visiting houses from door to door, they took finger type
dolls out of the box and made them dance as a means of asking for alms. Female kugutsumawashi
often engaged in prostitution on the side.
One
should not forget too that some shamans practicing in primitive societies are
women, and many shamans use doll figures in their rites. Another interesting
fact is that Pulcinella (the original Italian name of Punch) actually possesses
the feminine suffix.
Other
word correspondences are bombe (or gombe) in India, compared to bambola in Italian; and pava in Kerala, India, compared to bavastel in
medieval Spanish. Then we have bastaxi from medieval French, the Chinese poh-tai-hsi (or -xi), and the Taiwanese budaixi. One
should remember what many scholars have already pointed out: namely, that such
word correspondences can be continued ad infinitum, so we should not rely too much on
them to prove our theories. Their best use is when we can demonstrate the
correspondences are in sound and meaning both together, as is the case in these
examples.
A
fascinating object for study, related to puppetry, is picture storytelling.
This form of entertainment was very prevalent in Europe during the Renaissance
and after, especially in Germany, where such a showman was called Bankelsanger
(bench-singer). Generally, these entertainers stood on a wooden bench (in order
to be seen in a large gathering) while telling stories in front of a pictorial
sheet, pointing with a stick to the illustrations, sometimes with an assistant
who sings or who sells the stories in printed form, perhaps also playing a
musical instrument. Often, the storyteller took on some of these activities and
the assistant helped in other ways, such as playing the music, if any. In
Italy, street entertainers were called cantambanco, also meaning “bench-singer,” and,
we have entertainers known as mountebanks, meaning “mount-on-bench,” both obviously related to
the German Bankelsangers,
or bench-singers.
The
earliest illustration of such an entertainment is in fact German. See Victor H.
Mair’s Painting
and Performance, figure 28, p. 151 for the engraving dated c. 1480 – 1490.
But there survives in museums and private collections remains of even earlier
forms of this type of storytelling. Mair mentions the exultet rolls
from South Italy, dated from the tenth to the twelfth centuries. These were
vertically unrolled from the church pulpit during Easter vigil services.
Another possible early evidence of such picture storytelling, never heretofore
mentioned by researchers in this regard, is the Bayeaux Tapestry in England,
showing the Battle of Hastings in 1066. See the website http://hastings1066.com/
for details and history of this artifact. This tapestry has all the features of
the Indian, Chinese, and Indonesian forms of picture storytelling, but it is an
embroidered cloth, and extremely long. Another parallel to what Mair has
brought out about these entertainments, is the fact that the Bayeaux Tapestry
also has trees separating the various scenes, just as in the Javanese wayang beber
and the sole surviving Chinese T’ang Dynasty picture storytelling scroll. I am
of the opinion that this cloth was taken out on ceremonious occasions and the
story of the Battle of Hastings was recited as the cloth was unrolled. Such a
very long cloth (it is approximately 70 metres long and half a metre wide)
could not have been displayed conveniently otherwise. After this period, there
seems to be no indication of the existence of picture narration until the 15th
century in Germany, when it became widespread all over Europe. How do we
account for this?
Mair
has proved that picture storytelling itself originated in India in the
centuries before Christ, and diffused eastward to China, southeast to Indonesia
(wayang beber),
and westward to Europe. It seems then that migrations of Indians were the
method of transmission, but Mair does not give any details of how this occurred
in the case of Europe. For instance, if Indians brought picture narration to
Europe, how is it that Europeans took it up, and even the Catholic
Church? The very early appearance of this form in Southern Italy as a
church practice may be the result of its transmission from the Byzantine Empire
(in Turkey), once the principle seat of the Catholic Church. Gypsy tribes from
India were known to have arrived in Byzantium c.1000 AD, which is in line with
the dating of the exultet rolls. It is also known that Gypsies were entertainers, but
it is not known if among them were picture narrators, though this is likely.
The Gypsy tribes came from Northern India, and this is the place in India where
we find the earliest manifestations and longest still-existing traditions. But
this does not solve the riddle of how the Catholic Church took it up from these
foreigners who at first did not speak the local languages.
The
forms of picture storytelling transmitted from India to China and Indonesia as
outlined by Mair show that the Chinese and Indonesian forms were of one type,
and, in fact, the wayang beber of Java and Bali is very similar in form to the only
surviving such Chinese scroll (dating to the 9th century). From history we know
it was clearly not the Gypsy tribes that were responsible for transmitting
picture storytelling to these two countries. The mode of transmission to these
places was almost certainly the propagation of Buddhism from India.
So
then, the only other method of transmission of picture narration from India to
Europe must have been via the Gypsies. To explain how the Europeans took it up,
it is probable that when the Gypsies arrived in Byzantium, they had to earn a
living with their entertainments, so they quickly had to learn the local languages
to do so. They most probably entertained the local poor folk like themselves,
so Byzantine street entertainers eventually learned the technique from the
local Gypsies. Later, after further migrations to Europe, the Gypsies were
looked down upon, hated, persecuted, and forcibly driven out from Europe (not
entirely successfully), and what remained were the native, European,
entertainers’ forms of picture narration. In fact, many of the engravings of
European picture narrators in Mair’s book show peoples who look decidedly like
Gypsies. Picture storytelling must have become quite common for the church to
have then taken it up in the form of the exultet rolls. When the seat of the Catholic
Church moved from Byzantium to Rome, likely went the practice of the exultet
rolls. This later developed into carved or painted wooden boards used for
religious storytelling that were originally placed behind the church altars:
the well-known retablo
in Spain, retable
in France, and reredos in England. (As a note of interest, “reredos” must have
been the original name of the “raree show,” an obvious mispronunciation, and
actually the same type of entertainment.) I suspect this is where picture
storytelling in the Catholic churches “disappeared” to after the last use of
exultet
rolls in 12th century Italian Easter vigils. Anne Pellowski, in her book The World of
Storytelling, 1977, page 71, speculates similarly. She says
A case might be
made for the possible transformation of the exultet roll into the early form of
triptychs or trunk altars that may or may not have been the forerunners of
religious picture sheets used by early bankelsanger.
As
with puppetry, the poor, illiterate street entertainers doubtless continued
displaying their picture sheets to the public, being of such a class as to be
unworthy of notice by the chroniclers of the time. It is known that these
church entertainments later were frowned upon by church officials and so were
eventually thrown into the streets. The retablo church furnishings then passed into the
hands of the street entertainers. The stationary figures of the carved retablos
before that time had became moveable, even when they were used formerly in
demonstrations in the churches of Europe.
________________________________
An
early indication of the possible existence of marionettes is by William
Lambarde of England, a 16th century antiquary, describing a play that included
a puppet character called “Jack Snacker of Whitney”. Speaight thinks it “was
almost certainly being performed by 1500” (p. 53).
In the dayes of
ceremonial religion they used at Wytney to set foorthe yearly in maner of a
Shew, or Enterlude, the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Chryste, partly of
Purpose to draw thyther some Concourse of People that might spend their Money
in the Towne, but cheiflie to allure by pleasant Spectacle the common Sort to
the Liking of Popishe Maumetrie; for the which Purpose, and the more lyvely
thearby to exhibite to the Eye the hole Action of the Resurrection, the
Priestes garnished out certein smalle Puppets, representinge the Parson of the
Christe, the watchmen, Marie, and others, amongest the which one bare the Parte
of a wakinge Watcheman, who (espiinge Christ to arise) made continual Noyce,
like to the Sound that is caused by the Metinge of two styckes, and was therof
commonly called, Jack Snacker of Wytney” [see Scott Cutler Shershow, Puppets and
‘Popular’ Culture, 1995].
My
interpretation of this text is that the jaws of the puppet Jack clacked
together in fright at seeing Christ rise from the dead. But this puppet could
have been operated by any number of means – no strings are mentioned.
An
even earlier evidence of puppet plays is also from England. George Speaight has
discovered an article in the Records of Early English Drama, issue 1979:2, wherein Ian
Lancashire has connected a 1431 English puppet play Joly Walte and Malkyng to the oldest
English play-text Interludium de Clerico at Puella (The Interlude of the Cleric and the Girl),
dated c. 1300 AD. Speaight goes further and thinks it a possibility that the
1300 fragment is also a puppet play text! (See his The Earliest English Puppet Play?, 1997,
published by Ray DaSilva Puppet Books.) His reasons for thinking this are that
the play (in its surviving fragmentary form), has only two characters appearing
on the stage at a time - this is a necessary convention of traveling
glove-puppet shows, where the single puppeteer slips a puppet on each hand,
allowing only two characters on stage for each scene – plus, the fact that
“Malkin” (the name of the “Girl” character in this play) had, among other
meanings, also the sense of “puppet,” according to old English dictionaries.
An
entry in the Annals
of English Drama, 975 – 1700, 1964 edition, lists a liturgical “Play or
Puppet Show” dated 1491 of the well-known Quem Quaeritis, where the three Marys come to
Jesus’ tomb on the third day following His crucifixion only to find the stone
before the tomb entrance rolled away and an angel standing in the doorway. The
angel asks them
Whom seek ye in
the sepulchre, O Christians?
Jesus of
Nazareth, who was crucified, O angel.
He is not here,
He has arisen as He foretold:
Go, announce
that He has arisen from the grave.
This
type of play (called a Trope) is known from a 10th-century manuscript from the
monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland, the author most likely being the
Benedictine monk Tutillo. Whether the Quem Quaeritis was performed with puppets as
early as the 10th century is unknown. In France, in 1408, a certain Perrinet
Sanson performed with puppets in a French village, according to George
Speaight, whose source was Domino Du Cange’s Latin glossary of 1883, Glossarium
Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis under “bastaxius.” There are other references to
puppeteers listed by Du Cange for around the same century. Finally, I have
already mentioned in my Chapter Four the Provencal romance Flamenca of
the early 13th century.
As
to the question of whether or not dialogue between the puppets was used in the
medieval puppet shows, we refer the reader to the two famous Li Romans du bon
roi d’Alixandre illustrations of the 14th century (see my Chapter Four for these pictures). We note that no
interpreter (the speaker for the puppets outside the booth) is visible. If he
had existed in glove puppet shows in the 1300’s, then surely he would have been
included in these illustrations; the illustrator would have seen him as an
integral part of such shows. But he is nowhere to be found. This leads us
inevitably to the conclusion that medieval hand puppets spoke for themselves
through the hidden puppeteer. By referring to the particular Alixandre
illustration that depicts the man and woman puppets having a conversation while
three girls in the audience watch, we may also conclude that dialogue was a
major part of the shows - with some slapstick added à la Punch and Judy, as we
can also see the male puppet in a typical court jester’s costume with his
cudgel resting on his shoulder, just as glove puppets have done since their
birth long ages ago.
THE
ORIGINS OF SHADOW THEATRE
In
my Chapter Two, I discuss the
Emperor Wu (or Wu-ti) episode, and the fact that this particular legend is
often cited to prove the existence of shadow theatre in China in 121 BC. I have
lately come across a very recent complete study and re-evaluation of this
legend. This is “Documentation Relating to the Origins of Chinese Shadow Puppet
Theater,” by Alvin P. Cohen, in Asia Major, vol. XIII, part I, 2000. Prior to
reading this article, I was ready to accept this legend from the Han Dynasty as
based on fact after I learned that the writer of the story, Ssu-ma Ch’ien (also
spelled Sze-ma Ts’ien), was a contemporary of Emperor Wu, and actually lived at
his court. Regardless of whether or not Ssu-ma Ch’ien was contemporaneous with
Emperor Wu, we require to know if his text is a reference to shadow theatre.
Mr. Cohen points out that this story of Emperor Wu was repeated over and over
again down the ages, with many variations, all without, except for one
instance, specifically mentioning shadows. One would think that if shadow plays
were known in China at any time prior to the Sung dynasty, real shadow plays
would have been spoken of when recounting the Emperor Wu story.
The
single mention of shadows in a Emperor Wu story comes from a version of the
tale dated 983 AD, the Hsin-lun fragment in T’ai-pin’ing yu-lan, which was compiled by Li
Fang and others. Mr. Cohen says that the phrase shen ying means either “spirit and
shadow” or “spirit shadow”.
Li Shao-chun
established (or placed) the spirit shadow (shen ying) of emperor Wu’s concubine Li inside
a drapery (chang)
and had the emperor gaze at a distance (wang) and see it.
As
Mr. Cohen puts it, “None of the three versions of this fragment provides even a
hint as to how the image was produced.” For myself, the late date of this
version puts it fairly close to the same period as the first unambiguous
references to Chinese shadow plays (11th or 12th century), so dispute on this
point is unnecessary.
The
early evidence for shadow theatre in India too is very ambiguous. I quote again
Mr. Cohen’s article.
The shadow
theaters of Java and India are well known, however the dates of the earliest
references to this type of theatrical and its antecedents are shrouded in the
uncertainty of the dating of sources as well as the interpretations of the
apparently relevant text passages.
Scholars of
Indian shadow theater often interpret certain passages in the epic Mahabharata
and other early texts as referring to shadow theater, but the dating of the
numerous layers within these texts and the interpretations of the relevant
passages are debatable.
Other
recent studies on Javanese, Arabian, Turkish, Chinese, and Indian shadow
theatres have brought to light the fact that the earliest unambiguous
references to shadow theatre in these lands are all of approximately the same
period, around the 11th to the 13th century.
For
Java, the poem Arjunawiwaha
(Arjuna’s
Wedding) is frequently brought forward to demonstrate that shadow theatre (wayang kulit)
existed in Java in the 11th century (the word used in this poem is not wayang, but ringgit,
which is a synonym for wayang, but can also mean a female dancer). The fact however that wayang can
signify “phantom” or “ghost” (besides “shadow,” “play,” “drama,” “theatre,” or
“puppet”) puts in doubt also the other, earlier texts using this word, or ringgit (see
my Chapter Two for some of these
texts). We must remember that the root meaning of various words denoting “mask”
is exactly “phantom” or “ghost” (even in Europe), so the texts where wayang or ringgit are
mentioned without any descriptions can also be placed in the category of
references to masked dances (wayang topeng in Java).
A
recent book on the subject of the wooden puppet theatre of Java, Voices of the
Puppet Masters: The Wayang Golek Theater of Indonesia, by Mimi Herbert,
2002, has the following to say about roots of the word wayang.
The history of
the wayang
is elusive, but the name itself offers some important clues: the word wayang is
most likely derived from yang, eyang, and hyang, referring to ancestors and sometimes deities, and from bayang,
which means “shadow.” The veneration of ancestors and the propitiation of the
gods are recurrent themes in the wayang tradition, and “shadow” could be a
reference both to the early shadow puppets and to the spirits.
Even
though the poem Arjunawiwaha
is unambiguous in its reference to shadow puppetry, there are problems with
the integrity of the text, as even P. J. Zoetmulder points out in his Kalangwan: A
Survey of Old Javanese Literature, 1974, page 66. Here he also states that
this poem as it has come down to us today is from the hand of a single person,
in point of time before the end of the Majapahit period of Java (1292-c.1500).
The
Javanese tradition of the origin of their shadow plays is that Sunan Kalijaga,
one of the nine Muslim saints (Wali Songo) responsible for the propagation of Islam in Java,
created or brought shadow plays to Java in the 14th century. Shadow play was
apparently used to teach the principles of the new religion to the (mostly of
Hindu religion) Indonesians. It must be mentioned that, in the main, Islam was
passed to Indonesia by Muslims from south India and Gujarat, not directly from
Arabia, although, in fact, the Arabs knew shadow plays before the 14th century,
as will be discussed below.
What
are the earliest unambiguous references to shadow theatre?
India
See
my Chapter Two for the quoted
text from Ceylon (Sri Lanka), given by Mair and also Ananda K. Coomaraswarmy
(the source of Mair’s quote), as dating from the 12th century. For myself,
“leather figures” is almost certainly referring to shadow puppets. However,
Stuart Blackburn in his 1996 book, Inside the Drama House, states that the only
pre-twentieth century evidence he has located for Indian shadow puppetry is
“the inclusion of ‘leather puppet play’ [tol-pava-kuttu] in a list of performing
arts and amusements in a mid-eighteenth century poem by Kuncan Nambiyar.” He
considers the Ceylonese and other texts unreliable because the literary
evidence “is so sparse, often ambiguous, and lacks corroboration from
inscriptions,” meaning they are difficult to date with confidence.
I
have recently investigated the text from Ceylon, the Mahavamsa (see my Chapter Two for the text itself), using Wilh.
Geiger’s article “The Trustworthiness of the Mahavamsa,” in The Indian
Historical Quarterly, Vol. VI, No.2, 1930. This text is a Ceylonese
chronicle, divided into two parts, the Mahavamsa (Great Chronicle), followed by the Culavamsa (Little Chronicle).
Each treats a different period of history, in chronological order, and each was
written by a different author or authors. It is the dating of the first part of
the Culavamsa
that we are concerned with here. Geiger dates the authorship of this section
c.1211 AD.
In
the Mahabharata,
the reference to rupopajivana
(which translates as “depictions of life through figures or characters”) cannot
be dated or explained as written except for the commentary by Nilakhantha,
which explains it in 17th century terms, proving only that shadow theatre
existed in India in the 17th century. (One author in the Sangeet Natak puppetry issue number 98,
1990, gives the date of this commentary as the 12th century, and a second
author in the same issue gives the 17th century. Most scholars use the 17th.)
An alternate translation than that I have given in my Chapter Two follows. (The bracketed words, except
for rupopajivana,
are insertions by the article’s author, M. Naghabhushana Sarma.)
Presently
[depictions of] life through characters [rupopajivana] known as jala mandapika is popular in South
India. It shows leather characters behind a curtain [in tales] containing the
deeds of kings and ministers.
The
intent of this commentary is now clearer. Nilakhantha (Neelakantha Panditha in
Sarma’s article) seems to be saying that the type of puppets known in South
India are shadow figures, as opposed to North India where they are (string?)
puppets. The meaning of rupopajivana seems to be “puppets,” as rupa in Sanskrit means “form” or
“figure.” I have discovered recently that this word rupopajivana appears in the 12th book of
the Mahabharata,
and Victor Mair in his Painting and Performance, gives an English translation of the
entire passage with the meaning of rupopajivana as “puppets” (again see my Chapter Two for this). However, he does not show
the original Sanskrit word rupopajivana, so I was for a long time not connecting rupopajivana
with this passage in the Mahabharata! The dating of the various sections of the Mahabharata
is extremely difficult, if not impossible, so we are left with only
Nilakhantha’s commentary. It seems the ancient Indians, unlike the Chinese,
were not interested in historical dates or recording their chronological
histories.
Recently,
some Indian scholars have written articles (again see Sangeet Natak, number 98) noting that
the earliest evidences of their particular state’s shadow theatre are from the
12th century. These references are from other, more obscure Indian texts
(obscure to European scholars, in any case). Sarma mentions that this
theatrical, because of its use in major religious festivals, must have been already
a well-established entertainment by that time. So he infers that it must be
somewhat older than the 12th century, although there is no other evidence to
show exactly when it was created. Most scholars today give a wide range for the
dating of these old texts.
The
most reliable evidence we have is the existence of the Sanskrit drama Dutangada,
which is expressly defined in the introduction to the play as a chaya-nataka,
which literally translates as “shadow play”. Some scholars dispute this
meaning. One instead believes it could mean “an epitomized adaptation of
previous plays on the subject,” since “chayapajivin is one who composes poems which
are reflections of other poet’s works” (S. K. De, “The Problem of the
Mahanataka,” The
Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol VII, No. 1, March, 1931). The Dutangada has
been firmly dated by the scholars Cecil Bendall and Louis H. Gray as having
been performed in Gujarat at a spring-festival held on March 7, 1243, in other
words, in the 13th century. There are other later dramas also designated as chaya-natakas,
and in one of these (Dharmabhyudaya) there is the following stage direction: “from the
inner side of the curtain is to be placed a puppet (putraka) wearing the dress of an
ascetic.” This makes it virtually certain that a chaya-nataka is really a shadow play.
China
We
have already indicated above that the first certain mention of Chinese shadow
plays (ying xi)
is from the Sung Dynasty, in the 11th century (see my Chapter Two). However, I have recently
noted from Mr. Cohen’s researches (see above) that some of these texts are
unreliable sources, so the earliest text that is authentic and reliable
according to his studies is by Meng Yuan-lao (fl. 1110-1160). This then puts
the earliest authentic reference to Chinese shadow theatre in the 12th century.
(Mr. Cohen erroneous says “11th century” in his article.) The text is as
follows (the bracketed words are by Mr. Cohen).
Since the
Ch’ung-[ning] (1102-1106) and [Ta]-kuan (1107-1110) reign periods, among the
entertainers and artisans of the pleasure-quarter of the capital, there have
been…(the text gives seven names) shadow-theater [performers].
Southeast Asia
Early
references, i.e., the inscriptions c. 840 and 907 AD, to wayang and ringgit are ambiguous (see my Chapter Two again) because in them there are no
accompanying descriptions of these entertainments. Since these Javanese words
can mean something other than “puppets” or “shadows,” we cannot use these
inscriptions as indications of the existence of actual shadow theatre at that
time. The first unambiguous reference is in a 11th century poem, the Arjunawiwaha,
but as mentioned above, the text may have later additions, so we must date the wayang kulit
somewhat after the 11th century, possibly the late 1300’s. The particular
passage is:
Some, looking
at the wayang
[actually
the word in the text is ringgit], cry, overcome
with grief, though well aware it’s only carved leather engaged in acting.
The
words “carved leather engaged in acting” here exactly describe a shadow play.
But, leaving this text aside because of the difficulties caused by possible
later additions which confound the dating of any particular section, we find
the earliest mention of shadow theatre in Java is in the 14th century in the
Malay Hikayat
Raja-Raja Pasai (Chronicles of the Kings of Pasai), the oldest piece in the Malay
language. It describes the coming of Islam in the 13th century to the now
vanished kingdom of Pasai on the northern coast of Sumatera (Sumatra). For our
purposes, there is also mention of various kinds of wayang.
The land of
Majapahit was supporting a large population. Everywhere one went there were
gongs and drums being beaten, people dancing to the strains of all kinds of
loud music, entertainments of many kinds like the living theatre [wayang wong], the shadow-play
[wayang
kulit],
masked plays [topeng], step-dancing and musical dramas. These were the commonest sights and
went on day and night in the land of Majapahit. Food was in plentiful supply.
Everywhere there were people going to and fro in numbers past counting. [See
the Journal of
the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), vol. 33, pt.2, no. 190, June
1960, p. 103 in Malay and p. 161 in English, translated by A. H. Hill.]
A.
H. Hill dates this section of the chronicle, part 3, to 1390 AD, and as the
Majapahit period was pre-Islamic, we can conclude definitely that wayang kulit
(leather shadow-puppet play) was known to the Javanese during the Hindu period.
But none of this proves that the shadow play came from India, and does not
exclude the possibility that the shadow play is indigenous to Southeast Asia,
or that the Muslims passed this entertainment to the region. I mention this
last possibility because evidence of Islamic graves in Sumatra at an early date
show that Muslims were living in Southeast Asia as far back as the 13th
century, and possibly before that.
The
most certain evidence is from a group of bronze “zodiac beakers” from East
Java, which show wayang-style
figures around the outside. One in the Linden Museum in Stuttgart, Germany, is
impressed with the Indian Shaka era date 1253, that is 1331 AD (14th century).
The Middle
East: Arabia, Egypt, Persia, and Turkey
Shmuel
Moreh, in his 1987 article “The Shadow Play (Khayal al-Zill) in the Light of
Arabic Literature,” which can be found in the Journal of Arabic Literature, Volume
XVIII, states that
The earliest
Arab author to discuss systematically the technique of the shadow play, without
however using the term khayal al-zill, was the scholar Ibn al-Haytham (d. 1039) [11th
century] in his work on optics, Kitab al-Manazir. He defines khayal as
“[translucent] figures [of characters and animals] which the mukhayyil
<sic> moves so that their shadows appear upon the wall which is behind
the curtain and upon the curtain itself.”
For
Egypt, there exists three shadow play texts composed between 1260-77 (13th
century) by Ibn Danyal, an Egyptian physician.
In
the 14th century, Mongolian shadow players introduced the art to the Muslim
Persians. Claire Holt in her Art in Indonesia, 1967, page 131, says
Jacob [in “Das
Chinesische Schattentheater,” no. 3 in Georg Jacob and Paul Kahle, eds., Das Orientalische
Schattentheater, 1931] also mentions an interesting episode reported by the Persian,
Dshuwani, connected with “wonderful Chinese plays, never seen before by anyone,
behind a screen.” It was performed before the Mongol ruler Ogotai, third son
and successor of Jenghiz Khan.
For
Turkey, it is on record in the Tarih-i Misr [The Egyptian Chronicle] of Muhammed ibn Ahmet Ibn Iyas, an
eyewitness to the events (according to the Turkish scholar Metin And), that
shadow theatre was borrowed from Egypt in the 16th century. The context was a
shadow play performed in the palace on Roda Island in the River Nile for the
Sultan Selim, who afterwards told the performer, “When we go to Istanbul
[Turkey], you will come with us so that my son too can see the shadow play.”
_____________
We
are left from all of this with the information that shadow theatre was known
throughout Asia since at least the 11th century. But it is uncertain where it
was first known. The descriptions do not tell us if the practice was a new one,
or an older tradition. To reach a reasonable conclusion on this question, we
have applied some simple logic so that the probabilities of where it originated
can then be located.
Today,
many scholars assume that India is the originator of shadow plays. Even Mr.
Cohen, in his article mentioned above, says
In spite of the
problems associated with these early texts, there seems to be general agreement
that the shadow theater originated in India and was transmitted to Java.
In
a personal communication, the scholar Thomas Cooper of the University of
California in Berkeley has pointed out that the distribution of transparent
shadow figures and opaque ones in India seem to indicate that the transparent
type seen in China must have migrated from the upper part of the Deccan in
Southern India, where this type is concentrated, and which also happens to be
the area of Indian shadow plays that is closest to China. The opaque type
is found in the extreme south(east) of India, and Indonesia, which country
possesses the opaque type, is just below that point from India on the map. All
this seems to indicate that the spread of both types is likely from south India
going north to China and going south to Indonesia. Professor Cooper also
observes that the Turkish and Arab types show a resemblance to the Chinese in
that they are all of the translucent variety, and also they all utilize
horizontally held control rods; the later spread of shadow theatre to the
Middle East must have then been from China. Another bit of “proof” is that the
historical migrations of shadow puppeteers within India itself is from the
north (witness the Dutangada which was played in Gujarat in Northern India in the 13th
century) to the south of that country, where we find the shadow theatre
surviving today.
Mr.
Cooper has also discovered that we can apply a well-known principal of
historical linguistics to this problem of the place of origin of the shadow
play. This principle is called “greatest diversity” and Merritt Ruhlen in The Origin of
Language, 1994, page 163, says, speaking of an African homeland for the
world’s languages, “one expects the greatest diversity in those areas that have
been inhabited the longest, and in which, accordingly, variant forms will have
had the longest time to emerge and accumulate.” In India we find the greatest
diversity of shadow play forms. All the other areas have one basic type. For
instance, China, Turkey, and Egypt have articulated single-figure translucent
dyed leather types and not the opaque types, Indonesia possesses only opaque,
articulated single figures (except in Cambodia and Thailand where articulated
single-figure types exist alongside unarticulated composite “pictures”),
whereas India has both the opaque and translucent types and many other
variations besides, e.g., unarticulated figures (no moveable joints);
round-shaped, transparent leather “pictures” (scenes); sometimes one performer
handles all the puppets and speaks all the dialogues; sometimes many performers
are present behind the screen; some have exclusively male puppeteers; others
have both male and female performers; most use a portable screen, but one type,
the tolpavakoothu
of Kerala, uses permanent buildings to perform their plays; etc. This evidence
of so much diversity strongly speaks for an Indian place of origin for the
shadow play.
There
is today general agreement among theatre researchers that the shadow play
probably emerged from narrative picture scroll performances. Victor H. Mair has
proved in his Painting
and Performance that the earliest recorded occurrences of such scroll
performances were in India, and this type of entertainment traveled around the
world after spreading first to China and Indonesia. But it is difficult to form
a clear picture how such an evolution from scroll pictures to the shadow play
came about. After cutting out the figures from the scrolls, why place them behind
a curtain? I am of the opinion that since shadow theatre was invented after
puppetry in the late centuries BC, it may have been developed as an alternate
form of puppetry. Plato in his Republic, mentions a screen behind which entertainers performed circa
400 BC (see my Chapter One). Today this is
still the way hand puppets are presented, so it is not such a great step for
puppeteers to remain behind their screen with their scroll cutouts. In
addition, in India, the same entertainers often perform scroll presentations,
shadow, and puppet plays.
Now
we may again ask, when did the shadow play originate? The word saubhika,
mentioned in my Chapter Two, is often brought
out to prove the early existence of shadow plays in India. The first occurrence
of this word is in the Mahabhasya, a grammatical treatise in Sanskrit by Patanjali, dated
between 160 and 140 BC. There is a highly controversial passage in this
work, on which much ink has been spilled by scholars. The grammatical
configuration of the word in this passage is sobhanika, and can be found at 3.1.26 in
the treatise. It is a very complex and difficult text. There are many varied
controversies that came out from this passage, but the only one we will
consider here is the meaning of saubhikas, as a few scholars have translated it
as “shadow players”. Many other scholars have also strongly disagreed with this
idea. A good place to begin your own study of this passage is in Norvin Hein’s
book The
Miracle Plays of Mathura, 1972. He uses a text that is a very literal
translation, plus any words of unagreed-upon meaning are left in Sanskrit. Of
course, saubhika
is one of them. This was in order to consider the matter afresh. His conclusion
is that the saubhikas
are entertainers, narrators, and dancers. I have approached the problem by
looking at old Indian commentaries on this passage and definitions of the word saubhika. There
are two conflicting definitions. The earlier one is by Haradatta in the 10th
century AD who says that saubhikas mentioned in the Mahabhasya are teachers of actors. The
second definition of saubhika is by Somadevasuri also in the 10th century who defined it
as “a displayer of forms of various sorts at night by means of a cloth screen.”
This was a commentary on the word occurring in the Nitivakyamrita, in a list of professions
suitable for employment as spies. Which definition should we follow? If we look
at all known occurrences of the word saubhika and its variants in the ancient
literature of India we discover that saubhikas were always classed with entertainers
(magicians, musicians, acrobats, etc.). So the definition of Haradatta seems
incorrect and we are left with Somadevasuri’s definition of them as shadow
players. Considering that the first mention of saubhikas (sobhanika) was in the 2nd century BC (in
the Mahabhasya
mentioned above), it then follows that shadow plays were known in India by this
time.
THE
EARLIEST RECORDS OF SHADOW PLAYS IN EUROPE
Most
writers on early shadow plays in Europe mention the term ombres chinoises (Chinese shadows) that
became current in France in the 18th century. But there are earlier records
than the 18th century. My Chapter Two mentions a few. The recent book by
Henryk Jurkowski, referred to above, has a few more. It has been mentioned
often by scholars of the theatre that Italy first recorded this entertainment
(for Europe), but I could not find the exact reference or source until Mr.
Jurkowski’s book was published. In 1652, says Mr. Jurkowski (pages 94-95), the
Jesuit Domenico Ottonelli of Italy published a treatise Della Christiana moderazione del teatro,
where he says
Others are
called bianti
ombranti because they make their figures from pasteboard, and show them
from behind a lighted cloth, thus from beyond only the shadows of these figures
are seen, and this is the invention of Giuseppo Cavazza of Venice.
But
the very earliest European mention of shadow figures was in 1619 in Spain. The
name used was sombras
chinescas, which translates exactly as “Chinese shadows,” the same expression
as in France a century later. But there are indications of shadow plays in
Europe even earlier than this. One is in a passage in The Suma Oriental of Tomé Pires
(1512-1515), a Portuguese traveler, where he says
The land of
Java is [a land] of mummers and masks of various kinds, and both men and women
do thus. They have entertainments of dancing and stories; they mime; they wear
mummers’ dresses and all their clothes. They are certainly graceful; they have
music of bells – the sound of all of them playing together is like an organ.
These mummers show a thousand graces like these day and night. At night they
make shadows of various shapes, like beneditos in Portugal.
The
footnote on this passage in the 1944 London edition of Tomé Pires has thrown
off a few scholars since this explains beneditos as follows:
The word is
perhaps related to the sambenito or sanbenito (saccus benedictus), formerly worn by
penitents. It is possible that the tapih, or petticoat, worn by the graceful
Javanese dancers, suggested the comparison to Pires.
The
thinking here is that Pires is comparing the “various shapes” to beneditos
(petticoats), which definition is unknown. But this does not seem correct as
the Javanese shadow shapes cannot be compared to petticoats by any stretch of
the imagination. Plus, it seems the comparison made in this last sentence by
Pires is on the performances of shadow plays, and not the puppets’ shapes. So
it is my belief he is really comparing the shadow plays of Java, called wayang, to
shadow plays called beneditos, known in Portugal at this time. The passage can also be
read in this manner. This makes sense as the Portuguese had possessions in
Southeast Asia in the 16th century, when Tomé Pires wrote his book, and the
Portuguese could have learned their own play with shadows (called beneditos?)
from the Southeast Asians themselves. In addition, the fact that the European
shadow plays were always opaque shadows, as in Java, and not colored
transparencies as in China, further indicates that the ombres chinoises were derived from the
Javanese and not the Chinese.
An
explanation of the name ombres chinoises indicating Chinese rather than Javanese derivation
may be explained by the fact that the Javanese actually look like the Chinese,
at least to illiterate Europeans of the time, when knowledge of other parts of
the world was limited. A European seeing a Javanese playing his (or her) wayang may
have thought, with such limited knowledge of other cultures and geography, that
the dalang
(puppeteer) was a Chinese person, hence the popular name ombres chinoises (Chinese shadows).
Henryk
Jurkowski, on page 209 in his book referenced above, has speculated that during
the Middle Ages, in the mystery plays, shadow figures were known and used. His
evidence for this are the following instructions for the stage manager in the
1663 Polish mystery play Utarczka krwawie wojujacego Boga (Bloody Encounter of God Militant): “Here
you will show the flagellation through a cloth”; “Here you will show the
coronation with the crown of thorns by means of umbrae”; “Here you will show the
carrying of the cross by means of umbrae.” Jurkowski says further that
The use of the
Latin word umbra
for “shadow” suggests that such theatrical practice was nothing new, and
almost certainly happened in the earlier mystery plays.
_____________________