~. " MICHIGAN STATE um _ ..
' ’ OBERT wuum BEmqu
T 19177

-fl'

"" a,

w...» . a.

4“ --m

vnuitv’-~.-”‘ M...

$“'~~a—-~oo (-3
) " "'-*'.l at _,

a... m
vv-v......,
v“.

H
,._. . v}... , Jfl",.;~.~.
"' -

’""‘n 23‘ m*' .mm, , .u "
‘ fin?” 9.0:;— m “l ~_
— v‘ x”. hug _ \ .- r

.- , F
‘.\:.r::::_,.-v
.. .

k

“.5: 2:... "““‘..« -.._..
. . ‘~.u._«-
4—... u. .4... r-. m
um.“ «"..~.":J
~..3,‘: " h ,
"4.,7. ... u. .
.7 an‘nNAr1AngA
‘ .u. -— “—5.. >.‘4». ‘_.
. W .. TM.)- wfiv .
a. “ f. I - -. l
‘ )w ~' - "
\ r “ '

3‘ .T: .1,- . A .‘
I-O-u‘.44.. .‘I

 

 

 

r"

ABSTRACT

TOWARD A SEMIOTIC OF THE THEATER

by
Robert William Bethune

The study is concerned with the application of semi—
otics. the study of signs and codes. to the theater. The
question under investigation is. by what means does theatri-
cal communication take place?

An introduction to the major ideas of the field of
semiotics is presented, concentrating on the work of the
two pioneers of the field, C. S. Peirce and F. de Saussure.

A study is then made of the applications that have been made
of semiotics to literature and cinema. Two works. Roland
Barthes' §Z§ and Christian Metz's Language and Cinema. are
examined in detail.

An original semiotic theory of theater performance
is then presented. followed by a description of six theatri-
cal codes which seem to play an important part in many kinds
of performance around the world.

The theory is then applied in a detailed analysis
of a single production, a production of Shudraka's The Little
Clay Cart. presented at Michigan State University in March.
1977. The data on this production consisted of over 800 35mm
photographs in black-and-white. from which 67 were chosen for
analysis.

The key concept of the theatrical theory presented
is that the fundamental process in theatrical performance is

Robert william Bethune

the enactment of an event in public such that the manner in
which the event is performed follows patterns which are in-
terpretable by the audience as a commentary on the event.

If sequences of event and commentary are used to tell stories
of some kind. then the event and commentary communicate an
action which is fictional in such a way as to also make a
commentary on the fictional action. From this commentary

on the action. the audience gathers information about the
characters and themes involved in the action.

A hierarchichal structure of performance is proposed.
in which events belong to any of several orders. The first
order event is the performance as a whole: successive orders
are successively shorter subdivisions of the whole such that
an event of each successive order takes less time in perfor-
mance than does an event of the previous order.

In the analysis of The Little Clay Cart. 28 key events
are isolated. By analyzing the pictorial data with respect to
these events. we can see how the performance told an inter—
connected set of stories which cumulatively "tell" the
overall action of the play-ethe story of an idealized trans-
formation of the social. political. and religious life of
the kingdom of Ujjain in mediavel India.

Finally. an evaluation of the study and some ideas

of future research possibilities are presented.

TOWARD A SEMIOTIC OF THE THEATER

by
Robert William Bethune

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Theater

1977

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to eXpress my thanks to the members
of my thesis committee. Mr. Frank Rutledge and Dr. Donald
Treat. and to the chairman of that committee. Dr. Farley
Richmond. who has given of himself with great generosity
during the preparation of this thesis and during all my
stay at Michigan State University. The greatest thanks
are perhaps due to the cast and crew of The Infernal Mach-
‘lflfi and The Little Clay Cart. who put up with my endless
tape-recording and camera—clicking with unfailing good
humor and cooperation. Both these productions were produced
in the Michigan State University Arena Theater by the Depart-
ment of Theater under the direction of Dr. Richmond. A word
of thanks is also due to Dr. Lowell Fiet. from whom I first
heard the word semiotics-~which started the whole ball roll-

ing.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of figures.

Introduction.

Chapter I. Semiotics: a.historical introduction.

Chapter II.

Semiotics and criticisms methods from

literary and cinematic criticism.

Chapter III.
Chapter IV.

Toward a semiotic of the theater.
Semiotic analysis in the theater.

Chapter V. Sunary. limitations of the study.

and research opportunities.

Bibliography

iii

iv

21
37
69

161
167

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

The Jakobsen communication model.

Haaaet. Fairchild Theater.

.,WI MSU Arena Theater.

KiagiLaar; Summer Circle Free Festival theater.
Tha Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in—the-Moon

Iarigpldss Fairchild Theater.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
1h.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

First preliminary dance.
Stage manager' 8 dance.
Stage manager's benediction.
Vasantasena captured by Samsthanaka.
Vasantasena escapes.
Search in the dark.
Vasantasena tries to get in.
Vasantasena slips in.
‘Vasmmtasema is discovered.
Vasantasena welcomed.
Vasantasena escorted home.
lasseur enters. running.
lasseur hides in a temple.
Iathura and sidekick.
“This temple has no idol."
The masseur caught.

The masseur is beaten.

iv

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

23.
2h.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
31..
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
no.
41.
#2.
#3.
an.
1&5.
n6.
u7.
#8.
#9.

The masseur has an idea.

The masseur tries a trick.

The masseur's trick fails.

The masseur tries to sell himself.
The masseur is beaten again.
Darduraka interrupts.

Darduraka tries persuasion.
Darduraka intervenes.

Mathura threatens Darduraka.

The masseur gets away.

Darduraka throws dust.

The masseur asks for sanctuary.

The masseur explains his plight.

The masseur takes his ease.

The gamblers are paid off.

The masseur becomes a Buddhist monk.
Sharvilaka breaks through the wall.
Sharvilaka checks out the sleepers.
Sharvilaka takes the box.

The necklace given to Maitreya.

The necklace given to Charudatta.
The necklace entrusted to Maitreya.
Sharvilaka confesses the theft to ladanika.
Sharvilaka returns the jewels to lasantasena.
"would you accept...ladanika?'
Madanika kneels in gratitude.

naitreya and the dancers.

Figure 50. "The rain. and the music of the rain."
Figure 51. Vasantasena takes Samsthanaka's carriage.
Figure 52. Aryaka having escaped from prision.
Figure 53. Aryaka takes refuge in Charudatta's house.
Figure 5“. Aryaka takes Charudatta's carriage.
Figure 55. Chandanaka drives Viraka away.

Figure 56. Chandanaka gives Aryaka his sword.

Figure 57. Charudatta finds Aryaka in his carriage.
Figure 58. Samsthanaka tries to persuade Vasantasena.
Figure 59. Vasantasena rejects Samsthanaka's plea.
Figure 60. Samsthanaka tries to persuade Sthavaraka.
Figure 61. Sthavaraka refuses.

Figure 62. Samsthanaka.murders‘Vasantasena.

Figure 63. The monk in meditation: Vasantasena "dead".
Figure 6“. Vasantasena revived.

Figure 65. Samsthanaka.intimidates the clerk.

Figure 66. Viraka finds a body in.Pushpakaranda.
Figure 67. Charudatta at the place of execution.
Figure 68. Sthavaraka pleads for Charudatta.

Figure 69. Sthavaraka discredited by Samsthanaka.
Figure 70. Charudatta saved.

Figure 71. Samsthanaka is granted mercy.

Figure 72. Charudatta's benediction.

vi

Introduction

The problem which has been investigated in this study
might be phrased as a question: how does the theater "say"
what it has to say? In other words. how does the theater
communicate? This communication is seen as being close to
the essence of theater.

The framework of analysis chosen is that of semiotics.
the study of signs and codes. ‘What semiotics is and how it
has developed is treated briefly in Chapter I; the applica-
tion of semiotics to literature and film is presented in
Chapter II. These two chapters give the reader a working
idea of the approach taken by semiotics and of some of the
major concepts in the field.

In.Chapter III. an original semiotic theory of thea-
ter is presented. An effort is made to define a small vocab-
ulary of terms suitable for dealing with the phenomena en-
countered in theatrical performances: a.definition of thea-
ter is offered on the basis of these terms. A framework is
then provided with which to deal with the content of the
theatrical message. and the principle codes by which the
message is sent are described.

In.Chapter IV. an analysis of an actual production
is made in accordance with the theory presented in Chapter
IV. The technique employed is based on the idea of a

p. 1

p.2
‘modellbuch. A fairly large number of photographs of particular
moments are provided as the data base for a description of
the message which was sent by the production. Further ma-
terial was obtained through personal observation of rehear-
sal and performance. The production chosen for analysis is
a.production of The Little Clay Cagt by Shudraka. a drama
from the Sanskrit tradition of India. produced in the MSU
Arena Theater under the direction of Dr. Farley Richmond.

Finally. in.Chapter‘V. a final summary of the major
points of the study will be made. as will an evaluation of
the study with particular attention to the possibilities of
further work.

The methodology employed in this study is a combi-
nation of library work and audio-visual recording. The theo-
retical material on semiotics has been studied through fairly
extensive reading of the available literature. The produc-
tion.analysis material. as well as many theoretical ideas
about theater semiotics. has been developed in the course of
extensive observations ef rehearsals and performances of Tag
Infegaa; Maahine and Tag Little Clay Cart. both productions
done in the Arena.Theater of Michigan State University under
the direction of Dr. Farley Richmond. A first attempt at
data-gathering was made during final rehearsals of The Infar-
‘nal Machines this attempt. employing Super Eight film. failed
due to inadequate equipment and materials. The Clay Cart
material was obtained on 35mm color and black-and-white still

film. Complete tape recordings of both shows were made.

Chapter I
Semiotics: a historical introduction.

The field of semiotics dates from the work of Ferdi-
nad de Saussure. 1857-1913. and Charles S. Peirce, 1839-
1914. Neither man left a complete statement of his ideas
at the time of his death. In the case of Peirce. we have an
edition of his collected writings. in which an attempt was
made to give system to his thought by interleaving material
from his various works and fragments published and unpub-
lished. We are even worse off in the case of Saussure. who
left scarcely a single written word behind him. so far as
his ideas on semiotics are concerned. The book which ap-
peared posthumously under his name, Cours de Linguistique
Generals. is actually a reconstruction of his thought based
upon the notes of certain of those who heard his lectures.

It is unlikely that the two knew of each other's work.
Saussure. a French Swiss. taught at the Ecole des Hautes
Etudes and later at the University of Geneva; Peirce. an
American. was employed as a geophysicist by the United States
Coast Survey. Saussure was a linguist. Peirce. a logician.
Saussure published very little. preferring to disseminate
his ideas in lectures; Peirce was unable to publish much
of his work in semiotics. and taught regularly for only five
years. holding a lectureship and Johns Hopkins University.
The two were divided by geography. language. and field of

Po 3

 

.
.e..n
\

.‘l'

.i.‘
7
I..wl

0
One

..'

It!

p. h
study; nor are their ideas full compatible. As we shall see.
there are differences between their concepts of what semio-
tics is. what signs are. and how they function. These dif-
ferences are due to different goals: as a logician. the pur-
pose of Peirce's effort was to reformulate the foundations of
logic so as to place deduction. induction, and hypothesis for-
mation--what he called abduction--on an equal footing. His
theory of signs was a means to this end. On the other hand.
for Saussure it was linguistics that stood in need of reform.
He found the field to be stifled by a sterile historicism
and comparativism that produced little truly to advance our
understanding of the nature of language. By focusing on the
nature of language as a sign-system. he was able to escape
these errors of thought (as he conceived them). describing
language as a system of socially determined rules which
govern the speech behavior of speakers.

The field of semiotics thus springs from a dual tra-
dition. On the one hand. there is the Peircian tendency to
view signs as independent entities which can be classified
and analyzed in their own right: on the other is the Sau-
ssurian tendency to view signs as the products of human be-
havior. and therefore only describable in terms of that be-
havior. The tension between these two traditions is one of
the factors which contribute to the continuing vitality of
the field.

The Saussurian tradition tends to dominate today's
semiotics. The reason for this is to be found in the lives.

the intellectual styles. and the intellectual environments of

9-5
the two men themselves. Circumstances were such that Saussure's
thought was well known and widely respected before Peirce's
ideas on semiotics had gained much of a hearing.

Peirce was ahead of his time in America. Although he
is now gaining recognition as one.bf the most productive
minds this country has produced. he was unable to obtain a
proper hearing for his work in his lifetime. Most of his
published work in logic was technical in nature; little of
his work on signs saw print. ‘Though he lectured occasion-
ally for many years. his only regular teaching was during
a five-year period at Johns Hopkins University. He quit the
U.S. Coast Survey after thirty years due to controversies
with his superiors. and spent the last twenty years of his
life unemployed and often destitutute. though he was at his
most productive during this time.

By contrast. Saussure was in the right place at the
right time. After a brilliant start. publishing his first
and only book at age 22. he taught for ten years at the Ecole
des Hautes Etudes and for thirteen years more at the Univer—
sity of Geneva. A spellbinding lecturer. unlike Peirce. he
drew students from all across Europe and left a lasting im-
pression on French thought.

The time of linguistics had come in the Europe of
Saussure's day. The time of logic in America. the generation
of‘flhitehemd. was a generation away in Peirce's time. Peirce's
principal contribution was to philosophical Pragmatism: when

the study of logic came of age in America. it was not as

p.6
semiotics. as Peirce had envisioned. Due to Saussure's great—
er effectiveness as a communicator of ideas and as an inspir-
ation to students. and due to the greater receptivity of his
audience. his thought became and has remained the dominant
tradition in semiotics.

With this background in mind. let us turn to an exam-
ination of the ideas of these two thinkers, and of certain of
their followers as well. In the following. we will discuss
the nature of the field of semiotics. the nature of signs.
and certain ideas about codes. We shall deal in these areas
with the major ideas that seem to have widespread acceptance
among today's thinkers.

Peirce and Saussure both offer definitions of semio-
tics which are often quoted: let us here quote them again;
First. Peirce's: .

I hopt ot have shown that logic in its general accep-

tation is merely another word for semiotics. a quasi-

necessary or formal doctrine of signs. In describing
the doctrine as 'quasi-necessary'. I have in mind that
we observe signs as best we can. and. on the basis of-
fine observations. by a process which I do not hesi-
tate to call Abstraction. we are led to eminently
necessary judgements concerning what must be the naI
ture of the signs used by the scientific intellect.
Secondly. Saussure's:

Language is a system of signs that expresses ideas.

and is therefore comparable to writing. to the deaf-

mute alphabet. to symbolic rites. to codes of good
manners. to military signals. etc. It is simply the
most important of these systems. A science that stud-
ies the life of signs in society is therefore concei-
vable: it would by part of general psychology: we

shall call it semiology (from the Greek semieon.
'sign'). Semiology would teach us what signs are

 

1} Peirce. C.S.. Collected Papers. (Cambridge.
'Harvard University Press) 1931-1958.

p-7
made of and what laws govern their behavior. Since
this science does not yet exist. no one can say quite
what it would be like. but it has a right to exist
and it has a place staked out in advance. Linguis-
tics is only a part of the general science of semi-
ology: the laws discovered by semiology will be
applicable to linguistics. and the latter will find
itself linked to a well-defingd area within the to—
tality of the human sciences.
These definitions have intriguing similarities and differences.
The difference in terminology ("semiotics" and "semiology")
should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the two men
are talking about the same thing: a study of the signs peo-
ple use. Both words have remained current. Anglo-Saxon
writers using the one. Europeans the other. though "semiotics"
is gaining ground in Europe as well: since "semiology" also
denotes the medical study of symptoms. In both cases. the
subject-matter envisioned for the infant science is the same:
that it would study human sign usage.

There is'a difference of scope between the two defin-
itions: Peirce speaks only the "the signs used by the scien-
tific intellect”. while Saussure speaks of ”the life of signs
in society." In fact. Peirce does not strictly limit him-
self to those signs used by scientists in their work: how-
ever. he is interested not in communication. as is Saussure.
but in logical thought. While there is room in Saussure's
definition for such study. Saussure's concept is much the
broader of the two. since it embraces ultimately all that

people do that has meaning to other people--a broad range.

2. Saussure. Ferdinand de. Course in General Lin 1-
sties. Wade Baskin. tr. (New York: McGraw-Hills 1966 p. 16.

 

p. 8

An important. though rather subtle difference between
these two concepts of semiotics has been pointed out by Umber-
to Eco.3 Peirce refers to semiotics as a ”doctrines" Saus-
sure as a ”science“. The difference is whether semiotics
is to be a discipline. having its own rigorous system. or a
subject matter on which a variety of disciplines shall work.
Peirce's use of "doctrine" seems to imply the former. Saus-
sure's use of "science" the latter.

Peirce divided the field of semiotics into three bran-
ches: syntactics. semantics and pragmatics. This division
is emphasized in Charles Morris' Foundation g;_the Theggy
of sagas.“ The first of these. syntactics. is defined as the
study of the relation of signs to each other: semantics is
defined as the relation of signs to their meanings. and prag-
matics is the study of the relation of signs to their users.
For Morris. a complete account of semiotic phenomena can
only be obtained after analysis from all three viewpoints.

Syntactics. as its name suggests. is largely the
study of how signs are arranged in messages. or. as most
recent writers would say. in ”texts". Taking a theatrical
performance as an example of a "text". one would try to de-
termine what rules govern the spatial and temporal order of
signs such as gestures. lighting effects. costumes. etc.
Similiarly. semantics would attempt to find what rules gov-

3. Umberto Eco. A Theo of Semiotics. (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press) 1976.

h. Charles Morris. Foundation of the Theory_of Siga_.
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1938.

P- 9

ern the meanings of theatrical signs. Pragmatics. then.
would deal with signs in relation to both performers and aud-
iences. in an attempt to discover what rules govern the pas-
sage of information from one group to the other.

In contrast to this view. Umberto Eco has recently of-
fered a division of semiotics along more Saussurian lines.
In his view. the field must be divided into the semiotics of
signification and the semiotics of communication. emphasizing
that different methods of analysis are required in each. Eco
further attempts to do away with the persistant idea that a
sign is a kind of object. He regards as a sign anything
which can be taken as such. A sign is therefore regarded not
as a particular kind of thing but as any kind of thing which
is used in a certain way--what Eco calls the sign-function.5

Again taking a theatrical performance as text. one
would try to describe the manner in which various objects and
events placed on stage function as signs. and how these signs
are made to convey meaning. For'Eco. the first step would
require a specification of the ”code” of theater. i.e. the
system relating the signs and their meanings: the second step
would involve a description of how these signs are produced.

In.Eco and Harris. we can see the Saussurian tradition
vs. the Peircian: again. the distinction parallels that of
European and American. linguist and logician. An interesting

index of the length of time it took the two schools to become

 

5. Eco. op. cit.

p. 10
aware of each other can be found in two significant facts:
Morris' 1938 publication has a bibliography of works relevant
to semiotics. but the Cours de Linguistique Generals does not
appear. though it was published in 1916: conversely. Eco is at
present somewhat unusual among European writers for the amount
of attention he devotes to Peircean ideas.

An interesting development in the Saussurian tradition
of the nature of semiotics is due to Roland Barthes. who ques-
tions the relation of linguistics and semiotics as set forth
by Saussure. Barthes prefers to see semiotics as part of
linguistics. not the other way round.6 He has therefore
based his work on the notion that the proper method of sem-
ioticians is to apply outside of language concepts developed
within it. as we shall see in detail in Chapter II. To regard
linguistics as embracing semiotics. an idea we might call
Barthe's Inversion. has several advantages. not least of
which is that it recognizes that language appears to be
both the most complex human semiotic system as well as the
one which has been most successfully analyzed. and that the
most fruitful work on other sign systems has employed concepts
derived from linguistics.

However. it would seem that the relation of semiotics
to the rest of social science is more complex than this.

Work of importance to semiotics has also been done in the

 

6. Roland Barthes. "Elements de semiologie". Commun-
ications v. u.

p. 11
fields of information theory. zoosemiotics. non-verbal com-
munication. and other fields as well. It would seem prema-
ture to be drawing the boundaries too firmly as yet.
The most striking definition of semiotics that has
come to our attention is that of Umberto Eco.
Semiotics is in principle the discipline studying
everything that can be used in order to lie. If
something cannot be used to tell a lie. conversely
it cannot be used to tell the truth: it cannot in
fact be used 'to tell' at all. I think that the

definition of a 'theory of the lie' should be a

Pf°tt¥ comprehensive program for a general semio-
t cs.

While this may imply a negative. if not indeed cynical.

view of the uses of communication. still it puts in a nut-
shell the idea the semiotics is the study of that with which
people ”tell"--or communicate.

Havi I; thus gained some understanding of the various
views as the the nature of semiotics. let us turn to the ideas
offered as the the nature of the sign.

For Peirce.

a sign...is something which stands to somebody for

something in some respect or capacity. It addresses

somebody. that is. creates in the mind of that person

an equivalent sign. or perhaps a.more developed sign.
This definition is actually far less casual ithan its simpli-
city might seem to indicate. It relates four things: a sign.
its referent. a person who interprets the relation between

them. and a second sign that appears in the mind of the inter-

preter as a result of the encounter with the first sign. In

 

7. Eco. op.“eit.. v.2 p. 135.
8. Peirce. op. cit.. v.2 p. 135.

Ni?
win:

0'. a
how

I!)
(II

[I

p. 12

contrast. for example. our intuitive idea of a sign only takes
the Sign and the meaning. without including the idea that an
interpreter reacts with a second sign.

The second sign is called the interpretant in Peirce's
terminology. Since every sign functions by giving rise to a
second sign. the interpretant of a sign gives rise to an in-
terpretant of its own. and so forth ad infinitum. signs crea-
ting signs creating signs.

For Saussure. the sign is a two-part phenomenon. and
does not exist without both parts. The two parts. for Saus-
sure. are the ”signifier” and the ”signified"--that which
calls something else to mind. and that which is called to
mind by something else. The word "sign" is reserved for the
sum of these: signssignifier+signified. For Saussure.
therefore. the sign is not an object but rather a relation.
This relation. for Saussure. is always arbitrary in that there
is no necessity that any particular signifier be linked to
any particular signified. There is only the observable fact
that certain people or cultures happen to link certain things
up to make signs-~they could just as easily have chosen other-
wise.

Peirce divides signs into three types--icons. indices.
and symbols. The simplest of these. the symbol. corresponds
to the arbitrary concept of the sign employed by Saussure.

For Peirce. as for Saussure. there is no necessary connection

between the meaning of a symbol and the symbol itself. For

p. 13
example. let us take an ordinary word: "tree". The sound of
the word tree has no necessary connection with the concept
which is customarily associated with it. The same idea is
associated with totally different sounds in other languages.
such as "Baum” in German. "arbre" in French. "ki" in Japa-
nese. etc. When the relation between the sign and the mean-
ing is arbitrary in this fashion. Peirces classes the signs
as symbols.

An index. for Peirce. is a sign which merely directs
one's attention to its referent. A pointing finger. a pro-
noun. a proper name--these are all indexes in Peirce's term-
inology. All signs have some indexing properties. and con-
_vereely all indexes still have some element of meaning. since
at the very least they point out one thing and not another.
In some ways. the term "index” refers in Peirce more to a
function carried on by all signs that exist than to a speci-
fic type of sign.9

For Peirce. an ”icon" is

a sign which refers to the Object which it denotes

merely by virtue of characters of its own. and which

it posesses. jYCt the same. whether any such object
exists or not.
Here we have a concept of a type of sign quite opposed to
Saussure's principle that all signs are arbitrary. since it
is asserted that the inherent nature of some signs suffices
9. Carotini. Enrico. and Paraya. D., Le Projet Sem-

iotique: elements de semiotique generals. (Paris: Delarge)
1975 p- 33.

10. Peirce. op. cit.. v. 2 p. 1&3

p. in
to make the sign a sign. all other considerations aside. In
Peirce's thought. therefore. there are signs which are not
arbitrary as well as those which are.

However. Peirce cannot simply let things rest at this
point. In considering the nature of icons. he finds himself
forced to admit that even icons have a high degree of arb-
trariness about them.. Thus. for example. he admits that a
portrait--one of his favorite examples of an ican—-bears
"only a slight and conventional relation to its subject.”11

One might suppose. then. that Saussure has the last
word on the subject. since simply by saying that all signs
are arbitrary he can evade the whole issue. However. he
finds himself faced by the same problem. for he too has the
impression that there are some signs which are more intimate-
ly related to their referents than otheres. He calls these
signs ”motivated” signs: a motivated sign being one which
has been chosen as the signifier of a particular signified
on the basis of inherent characteristics. Strictly speaking.
this does not violate the principle of arbitrariness. since
another sign could have been chosen instead: still. the idea
does not rest easily in Saussure's theory. since an important
role is given to the innate characteristics of some signs.
but not all. The distinction is opposed to the spirit.
though not the letter. of arbitrariness.

 

11. Peirce. op. cit.. v.2 p. 51.

p. 15

Whence come these difficulties? The simple fact is
that may signs do appear to have a direct and intimate re-
latiionship to their referents. It is difficult to say that
the relationship between a portrait and the sitter. for exam-
ple. is purely arbitrary. since we would usually be able to
recognize the person from the portrait though we had never
met. Yet the portrait is clearly a sign: it communicates to
us. by the use of certain pictorial conventions. what a cer-
tain person looks like. The opposing. yet complementary.
stands taken by Peirce and Saussure arise from this duality.
This problem goes by the name of the question of iconicity.
and remains an unsettled issue today.

The key point. of course. is the role that is played
by conventions in iconic signs. Since Saussure is insistent
on the arbitrary nature of all signs. he would like very
much to say that the motivated signs are actually conventional.
rather than natural. but he cannot escape the impression that
motivated signs are somehow different. Though "every means
of expression used by society is based in principle on con-
vention." there are still signs which have ”the rudiment of
a natural bond between the signifier and the signified."12
For Peirce. on the other hand. an icon can only be said to
be conventional in that it establishes its own convention.
since it conveys meaning through its own inherent properties.
The problem. in turn. for Peirce is that icons are full of

conventions: as we mentioned before. he admits to the pre-

 

12. Saussure. op. cit.. p. 68

p. 16

sence of conventions in portraits. though portraits for him
are icons. On the other hand. for Saussure a portrait is
actually a conventional sign. but one whose conventions are
”motivated". Thus. Peirce and Saussure wind up with oppos-
ing. though also complementary stands.

To use Eco's terms. up to this point we have been
dealing with the semiotics of signification primarily. especi-
ally with two issues: the nature and types of signs. and the
problem of iconicity. There remains, then. the semiotics of
communication. to which we now turn.

At this point. the theory becomes almost completely
Saussurian. Peirce. being a logician. had little interest
in communication itself: his semiotics is devoted to the ends
of logic. Saussure. on the other hand. could not very well
do linguistics without confronting the social use of language.
i.e. communication--although it was his contention that the
linguistics of his own day managed to avoid very nicely the
fact that most people use language to talk with. Since Saus-
sure. many prominent names in semiotics have been linguists
by profession-~Jakobsen. Prieto. Buyssens. Hjelmslev. It is
natural. therefore. that much thought has been given to the
semiotics of communication by workers with such a background.
and it is also natural that their ideas should owe much to
linguistic theory. especially Saussure's linguistics.

It is a fundamental point of modern semiotics that

signs do not occur in isolation. Signs occur in connection

P- 17

with other signs. not only in messages but in systems which
govern the formation of messages. These systems are termed
codes. In order to communicate. signs are selected from
codes and arranged in messages: a message is both a subset
of a code and a ruleful arrangement of that subset.

A code. of course. is used to communicate. A very
well-known analysis of communication is due to Roman Jakob-
sen. His analysis is based on a model of the communication

process that can be diagrammed as shown in figure 1.

(CODE)
EMITTER ----------------- MESSAGE -------------------- RECEIVER

(MEDIUM) (MEDIUM
(REFERENT)

Figure 1. The Jakobsen communication model.

Jakobsen analyzes this model in terms of six functions of
communication:

1. The referential function relates the message
and the referent. Essentially. this is the same as the Saus-
surian concept of the sign as the relation between a signifi-
er (message) and a signified (referent).

2. The emotive function relates the emitter and the
referent. making known the attitude of the emitter toward
the referent.

3. The conative function is the elicitation of a reac-

tion in the receiver. a reaction to both message and referent.

p. 18

4. The esthetic function calls attention to the mes-
sage as a message. In connection with this. we ought to re-
member that if a work of art such as a theatrical performance
communicates. it carries out all six functions. not merely
this single function. To conclude. as does Pierre Guiraud,
that

in the arts. the referent is the message. which

thus ceases to be the instrument of communication

and becomes its object...
is to forget this essential fact. and indeed. to forget that
art has content as well as form.

5. The phatic function is the control of the com-
munication process--starting it. stopping it. ensuring that
the message gets through.

6. The metalinguistic function is the definition
of elements of the code by means of other elements.

It is fairly easy to find theatrical examples of
these six functions. The referential function corresponds
to the telling of the story: the emotive function corresponds
to what we shall refer to as commentary. or the interpreta-
tion of the story: the organization into one dramatic form
or another corresponds to the esthetic function. We hope
always to elicit a reaction from the audience--tears. laughter.
etc. Phatic devices in theater include the use of the curtain.
blackouts. entrances and exits. applause. and so forth.

There are several playwrights such as Peter*Handke and
Pirandello who make a specialty of the metalinguistic func-
tion: writing plays about the theater.

p. 19

Another important idea about codes is Hjelmslev's defi-
nition of connotation. For'Hjelmslev. all codes have two
levels. a plane of expression. denoted by the letter E. and
a plane of content. denoted by C. The code is essentially
the system of relations between the two-~R. The simplest
case of a sign. therefore. is what Hjelmslev calls a denota-
tion. an EXpression Related to a Content. expressed as ERC.

A simple system. ERC. can then become the expression
plane of a second system. The result would be written as
(erc)RC. This is what Hjelmslev calls a connotation. Such
connotations can be complicated ad infinitum: ((erc)RC)RC
and so forth.

An example of this can be drawn from Cocteau's Tag
Infernal Machine. In this reworking of the Oedipus myth.
Jocasta continually wears a long scarf about her neck. At
the simplest level. the costume piece. more or less meaning-
less in itself. is the expression. E. of the content. C.
Jocasta's scarf. This relation is made by the fact that the
actress wears it: thus. it takes its place in what we could
call a costume code: it forms a denotation ERC meaning
”scarf of Jocasta". Shortly after her first entrance.
Tiresias chokes her briefly by accidentally stepping on the
trailing end of the scarf. Thus. we have a new expression
of the form (erc)RC meaning ”Jocasta's scarf is a choker."
Finally. at the end of the play. she hangs herself by the
scarf. and the scarf becomes a signifier of the form

((erc)RC)RC meaning The Scarf of Jocasta That Chokes Her To

p. 20

Death. Because of our previous knowledge of the play. we have
suspected this meaning all along. of course-~assuming that we
have been the least bit clever about such things. Thus. in
accordance with.Hjelmslev's model. the signifier acquires
layer upon layer of meaning.

The above ideas about codes were developed with re-
ference to language. Since World War II. important work has
been done on non-verbal codes. particularly in the areas
known as proxemics and kinesics. Kinesics is the study of
the use of gesture and movement in communication: proxemics
is the study of the meaning of interpersonal distance. Both
fields share the same fundamental ideas: that ”body language”
is governed by socially determined codes. The major writers
in this area have been two Americans. Ray L. Birdwhistell
and Edward T. Hall. This work has considerable importance
for the semiotics of theater. since it is largely through
movement and gesture that performers communicate much of the

theatrical message. as we shall see in Chapter IV.

Chapter II

Semiotics and criticism: methods
from literary and cinematic criticism.

From the point of view of theater studies. the pre-
ceding material does not seem at first to have much to offer.
Its connection with the realities of theatrical production
cannot but seem tenuous. artificial and abstract. It is of
course one purpose of this study to show that this is not the
case: and so it is considered that a presentation of semiotic
analysis of art forms usually considered to have a rather close
kinship with theater might show that semiotics does indeed
have valuable insights to offer. Such a presentation will
also bring to our attention valuable ideas and techniques
for the following analysis of theater from the point of view
of semiotics.

To this end. then. we have chosen to examine the work
of two semioticians who appear to have presented some of the
most fruitful semiotic analyses to date: Roland Barthes and
Christian.Metz. From Barthes' work. we have selected his
detailed study of ”Sarrasine”. a short story by Balzac. From
Metz. we have chosen to discuss his book. Langaage and Cinema.

Barthes' study of "Serrasine'. entitled SZZ. is essen-
tially a work of literary criticism. while Metz's Langaage and
Qaaaaa is an effort toward a theory of cinema, This difference.

p. 21

p. 22

the difference between theory and criticism. is of some im-
portance to the semiotic study of theater. since under sem-
iotics. both approaches lead to similiar results. A brief
analysis of Barthes and Metz will show how this comes to pass.

Barthes. of course. is the critic. His concern with
literature generally is second to his concern with one text
in particular. that of Balzac's "Sarrasine". His method. as
we shall see. is a kind of reading in slow motion of the text,
a process of

working back along the threads of meanings. of

abandoning no site of the signifier without en-

deavoring to ascertain the code or codes of which

this sits is perhaps the starting point (or the

goal).
Such a conception is thoroughly semiotic. It involves see-
ing the text as an assemblage of codes. sets of relations
between signifieds and signifiers. His goal is to unravel
the web of codes of which the text is composed: his tool for
the purpose is connotation. understood in a way fundamentally
in agreement with the ideas of Hjelmslev outlined in the
previous chapter. Barthes' method is to break the text
down into units sufficiently small to permit assigning them
to one or another code of connotation. and to show how these
codes are used by Balzac. and also by the reader. to construct
a system of meaning from the text. a system by which the text

is understood.

 

13. Roland Barthes. 812. (New York: Hill and Wang
19?“) p. 12.

P- 23

We shall explore this approach in more detail later
on. For now. let us contrast it. having identified it as a
"critical” approach. to what we wish to identify as the
"theoretical” approach to cinema taken by Metz.

Metz deals only briefly with specific films..This
is both characteristic of a theoretical approach and a con-
sequence of it. since the essence of a theoretical appraoch
is to attempt to set up a system of categories or principles
that can eXplain any random example drawn from the subject-
matter of the theory. His central concern is to find a way
of defining that which is peculiar to the cinema. that which
is ”specifically cinematic." He thus opens the way to the
definition of the "cinematic language system". that system
of codes which is found only in the cinema as an art form.
Such an approach is also thoroughly semiotic: indeed. it has
a longer tradition behind it than does Barthes' approach.
since it is essentially the same approach as that taken in
linguistics. where the concern until very recent times has
always been with the system of language rather than with
individual utterances.

Having made this distinction between two possible
approaches to the study of books and films. it is now time
to point out that ultimately both approaches arrive at the
same point--a system inherent in the work of art. whether
literary or cinematic. This common purpose finally under-

mines the distinction between theory and criticism. since

p. 2b

in both cases. we are ultimately left with an observation of
the same phenomenon: the structure by which the work of art
is endowed with meaning. Looking back on the seemingly op-
posed approaches of Barthes and Metz. we can now see that both
must of necessity involve dealing in both the particular and
the general. Barthes cannot succeed in demonstrating that
Balzac's "Sarrasine" has a particular organization without
treating it as an example of the kind of organization that
typifies short stories generally. nor can.Metz derive a "cine-
matic language system” without displaying particular examples
in which some aspect of the system can be found. Thus. both
approaches are ultimately both theoretical and critical. since
both involve making broad statements that might apply to a
whole range of works. and both also involve making particular
statements that apply'only to the particular work in question.
The statements made. of course. are also debateable at either
level.

In the semiotic study of art. then. we find ourselves
betwixt and between our ordinary categories of intellectual
endeavor. ‘We are doing something rather less impressionistic
and personal than when we do ordinary criticism. and rather
less abstract and philosophical than when we do ordinary
theory. We take a position somewhat between those of esthetics
and criticism. and some might be so grand as to call it a sci-
ence. The semiotic study of art. whether literature. film.
theater or any other. is not of course a science: not yet. at

any rate. though it can become one. It is wiser to be modest.

Po 25

though perhaps technically inaccurate. and label our specu-
lations in this area as criticism. since by this term we will
at least be honest about the reliability of our findings.
However. we should not allow such a label to deter us from

making general remarks when called for.

Let us devote our attention for a while to literature.
holding the cinema in abeyance. so as to return as we promised
to Roland Barthes' §[;, We shall present his method of oper-
ating on the text after a consideration of the ideas on which
he bases his procedure.

The most important idea Barthes employs is a basically
Hjelmslevian idea of connotation. For Barthes. as for Hjelm-
slev. connotation is an extra dimension of the signifier.
over and above the direct relation of expression and content
found in denotation.

An example of this can be provided from the title of
Barthes' book: SZZ. This combination of enigmatic letters
is drawn from Barthes' discussion of the name of the central
character of the story. a sculptor named Sarrasine. In French.
a final e connotes femininity: a specifically masculine ver-
sion of this name. Sarrasin. exists. Therefore the name has
a double connotation of femininity. based on the opposition
in the French language between final e/no final e and between
8/2. The significance of this connotation is its ambiguity:
Sarrasine is in fact a man. who is symbolically unmanned in

the story through his falling in love with a castrato under

p. 26

the impression that the castrato is actually a woman. Cas-
tration. psychologically the most important theme in the
story. is symbolized by the unusual spelling of Sarrasine--
unusual due to its treatment of the opposition 8/2.

The ambiguity of the opposition 8/2 is an illustra-
tion also of one of Barthes' points about connotation:

Connotation. releasing the double meaning on

principle. corrupts the purity of communica-

tion: it is a deliberate 'static‘. pains-

takingly elaborated. introduced into the

fictive dialogue between author endureader.

in short. a counter-communications
Since on the basis of the name we expect Sarrasine to be a
woman. we are set up for a surprise when he turns out to be
masculine. In like manner we are set up for a surprise
when the ”woman" Sarrasine falls in love with turns out to
be a castrato.

. Finally. Barthes points out that in literature. the
system of denotation is itself used deceptively. and is ac-
tually merely "the last of the connotations. the superior
myth by which the text pretends to return ... to language
as nature.”15 For Barthes. a sentence in a literary text
operates by having the appearence of an ordinary. everyday
sentence. an appearence which gives it the air of truth. and

thereby creates an illusion fundamental to literature--the

effect of a representation of reality.

 

1h. Roland Barthes. ibid.. p.9.
15. Roland Barthes. ibid.. p.9.

Po 27
The second major idea Barthes employs is that of the
plurality of meaning of the text. He describes a text which
would represent the perfection of literature:

In this ideal text. the networks are many and
interact. without any of them being able to
surpass the rest: this text is a galaxy of sig-
nifiers. not a structure of signifieds: it has
no beginning: it is reversible: we gain access
to it by several entrances. none of which can

be authoritatively declared to be the main one:
the codes it mobilizes extend as far as the eye
can reach. they are indeterminable (meaning here
is never subject to a principle of determination.
unless by throwing dice): the systems of meaning
can take over this absolutely plural text. but
their number is never clofad. based as it is on
the infinity of language.

Thus. there are not only multiple meanings in the ideal text.
but no meaning can be asserted to be partial: each and every
one of them is ”the whole truth”.
Actual texts are not ideal. of course: still Barthes
insists that they are plural. even if incompletely so.
All of which comes down to saying that for the
plural text. there cannot be a narrative struc—
ture. a grammar. or a logic: thus. if one or an-
other of these are sometimes permitted to come
forward. it is in proportion (giving this expres-
sion its full quantitative value) as we are deal-
ing with incompletely plural texts. fhxts whose
plural is more or less parsimonious.
We therefore. interestingly enough. can only have structure
at the price of imperfection. since the perfect work would
have. simultaneously. every structure and no structure at

all.h It is at this level of imperfection. so to speak. that

 

16. Roland Barthes. ibid.. p. 5
17. Roland Barthes. ibid.. p. 6

p. 28
it becomes possible to employ connotation as an analytical
tool. It is only here that only certain connotations will
exist. rather than an infinity of possible connotations.
Since only a finite number of connotations will exist. it is
possible to find a system in them. To find the system of con-
notations of a work of literature is of the essence of Barthes‘
method of analysis.

Barthes begins with an arbitrary division of the text
into what he calls "lexias". These are units of variable
length. the shortest being single words. the longest being
on the order of a paragraph. Each lexia is examined in turn:
a process which only a critic of Barthes' ability could save
from utter aridity. since there are 561 lexias in all. The
examination of each lexia explores the connoted and denoted
meanings of the lexia in question. and assigns it to a place
in the unfolding of the story according to five postulated
codes. These codes are called the code of actions. the code
of hermeneutics. the code of culture. the code of semes. and
the code of symbols.18

Perhaps the most painless introduction to Barthes' set
of five codes is to follow his own footsteps through the first
three lexias of the story. since the concept of these codes
is best seen and understood in action. in the organization

and commentary that Barthes employs them to provide.

 

18. Roland Barthes. ibid.. p. 19.

p. 29

The first three lexias of ”Sarrasine" read:

#1

I was deep in ofiéRgéstflgse daydreamsfi‘2 which

overtake even the shallowest of men. #3 the

midst of the most tumultuous parties.
As for the first lexia. Barthes points out that it asks a
question. since it raises the issue of who or what Sarrasine
is. a question to which no answer will be given until quite
a bit later in the story. lexia.#153 to be exact, a matter
of some 13 pages. This is an example of the hermeneutic code.
defined as

all the units whose function it is to articulate

in various ways a question. its response. and the

variety of chance events which can either formu-

late the question or delay its answer. or even19

constitute an enigma and lead to its solution.
He then notes the androgynous properties of the spelling of
the name Sarrasine. as we defined them earlier. Noting that
the connotation of femininity is important in this story.
and that many different means are used to connote it. he
defines this lexia. #1. as also containing a seme. or unit
of connoted meaning--the some of femininity.

At this point. what information there is to glean
from the first lexia. the title. has been collected-~time to
move on. In the next lexia. Barthes notes the first appear-

ence of a pattern. a symbolic pattern which will be carried
through the story: the contradiction expressed in the word

 

19. Roland Barthes. op. cit. The quotation from
Sarrasine appears with Barthes' analysis inserted between
lexias on p. 17 and p. 18 of’SZZ. and in continuous form on
p. 221. where the story is reprinted in continuous form with
superscgipt lexia numbers. The analysis here is drawn from
p. 17.1. e

p. 30

”daydream". A daydream represents an improper intrusion into
the realm of the day of something appropriate to the night.
A daydream is therefore. symbolically. a transgression of
boundaries. The central theme of the story. castration. is
also a transgression of boundaries in another way: many other
samples of boundary-transgression are to be found. We thus
have what might be called a formal or structural symbolism
carrying the them of castration throughout the story. The
units which express this symbolism belong to the code of
symbols.

The daydream. however. has another dimension as well.
To be deep in a daydream is an action. It is not. of course.
a very active sort of action. but it contrasts with other
possible actions. such as mingling with the other guests or
dancing or listening to the music. A lexia which contains
such an indication of action. of someone doing something.
belongs to the code of actions. It is this code. of course.
which bears the burden of "advancing the plot”.

Moving on to the third lexia. the fact that there
is a party going on. in what will turn out to be a private
home in Faubourg Saint-Honors. a very wealthy upperclass
neighborhood in Balzac's Paris. forms a seme of wealth. The
lexia as a whole. however. is something like a proverb to
Barthes. It is a statement that makes its appeal to the
collective experience of the readers as does a proverb:
the writer (Balzac) obviously expects it to be something
which will refer to the common cultural knowledge of readers.

p. 31

Such references. for Barthes. are references to the code of
culture. Thus. in the first three lexias of the story. we
have examples of all five codes. One or two are perhaps
rather forced. but they may serve as examples nonetheless.

Obviously. most of these meanings are what we should
normally call connotative. Barthes seems to think of conno-
tation in two senses: all meaning which is the result of a
denotation while not part of the denoted meaning. and on the
other hand. all meaning based on what is not. strictly speak-
ing. verbally expressed. It is the first type of connotation
that is expressed in the code of semes: the more general
kind of connotation might better be called reference. Most
such reference involves the use of codes existing in society
that the writer adopts at his convenience: Faubourgzwealth.

In deference to the plurality of meaning of the text.
Barthes refrains from discussing structure above the level
of the lexias. Thus. though he arranges lexias into chains
of related lexias. especially those dealing with questions
and with actions. he does not build these chains into any-
thing larger. On the other hand. he does point out that
such analysis brings up the data required for any other kind
of analysis: historical. psychoanalytic. thematic. imagistic.
etc. His method of analysis would therefore be prior to any

other method of whatever kind.20

 

r.—

20. Roland Barthes. ibid.. p. 1h.

p. 32

In.§zz, then. Barthes creates a procedure for liter-
ary analysis that is both remarkably systematic and detailed
while never losing sight of the whole. It seems clear that
whether or not we accept in detail Barthes' divisions of the
text or his reading of Balzac's story. we can still draw up-
on his method and concepts with profit in studies of other
works in other media. Indeed. we will see some of these ideas
in Metz's analysis of cinema. though formulated from another

perspective.

In Christian Metz's Langaage and Cinema we find an
attempt to develop a concept of just what it is that the semi-
otic study of film ought to be in search of--the cinematic
language system. It is less an attempt to describe the cine-
matic language system than an effort to provide a conceptual
framework that will alow us to recognize such a system when
it is found. and to provide some idea of what it is we’re
looking for. In short. he asks if we had a cinematic language
system in front of us. what would it look like?

Metz's procedure is based on an attempt to seperate
from the cinematic language system everything that is part
of films without being part of the system. He begins with
the entire world of facts that relate to film and films and
proceeds to divide and subdivide the material until he arrives.
by process of elimination. at something that must contain
what he is looking for. This effort results in a defini—
tion of the object of study from which further work can flow.

P- 33
The first distinction Metz makes. following Gilbert
Cohen-Seat. is between the cinema as a social institution
and the film itslef as a work of art. Cohen-Seat referred
to this distinction as that between "cinematic fact" and
”filmic fact“. and Metz follows this usage. The pertinent
point is that

film is only a small part of the cinema. for
the latter represents a vast ensemble of phen—
omena. some of which intervene before the film.
... others after the film. ... and finally
others during t5? film but aside from and out-
side of it ....

This distinction amounts to separating the film as a work
of art from its social. economic. and technological context
for the sake of analysis. and announcing that the semiotics
of film. at least for the present. takes only this limited
subject as its domain.

Metz then turns to the region within the film itself.
It is here that he reintroduces the word "cinema". setting
"the cinema” in opposition to "the film".

From a semiotic point of view. it is in one's

own interest to deal with these two (both simple
and manageable) terms in such a way as to differ-
entiate those concrete units of discourse. each

of which is a 'film' and a particular totality
capable of being directly attested. from that which
is the virtual sum of all films and as such. the
place where different structures of signification
... are felt to flow tegethsr and to be organized
in a coherent manner.

 

21. Christian Metz. Langaage and Cinema. (The Hague.
Mouton. 1974) p. 12.

22. Christian Metz. ibid.. p. 22-23.

p- 34
In this distinction. we can see Metz setting up the framework
of the distinction between code and message which we have seen
before.

However. Metz is at great pains to ensure that he is
not misunderstood as sayinga that there is a cinematic code
which is feund only in the cinema as the sole means of expres-
sion in the cinema. This is his motivation for making
the distinction between film and cinema: it is his opinion
that there are a great many codes which can be found in films.
and the individual character of the cinema is due to the uni-
que way in which these codes are organized by the cinematic
language system. The system therefore operates only at the
level of codes. not at the level of individual signs.

Metz is thus insistent upon a plurality of codes in
cinema just as is Barthes in literature. He points out that
the viewer of a film makes use of at least seven semantic
systems. at least some of which could be called codes: the
knowledge of the significance of the objects shown in the
image: the ability to make sense of the image: the knowledge
of the connotations of the objects shown in the culture: the
knowledge of the narrative structures used in the culture:
knowledge of the language of the dialogue: the ability to
follow the music accompanying the film. and the knowledge
of specifically cinematic devices such as dissolves. zooms.

etc.23

 

23. Christian Metz. ibid.. p. 33-3“.

Po 35
This plurality of codes makes the problem of setting
up a ”grammar” of the system. as Metz points out. a very com-
plex one. It is necessary to learn how each separate code
is arranged syntactically. which would involve setting up a
kind of subgrammar for each code. and also learning how the
codes can interrelate such that a statement in one code may

be influenced by a statement in another.2u

For example. in

the beginning of Zefferelli's Romeo and Juliet. the soft lute
theme and the misty shot from high above the city at dawn

have a powerful effect on the opening lines: "Two households.
both alike in dignity/In fair Verona. where we lay our scene..."
The question is. what is the system that controls such juxta-
positions? It is such questions that are at the heart of

the search for the cinematic language system.

It may be noted. however. that one level of analysis
seems to be missing. ‘What about the cinematic sign. the
minimal unit of cinema? For Metz. there cannot be such a
minimal unit of the cinema. since there is no unique code
of the cinema. He envisions rather a complex situation in
which many different kinds of minimal units co-exist. If
somewhere there is a minimal unit of the cinema. it could
be found. in Metz's opinion. only after prolonged research
on the basis of assuming the cinematic language system to

be operating at the level of codes. not of signs.25

 

25. Christian Metz. ibid.. Chapter 9.

p. 36

What has been gained by working through all this
material? Barthes‘ thinking about literature and Metz's
thinking about cinema have several points in common which
may well prove to be of value for the semiotic study of the
theater. These are:

1. Metz's method of isolating the object of study
cannot be followed step by step for the theater. since in
theater one does not produce an artifact--a long strip of
celluloid with Pictures on it--that can be securely iden-
tified as "the work of art". However. the need to so isolate
the subject matter of theater semiotics is no less pressing.
and Metz's procedure can be adapted to provide at least a
starting point.

2. Metz's position on minimal units of cinema will
probably be found to apply to theater also. mutatis mutandis.

3. The existence of several types of codes in both
literature and cinema suggest very strongly that the same
situation will hold true of theater.

h. The importance of connotation as a fundamental
process in conveying meaning in literature and cinema would
also lead one to expect the same in theater.

5. Barthes’ technique of dividing the individual
work into very small fragments will probably prove fruitful
in the analysis of theater. since it enables one to isolate
chains of denoted and connoted meaning. The isolation of
such structures would then facilitate the description of the

structure of the performance.

Chapter III.

Toward a semiotic of the theater.

The purpose of this chapter is to offer definitions
of a few key terms. to offer a definition of the theater.
to offer a formula for the content of theatrical messages.
and finally to describe 6 basic code systems in the theater.
The fundamental point of this chapter is to attempt to show.
in a preliminary fashion. how the theater is used for com-
munication of ideas. In brief. the position taken in this
chapter is that the theater. a form of public action. is used
for communication by means of a small group of codes. some
of which are adapted from the culture. others of which are
specific to the theater and not found in the surrounding
culture. We shall attempt to use examples from a wide variety
of’Western and Asian theatrical traditions to illustrate the
range of applicability of the concepts involved.

The first distinction to be made is between the per-
formance and the fiction which may be a part of the content
of the performance. ‘We intend to define theater in such a
way as to concern ourselves. at the most fundamental level.
only with theater as a public activity--a thing which peOple
do. As a preliminary step. we wish to make clear that when
we use the word performance. we mean only the actual actions

taken by the performers at the time and place of performance.

P0 37

p. 38

For example. if we applied our terms strictly. to say "a
man stood up and told a story" is not limited to a descrip-
tion of his performance but includes a statement as to the
content of his performance as well. A description of the
performance and nothing but the performance would be. "a
man stood up and spoke certain words. a transcription of
which follows." This second statement consists only of an
accurate record of the performance. with no statement as to
content. The importance of this distinction will become
apparent upon the discussion of the definition of theater
which we will proffer: in brief. we must distinguish the
performance from the content of the performance in order to
be flexible enought to deal with the vast range of content.
both fictional and non-fictional. to be found in theatrical
performances the world over.

There is a distinction to be made as well between
the events of the performance which tells a story and the
events of the story itself. This distinction is very simi-
liar to that which was just made. but is not the same because
the previous distinction was between the event of performance
and any possible content, while the current distinction is
between particular events which go to make up a performance
and a particular kind of event which may be the content of
that performance. It is necessary to make this distinction
very clear because our ordinary way of talking regularly
confuses the two. We say. for example. that "Hedda Gabler
burns the manuscript”. y this we often mean both an action a

character in a story commits and an action which an actress

P- 39
portrays during the course of a performance. A reviewer
might write. for example. "As Hedda burned the letters. an
exultant smile came across her face. a smile of indescribable
malevolence." He is here describing a facial gesture made by
the actress. but attributing the gesture to the character.
We wish in this study to make clear the distinction: the
facial gesture of the actress is a performance event: its
content is the corresponding action in the story of Hedda
Gabler. a fiction which is communicated by the actress by
means of the facial gesture. We shall use the word "event"
only to mean performance events: we shall use the word "ac-
tion” only to mean those things which are part of stories.
It should also be noted that we shall use these words to
refer to things of widely differing durations in time.
As we have done above. we may refer to specific actions
of a character such as Hedda and to the specific events
carried out by an actress which communicate those actions.
We will also use these terms to designate. for example. the
entire action of’Hedda Gabler or to the event of an entire
performance of this play.

We shall often have occasion to speak of ”commentary"
with respect to theatrical messages. We shall see. especial-
ly in the following chapter. that the bulk of the communi-
cation in theatrical messages is not required for the com-
munication of events or actions per se but rather is spent
in modifying or controlling our perception of these events

or actions. That portion of the communication which influences

p. #0
our perception of events or actions is here called commentary.
For example. it is not necessary to the action of Hamlet that
the leading actor be dressed in black. aside from a line or
two. The presence on stage of Hamlet in his suit of sable
in Act I scene 2 does. however. make a very important commen-
tary on the action of that scene without which the scen might
well convey a message quite different from that required.
Hamlet's costume. therefore. is part of the commentary on
the action of this scene.

As we are to eventually describe six theatrical code
systems. it would be well to make clear just what we mean by
a theatrical code. This definition can be made on the basis
of’Hjelmslev's conception of the sign as the relation ERC:
we can associate the performance event with E and the action
which the performance event communicates can be associated
with C. The relation between these two. between E and C.
always shows patterning in any kind of semiosis. the theater
being no exception. Hjelmslev denotes the pattern or rule
which relates E and C as R: it is these patterns or rules
which we call codes. A code. therefore. is a pattern or
rule to be found in theatrical performances by which a given
event can be said to "mean" a given action or comment upon
an action.

The concept of code just formulated will immediately
be seen to be fairly close to the idea of a theatrical con-
vention. A convention. however. is a condition which pre-

scribes how the performance as a whole is to be done. while

p. 41
the concept of a code is intended to apply to all events of
whatever duration. A similiar objection applies to the idea
of a theatrical device. since we think of devices as being
moments of short duration. In both cases, however. there
is a fundamental similiarity to the idea of a code: the
idea of a rule linking an event of some kind with a meaning.

It will be convenient to identify codes by the medium
which is manipulated to produce the events governed by the
code. Thus. for example. a blackout is an event governed
by the code of lighting: Hamlet's black garb is governed
by the code of costume. and so forth.

A brief discussion of the blackout. a part of the
code of lighting. will serve to illustrate this material
about codes. and will also serve to illustrate a further
concept concerning them: the idea which we will here call
theatricality.

First of all. in any theater where lighting can be
controlled. it is possible to use light to create an event:
this evenet will be either the absence of light altogether
or the presence of light of a given intensity. color. contras-
tiness--i.e.. depth of shadow and distribution--etc. It is
possible also to take advantage of naturally occuring
phenomena of light in performance spaces where light can-
not be controlled. and thus to incorporate these events into
the performance. as Shakespeare is sometimes said to have done

in the Globe. At any rate. we will assume the contrivance.

p. 42
by one means or another. of some kind of lighting event
which is intended to have communicational effect. In
any theater where such a contrivance occurs. codes of
lighting develop.

In the Western theater. the development of highly
controllable lighting devices in enclosed theaters permit-
ted the development of the blackout. A relatively small
number of meanings are associated with the blackout:
principal ones are end of performance or unit of perfor-
mance. passage of time. change of locals. We therefore
have an expression E related to a content C by a relatively
simple set of rules which specify that in given contexts
to withhold all light from the stage will be assigned one
of a small group of meanings. the particular meaning to
depend on the given context. These rules. corresponding to
R in Hjelmslev's formulation. form the code of the blackout.
a subcode of the code of lighting.

Controllable light might be called a theatrical con-
vention. indeed. a convention characteristic of modern
Western theater. The use of the blackout might be described
as a theatrical device. a device made possible by the techno-
logical development of lighting in Western theater. The
idea of a code encompasses both of these notions and makes
the relation between them explicit. by seeing the use of
the blackout as being governed by a subcode of the general
code of lighting. We thereby can reduce the number of con-
cepts we employ while replacing them with a concept more

p. 43

flexible and powerful. since it can also be used with other
media. conventions. and devices as well.

On a living room set. a blackout might mean the end
of a play: in a living room. it means a power failure. The
point of the comparison is that while blackouts might occur
in real life. they are not deliberately arranged for the
purpose of communication and have different meanings than
they do on stage. On the other hand, if it is desired to
show that a character waves good-bye to another, the same
gesture may be used on stage as in reality. The difference
is a matter of what we here wish to call theatricality.
Theatricality. for our purposes. can be defined as the
difference in frequency of use of a given code or sign
between the stage and the ordinary life of the culture.
Blackouts. according to this definition. are highly theatrical.
occuring virtually only on stage: handwaving is not. occur-
ing equally onstage as off. Theatricality is a continuum:
a given code can have any degree of theatricality in our
definition of the word. For convenience. and since codes
tend toward one extreme or the other. we shall call codes
of low theatricality “cultural". and those of high theatri-
cality ”theatrical". This does not mean that theatrical
codes are not part of the culture. only that they occur in
the culture only as part of theatrical performance. or tend
to occur there for the most part.

At this point. we have offered the following ideas:

the distinction between the performance and the content of

p. nu

the performance. usually but not always fictional: the dis-
tinction between event and action. such that events are real
and actions are fictional: the idea that a large portion of
any theatrical communication consists of commentary on the
events or actions presented: the idea of code as that which
relates an event which is performed and the meaning of that
event. an finally. the idea of theatricality. a measure
according to which codes fall along a continuum from cul—

tural codes to theatrical ones.

We are now ready to present a definition of the thea—
ter. Theater is a public act: to be precise. it is the pre—
sentation of an event in public. to a live audience. having
a communicative effect. The presentation of the event is
the performance: the enactment of this event is carried out
in such a way that the actions of which it consists fall
into patterns with which the culture (the culture within
which and for whom the event is performed) associates mean-
ing. Using the vocabulary established in the previous sec-
tion. this can be expressed by defining theater as the pub-
lic performance of an event interpretable according to the
appropriate semiotic codes known to the culture for whom
the event is performed. To put it baldly. theater is when
somebody does something up in front of everybody in such a
way that those who watch understand something by it.

13. 1+5

This definition deliberately allows a very wide range
of phenomena to be considered theater in addition to those
performances which tell a fictional story of some sort.
Owing to the wide range of performance forms which are or
have been considered as theater. it would be unwise to limit
our definition in such a way as to exclude any form of per-
formance which it might prove desirable to study. Also. it
would seem that our understanding of theatrical communica-
tion can only be enriched if we study many forms of perfor-
mance which may be disputably theatrical. but are undisput-
ably communicative. such as the wide variety of religious
and secular rituals known in many cultures.

This definition avoids the idea of communicative
intent. since intentions often are difficult to verify. and
employs instead the idea of communicative effect. Communi-
cative effect might be defined as follows: let there be an
event X. If we ask the spectators of X some question such
as "What does this say to you? Anything at all?" and their
reply is affirmative. we may assume that the event has had
communicative effect of some kind.

Finally. this definition does not define which codes
in what media are essential to theater. This definition has
not been included because it appears to be ethnocentric to
do so. Provided merely that performers enact some kind of
event before an audience of some sort. we have theater if
that event has communicative effect. Whether they use any

given code. such as language or movement. is immaterial.

p. #6

If we were to attempt to describe theater in terms of
a fixed set of codes which would be present in any performance
to be considered theater. it would be difficult to avoid the
bias that would naturally arise toward our own theater's
characteristic codes. The result. of course. would be a
theory of a particular theater form. not a theory of the
theater generally. Though we shall shortly describe six
code systems that seem to be important in many theater forms.
it is not our intention to make the list exhaustive or to
convey that something that does not employ one or more or
all of these codes cannot be theater. Hence. the definition
we have offered is couched only in terms of the actual act

of doing theater. not in terms of the manner of the doing.

It is obvious. however. that if the theater has com-
municative effect. it is because the theatrical message has
some kind of content. It becomes our business. then. to
say something in general of this content. which brings us to
the problem mentioned at the beginning of this chapter: to
offer a general formula for the content of theatrical mes-
sages.

The essence of theater is to enact an event. How—
ever. as indicated above. the bulk of the communication in
theatrical messages is not required for the communication
of events or actions per se but rather is spent in modifying
or controlling our perception of these events or actions.

We have defined that portion of the communication which in—

p- 1+?
fluences our perception of actions or events as commen-
tary. We here propose that the fundamental model of all
theatrical messages of whatever extent in time and space
is the enactment of an event in such a way the the enact-
ment of the event also includes a commentary on the event.
In other words. Content = Event + Commentary.

Before we consider theatrical messages having fiction-
al material as content. let us consider the simpler. though
less familiar case of a theatrical message which is simply
an event and a commentary without an element of fiction.

In the Kuttiyattam theater of Ksrala State. south India.

it is required of the actor at certain points in the perfor-
mance to perform a dance having a certain prescribed order
of movements. This dance is hidden. more or less. behind

a curtain which is held by attendants. It is done in full
costume and makeup. and uses a large number of the gestures
which are part of the gesture-language used in this form:
but so far as is known. has nothing to do with the story

and cannot be translated into words. as can most gesture
language messages. It is not, however. without content.

It conventionally is in honor of the musicians: in addition.
due to the religious associations of dance in Indian culture.
it strongly connotes the sanctity of the performance as a
whole. Thus. this dance. which has no part in the communi-
cation of the story with which the play concerns itself.

nevertheless conveys meaning.

p. 1&8

How is this meaning transmitted to the audience? The
dance itself is of course the event. Several means are used
to comment upon it: the dance is isolated in time: it is con-
csaled from view. more or less: it is performed. as is the
rest of the performance. in a holy place: the movements
themselves belong to a long tradition of movement which is
thought to go back to Lord Siva himself. All these devices
serve as commentary. connoting that the performance of this
dance. and by extension the rest of the performance as well.
is very serious and sacred. We note that several different
codes are used to ”say” this to the audience: time. move-
ment. location. The same message is thus given redundantly
by being "sent" in several codes simultaneously. Thus we
can see. in a simple event. how the event and the commen-
tary form the content of the message.

In the case of a message having fictional material
as content. the situation is more complex. The event and
commentary communicate an action. a fictional occurence:
this action in turn has commentary of its own.

A famous example should make this clear. In many
performances of Oedapua Rax by Sophocles. the leading actor
appears on stage near the end of the play with stage blood
on his face and costume and carrying a brooch in either hand.
Event: actor. bloodied. enters carrying brooches. Commen-
tary: the blood effect. the manner of movement (connoting

pain): his lines. which contain an image of lostness and dark:

p- 1:9

I am deserted. dark.

Yes. where is sorrow stumbling?

Whence flits that voice so near? 26

Where. Spirit.-have you driven me?

Thus an actor comes on stage with a certain appearence and
speaking certain lines: we know (not only from this. of course)
that he is Oedipus. that he is blind. having stabbed out his
eyes with the brooches which he carries.

Thus we are told of the fictional action "Oedipus en-
ters. having blinded himself." There is then further commen-
tary: we have seen the brooches before on the costume of
Jocasta, We may recall that if Oedipus removed them from
the gown on her hanging body. then Jocasta's clothing would
have fallen away. and that the last eight Oedipus would have
seen would have been the naked body of his wife/mother. A
commentary is thus made on the fictional motivation of the
character Oedipus: a factor in his self blinding is revul—
sion at the sight of the body of his wife/mother.

The point here is not to repeat a well-worn chestnut
about Oedipus Rex: the point is to trace the relation of
event--commentary-~action--commentary.

Event--an actor comes on saying certain words. Com-
mentary: use of certain codes of makeup and movement: lan-

guage codes: imagery. Action communicated: Oedipus enters

having blinded himself. Commentary on the action: the

 

26. Sophocles. Oedi us the Kin . Paul Roche. tr.
The Oedi us Pl 3 of So hocles (New York: New American
Library. 1953) P. 73

p. 50

brooches imply. due to our prior information as the the
character Jocasta's mode of dress. that the blinding was an
act of near-suicidal desperation.

There is. of course. much more information which is
sent to the audience in this scene that I have not included
here: the information I have included in this analysis is
also sent. redundantly. in ways other than those indicated.
Nevertheless. it would seem that we have here a fairly clear
example of the way in which event and commentary function in
the case of fictional content.

In the two examples given in the preceding section.
it will have been noted that a fair number of different codes
were employed to convey information to the audience. We
shall now turn to the description of six codes which are
thought to be of considerable importance in many forms of
theater throughout the world. This is not to say they are
either indispensible or universal or even always simultan-
eously present-~only that they are common. The six code
systems discussed here are those of space. movement. light-
ing. sound. costume and language. Some of these are compo-
site: movement and sound both have definite divisions into
types of movement and sound according to the degree of thea-
tricality involved.

Let us begin with space. Performance. by necessity.

requires a bit of space of some kind. It is a commonplace in

p. 51

theater that the architecture of the theater has a profound
effect on any performance given in that theater. This idea
makes excellent sense form a semiotic viewpoint.

Let us consider three theater spaces currently in use
by the Department of Theater at Michigan State University.
Fairchild Theater is a proscenium theater seating around 700:
the Arena Theater seats approximately 215: the Summer Circle
Free Festival stage. an outdoor theater 'hereafter referred
to as SCFF uses three temporary bleachers plus the ground
and standing room. No accurate count is available for it.
but it would seem that when the place is jammed there are
#00+ people there. Figures 2. 3. andh show productions of
Hamlet in Fairchild. A StreetcarVNamed Desire in the Arena.
and King Lear in the SCFF space.

From a semiotic viewpoint. the question is simple--or
at least simple to ask. What do these various spaces say to
the audience? What differences are there between the messa-
ges delivered? How are these messages delivered?

Firstly. there is a very different treatment of the
control of the access to the theater in the SCFF stage as
opposed to both the Arena and Fairchild. The access of the
public to the SCFF space is not controlled. anybody can sim-
ply walk in. Access to the Arena and Fairchild. on the other
hand. is controlled: these are theaters for which tickets are
sold. while the SCFF is free of charge. Of course. one can-
not sell tickets unless one can control the access to the

theater. This difference in access pattern means that the

 

 

Figure 2. Haaaet. Fairchild Theater.

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Streetcar Named Desire: MSU Arena Theater.

 

P- 53

 

Figure 9. King Lear: Summer Circle Free Festival theater.

 

 

Figure 5. The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon
Mar gol s. airchild Theater.

p- 5“

SCFF theater says to the audience. "you are welcome here".
the other spaces tending to say. ”you are welcome here--if
you have bought your ticket.

This initial message has a strong effect on the aud-
ience response. It is a commonplace among theater personnel
at MSU that the audience at the SCFF performances is friendlier.
more relaxed. more open. more forgiving. This is no accident.
The message delivered by the SCFF access pattern is rather
like that delivered by a gift: ”we appreciate you. we like
having you here.” The access pattern of the other two houses
puts the performance in those spaces firmly into the cultural
category of that which is bought and paid for. The Yankee
element in the American character comes to the fore in such
a situation: the message delivered by the access pattern of
the theater is replied to with "I have paid--now you deliver."
This attitude is precisely what one expects in any such
monetary transaction. The access pattern of the Arena and
Fairchild houses reinforces. semiotically. this very attitude.
by placing the performances in these theaters firmly into this
monetary-transaction category. The message is reinforced. of
course. by the process of ticket-buying and so forth. be it
ever so pleasantly handled. but it originates in a simple
binary opposition: closed space vs. open space.

The decor of the three spaces also has significant
effects on audience attitude. again tending to produce a
more favorable attitude on the part of the SCFF audience.

Both the Arena and Fairchild are in dark colors. and again.

p. 55

are enclosed spaces. SCFF is open to the air. being merely
a three-sided arrangement of bleachers. and has a surround-
ing of lovely large shade trees which form a backdrop for

the stage. The open-air-and-greenery of the SCFF space sends
a strong message: "coming here is coming to a very pleasant
spot. a place like all the others you enjoy--parks. gardens.
woods-~places where you relax and have fun." It is not hard
to see how such a message helps put the audience in a favor-
able frame of mind. No such message is sent to the audience
by the Arena and Fairchild.

The difference in seating arrangements--the usual
stall seating in Fairchild and the Arena. bleacher seating
in SCFF--also has an effect. In SCFF. particularly when the
theater is full. people are jammed together pretty tightly
on the bleachers and in front of them in the area between
the bleachers and the stage. The effect is that of a semi—
circular mass. whereas in the Arena. the seating is in four
quite distinct sections due to large structural pillars at
the four corners of the stage. In Fairchild. of course. the
usual proscenium arrangement prevails.

As might be expected. there is a much stronger feeling
of community in the SCFF arrangement. It is pretty difficult
not to feel a strong sense of community when you sit in a mass
of people all within touching distance of each other. The
circular arrangement also helps: the circle is an ancient
symbol of wholeness and community occurring in many cultures.

Each member of the SCFF audience receives the message of

p. 56

community feeling through his nearness to others and his
evident position in a large group. To a lesser extent.
something of the same message is given by the Arena seating.
though it is much weakened by the stall seats and the divi-
sion into sections. In Fairchild. of course. little of this
content is sent at all. Instead. the proscenium seating
pretty well makes clear that one's relation to one's neigh-
bor is unimportant: that each of you. separately. will watch
what is set before you.

Such examples pretty clearly show the semiotic func-
tioning of the architecture of the theater itself. The other
side of the spatial coin is the shaping of the space which
the performers use. Here we run into an area where a great
deal more research is in order on the question of the semio-
tics of space in the theater.

It is. however. at least possible to assert that
space does indeed have a strong connotative function. If
we compare two different shapings of the Fairchild stage.
that of Haalet and of ThelEfgect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-
Moon Marigolda. we can see a pretty clear instance of this.
The action of Hamlet is two-sided: on the one hand. the court
intrigues of Elsinore: on the other. the fate of Denmark and
the movement of kings and armies. A balance is struck in
this set: the large masses seem to connote a weight. a mas-
sive force crushing down on the characters. yet their height
and inhuman scale connote vast spaces in which armies can move

and nations rise or fall. The action of’Magigolds. on the

P- 57

other hand. is enclosed: we spend almost the entire play in

the one room of one house. concerned throughout with the dy-
namics of one family. There is no need for expansiveness in
the Mayigplds set.

In both these examples the set is mimetic. In both
sets. the principAL convention according to which we under-
stand what the set stands for is the same. We are given a
visual stimulus which simulates. within fairly narrow limits.
the stimulus we would receive from the actual object itself.
This convention is probably the single most characteristic
convention of the modern.Western theater. To dispense with
it. or to attempt to. is the mark of the avant-garde: yet
it is a rare production in which it cannot be found. In the
case of Marigolds. many of the materials which are used are
in fact those which are used in life: the others are
skillfully made so as to simulate what they are not. The
difference is actually quite unimportant: what is important
is that the simulation. by whatever means. be accurate with-
in certain limits. Those limits are tighter for the Marigolds
set than for the set of’Haaaet: in Hamlet. we have very con-
vincing stone pillars. however. these pillars are rather dis-
tantly related to actual castle architecture. They are fur-
ther conventionalized by remaining constant even when the
locale changes. serving alike for indoor and outdoor scenes.
The limits of accuracy to which the simulation is held is a
major determinant of the style of a.Western theater produc-
tion. This convention of simulation of visual stimulus is

virtually unknown in traditional Asian theater.

p. 58

Several references have already been made to the code
of lighting. The technology of lighting control is another
of the highly characteristic features of Western theater.
While lighting can be and often is highly mimetic in the
same sense as defined for scenery. i.e. involving a simula-
tion of visual stimulus. it is interesting that several uni-
quely theatrical uses of lighting are very common even in per-
formances in which the lighting is otherwise mimetic. such
as the blackout. single area lighting. raising the level
on the area which is to draw focus. using colors of light
somewhat different from the colors which appear in reality.
and so forth.

One strongly conventionalized association in lighting
is based on the contrast ratio. the ratio of the relative
intensity of illumination on the highlighted and on the sha-
dowed side of an object. especially on the face of the actor.
The contrast ratio is a function of both distribution and
intensity--light can be dim and contrasty. bright and flat.
etc. A very high contrast ratio is nearly always associated
in the Western theater with a high degree of seriousness.
emotionality. ”weight” in the performance. The more con-
trasty the light. the stronger the associationt Even in a
piece generally on a light tone. if some part of the perfor-
mance gets ”heavier". the lighting of those scenes will often
be more contrasty in order to ”set the mood”.

One semiotic function. then. that lighting serves is
to signal the level of seriousness at which the performance

is to be taken. a signalling process often referred to as set—

p. 59

ting the mood. We tend to consider that lighting functions
subliminally. and we therefore do not think of it as an
overt communication. This is something of a false distinc-
tion: it doesn't really matter very much whether or not the
communication is at one level or another of awareness. so
long as the effect of communication is achieved.

A highly interesting aspect of lighting from a sem-
iotic point of view is color. Two contradictory facts are
common knowledge about color: we know that it is one of the
most powerful devices available. and we also know that color
is not specific--we cannot say that. for example. cool colors
'are always sad and warm colors are always happy. In fact.
what is causing the difficulty here is the operation of a
semiotic principle: that the functioning of any code is al-
ways dependent on context. and is always provisional. A new
combination of familiar elements from a familiar code will
in all probability carry a significance which cannot be com-
pletely predicted. Every time we find a lighting effect that
”works" when it should not work. we are faced with a new in-
stance of this phenomenon. In the case of color in lighting.
it is fairly easy to see why this happens: we do not. as a
rule. distinguish very many colors out of the spectrum: yet
all experiences of meaningful color make use of this relative-
ly small number of available signs. Therefore. any given
color which we encounter has a tremendously complex web of
associations. Yellow. for example. calls to mind many such

varied connotations as the sun. my pencils. my cat. Cautionl.

p. 60
money (gold). cowardice. Oriental skin. Kodak products (the
firm is sometimes called The Great Yellow Father in Roches-
ter). etc.. etc.. etc. Obviously. it would be possible for
the use of bright yellow light on stage to call up a whole
range of unpredictably varied associations.

Lighting offers a very fruitful field for semiotic
research. It is precisely the kind of system semiotics is
best equipped to deal with. The number of variables is small.
traditionally identified as color. intensity. and distribu-
tion: we have here introduced contrast ratio. However. the
number of messages that a given lighting effect can generate
is large. as we have seen above.

The use of sound in the theater immediately divides
into two categories: music and sound effect.

Music in theater is well known as a very potent medi-
um. A full discussion of the theatrical use of music is far
beyond the scope of this study: one would require first a book
on music. then another on music and theater. both from the
semiotic viewpoint. to do justice to the subject. We will
have to content ourselves with a few limited observations.

The first of these is that there is nothing mimetic.
in the physical sense of the term defined above. about music.
Much as we might like to have an orchestral background when
we are out in the woods with our true love. we normally have
to do without. Music is a code marked by high theatricality.

We usually define the role of music in much the same

way as we do the role of lighting: that it has to do with

p. 61

"setting the mood". Once again. we can communicate the level
of seriousness at which the performance is to be taken. as

we do with the contrast ratio in lighting. Music is usually
also thought to be able to give great precision to the commun-
ication of exact degrees and kinds of emotions. especially
complex emotions difficult to describe in words. One empiric-
ally feels inclined to agree: however. the question is certain-
ly susceptible to further research rather than theorizing.
since it seems to be more a question of data than of theory.
‘We can. however. take note of the fact that in.music. we have
a great many more possible combinations of elements than exist
in lighting. and therefore the possibility of greater preci-
sion certainly exists. It is a question of whether or not

the associations are in fact made by the audience at the

level of precision we presuppose.

In contrast to music. sound effects are nearly always
as mimetic as possible. Here we are once again dealing with
the communication of an action by the simulation. within cer-
tain limits. of the physical stimulus associated with that
action. Modern audio technology makes it possible to define
the limits of accuracy very narrowly.

In the Oriental traditional theater. there are in-
stances of a different sort of semiotic use of sound. In
Kabuki. the entrance of the actor from the dressing room onto
the hanamichi is announced by the raising of the dressing room
curtain by attendants in such a way as to create a particular
sound. There are apparently associations with this sound such

as to produce a sudden rise in expectancy in the audience.

p. 62

In the Noh theater. a sound effect that would be very inter-
esting to research from a semiotic point of view is the famous
stamping of the foot on the stage. Considerable lengths are
gone to to ensure that this effect can be done with the "pro-
per” resonance and impact. The question to ask would be the
same as for all semiotic inquiry: what does it say. and how?

~ Such effects do not fit in comfortably with the kind
of effect we usually term "sound effects". since they are not
mimetic. It is in fact tempting to regard these as being
closer to music. since they share the arbitrary. uniquely
theatrical character of musical code. and have a similiarly
indescribable. yet rather precise. communicative effect. At
any rate. these examples help demonstrate the variety of uses
made of theatrical sound codes.

The above examples deal almost exclusively with what
might be called the stage machine: the physical theater as
technological device. that which can take place in the ab-
sence of actors. These means. however. are secondary: a
ssmiotician finds it easy to agree with Richard Southern's
contention that the essence of theater is the actor--in par-
ticular. the costumed actors However. we must distinguish
the costume from the player: as we shall see below. they
employ different codes.

If theater is physical action in space having commun-
icative effect. we note that by and large it is the actor who

performs the action. Since he is in space. not on a screen

p- 63
of some sort. by definition we see that our definition of
theater requires only a live actor. No further technology
of any sort is required. One warm body up front does the
trick.

And what does this warm body do? He walks and talks.
that is. he performs movements and uses language. It is to
these codes we now turn.

When we assert that the actor moves and uses language.
we still have not reached the simplest case. It is. as we
all know. perfectly possible to act without words: we need
merely recall Marcel Marceau. However. in the strictest re-
duction to the simplest case. we would disallow Marceau's
costume and makeup. leaving the physical movement of the body
functioning communicatively as the essence of theater.

We cannot further reduce bodily movement and still
have theater. but we can note that bodily movement in the
theater is of two kinds: that which is uniquely theatrical.
that which is not. ‘We may refer to the first kind of move-
ment as pantomimic. and the second kind as gestural.

The art of pantomime. such as Marceau's. is composed
of both sorts of movement. It is based on the convention
that the actor will show us the space which would be occupied
by the objects whose fictional existence he wishes to convey.
using his body to do so. His gestures are conventional be-
cause they are based on the shape of the objects. not on the
way we actually hold them or touch them. A wall. for example.
is pantomimed by holding the hand flat and vertical. palm out.

fingers together and extended in the same plane as the hand.

p. 6h

the hand then being moved across the front of the body in a
straight line. There is no purpose in touching a wall in
this way off-stage: the purpose of the movement is purely
theatrical. On the other hand. the facial expressions and
other movements which he employs to show the reactions of the
character to the persons and objects encountered communicate
by virtue of the fact that they are slightly exaggerated ver-
sions of the same expressions used off-stage. In this usage.
he merely adapts pre-existing codes to his purpose. In his
famous pantomime ”Dip flying a kits”. for example. nearly
every movement used to tell the story of how Dip is hauled
into the air by his kite is nearly the same as the same move-
ment performed in real life. It is by a novel combination
of these movements that Marceau communicates his comic fable.

The actor which we have constructed above is actually
only theoretical: he became so when we deprived him of his
costume. since by doing so we did not leave him naked--nudity
in itself is a costume. often.used in the avant-garde theater
and increasingly popular elsewhere. In actuality. Southern's
formulation of the essence of theater as the costumed actor
is a redundancy: the actor cannot help but be costumed: the
moment he is "on”. whatever he is wearing is a costume.

Furthermore. clothing is such an ubiqitous fact of
human society that it is impossible to devise a costume which
has no significance. Even such innocuous dress as a plain
black leotard has semiotic content: it conveys unmistakeably

on stage that the one who'wears a leotard is a performer:

po 65
we "rea " almost any kind of clothing according to our asso-
ciations with rank. status. profession. and so forth. In the
theater we also read the costume for historical period and
for the geographic location of the action portrayed.

Costume thus functions almost entirely as an adapted
code. with the proviso that the code adapted may in fact be
a code from the past history of costume and fashion no longer
in use except in the theater.

The last item in our list of codes is language. As
was the case with music. a full discussion of the use of lan-
guage in theater would require an extensive foray into lingui-
stics well beyond the scope of this study. Again. we shall
have to content ourselves with a few fundamental observations.

Language is rarely if ever used as a uniquely thea-
trical code. About the only case which could be imagined
would be to perform a play written in an invented language
without providing a translation. as Peter Brook has done.
Language is invariably adapted directly from the culture for
which the performance is given. The adaptations made are
such as to strengthen the role of connotative meaning in the
choice of words and in the manner of speech. such as intona-
tion. rate. pitch. stress. volume--all the elements present
in the speaking voice as opposed to the words as they might
appear in print.

Two important conventions occur in the syntax of lan-

guage as used in the theater: public address and dialogue.

p. 66
Language in the theater uses the syntactic patterns of pub-
lic address in situations where they would not be used in
real life. When dialogue is used. it is understood by con-
vention that what is said is actually for the benefit of the
spectators--a convention which becomes painfully obvious in
bad expository speeches. The forms of public address are
used in direct address to the audience. of course. and. in-
terestingly enough. in soliloquy. Thus. the syntactic usages
of dialogue are employed. but with more public address usages
along with them than would normally be the case. and public
address patterns are used in most other cases. Two patterns
of syntax suffice to cover all cases. since anyone who talks
can only be understood as talking to the audience. to another
(as character) or to oneself (again as character). One can.
of course. address the audience as oneself as well.

The use of public address forms in soliloquy may seem
surprising. but a brief toying with a famous speech should
make the point. Antony's "Friends. Romans. countrymen" is
familiar enough as public address. Suppose we change the sit-
uation: Antony has only been allowed to bury Ceasar in pri-
vate. With only minor rewriting. the speech can become a
soliloquy:

I come to bury Ceasar: none shall praise him.

‘ The evil that men do lives after them.

The good is oft interred with their bones:

So let it be with Ceasar. The noble Brutus

Hath told them.Ceasar was ambitious

If it were so. it was a grievous fault.

And grievously hath Ceasar answered it.

Here. under leave of Brutus and the rest.
Come I alone in Ceasar's funeral.

p- 67
We leave the basic rhetorical and syntactic pattern of the
speech alone. and by a judicious word change and a bit of
cutting. we make this passage into acceptable soliloquy.
The same sort of process can easily enough be applied to a
soliloquy in reverse and turn it into a public address: the
exercise is left to the reader's imagination.

Why should playwrights such as Shakespeare have
found it appropriate to use linguistic forms suitable for
public address in soliloquy? Because soliloquy is public
address in actual fact. The character may be shown to be
alone. but the actor has a theaterful of people to talk to.
Whoever is to compose his words for him will naturally turn
to the linguistic forms which signal. "listen to this. this
is for you to hear." The controlling factor is the actual
state of affairs for the actor. the level of event: not. as
might be assumed. the fictional state of the character. the

level of action.

In this section on theatrical codes. we have sought
to describe six different important theatrical codes in such
a way as to indicate the workings of the semiotic viewpoint
in a general way prior to getting down to the brass tacks of
a particular performance. a task to which we turn in the next
chapter. We have discussed the code of space both from the
point of view of theater architecture and from the point of
view of the shaping of the performance space itself: we de-

fined a convention of mimesis involving the simulation of the

p. 68
physical stimulus which also applied to lighting and sound
effects. We discussed lighting in terms of its relatively
few variables: contrast ratio and color. Turning now to
the actor. we dissected him into his costume. his movement.
and his language. noting that in the case of language a
principle exists which may well apply more widely: that the
use of any given code is determined by the needs of the
actor who must communicate with his public. not. as might
be assumed. by the needs of a fictional character--who.

after all. is only a content to be communicated.

In this chapter as a whole. we have defined a rather
small set of terms to aid us in making necessary distinctions.
These are: performance and content, event and action.
commentary. codes. and theatricality. We then offered a
definition of the theater: the public performance of an event
interpretable according to the appropriate semiotic codes
known to the culture for whom the work is performed. We then
carried out an analysis of six codes which seem to have wide-
spread importance in theatrical performance around the world.
The focus throughout has been on a single question: what does
the theater say and how is it said? In this chapter we have
tried to give a general answer. In the next we shall try to

give an answer with respect to an individual production.

Chapter V

Semiotic analysis in the theater.

In this chapter. we will carry out an analysis of a
production of Shudraka's The LitgagiClay‘Cart presented in
the Michigan State University Arena Theater under the direc-
tion of Dr. Farley Richmond. ‘We will attempt to analyze the
content of the communication "sent" by this production. and
also the manner or means by which the communication was
"sent".

It should be borne in mind that this analysis is pri-
marily an analysis of what happened on the stage of the Arena
Theater. not what happens in the text of the play written by
Shudraka. Two kinds of occurence are involved here: the ac-
tual event of performance. and the fictional action of the
drama. The performance is the "telling" to the audience of
the fictional action.

This distinction must be constantly kept in mind.
since ordinary theatrical usage confuses the two. Thus. we
say of a performance of a certain act of pantomime. "Charu-
datta plays the flute." In actual fact. however. an actor
pantomimes the action of playing a flute according to an
accepted code of pantomimic movement. and thereby "tells"
us that Charudatta plays the flute. Our statement. as quoted
above. refers to 2232 pantomimic communication and the

p- 69

Po 7O
fictional event which is the content of the communication.
This causes no difficulty in ordinary practice. but in this
analysis we constantly will need to separate the two. We
should therefore keep in mind that this is an analysis of
how the story is told. not of the story itself.

The events of a performance have a hierarchichal
structure. At the first level is the event of the perfor-
mance taken in its entirety. This is what we shall call the
first order event: it would seem that in no case could there
be more than one first order event in connection with any
given performance.

The Little Clay Cart is a story having several inter-
woven plots. At the second level of performance events.
we find several second-order events. corresponding to the
telling of each of the interlocking subplots of The Little
Clay Car . Each second order event is part of the first-
order event. but is of shorter duration.

At the third level. we find third-order performance
events which tell the separate incidents of each second-level
subplot. In The Little Clay GEES: the same incidents can
figure in more than one subplot: hence. a single third-order
performance event can be part of the telling of more than
one second-level action. As before. third-order events are
of shorter duration than second-order events.

Finally. third order events are composed of a fourth

order of event--actual gestures. utterances. and so forth.

P- 71

It is with this level that our analysis may begin. since it
is at this level only that we can begin to actually record
data. since there is no way to record "the performance" but
to record the separate events of which it is composed. It
is therefore the fourth-order events that form our data base.

At the fourth order of events. the distinction be-
tween events and actions disappears. We directly equate the
performance event enacted by the actor at this level with
the actions of the character which the events communicate.
Thus. if Charudatta raises his hand. we know it because the
actor raises his hand.

Fourth order performance events can be broken down
into lower-order events of a psychoneurophysiological nature.
but there are no actions below the fourth level.

Fourth order events can be shown as they are in this
study by still photographs which attempt to capture the key
moment. but such photographs represent an abstraction from
a phenomenon which is actually a continuum of movement. The
use of film or videotape would improve this situation but not
eliminate it. since both of these forms are actually a rapid
succession of stills.

In the following pages. then. we shall present first
a breakdown of the production into first. second. and third
order events. indicating how each order contains those below
and fits into those above: secondly. we shall present an
analysis of code and content (action) in each of the third

order events basing our remarks where possible on photographs

p. 72
of key fourth order events in each third order event. At
the end of our analysis. it should be clear how the action
of the story is told in this production. and how the meaning

of this action is communicated through commentary upon it.

p. 73

The first order performance event is. simply. the per—
formance taken as a whole from beginning to end. In the
broadest sense. this includes everything which the audience
experiences with respect to the performance-~publicity.
ticket-buying. arrival at the theater. etc.

The first level action to be communicated by this
performance is the description of a thorough-going trans?
formation of the social. political. and spiritual life of
the city of Ujjain in mediavel India. It is an idealized
image of the coming of a kind of millenium in which the good
are raised on high. the evil are cast down. love triumphs
against odds. and a certain spiritual and religious growth
takes place.

At the second level of action. we find five inter-
woven stories about individuals who play an important part
in the transformation of the life of Ujjain.

1. Charudatta and Vasantasena fall in love and are
to marry despite the opposition and machinations of Samsthan-
aka. who lusts after'Vasantasena. Charudatta rises from
honorable poverty to power and wealth: the social status
of‘Vasantasena changes from courtesan to wife-to-be. a
change which the play presents as a considerable rise.

2. Aryaka. a cowherd. becomes the leader of a revo-
lutionary faction which overthrows King Palaka. the ruler of
the city. Aryaka becomes the new king--again. a consider-

able rise in status.

p. 74.

3. A masseur. in trouble due to gambling debts.
undergoes a spiritual transformation. becoming a Buddhist
monk and eventually the leader of the Buddhist monasteries
in the kingdom. Again. there is a considerable rise in sta-
tus.

h. A ne'er-do-well Brahmin. Sharvilaka. falls in
love with the courtesan Madanika. owned by Vasantasena.

They are to marry despite Sharvilaka's foolhardy theft of
jewels with which to buy Madanika's freedom due to Vasanta-
sena's generosity and Madanika's cleverness. Sharvilaka
becomes a principle architect of the revolution.

5. A slave of Samsthanaka's Sthavaraka. displays
considerable moral courage and is eventually granted his
freedom. He refuses to carry out his master's unlawful
command to murder Vasantasena.

These second level stories are told through the tell-
ing of 28 key third level actions. In the chronological or-
der of the plot. they are as follows:

1. Charudatta and Vasantasena fall in love in the
garden of the temple of Kama. the god of love.

Charudatta and his household aid Vasantasena against
Samsthanaka.

3. The masseur tries to skip out on his gambling
debts.

4. The masseur is caught and beaten by his creditors.

5. The masseur is aided by Darduraka.

6. Aryaka's rise to power is predicted.

P. 75

7. The masseur is aided by Vasantasena.

8. The masseur becomes a Buddhist monk.

9. Sharvilaka steals jewels from Charudatta's house
which Vasantasena had left there for safekeeping.

10. Charudatta receives a necklace from his wife
with which to redeem the lost jewels.

11. Sharvilaka brings the jewels to Madanika. intend—
ing to buy her freedom from Vasantasena with them. Madanika
saves him through a clever plan: Vasantasena gives Madanika
to Sharvilaka: the jewels around which this all revolves are
returned to Vasantasena.

12. Aryaka is arrested.

13. Sharvilaka abandons wedded bliss to join the
revolt.

1h. Charudatta delivers the necklace via.Maitreya
to Vasantasena. to redeem the "lost" jewels.

15. Vasantasena returns the jewels--not the necklace--
to Charudatta.

16. Vasantasena takes the wrong carriage.

17. Aryaka escapes from prison.

18. Aryaka is aided by Chandanaka. a captain of the
guard.

19. Aryaka is aided by Charudatta.

20. Vasantasena. having taken Samsthanaka's carriage
by mistake. is brought to him against her will: he tries to
kill her.

21. Vasantasena is aided by the monk (formerly the

masseur).

p. 76

22. Samsthanaka tries to railroad Charudatta for the
murder of Vasantasena. whom Samsthanaka believes to be dead.
Through coincidence. he gets Charudatta condemned to death.

23. Charudatta is led to the chopping block. but is
saved at the last second by Vasantasena and the monk.

2h. Aryaka overthrows King Palaka.

25. Aryaka bestows gifts upon Charudatta and Vasan-
tasena via Sharvilaka.

26. Charudatta pardons Samsthanaka.

27. Charudatta bestows gifts.

28. Charudatta announces that Vasantasena will be-
come his second wife.

We now proceed to the analysis of these third level
actions. taking them in chronological order. and breaking
them down into the key fourth order actions/events which are

found in them.

p. 77

The performance begins with a fairly long performance
by the orchestra. improvising on a variety of Indian musical
instruments. particularly tabla. flute. harmonium. tembura.
and cymbals. The instrumentation. keys. melodic patterns
and rhythm of the music is strongly connotative of India.

After the dimming of the houselights. two prelimin-
ary dances. both drawn from the Kuttiyattam drama of Kerala
State. south India. were performed. The first of these is

shown in Figure 6.

 

 

Figure 6. First preliminary dance.

p. 78

The movements of this dance are drawn from codes of
movement found inmm'ry kinds of Indian dance. sculpture and
painting. Many of these movements have very specific mean-
ings for an Indian audience: the hand-position.or mudra.
shown in Figure 6 is a kind of ideogram for "flute". each
hand being in a position that can mean "flower". The dance
as a whole. in its original context in the Kuttiyattam per-
formance. is both an expression of regard of the drummer
and an indication of the sanctity of the performance. which
takes place in the temple.

Unfortunately. most of this is lost on the Western
audience. The dances. as a result. have little more semio-
tic function than does the music--to connote India. another
world from our own. and thereby indicate that the cultural
milieu of the story to follow is different from ours.

The second dance is performed by the ”stage manager".
a sort of emcee/character. It has a very similiar sort of
ritual meaning and serves a similiar semiotic function as
did the first dance. This dance is shown in Figure 7.

Finally. the stage manager delivers a benediction
(Figure 8.) This pose and lighting. along with the basic
idea of the language. are parallel to the closing moments
of the performance. as we shall see in figure 72. The stage
manager then plays a short scene with his wife. also a char~~
acter. in the course of which he talks to Maitreya: we are

thus led into the story proper of The Little Clay Cart.

P. 79

 

Figure 7. Stage manager's dance.

p. 80

 

Figure 8. Stage manager's benediction.

p. 81
1. Charudatta and Vasantasena fall in love.

This event is communicated simply by the use of language.
Samsthanaka remarks to the courtier.
The real trouble. sir. is that this slut is in love
with a nobody. a wretch by the name of Charudatta.
whom she met in the garden of Kama's temple. So
she won't give me a second look.
Samsthanaka makes another. more elaborately contemptuous
reference to this meeting later on. Maitreya and Vasanta-
sena both refer to the meeting in later scenes. This piece
of information is told. then. simply by more or less baldly
eXpository language. There is some commentary made. however.
We see that Samsthanaka is not a very pleasant character.
since he speaks about their love in contemptuous terms and
sees it merely as an obstacle in his own way. The actor

slips us the information under the cover of an ostensible

remark to the character of the courtier.

p. 82

 

Figure 9. Vasantasena captured by Samsthanaka.

Event #2. The essence of this moment is a code of
gesture: a weapons might be held this may in real life. The
stylized scars on Samsthanaka's makeup are sufficient to es-
tablish his fierceness. and his use of this particular tech-
nique of persuasion also tells us much about his character.
Samsthanaka's position and posture are gloating: the courtier
seems less happy about the affair. The pleading gesture of
Vasantasena's left hand reinforces the message of her line
"I'm only a woman--a weak woman." This moment shows that
Vasantasena is in need of aid: it is the first key event of

event #2.

p- 83

 

Figure 10. Vasantasena escapes.

Event #2. The second event of #2. this uses a move-
ment pattern familiar to us from many sources: person A and
person B close in on person C between them: person C ducks
and runs away. The message is always that A and B lose track
of C. The device is essentially pantomimic. Here, the A and
B roles are done by Samsthanaka and the courtier and C is done
by Vasantasena. The message is conveyed first through move-

ment, then reinforced by language.

p. 8h

 

Figure 11. Search in the dark.

The scene is understood to take place in the dark
primarily through language. Samsthanaka has several lines
in the early moments which convey the required information.
As in the shot above. pantomimic codes are also used. The
movement above. taken from the pantomimic code of Peking
Opera. shows groping in the dark. It is later used to com-
ment on Samsthanaka's character: he and the courtier grab
each other instead of Vasantasena after groping within inches
of each other. which makes them both look stupid. This search
in the dark is the third event in #2.

p. 85

 

Figure 12. Vasantasena tries to get in.

An interesting combination of pantomimic and gestur-
al codes. By the position of the hands and the posture. we
can see that she wishes to enter the door which resists her:
this information is conveyed pantomimically. Her facial ex-
pression shows us that the character is in rather a state of

desperation--wide eyes. drawn mouth. compressed lips--facial

p. 86

gestures which are to be found in reality. Therefore we have
a combination of codes embodying an event and a commentary--

a door that won't open. an attitude of desperation.

 

Figure 13. Vasantasena slips in.

Here we have a rather subtle postural signal. probab-
ly pantomimic in character. She lowers her head. pulls in
her arms. and tries to conceal her face, thus showing that
she is in an unfamiliar. uncertain place. unsure of her wel-
come. She has moved up onto a platform that has been designa-

ted verbally and via movement as Charudatta's house. We

p- 87

again have event and comment——a person enters a house, the
person is fearful. hopes to remain unnoticed. is unsure of
her welcome and unfamiliar with the place. The dialogue
reinforces all this explicitly. thereby sending the same

message redundantly.

 

Figure 1A. Vasantasena is discovered.

She tries to conceal her face. continuing the mes-
sage of the previous moment. However. Maitreya (right) has
recognized her--his words. the position of his hand and
body. and his facial eXpression along with the change in her
facial expression. are standard pantomimic devices.

Vasantasena's evident apprehension in this and the

previous moment relate to one of the themes of the play.

p. 88

that of social status. She is fearful upon entering the house
of a Brahmin: she is a courtesan. She is therefore unsure of
her welcome even though she has previously encountered Charu-

datta at Kama's temple.

p. 89

 

Figure 15. Vasantasena welcomed.

Event #2. Along with the lines. the message is sent
via the standard Indian gesture of greeting. which would have
to be classed as a pantomimic signal so far as an American
audience is concerned. though it would be gestural for an
Indian audience. Again. we have a combination of codes: the

pantomimic hand gesture is accompanied by the facial gesture

p. 90
that might actually occur in American culture in a context
of greeting someone: a smile and tilt of the head. lowering
the head so as to give the effect of looking up at someone.
Thus. the pantomimic code is reinforced by the gestural code.

as well as by the language used here.

 

Figure 16. Vasantasena escorted home.

Event #2. The movement here is again an interesting
combination of pantomimic and gestural codes: the journey
from one house to another is accomplished by walking an S-
curved path from one platform to another diagonally across
the stage. which is purely pantomimic: yet they walk in file
and Charudatta gestures to point out the moonlight just as

one might in reality. On the other hand. Charudatta's ges-

Do 91

ture is modified. made more slowly and more gracefully so as
to be more evocative of the quality of the moonlight as
described in the language he speaks. The underscoring.
played by the musicians behind. is soft and melodic. yet
dissonant. adding to the romantic atmosphere. These atmos—
pheric elements--the modified gesture. the language. the
music. the rather slow pace of the walk. a slight dimming
of the lights--actually give such weight to the commentary
that the action becomes unimportant by comparison. All these
devices are strongly connotative of idealized romantic love.
The stage events. which ostensibly tell how Charudatta and
Vasantasena walked over to her place with Maitreya. in fact
are used for quite another purpose--to show their feelings
for each other by connotatively modifying the atmosphere that
surrounds them according to well known devices such as soft
music. dim light. slow movement. and so forth.

Thus. we reach the end of event #2. The key informa-
tion that has been given is the love of Charudatta and Vasanta-
sena. the conflict between them and Samsthanaka. and the rela-

tions of social status obtaining among them.

p. 92

 

Figure 17. Masseur enters. running.

Event #3. The masseur tries to skip out on his
gambling debts. We are told by shouts offstage that some-
one is running away from the gambling house without paying
up. and immediately the masseur enters. Such a conventional
sequence is easily interpreted: here's the fellow who ran
out. The masseur's lines immediately confirm this. He then

continues to run in a stylized manner. stepping as shown

p. 93

above so as to move at what is actually a medium walking pace
in a circle around the stage. This serves as a pantomimic
device to let us know that he travels some distance. His
facial eXpression communicates his anxiety gesturally. His
low status. socially and economically. is shown by the con-
trast between his costume and the other costumes which we
have seen up to this point. The lighting is quite a bit
brighter at this point in the performance than in the earlier
scene with Vasantasena and there has also been a blackout in
the meantime. Thus. we know by the code of lighting that it
is now day--time has passed. His running is accompanied by

rapid drum rhythms which connote his anxiety musically.

p. 9b

 

Figure 18. Masseur hides in a temple.

Event #3 continued. We see here that the masseur's
strategy is to pretend to be a temple god. Semiotically.
the situation is rather interesting: the actor tells us
that he is a person pretending to be an idol by himself
taking up the idol's pose. We thus have a clear instance

of the one-to-one correspondence mentioned earlier: at the

P. 95
fourth level. the actor's actions are a code for the character's
actions by being in one-to-one correspondence with each other.
Thus. if the actor runs. the character runs: if the actor talks.
the character talks. If the movement is gestural. then the
movement of the actor is a sign for itself as performed by

the character.

 

 

H-.. \ ,__ -..... _. .

Figure 19. Mathura and sidekick.

Event #3 continued. Those whom the masseur is try-
ing to cheat enter in pursuit. Mathura right. sidekick left.
We expected this from their offstage lines previously: they
enter running and execute the circular maneuver shown here.
which as before indicates traveling a distance through space.

The musical underscore of drumm and rattle provided a rapid

p- 96
rhythm as before. Aside from the circular move. the movement
is basically gestural. especially the facial expressions of

anger and outrage.

 

Figure 20. "This temple has no idol."

Event #3. continued. Mathura's memory is good: as
his line says. the temple has no idol and his gesture com-
pletes the implication: "here's the masseur." We know at
this point that the masseur is in trouble: the sort these
two are is neatly signified by their makeup. particularly
that of Mathura's sidekick: teeth drawn on the upper lip
giving him a permanent snarl. By comparison with the mas-
seur. they are well-dressed: indeed. Mathura is as well-dress-

ed as anyone in the play. In this scene. this takes on an

 

P- 9?

ominous significance: it tells us that Mathura usuallzygets
his money. one way or another. Several of Mathura's lines
exPlicitly convey the same point.

There is a code of physical types being employed here
in the casting of the sidekick as a fellow bigger and heavier
than Mathura: the two bad guys. Brains and Brawn. Given the
context. we know what to expect from such a physical pairing.

Thus ends event #3. We have been informed as to the
conflict between the masseur and the gamblers. a fair amount
of commentary has been made on the characters of those in-
volved. and we know that the gambler's first strategem has

failed.

 

Figure 21. The masseur caught.

p. 98

Event #9. Obvious movement codes are used to show
the relation of the gambler to the masseur: they form a very
neat set of oppositions: kneeling vs. standing. looking up
vs. looking down. hands clenched vs. hands open. eyes closed
vs. eyes open. All this is fully gestural: though exaggerated
above any instance that occurs commonly in reality. gestures
similiar to these might occur in extreme situations. A more
theatrical device is employed in the positioning of the two
gamblers: the sidekick maintains his threatening pose even
though the masseur cannot see him.'both to keep the audience
tuned in on the threat to the gambler and to maintain the
commentary on the two gambler's respective characters: the
one has the brains and does the talking. the other has the
beef and stands by ready to pound somebody into hamburger.

In the background. we see Vasantasena in her house.
How do we know she is inside? Even if the doors and windows
had not already been pantomimed. one might well get the mes-
sage from the screen standing behind her. which connotes an
indoor setting. and from the raised platform which denotes
a change in locale from the street level. We shall later
see how this convention can be altered so as to treat the
stage level as being continuous with the platform. both for
Vasantasena's house and for'CHarudatta's. The key point is
contextual-~the action of this scene has been placed outdoors.
and the people in the house are not to react to what goes on
outside. In later scenes the action is indoors. and those

on the platform do reapond to those on stage. Thus. the

 

p- 99

distinction of platform vs. stage level changes considerably

in meaing depending on the context.

 

Figure 22. The masseur is beaten.

Event #u continued. The commentary made previously
about the character type of the gamblers is now confirmed.
There is a pantomimic character about their movement as
they beat the masseur that is not evident from the photo-
graph: the blows do not land nor is there an attempt to
fake the appearance of their landing. A drumbsat signals
each fictional impact. and the masseur displays the proper

facial gestures.

p. 100

While theatrical codes in general can fall anywhere
along a continuum from the less theatrical to the more thea-
trical. movement codes seem to tend toward one extreme or
the other. It seems appropriate to term the more theatri-
cal movement signs and codes "pantomimic". and the less
theatrical signs and codes "gestural".

The inspiration for these terms is obviously the art
of pantomime. In pantomime. many movements are not carried
out as they are in reality. To mime picking up a drinking
glass. for example. one exaggerates the curve of the fin-
gers and the hand so as to show the shape. size. and form
of the glass. Hence. the glass is not "held" as it is in
reality. but rather is ”held” in a "pantomimic" way. On
the other hand. to wave good-bye in pantomime is little
different from.waving good-bye offstage--the same gesture
is employed. Hence. it seems appropriate to oppose the
terms ”gestural" and "pantomimic” to describe this differ-
ence in degree of theatricality between these two kinds

of movement in the theater.

p. 101

 

Figure 23. The masseur has an idea.

Event #h continued. This pantomimic gesture has a
long history in films. theater. cartoons. etc.: it really
requires no comment. It is not immediately apparent in a
still photograph. but the gamblers are in a temporary freeze
while the masseur delivers his line. The freeze tells us
that the passage of time in the story being told is temporar-
ily suspended so that we can be given important information:
that the masseur has managed to come up with another strate-
gem. Another pantomimic device can be recognized here in
that the effect of the severe beating the character has just

received is not shown by the actor. We have been told that

p. 102
he was beaten. and further information about his physical
condition as a result would be irrelevant to the story just
at this point. At this point the focus is on how the masseur

thinks: even under duress he can come up with a plan.

 

 

Figure 2”. The masseur tries a trick.
Event #h continued. The line here is. ”I'll pay you
half if you let me off half." We previously understood that

he is carrying out a strategem: now we know that he is in

p. 103
in mid—ploy as it were due to all the physical coding that
tells us that an act of persuasion is in progress. The code
here is basically gestural: the masseur puts his arm around
the sidekick and puts his hand on his arm. looking up at him
and speaking in a low. intense tone. softly but quickly--i.e..
"persuasively". The same devices are used when he goes to

put the question to Mathura.

 

Figure 25. The masseur's trick fails.

Event #u continued. Here. the burden of the message
falls to the directorial device relating three movements:
the lunges of the two gamblers and the break for freedom of
the masseur. Together. they add up to. "and he almost got

away—-but not quite." There is also a strong contrast be-

Fr— i~v¥r ~— _‘ Avf‘W7— 7* m—H— _~. #——~7

p. 104
tween the facial gestures of the gamblers and that of the
masseur: this contrast corresponds to the conflict--the
gamblers express concern lest their pigeon escape: the mas-
seur expresses the fear and frustration of his disappointed

hope of escape.

 

Figure 26. The masseur tries to sell himself.

Event #h continued. This hand gesture seems to be
adapted from a common gesture that means either that the ges—
turer wants to draw attention to himself or wants someone to
stop. In this case. the context of the sign is changed in a
way impossible in our culture: the lines tell us that the
masseur is trying to sell himself to pay off his debt. His

gesture therefore takes on another connotation. that the

p. 105
bidder at an auction makes. In this case. though. he is not
the seller but the buyer; the final meaning comes out to
"what am I bid?” The facial gestures of the two behind are
part of the gestural code for contempt in our culture--the

turned-up nose.

 

L,A,,_, _

Figure 27. The masseur is beaten again.

 

Event #h. end. The three strategems of running away.

conning the gamblers. and selling himself having failed. the

p. 106
masseur is once more at the tender mercies of the gamblers.
No sooner do they get to work. however. than they do a freeze.
again to stop the passage of fictional time so that important
information can be given. In this case. it is the beginning
of the next event: Darduraka enters and delivers a comic dis-

quisition on gambling.

 

 

 

Figure 28. Darduraka interrupts.

Event #5. Darduraka's tapping Mathura on the shoulder
serves a double function: it tells us that the one character
wishes to speak to the other. and it also serves to break the
freeze. thereby setting the fictional time-flow moving again.

p. 107

 

Figure 29. Darduraka tries persuasion.

Event #5 continued. This gesture was adopted as the
second of two gestures for Darduraka's line "you're willing
to knock out this fellow's five senses for ten pieces." the
first gesture being just one hand with the fingers spread.
The gesture does more than simply contrast the numbers: it
also is strongly connotative of pleading or persuasion--
"stop. think of what you are doing!"--which indeed is what
the character of Darduraka has to say to that of Mathura.

p. 108

 

Figure 30. Darduraka intervenes.

Event #5 continued. A great deal is being said in a
short time during this moment. We have two messages coming
from the actor playing Dardurakan one is a threat to the
character of Mathura. one is a signal to the character of the
masseur to sneak away under Mathura's diversion. In addition.

there is a third message which the actors playing the gamblers

Pu 109
assist in communicating. namely that the gamblers do not see
Darduraka's signal to the masseur. The masseur is now showing
the physical effect of the beating by crawling rather than
walking. and slowly at that. Mathura grips his shawl like a
strangling rope; from the connotations of strangling we
grasp his intentions toward Darduraka. In his slow way. the

sidekick is getting up steam at Darduraka also: he shows us

this mostly by facial gesture.

 

Figure 31. Nathura threatens Darduraka

Event #5 continued. Mathura need not say anything at
this point in order to clearly convey the intentions of his
character toward that of Dardurakas his stare. the way he

holds his scarf. and the erectness and muscular tension of

p. 110
his stance all make his murderous threat perfectly clear. as

does Darduraka's physical reaction.

 

Figure 32. The masseur gets away.

Event #5. continued. be are told that the masseur
has reached the relative safety of Vasantasena's door by the
combination of previously established signs: repetition of
the two-handed pantomime for the door (see Figure 12). the
difference in level between "inside” and "outside". and the
non-response of the characters "inside” the house. All is
not yet well. however. as the masseur's face plainly shows.
He is still worried about being out in the street where the
gamblers are. no matter how busy they may be at the moment

with Darduraka's diversion.

p. 111

 

Figure 33. Darduraka throws dust.

Event #5. conclusion. A pantomimic device: dust
is thrown so as to be well away from everyone. The actor
reacts as if it had been thrown in his face by displaying
well-recognized signs--grasping at the eyes. crying out.
straightening up suddenly. etc. We understand. of course.
that the character played by the actor has had dust thrown
in his eyes. The convention here is analyzable in terms of
event and comment: event: dust is thrown. Comment: crying
out. grabbing of eyes. etc. Content: the dust is causing
pain to the character. In actuality. everyone can plainly

see that the dust is safely away from the actor.

p. 112

The presence of the attendant involves an interesting
communication phenomenon: we are told 22; to pay attention
to this person. Movement plays an important role here. since
the performer moves "unobtrusively": head down. entering
only when needed. standing quietly in position. However.
even more obviously. the attendant is denoted by her costume
in a negative way: she is the one who does not wear any In-
dian garb. only the basic black leotard common to all the
performers. Thus. due to the leotard. we know she is a per-
former: due to the lack of anything else. we know not to pay
undue attention to her. In a very literal sense. we know that
she is a performer. not an actor: she merely performs the
function of holding the bowl of dust-powder.

By means of the dust-throwing. Darduraka escapes
from Mathura: thus ends event #53 Before he exits. however.
he performs the action which communicates event #6 to us:
the prophecy of Aryaka's rise. He merely pauses before mak-
ing his exit and says.

This fellow has a lot of influence around here:

I'd better scoot too. My friend Sharvilaka tells

me he heard a prophecy that a cowherd named Aryaka

is going to be king. ‘He'd be the best leader for

such as us. I'll hunt him up.
Action: there's been a prophecy. Commentary the prophecy
is probable: certain classes of people are in need of a bet-
ter ruler: the character takes action-~he joins the budding

revolt. thereby throwing the weight of his opinion behind
the idea that the prophecy will come true. Thus ends event

#6.

p. 113

 

Figure 3h. The masseur asks for sanctuary.

Event #7. We have another gesture here which is pan-
tomimic for modern American culture. yet gestural for the cul-
ture for which the play was written--to kneel with the head
to the floor. In this case. having gained admittance to the

house of Vasantasena. the gambler uses it to beg help of her.

 

 

 

 

Figure 35. The masseur explains his plight.

Event #7. Here the masseur is getting into deep
water again-~Vasantasena does not seem sympathetic to debt-
ors. He is shown to be in an uncomfortable spot by being
in a physical relationship to Vasantasena which is socially
uncomfortable. especially by contrast to the next photo.

There is an ambiguity here: having closed the door
behind the masseur. Vasantasena's first reaction on hearing
the masseur's trouble is the line. ”Madanika. open the door."
Since the gamblers are right outside. the masseur of course
thinks she isn't going to help him. In fact. it is simply
that she is unafraid of creditors and doesn't think it worth-

p. 115
while to bar the door against them. as her later actions show.
However. at the moment. the audience shares the gambler's

uncertainty.

 

Figure 36. The masseur takes his ease.

Obviously. much has changed since the previous shot.
All that has really happened is that he has identified him-
self as a former member of Charudatta's household. The
change in the way he is treated is therefore a comment on
Vasantasena's feelings toward Charudatta: nothing is too
good for anyone connected with him in any way.

pa 116’

 

Figure 37. The gamblers are paid off.

Event #7 conclusion. Jewelry is given to the gamblers
instead of money: jewelry is of course a form of wealth. In
this play. it is the primary symbol of wealth: whenever the
theme comes up. it is connected with the use. exchange. and
value of jewelry. The attitudes eXpressed as a comment on
any act involving jewelry are therefore the attitudes express-
ed by the performance on the theme of wealth. Here. wealth
is seen asa means to an end: it is casually given away in

order to help the friend of a friend out of trouble.

p. 117

 

Figure 38. The masseur becomes a Buddhist monk.

Event #8. A theatrical device. sending the same
message by two different means. 0n the one hand. the masseur
states. "I am going to become a Buddhist monk." On the
other. he lifts his hat. revealing that his head is already
shaved. which of course connotes monasticism. He is dressed

as a monk by attendants. and exits.

 

 

Figure 39. Sharvilaka breaks through the wall.

Event #9. This moment is acheived through the use
of pantomime and language. primarily language-—the actor
accompanies his actions with statements as to what he's
doing. such as "here we have baked bricks—-so pull them out."
He then pantomimes the pulling out of the bricks. as shown

above.

p. 119

 

Figure no. Sharvilaka checks out the sleepers.

Event #9. The action here is to determine if Mai-
treya is asleep or merely faking. The use of the knife shows
that Sharvilaka is in deadly earnest about what he is doing.
despite the light-hearted tone of many of his lines. The
actor playing Maitreya shows sleep negatively. by lack of

reaction: were he awake. he would have reacted to Sharvi-

p. 120
laka's presence by this time.

!

 

Figure #1. Sharvilaka takes the box.

Event #9. Maitreya holds up the box in his sleep.
His lines are all addressed to Charudatta. thus making it
clear that he thinks he has given the box to Charudatta.
Sharvilaka makes off with it as Radanika rouses the house.
End of event #9.

p. 121

Event #9 has a place in two subplots-~that of Vasan-
tasena and Charudatta. and of course that of Sharvilaka and
Madanika. As we shall see. the theft places Charudatta under
obligation to Vasantasena: it also provides the mechanism

by which Madanika can be freed to marry Sharvilaka.

 

Figure 42. The neckalce given to Maitreya.

Event #10. Charudatta's redemption of the "lost"
jewelry takes place in two separate events: #10 and #14.
In #10. the wealth necessary to serve as a substitute for
the wealth that has been lost comes from Charudatta's wife.
Her lines inform us that this is all she has left. but it
must go to save her husband's honor. To save face for Charu-

datta. she employs a go-between: Maitreya. The gesture with

p. 122

which the necklace is given is not unusual in any way. but
in context it acquires interesting connotations.

As has been indicated. one of the themes of The Little

 

Clangart is wealth. eXpressed as jewelry. A corollary theme
that becomes important at this point is that of gifts and
obligations.

A gift. in this context. is not necessarily a trans-
fer of ownership. but can be a mere transfer of custody as
well. In this case. Charudatta was given custody of the
jewels. though not ownership of them: when they are lost. he
is under obligation to replace them with wealth of equal or
greater value.

However. transfers of wealth are not made directly.
In the scene where Charudatta is given the jewels in the first
place. they are not placed in his hands but in Maitreya's:
Charudatta delegates the safeguard of them to Maitreya and
Vardhamanaka. his man-servant. Here in this scene his wife
does not give him the necklace directly. but gives it instead
to Maitreya to take to him.

An important pattern of action which arises in the
course of the performance. then. is that transfers of wealth
create obligations that are discharged through go-betweens.
In the next two events. this pattern itself acquires conno-

tations relevant to the theme of wealth.

 

p. 123

 

Figure #3. The necklace given to Charudatta

Event #10 continued. Having stood where Charudatta
now stands at the time when the wife gave him the necklace.
Maitreya now stands in the giver's spot to give the neck-
lace to Charudatta. Each act of giving. in turn. is expres-
sed through the repetition of the movement of the necklace
across the platform. The equivalence of the two acts of giv-
ing is thereby underlined. which emphasizes Maitreya's role

as an intermediary.

p. 124

 

Figure 44. The necklace entrusted to Maitreya.

Event #10 concluded. Maitreya. having served as
go-between for Charudatta and his wife. now is to serve as
go—between for Charudatta and Vasantasena. The necklace
crosses the platform for the fourth time. winding up again
with Maitreya. thus re-emphasizing his role as intermediary.

It is necessary that this point be driven home firmly. since

p. 125

we shall not see him again until events #11 and #12 have been

performed.

 

Figure 45. Sharvilaka confesses the theft to Madanika.

Event #11. The important point of this scene is a
false transfer of wealth. Sharvilaka returns the jewels to
Vasantasena. and in return is given Madanika as his wife.
Though this is actually an act of pure generosity on the part
of Vasantasena. the fiction of an exchange is maintained.

The important information conveyed in this scene is the atti-
tude of Sharvilaka--he has a secret. the secret of the theft
which he thinks will enable him to buy Madanika's freedom.
This is important preliminary information. since it ensures

that we will remember that Sharvilaka is only returning Va-

p. 126

santasena's own property to her.

 

Figure 46. Sharvilaka returns her jewels to Vasantasena.
Here Sharvilaka's previous posture which indicated
his having a secret is gone. since he has told Madanika about
the theft and has learned the foolish mistake he has made.
It is replaced by the attitude proper to a go-between. which
he pretends to be. His lines are also proper for a go-be-
tween: his statement takes the form of a message from Charu-
datta. Since we have previously been informed of this stra-

tegem. he need not do anything to show his pretence.

 

p. 127

 

Figure 47. "Would you accept...Madanika?"

Here the false transaction is completed. Vasanta-
sena has received nothing but what was her own. and has given
Madanika for it. The message is of course abundantly clear:
generosity and love are valued above wealth: it is appropri-
ate to be generous where love is concerned. This represents
as well a commentary on Vasantasena to the effect that she
has grown somewhat. We have been told by Madanika that she
has talked of freeing her girls before: now she actually does
it. This behavior is unexpected from a courtesan: the whole

idea of a courtesan is of one who values wealth above love.

p. 128

 

Figure 48. Madanika kneels in gratitude.

Event #11 concluded. This gesture is pantomimic for
our culture. but carries strong connotations nonetheless.
since it is an image associated with mediavel ideas of
fealty. We read it here as an expression of extreme grati-

tude. At this point. the false transaction is complete.

p. 129

Event #12. Aryaka's arrest. is a matter of spoken di-
alogue: a speech delivered by one of the musicians as if by
a herald for the king. It is preceded by the sound of a small
hand drum. which serves as an equivalent of "Your attention
please! The more or less bald statement of Aryaka's arrest
also conveys a propagandistic message: that the government
has acted in the best interests of all. It is perfectly self-
evident. of course. that the regime is actually acting in the
best interests of the regime. Event #13. Sharvilaka's going
off to join the revolt. is a direct commentary on Event #12:
there is no question in Sharvilaka's mind that the right side
is that of Aryaka. and he promptly leaves his new bride for
the service of the rebellion. The action. of course. is a
commentary on Sharvilaka: it points out his qualities as a
man of action.

In event #14. we are again dealing the language as
the primary means of communication. Basically. two actions
are performed: Maitreya enters the house. and then he deli-
vers the necklace. The bulk of the scene is taken up with
Maitreya's elaborate description of the house and with the
dance which follows Maitreya's description. done by Vasanta-
sena's girls.

The images of the long Speech describing the house
are all of wealth in every imaginable form: housing. jewel-
ry. food. animals. servants. art works. courtesans. hangers-
on. etc. The implication is obvious--this is all the fruit

of Vasantasena's business. which is selling love. It is in

 

p. 130
It is in fact the fullest and most attractive exposition of
the idea that wealth is of greater value in the scheme of
things than is love.

' The dance serves this theme as well. but also com-
ments upon Maitreya's foolishness when he makes an egregious
ass of himself by joining the dance despite his absolute in-
eptitude as a dancer. In Figure 49. the girls have all handed
him their sticks at once: of course he can't hang on and they

scatter to the floor. He then proceeds to scurry after them.

much to the amusement of the girls and Vasantasena.

 

 

Figure 49. Maitreya and the dancers.

p. 131

Event #15. Vasantasena goes to Charudatta's home to
return the jewels to him. As in the previous scene. this one
is largely given over to commentary. The basic action is very
simple: she arrives. she gives him back the jewels which were
stolen from his house. and they Spend the night together.
Interestingly. the matter of the necklace seems to be for-
gotten at the time: it is the jewels which she originally
gave him for safe-keeping which now she gives him. There
is nor further mention of the necklace until event #22.

The action is simple. but the commentary is elaborate.
We are given much information. primarily through language
and pantomime. about Charudatta's household and in particu-
lar the character of Maitreya. beset by the rain. Khumbila-
ka's mud-pellets and riddles. and finally by his suspicions
of Vasantasena.

Maitreya is shown as both a fool and the voice of
common sense. The particular piece of common sense that he
gives voice to is that courtesans are selfish. grasping. and
money-grubbing. without faith and untrustworthy. We thus
gain an idea of the current state of things with respect to
the theme of wealth and love: one can't expect love from
courtesans. who are concerned only with wealth. In the re-
mainder of the play. however. Vasantasena will disprove this
idea: hence. the idea is ridiculed here by ridiculing Mai-
treya. its spokesman.

Charudatta is also given a good deal of highly evoc-

ative language with which to describe his feeling for Vasant-

p. 132
asena. His bve is expressed in images of nature: the rain.
the lotus. the moon. the wind. the lightning. The lighting
effect accompanying this Speech is shown in Figure 38; a
strong. rather warm light with strong backlight quite conno-

native of romantic moods.

 

Figure 50. "The rain. and the music of the rain."

P- 133

 

Figure 51. Vasantasena takes Samsthanaka's carriage.

Event #16. The carriage driver. Sthavaraka. has
previously announced that the carriage belongs to Samsthana-
ka: we have also previously seen Charudatta's carriage and
his driver Vardhhmanaka. We also know that the carriage is
going to the Pushpakaranda flower garden to meet Samsthanaka.
We therefore have no doubt that Vasantasena is headed for

trouble here.

p. 134

 

In.

Figure 52. Aryaka having escaped from prison.

Event #17. Even without the dialogue which announ-
ces the situation. it seems clear: the chain. part of the
code of costume: the stance and gestures. part of the move-
ment code. make clear that here we have a hunted man running
from prison. As usual. the message is given redundantly in

several codes.

 

P- 135

 

Figure 53. Aryaka takes refuge in Charudatta's home.

Event #17 continued. The movement here is a varia-
tion of the door pantomime we have seen previously. The
actor maintains a crouched. hunted pose to continue the mes—
sage of a man in flight. The lines accompanying this move
contain an interesting comment on Charudatta: "some kind man
doesn't believe in locks." Just as love Should be more im—
portant than wealth. so here we have the corollary statement
that generosity should be more important than property. Fur-
ther statements of the same theme occur during the perfor-

mance of later events.

p. 136

 

Figure 54. Aryaka takes Charudatta's carriage.

The same device as previously established is used.
We know who the driver is. and where he is going. because he
has announced the information verbally. Thus. when Aryaka
enters the carriage. maintaining his stooping posture. we
can predict the course of events: he will meet Charudatta

at Pushpakaranda.

p. 137

 

Figure 55. Chandanaka drives Viraka away.

Event #18. Chandanaka discovers Aryaka in the car-
riage. and promises aid. Having tired various verbal strate-
gies on Viraka. he resorts as shown above to force. As in
the earlier scene where Mathura kicks the masseur. a drum-

beat is used to denote the blow that never actually lands.

p. 138

 

 

Figure 56. Chandanaka gives Aryaka his sword.

Event #18 concluded. This action has important con-
sequences for the story of the political rebellion--the group
of those who betray Palaka now includes people rather close
to the regime. since Chandanaka is a captain of the guard.
Chandanaka's line is interesting from the connotations it
evokes: "A passport for you." I.e.. "that which will get
you through the gates." The image is that of civil order
connoted by documents such as passports giving way to the

violence of revolution. symbolized by the sword.

P- 139

 

Figure 57. Charudatta finds Aryaka in his carriage.

Aryaka here adopts the kneeling position of a re-
quest for mercy. and of course Charudatta grants it. This
gesture is doubly required by Aryaka's status as an outlaw.
symbolozed by the sword (code of costume) and by his obliga-
tion to Charudatta for the use of the carriage (code of gifts
and obligations). Charudatta then orders his servant to drive
Aryaka on. thus legitimizing Aryaka's use of the carriage
and putting Charudatta in a dangerous position vis-a-vis the

regime. This sequence completes event #19.

p. 140

 

Figure 58. Samsthanaka tries to persuade Vasantasena.
Event #20. Our prediction comes to pass. Vasanta-

sena is brought to Samsthanaka. The courtier does what he

can. and at first Samsthanaka attempts a verbal strategy

supplemented by the posture we see here.

p. 141

 

Figure 59. Vasantasena rejects Samsthanaka's plea.

Event #20 continued. If there are movement codes
of universal significance. this would have to be an example.
In context. especially: to kick a person in the head while
they kneel has an unequivocal significance beyond the usual-
ly negative connotations of kicking people that apply gener-

ally.

p. 142

 

Figure 60. Samsthanaka tries to persuade Sthavaraka.

Event #20 continued. Samsthanaka's goal has already
been announced when he asked the courtier to kill Vasantasena.
Here he uses his wiles on his slave. using many of the same
gestural devices Shown by the masseur when trying to persuade
the gamblers to let him off. Sthavaraka. however. shows more
reaction: even if we had no dialogue. we can read the rela-
tively conventional signs of greed and manipulation in the
postures and gestures of Sthavaraka and Samsthanaka.

The fact that Samsthanaka goes to the trouble to per-
suade Sthavaraka Shows the illegality of the action he will

request. since a slave must obey any legal order.

 

Figure 61. Sthavaraka refuses.

Event #20 continued. When Sthavaraka refuses. he
does so in the only manner possible for a Slave--the attitude
of complete submission which would normally offset the lack
of submission understood in disobeying and order. Samsthana-
ka is the only character in the play who rejects this gesture:

the courtier and Vasantasena must intervene when he starts

p. 144

to beat his slave. A very clear commentary on Samsthanaka's
character is thus made: one could even take this as evidence
of mental disturbance in the character. since it shows him

to be lacking in at least one feature of basic socialization:
an understanding of the obligations one owes to those of low8

er rank.

 

Figure 62. Samsthanaka murders Vasantasena.

Event #20 concluded. Having tricked the courtier
away and having dismissed his Slave. Samsthanaka strangles
Vasantasena. The movement is basically pantomimic. since in
reality Vasantasena could do considerable violence to him in
the postion shown. The actress shows the death of Vasanta-

sena according to a well-established movement code: a step-

p. 145

by-step descent to the floor followed by general muscular re-

laxation and Shallow breathing.

 

Figure 63. The monk in meditation. Vasantasena "dead".

Event #21. This image is connotative of a funeral.
A man stands dressed in religious robes and says profound
things: others sit a look at a concealed corpse. The light-
ing effect is a standard theatrical device-~the pool of light
on the body. The lines Spoken here do not contain this sug-

gestion: the information is conveyed through visual codes.

p. 146

 

Figure 64. Vasantasena revived.

Event #22. To kneel beside someone lying or sitting:
to offer aid. Such is the simple gestural code employed here.

The language accompanying this line is also of inter-
est: Vasantasena's line in reply to the monk's "What has
happened?" is "Only what is befitting to a courtesan." This
line sums up a good deal of the themes of wealth and love.
and of generosity vs. property. Because she is a courtesan.
from the viewpoint of the play she has been on the wrong Side
of both of these issues. Samsthanaka murdered her because
she would not sell her love to him. though he had the cash.
She realizes here that the values which Samsthanaka has acted

p. 147

on are not so very far removed from those on which She her-
self has been operating. If love is less important than
wealth. and generosity (which also connotes kindness. mercy)

is less important than property (wealth in a different form)
why Should mercy (kindness. generosity) be extended to those
who will not sell their love? The attempted murder of Vasanta-
sena is therefore of great thematic importance. since it vi-
vidly demonstrates the warped value system of the old regime.
the old regime being represented by Samsthanaka. since Sams-

thanaka is the king's brotherbin-law.

p. 148

 

Figure 65. Samsthanaka intimidates the clerk.

Event #22. The first step in Samsthanaka's attempt
to railroad Charudatta for the murder of Vasantasena is to
intimidate the court. beginning with the clerk. The panto-
mimic code here is an extreme exaggeration of thesame code
seen in Figure 31: the aggressor makes himself bigger and
taller than the aggressee. who shrinks his body together and

makes himself shorter.

p. 149

The remainder of the scene is largely conveyed through
language. Charudatta's fate is against him: evidence accumu-
lates by coincidence. Finally, Samsthanaka is able to use
the jewels as evidence against Charudatta.

An interesting point is provided by the finding of

the body. Figure 66.

 

Figure 66. Viraka finds a body in Pushpakaranda.

Viraka travels from the courtroom to Pushpakaranda
by using the same walk-in-a-circle maneuver previously estab-
lished. In Figure 66. we see his reaction to a body which
he finds there. He then repeats the walk-in-a-circle move
in the opposite direction and reports his finding verbally

to the court. It is not. of course. Vasantasena whom he

 

p. 150
finds. nor is it ever revealed whose body it was. The only
conclusion is that it must have been some other woman whom
Samsthanka murdered. Thus. a further commentary is made on

Samsthanaka's character.

The next event. event #23. is the saving of Charu-
datta from the axe. It is important to both the story of
Vasantasena and Charudatta and the story of Sthavaraka.
The basic actions are: Charudatta is led to the place of
execution: Sthavaraka tries to save him. but is thwarted by
Samsthanaka: Vasantasena and the monk arrive in the nick of

time.

‘é

  

a
w
r

4
_..—.

IO

 

WM“.

 

K

Figure 6?. Charudatta at the place of execution.

p. 151

Charudatta's back is turned to the populace which we
infer from the direction in which the chief executioner dir-
ects his words. He is thereby marked out as the man about
to die: the executioners are distinguished by their costume
and makeup. The hiding of the face of the condemned is an

old custom: it therefore conveys the proper overtones in

this context.

 

Figure 68. Sthavaraka pleads for Charudatta.

His gesture here is precisely like certain gestures
used by the masseur. The burden of the message at this point
is carried. however. by language. His status is shown by the
attitude of the executioners: they listen. but skeptically.

He is. after all. a slave: a social fact of the old regime

p. 152
which Samsthanaka will shortly eXploit.

 

Figure 69. Sthavaraka discredited by Samsthanaka.

The scars upon Sthavaraka's back discredit his tes-
timony. since it is only common sense about slaves that they
will try to get revenge on masters who beat them. The exis-
tence of the scars is communicated very simply: first Sams-
thanaka claims they are there. then he points them out. then
the other actors also react as if they were there. The aud—
ience then knows the scars are there by what might be called
the-Emperor's-new-clothes effect: what all the actors agree
to is so. The scars only discredit the character of Sthava-
raka because of the prevailing attitude towards slaves. The

benefit of the doubt goes to Samsthanaka automatically. since

Po 153

he is the master: if this attitude were reversed. the natural
question would be. "IS it really true that Sthavaraka stole
gold as Samsthanaka says? And if he didn't. why was he beat-
en?" These questions would shortly unmask Samsthanaka. but
the burden of proof lies with the Slave. Such are the social
inequities of the old regime. The scars. therefore. have a
double meaning: on the surface. they indict Sthavaraka: at

a deeper level. they indict the society that uses them to
indict Sthavaraka.

p. 154

 

Figure 70. Charudatta saved.

Event #23. Finally. the obligatory moment arrives.
This event does not really require commentary: however. it
is interesting that the last man to realize that he should
stop is the axeman: even his cohort is helping to forestall

the blow. Event #23 is thus concluded.

P- 155

Event #24 is signalled by language from offstage:
"Aryaka has won! Glory to Aryaka!" We shortly here more
details from Sharvilaka upon his entrance: "I killed Palaka
at the place of sacrifice."

The death of the old king thereby acquires an inter-
esting connotation which helps tie together the theme of trans-
formation. The monk's religious transformation was heavily
influenced by bad experiences with the world of everyday
social and material reality: conversely. the death of the
old king. which accomplishes the political transformation
of Ujjain. takes place in a religious context. The two
transformations. religious and political. are thereby re-
lated to each other. each including elements of the other.

Event #25 then occurs: via Sharvilaka. Aryaka be-
stows a kingdom on Charudatta and a title on Vasantasena.

He thereby discharges his obligations to Charudatta for the
gift of the carriage. under the code of gifts and obliga-
tions.

Event #26: Samsthanaka is dragged in to face the
music. As shown in Figure 71 on the following page. he uses
the pose of supplication to beg mercy from Charudatta--
thereby taking on the position formerly occupied by his
slave Sthavaraka when he beat himt He beat his slave for
doing right: now he kneels for doing wrong. and Charudatta
forgives him. The difference in moral stature between the
two could hardly be made clearer-~compare Figure 71 to
Figure 61. Charudatta grants him mercy. though he deserves
it least of anyone.

p. 156

 

Figure 71. Samsthanaka is granted mercy.

Event #27 then follows: like many of those at the
end of the play. it is conveyed through language. Charudatta
announces boons for several people. especially the monk. who
is made spiritual head of the Buddhist monasteries in the
kingdom. and Sthavaraka. who is set free. He then announces

that he will marry Vasantasena: end of event #28.

P- 157

 

Figure 72. Charudatta's benediction.

The lighting on this. the closing moment of the Show.
is highly reminiscent of that on the stage manager’s bene-
diction at the beginning. It isolates him in time and space
and removes him from all the locales associated. by now. with
the various areas of the stage. finally. it stops the flow

of fictional time for good. The speaking of Charudatta’s

p. 158
last lines outside of fictional time and space but before the
houselights come up to restore the everyday world of our
reality gives his words a connotation of eternal verity be-

fitting to their philosophical and moral character.

This completes our analysis of the third level actions
communicated by the performance of The Little Cl§y_Cart pro-
duced in the Michigan State University Arena Theater under
the direction of Dr. Farley Richmond in the spring of 1977.
We have seen how the events of performance were carried out
in such a way as to provide material interpretable according
to codes provided by the theater and general culture of the
performance and audience. The content of the material pro-
vided consists of the actions of the story of The Little
Clay Cart and a commentary upon that action. centering on
themes of love. weath. property. generosity. gifts and ob-
ligations. The story is of a society transformed in such
a way that the values of love and generosity as it were
come to power-~a transformation of social. political. and

religious life.

Chapter V
Summary. limitations of the study.
and research opportunities.

This study began with the founders of semiotics:
C. S. Peirce and F. de Saussure. The dominant tradition in
semiotics has been that of Saussure. though the constant
tension between the two traditions has been an important fac-
tor in the continuing vitality of the field. We may recall
the key phrase of Saussure's definition of semiotics: a sci-
ence that studies the life of signs in society.

There are differences between the concepts of the
sign offered by Perice and Saussure: for*Saussure. a sign
is a signifier in relation to a signified: for Peirce "a
Sign ... is something which stands to somebody for something

26 The two thinkers. we saw.

in some respect or capacity."
take opposing stands on the problem of iconicity. stands
which are also complementary.

We then considered the semiotics of communication.
particularly with respect to the communication model of
Roman.Jakobsen. and his analysis of the six functions of

communication: referential. emotive. conative. esthetic.

 

26. Peirce. C. S. Collected Papers. (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press. 1931-1958) v. 2 p. 135

p. 159

p. 160

phatic. and metalinguistic. giving theatrical examples of
each. Reference was made to several concepts due to various
semiotic thinkers. especially to Hjelmslev's definition of
connotation. Finally. we made passing reference to the field
of ”body language"--proxemics and kinesics.

Moving on to the worlds of literature and film. the
work of Roland Barthes and Christian Metz was reviewed. A
distinction can be made between a theoretical approach (Metz)
and a critical approach (Barthes). yet both these approaches
lead to what is fundamentally the same point: the communica-
tion system functioning in the work of art.

Both Barthes and Metz employ the idea that the work
of art employs several codes. not just one. Barthes presents
a technique of dividing up the text into many very small frag-
ments: the modellygch approach to theater employs the same
idea. Both Metz and Barthes find connotation to be of cen-
tral importance in the respective media dealt with in their
studies: connotation is also given a central place in the com-
munication process of theater by this study.

A theory of theater is presented which we shall sum-
marize shortly. We then describe six codes which seem to have
widespread use in the theaters and performances of the world.
They are space. light. sound. costume. movement. and language.
Finally. we analyzed the interplay of event and commentary

in the communication of the action and thematic content of

p. 161

The Little Clay Cart by the performance of that drama given
at Michigan State University in March. 1977.

In the author's view. the most important part of this
study is contained in Chapters III and IV. in which a semio-
tic theory of the theater is set forth in somewhat elementary
form and then applied to a specific production. The key con-
cept in this theory is that of event and commentary.

An event is. very simply. anything which happens in
the performance space. An event in the theater. however. is
never simple: the manner in which it is performed follows
patterns which are interpretable by members of the culture
for whom the performance is given. That which is communicated
by the manner of performance is the commentary. The perfor-
mance of such acts before a live audience is the essence of
theater and defines theater. It happens very frequently that
sequences of events and commentaries are used to tell stories:
in such cases a second level. that of action. is added. The
events tell of fictional actions: the actions themselves are
”said" to occur in such a way as to convey a second commen-
tary. a commentary on the action. From this commentary. in-
formation about the theme and the characters can be gathered.
Six codes are widely used in the theaters of the world: they
are space. light. sound costume. movement. and language.

In the analysis of The Little Clgy Cart. we dealt
with the problem of the various levels of event in perfor-
mance. A hierarchichal structure was proposed. in which it

is possible to isolate several orders of events. the first-

p. 162

order event being the entire performance taken as a whole.
and successive orders of events comprising successive sub-
divisions of this whole such that the members of each suc-
cessive order are shorter than those contained in the pre-
vious order. Eventually a point is reached at which mean-
ingful data-gathering can take place. by means of photography
and audio recording. By analyzing this data with respect to
28 key events. we can see how the performance told an inter-
connected set of stories which cumulatively "tell" the ac-
tion of the play-~the story of an idealized transformation
of the social. political. and religious life of the kingdom
of‘Ujjain.

The limitations of the present study are several.
First of all. the completeness of the analysis of The Little
Clgy Cart production is limited due to lack of adequate pho-
tographic equipment and funds for reproduction. A truly com-
plete job of such an analysis would involve a thoroughgoing
study of both commentary and action throughout the entire
performance. rather than in isolated segments. and prefer—
ably obtained through sound color video-tape or 16mm sound
film.

Secondly. the work at hand treats only the high points
of semiotic theory--those ideas which have had widespread
acceptance for a period of time. There is much detail in
semiotic theory which is beyond the scope of the present
study. Hence. there is a certain lack of refinement in the

theory presented. with considerable room for elaboration and
enrichment.

p. 163

Thirdly. semiotics in general is a rapidly growing
and developing field. both in the number of workers and the
amount of publication. The ideas which we have presented in
this study are therefore constantly subject to revision in
the light of further findings in the field of semiotics.

Last but not least. the theater itself continues to
develop. albeit slowly. and some of this development. such as
Michael Kirby's Structuralist Workshop. is in response to i-
deas drawn from or having a close relationship with semiotics.
Hence. the object of study is being changed by the act of
study.

The semiotic study of theater carries with it several
opportunities. It may well prove to be effective in actor.
director. and designer training to foster a viewpoint. ulti-
mately based on semiotics. of the theater as being first and
foremost a communication medium. The thrust of such work
would be to teach the student to evaluate his work in terms
of semiotic function: ‘What was the work supposed to say?
How effectively did it say it? Most theater workers have no
difficulty in approaching problems of the theater in this
way. and an elaborate background of semiotics is not necess-
ary. Such an approach encourages clarity of work and dis-
courages romantic idealism about the mysteries of artistic
genius. since anyone can use theatrical methods to communi-
cate more or less skillfully. Quality. in this viewpoint.
becomes a question of effectiveness and content: how well

was it said. and how worth saying was it? The student is

p. 164

thus enabled to critique his own work more objectively than
before.

Semiotic performance analysis is not limited to the
overtly story-telling theater. Many forms of performance can
be studied semiotically. including many forms of dance. rit-
ual. music. story-telling. mime. and ceremony in our own and
other cultures across the globe. Many of the familiar ele-
ments of theater codes are present also in these other forms.
and the process of event and commentary. based on connotation.
can be analysed.

By the same token. of course. semiotics provides a
framework for comparison of widely different performance
forms. The same question can be asked of any form: how does
it say what it has to say? What codes are used. and what
cultural patterns do they relate to? Performance can thus
serve as a compact. delineable source of anthropological
data.on any culture in which it is found.

Such are the opportunities available to the semiotic
worker in the theater. As further material is provided by
workers in semiotics. theatrical analysis and understanding
will benefit. If the theater becomes more aware of itself.
of what it has to say and how it can say it. through semiotics.
the theater as a social institution may become a more sensi-
tive and responsive instrument of social communication than
it has been heretofore. Such is the opportunity provided
by a performance theory capable. for the first time. of deal—

ing comprehensively yet flexibly. and in a constructive. en-

p. 165

lightening manner. with the performance of any culture any-

where.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

10.

11.

12.

13o

1h.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barthes. Roland. "Elements de semiologie." Communica-
tions v. 4. 1964.

---------- . 1:31;. Richard Miller. tr. (New York: Hill
and Wang. 1974).
Birdwhistell. Ray L.. Introduction to Kinesics. (Wash-

ington: Department of State. Foreign Service Insti-
tute. 1952).

Buyssens. E.. La Communication et l'Articulation lin -
uisgigue. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France

Carontini. E.. and Paraya. D.. Le Preset Semiotigue:
elemgts de gemiotigue generale. Bar 3: Delarge

Eco. Umberto. A theog of semiotics. (Bloomington:
Indiana Univers y ress 9 .

Guiraud Pierre. Semiolo . Geor e Gross. tr. (London:
routledge and Kegan Paul. 1975 .

Hall. Edward T.. The Silent Language. (New York: Double-
day. 1959)-

Hjelmslev. Louis. Prolegomgfi? to a theory of langfigg .
F.J. Whitfield. r. a son: n vers y o s-

consin Press . 1961) .

Kristeva. Julia. Recherches ur une semanal as.
(Paris: Seuil. 1969).

Metz. Christian. ngggge and Cinema. -‘_(The Hague:
Mouton. 1974).

Morris. Charles. Foundation of the Theory of Signs.

(Chicago: International Encyclopedia of Unified
Science. University of Chicago Press. 1938).

.......... . Si 3 Lan e and Behavior. (New York:
Prentice-Hal. 1946).

Saussure. Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistic .
p. 166

15.

16.

17.

18.

p. 167

Charles Bally and Edward Sechehaye. eds. Wade Bas-
kin. tr. (New York: McGraw-Hill. 1966).

Sebeok. Thomas A. Pers ctiv in zoosemiotics.
(The Hague: Mouton. 1972).

Shaman. C. E.. and Weaver. W.. The Mathematical Theo
of Cgmmunication. (Urbana: University of Illinois

Press. 19 9 .
Stokoe. William C.. Semiotics and Hum Si Lan es.
(The Hague: Mouton. 1972).

Peirce. C. S.. C llected Pa ers. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press. 1931-19?8) .

   

“"7mm:hymn5’