الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 32 |  |  |
| | | from | 32 | | |
Abstract
This thesis aims at analysing the dramatization of the concept of myth in the works of the British dramatist, Peter Shaffer, and the Egyptian playwright, Alfred Farag, in light of the German theologian, Rudolf Bultmann’s concept of demythologization. The thesis, then, applies a comparative approach to the results of the aforementioned analysis with the aim of focusing on the similarities rather than the differences between the philosophical concerns underlying the dramas of the two playwrights.
To fulfil such purpose, Chapter One, ‘Introduction,’ argues for the use of Rudolf Bultmann’s concept of demythologization as a conceptual framework for analysing literary texts. Accordingly, the chapter starts with a short, albeit necessary, survey of the history of the concept of myth. Such survey is meant to provide the context in which Bultmann offers his understanding of the concept of myth, the way he benefits from the thought of some theorists and the way he contradicts that of others. It is also meant to highlight what he contributes to the field of myth and mythology studies.
Contrary to the common belief that was solidified in the discipline of anthropology, Bultmann argues that myth originated not to explain the world surrounding man, but rather to explain man’s relationship with that world. Myth tells the story of how man tries to explain his Dasein or being-in-the-world and his Mitdasein or being-with the Other. However, myth fulfils that function by shrouding its primary purpose of speaking about man’s existence in the world in mythical language and imagery. That is why myth calls for interpretation, or in Bultmann’s terms, demythologization. Such interpretation has long been opposed on the basis that myths are now deemed obsolete and no longer command belief. Bultmann responds to this claim arguing that while man no longer conceives himself in light of mythical thinking, his worldview is still shaped by those past stories even if they are no longer credible to him. Bultmann also argues that the underlying ontological themes of myth are still relevant to modern man. That is why Bultmann proposes that the interpretation of myth is to be done existentially.
Bultmann thus posits that to demythologize a text can be done negatively, first, then, positively. Negative demythologization takes place when one’s world picture is challenged by a new set of facts or when it fails to be proven true, and consequently, one is forced to either modify it or adopt a new world picture altogether. Even though man is handed down his world picture due to his place in history, he can still alter such worldview. Bultmann argues that a mythical text is the product of an attempt to understand human existence. In other words, such existence is trying to naively express itself in mythical language, which brings the discussion to the second phase of demythologization, i.e. positive demythologization.
Adopting Heideggerian terms, Bultmann explains that myth is about man’s constant fear and anxiety of the consequences of his decisions. Myth represents to man a means through which he can escape his responsibility for his existence. Myth becomes the answer to man’s fear of his own thrownness and temporality. This could shed more light on why humans keep reinventing myth and why there is a constant need to keep going back to it. Myth gives meaning to the past. It operates in an area of our temporality that we feel safe. Myth, in this sense, safeguards us from the unforeseen. Myth offers man a way to cling to his past, thus falling into inauthenticity. According to Bultmann, the only way man knows how to calm down such anxiety is by obeying an authority. That authority, be it a deity or an object, is not there to be feared or to explain the unexplainable; it is rather there to banish that fear and to relieve man’s anxiety. That is why to interpret myth existentially, or to demythologize it, does not just mean to look for the answers myth has to offer, but rather to look beyond those answers and find the questions posed.
This conceptual framework is applied to the dramas of Shaffer and Farag, adopting all the while a comparative approach. The purpose is to highlight the similarities between the dramatic products of two different cultures, thus, emphasising the universality of the human condition. The comparison focuses more on using literature as a platform to better understand the experience of the Other under the assumption that the existential concerns of the human race, as expressed in their creation of myths, transcend the boundaries of culture. The analysis of the works of the two dramatists is offered in the other two chapters of the thesis, with the final chapter also offering the findings of the comparison.
Chapter Two, ‘Demythologizing the Ritual in Peter Shaffer’s Drama,’ focuses on analysing the mythical elements in the works of Shaffer through examining his use of ritual as a concrete manifestation of myth and mythical thinking. The chapter argues that Shaffer’s use of rituals on stage and structuring his drama as a ritual are both masks behind which hide existential concerns that ought to be unmasked.
The chapter posits that it is a human nature to tell stories. Since the dawn of time, man has been fascinated with storytelling and myth making. However, it was never enough for him to tell such stories, he always felt the need to perform them, which is what ties myth with ritual. Rituals are usually, but not necessarily, a collective activity, and often stem from a communal origin. They usually encompass an element of repetition. They are usually an expression of mythical patterns and often serve a social function. Moreover, even though rituals may often appear irrational, they can still prevail long after the reason for creating and performing them ceases to command belief. Such persistence through time calls for more examination of what motivates rituals; a task that this chapter claims could be fulfilled by demythologizing them.
Demythologized, rituals are an expression of our human existence. This means that their main function resides in calming our existential dread and anxiety. The element of repetition in rituals serves as a constant in face of change that is brought on by time. This implies that Dasein’s constant need to cling to the past is usually expressed through the repetitious elements of rituals. Hence, a fear of the future, of what is to come, motivates rituals. To overcome such fear, man brings elements from the past, from what he knows to be safe, to his present in the form of rituals. In this sense, demythologized, rituals are an expression of Dasein’s search for authenticity. Thus, to demythologize the ritual in a drama, or to demythologize drama-as-ritual means to interpret the drama and its ritualistic elements existentially.
In light of this understanding of rituals, the chapter analyses the ritual of war and worship as depicted in Shaffer’s The Royal Hunt. Motivated by their temporality and their fear of death, both Pizarro and Atahuallpa are victims to existing inauthentically; the first is clinging to his past and refusing to let go of it, while the second is surrendering his existence to a supernatural deity, namely, the sun. The chapter examines the events that transpire because of the encounter between these two characters. It also explores the existential concerns of fear, anxiety, and authenticity that inspire the performance of mythical rituals on stage.
The chapter, then, analyses the second drama, namely, Equus. The analysis focuses on the results of the encounter between the two central characters of the play, i.e. Alan and Dysart. The emphasis is on how they both represent the rational/irrational dichotomy. Alan’s ritual of worship of a horse is then analysed with the purpose of uncovering the existential motivation behind such form of worship, all the while focusing on Dysart’s envy of such form of worship, and what fuels that envy.
The discussion then shifts focus to Farag’s work in Chapter Three, entitled ‘Demythologizing History in Alfred Farag’s Drama’. The argument is that, while Shaffer uses the concept of ritual as his focal point to explore the concept of myth, Farag uses the concept of history to fulfil the same purpose. This demands providing a working definition of the concept of history, which has proven to be a challenging task. Such concept could be considered empirical in the sense that it is clearly a field of study that relies on empirical data from which historians select to narrate in their writings and which are verifiable by observation and experience. However, it could also be considered transcendental in that it is a mental activity that is universal and can be applied to any discipline, which is how the concept is used throughout the analysis of Farag’s plays, focusing on history as an important universal form of mental activity. History is a form of narrative or storytelling activity that focuses on the past. The writer’s choice of what to narrate of that history becomes very significant, since it speaks more to the writer’s mode of existence than it does to the subject matter about which he is writing. Demythologized, then, history becomes a personal address from the past that is meant to lend meaning to the potential the future may offer.
In light of this definition, the dramas of Farag are approached, starting with Fall of a Pharaoh, which tells the story of Akhenaten, who calls for a monotheistic Egypt, rather than a polytheistic one. The play examines the implied existential fears and concerns that take over Akhenaten and have him torn between being a king and being a prophet. The play also examines how his society responds to his call, surrendering their existence to that of the Sun god. It explores what motivates such surrendering. The analysis also uncovers the modern concerns that this story from the past can help inform.
Another play of Farag, namely, Ali Janah Al-Tabrizi, is then analysed. The analysis focuses on the relationship between Ali and Quffa as representatives of the illusion/reality dichotomy respectively. It examines how the concept of illusion relates to that of reality. The play is inspired by three tales from the Arabian Nights, and is thus rooted in Arabic folkloric history. Farag skilfully reshapes that history by offering the audience the chance to demythologize it.