From Medieval Religious Pageantry to Contemporary Social Messaging: The Medieval Cycle Plays in Honduras’ Teatro La Fragua

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article aims to explore the particular use of medieval plays, theatrical forms and staging techniques within Teatro La Fragua’s performances in Honduras.  It outlines a history of medieval theatrical representations of the sacred, then turns to TLF’s contemporary borrowings of medieval texts and material, situating them in the context of the socially engaged community theatre that this company produces.  It focuses on two main borrowings from medieval scripts: those of the Herod play from the Fleury Playbook and the Auto de los Reyes Magos in the Navidad Nuestra.  It also, though at less length, discusses the similarities in staging between the Western medieval Passion Play staging traditions, and TLF’s staging of the crucifixion in El Asesinato de Jésus.  It concludes with the suggestion that TLF brings past and present together in generative ways to attempt to raise consciousness and effect meaningful social and community change.  In its attempt to grapple with the ways in which this part of Honduran theatre and culture works with medieval theatrical texts, this is an original contribution to knowledge, and sheds welcome light on a form of non-white, non-Western-European medievalism.  The strengths of this piece lie very much in the author’s discussion of Honduran dramatic and cultural traditions, and the ways Gospel-based theatre can engage with and so change perceptions or experiences of cultural past, present and future. 

When discussing the medieval performance history (which the article opens with, and which forms most of section 1 and is then is referred to throughout), the factual knowledge about medieval drama (particularly its relationship to the liturgy) and the history of medieval drama that the author seemed to want to tell were, however, patchy, and at times unclear.  Their discussion of this aspect was by far the most confused area in the article, and the least easy to follow.  They didn’t include the key and up to date scholarly voices discussing questions about where medieval theatre ‘came from’ or its audiences and their experiences (e.g. Meg Twycross and Sarah Carpenter, Alexandra Johnston, John McGavin and Greg Walker, Thomas Campbell, Nils Holger Petersen, Carol Symes).  For example, I think most scholars today accept that it’s a lot more complicated than simply liturgy ‘migrating’ gradually onto the streets, via the church’s incorporation of ‘pagan’ festivals in the Anglo-Saxon period, as the author suggests in section 1, and that this Darwinian model of vernacular drama development from one mode or place to the next to the next is now very dated.

There were an awful lot of assertions about medieval theatre in general terms without any quoted or footnoted evidence (e.g. pp. 4, 5).  How does the author know that ‘Medieval Mass services gradually became exciting spectacles of outdoor performance’, p. 4?  Are there any examples of this?  Is this suggesting that the origin of medieval theatre is in outdoor Masses?  What do they mean by ‘the street pageants from the twelfth to fourteenth centuries’?  Again, which street pageants? From where have they derived the information about staging and city squares (p. 5)?  I think it’s now abundantly clear from recent work such as the REED project that forms of medieval theatre differed hugely from place to place and from civic/ecclesiastical structure to structure – we simply can’t tell a sweeping narrative about the format, staging or “development” of medieval theatre (whether from liturgical roots or not) across the board.  It was quite surprising that this was the narrative that the author seemed to be laying out, since they also at places quoted the scholarship of Michal Kolbiaka, Michael Norton, O. B. Hardison – all of whom have been instrumental in criticizing and dismantling this ‘evolutionary’ model. 

I think it’s also clear that the relationship of liturgy to theatre is far from simple, and that so-called ‘liturgical drama’ is a very distinct thing from vernacular drama of all kinds, like cycle plays (though the latter can and do draw on and incorporate liturgy in a range of ways; see e.g. King on York Cycle, or Granger on NTown Plays).  Throughout the article, the author refers a lot to ‘medieval liturgical drama’ or ‘liturgical plays/dramatists’ at moments when I think (?) they mean 'vernacular cycle plays' (which are what is referred to in the title of the article as the major comparison point with TLF; e.g pp. 6,7,8). Anyone who works in this area (and it is likely that experts in medieval studies would form part of the readership of this work) would understand very different and very distinct things from these two labels, and the discussion throughout is – to a medievalist – confused, because the author seems to be conflating them an awful lot.  This might be the result of their desire to see vernacular medieval drama of all kinds as arising developmentally from (so-called) liturgical drama (discussed above) – but it makes for a confusing read. 

Other aspects of the way the piece was written contributed to that confusion – for example, on p. 13 I wasn’t at all sure what the description and discussion of the Quem queritis was doing, in the argument that was being made.  It felt like it didn’t have much relationship to what was being argued at the time – was there an equivalent scene in the TLF Passion sequence? Did it draw on (a version of) the medieval ceremony?   Similarly, the argument being made using Ong, Grotowski and Clausen wasn’t entirely clear to me as it stands: why did we turn to Ong’s conception of orality at the bottom of page 16?  What move did that make in the argument?  When on page 10 the author discusses ‘the John the Baptist scene taken from the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke’, it’s likewise not clear what they are referring to – because no such scene is listed in the list of scenes just above.  Are we now discussing something other than the Navidad?  Throughout the article, the clear ordering and signposting of the author’s argument at different points would benefit from being more explicit and assertive. 

To improve this article, I’d recommend two major revisions:

1)      That the author cut down their ‘history’ of medieval drama and its relationship to liturgy.  As above, this is currently couched in very sweeping and general terms, which don’t allow for much specificity.   Given that the article aimed to address the medieval borrowing in TLF’s Honduran performances (which I believe is an excellent question in itself), I think it would serve their argument purposes much better to address, not the history of ‘drama-as-arising-from-liturgy’ in a very general way, but rather, the very particular plays which they have identified as medieval sources for TLF’s performances (so, the Fleury Herod and the Auto de los Reyes Magos; possibly also the staging of crucifixion scenes and the rootedness of performances in the civic space in cycle drama such as York).  What do we know about each of these plays – their genre, liturgical embeddedness (or not), performance history, and likely authorship/audience?  How does each function as a piece of theatre (and what, then, are TLF drawing on)?  What medieval words are actually quoted and performed by TLF?  Could the author cite from these plays and discuss them - what’s the significance of these words?  This would enable the author to incorporate the interesting material (Bell, etc) about ritual, spectacle and performance in relation to liturgy but would anchor the ensuing argument about what TLF do with this material much more solidly and specifically.  It would give the author particular, relevant medieval examples to talk about, rather than trying to talk in general terms about a huge amount of medieval material. 

2)      That the author then use this discussion to go into more detail about each of their focal TLF performances (Navidad and Asesinato), focusing on the medieval borrowing, and contextualizing that/bringing it into their good discussion of the TLF performances and their other borrowing or intertextual and performance-based connections (such as Joseph Trinidad Reyes and the Nahuatl drama – both of which were fascinating insights, and could have been discussed in more detail).  This would bring the whole focus of the article into much tighter alignment with what the title suggests the author aims to do. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language here is mostly comprehensible and clear, though there were also sentences where I wasn't at all sure what the author meant (e.g. p. 8, sentence beginning 'Audience response to drama may be measured by a recognizable relationship to reality that resonates with its members both as a community...' or 'While Teatro La Fragua, "the forge theater" (forging a national identity) shares much in common with the liturgical mystery and morality plays... also holds the distinction of forging its own path in...', p.1).  These areas could be profitably reworded more clearly. The regular citation of full titles and subtitles of academic books and articles in-text (e.g. p. 14, 'As Dee Dyas puts it in Images of Faith in English Literature... etc) is extremely distracting for a reader, and gets in the way of the author's prose.  It would improve the expression across the article if these titles could simply be given in the footnotes, not in-text as well.  

There are some issues with unattributed citation and plagiarism, e.g. p.5 para 1, sentence beginning ‘Medieval performances of all kinds..’: this seems to be taken verbatim from Claire Sponsler, ‘The Culture of the Spectator: Conformity and Resistance to Medieval Performances’, Theatre Journal 44 (1992), 15-29 (at p.15) but is not acknowledged.   I also wonder about the discussion of Kolbiaka’s work on p.3: this is in a different font, and I’d recommend the author check that this is not in fact a copied and pasted citation (I couldn’t check this myself as I don’t have access to a digital copy of the book).  The quotation above it (“the church-as-theater” etc) is currently unattributed (is it Norton or Bell?). 

Some footnotes are incomplete, and/or have names spelled incorrectly (e.g. note 25, Enders, no page references given).  ‘Enders’ also given as ‘Endlers’ in text. 

I also noticed some misquotes, e.g. p.8, Sponsler (erroneously called ‘Sponsor’ in the text): the quotation is ‘a medium in motion’, I think (not ‘a medium on the move’, this expression doesn’t seem to appear in the referenced chapter by Sponsler from what I can see?).  If this is the correct quotation, it’s also not clear what the author is applying it to in their own prose: Sponsler is clearly referring to medieval performances and motion.  It seems like the author of the article is applyng her words to TLF (? Though the syntax isn’t entirely clear here – “Claire Sponsler… calls it…”, but what is ‘it’?).  I think one clearly could apply Sponsler’s discussion of motion to TLF, but the author would need to do that explicitly, as I don’t think this is literally what Sponsler is speaking about.

Overall, I'd recommend the author check all citations carefully for accuracy, and that they have been acknowledged as citations, and appropriately attributed.  

Author Response

Changes made in the essay:

 

• Reduction of historical content of medieval drama and its relationship to liturgy
• Increased references to and citations from the TLF cycle plays (Christmas and Passion plays)
• Reordering and Renaming of sections dedicated to sourcing of TLF cycle plays with examples
• Expansion on contributions of Honduran José Trinidad Reyes & Nahuatl drama (sections 2 & 3)
• Rewording for greater clarity, as necessary
• More scholarly sources, citations, and expanded footnotes
• Elimination of some in-text citations
• Quotes checked and corrected, as needed
• New Sections (Nahuatl drama, York cycle drama, modern drama influences)
• Separate sections dedicated to each of the two TLF cycle plays, Navidad Nuestra & El Asesinato de Jesús)

General Author Comments:

• There were so many interesting suggestions made by the reviewers for further exploration on this topic. I wish that I could have explored all of them in greater depth!
• I tried to make the essay more readable by reorganizing, rewriting, and expanding upon as many as the reviewer suggestions as possible.
• The dedication of separate sections discussing the two TLF cycle plays with only passing reference, when appropriate, to the cycle play not under discussion in that section, made the essay more thorough and more logical in my estimation, at least.
• Since the essay was a bit longer than I had expected to write, I did a recap in the final section (section #6) with a return to the main theme… TLF’s revitalization of biblical drama
• I changed the title of the essay slightly and changed/added most of the subtitled sections, adding appropriate opening quotes to each section as a “prelude” or transition to the content that follows.

This seemed to “weave” together the very diverse sources (medieval and modern) that have influenced TLF and its ongoing experimental mode of production.

• There were some delays in locating and retrieving interlibrary loan sources suggested by the reviewers.
• Overall, this was a very positive and informative endeavor that made me expand on TLF research, whether the essay is accepted for publication or not.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important, but problematically incomplete, article. Clearly, the intent is to show that Teatro la Fragua is a direct continuation of (English) medieval morality and mystery plays. This is argument is not particularly convincing, partially because the presentation of medieval audiences here seems strangely ahistorical, and so much of what the author characterises as medieval is simply part of the nature of theatre as an art form. First, some statements of what thearical audiecnes 'believed,' such as p6 ('medieval theatrical audiecnes believd what they saw performd was reality') are simply unknowable and conceptually problematic - why on earth would we think that medieval audeicnes were any less aware of the double nature of performativity thaan contemporary ones? Pointing out that this was the doctrine is one thing, but saying that they were 'true believers' (p15) is to impose a contemporary  concept on a historical past that does not make sense. Second, the idea that TLF's theatre is unique in that it is interactive, believed, immersive, or similar words is frequently claimed by the article, but not demonstrated. Frankly, most fictional, character-based theatre works this way, whether it is a new script, an immersive experience, or a contemporary re-staging of a classic like Shakespeare, Lope de Vega or (yes) a Biblical narrative. Much theatre of the West owes a debt to medieval street-based forms, whether English mystery or Italian commedia dell' arte. Why is this theatre different from all other theatre? 

The author does seem to collapse the distinctiveness of TLF's work in some problematic ways. One of them is, again, the refernce to specifically English medieval drama. There are quite importnat medeval Spanish dramatic traditions (some of whcih also have Italian roots), and some importnat work has been done on their engagement with the Americas the 16th and 17th cenutries. Max Harris's work (Carnival and Other Christian Festivals, and my personal favourite, Aztecs, Moors and Christians: Festivals of Reconquest in Mexico and Spain) is worth engaging with in this point. But the most confounding ommission here, especially in the context of TLF's engaement with liberation theology, is any context of Latin American theatre. Liberation theology is not something the authors of medieval morality plays would have understood, of course. But far more importantly, there is a strong and half-century old tradition of politically-engaged street and community theatre in Latin America that explicitly draws on liberation theology roots, sometimes called Theatre of the Oppressed, and including forms such as legislative theatre or invisible theatre.  Its most famous theorist and leader is the Brazilian Augusto Boal, who has stared a considerable dialogue. (He is working with ideas of the pedagogical theorist Paulo Freire, but that's not as essential a reference as Boal). From what you describe, much of TLF's techniques sound like they are specifically derived from Boal, as well as the aesthetic work that has come out of liberation theology. I had not heard of TLF before reading this article, but despite your argument, their work seems to owe as much to Boal as it does to a medieval predecessor. I could be wrong, of course, but this article is really not complete without a considerable exploration of Boal, his theory and methods, and a systematic comparison bewteen what TLF does and what Boal does. I would suggest, for instance, that much of the distinction that the author is trying to draw between 'traditional' theatre and medieval theatre can be explained by the difference between what Boal calls 'Aristotelian' theatre and the non-Aristotelian model he is trying to develop. 

And also, I'm very concerned that it is not at all clear where the author gets their information about TLF from. Especially when there are claims about the deep bond between TLF and the Honduran people, it is very concerning that, with only one exception, the only person quoted here is the (presumably English-speaking) Chicagoan Jack Warner. There is far more information abotu the script than the performance given, and it is not clear where information about the performances are sourced from. Has the author visited Honduras and seen the performance in situ? (If so, please mention that - it would greatly strengthen the article). Have they interviewed performers or audience members? Are they relying on Warner alone? This would be very helpful to know. And if it is just Warner, it is worth reflecting on the potential problematics of that. Is what Warner sets out to acheive the same as what the company actually does? Might the performance appear differently to different audiecnes? What is the politcis of this combination of imported (European) source, imported (American) leadership, and local (Honduran) performers? There is a passing reference to the 'professionalism' (or otherwise) of the company and the performers - what do you mean by that, what does it connote, how is it acheived, and what does it suggest about this form of theatre as opposed to others? Here, too, an engagement with Boal is not optional but essential.

The passion of this article is clear, and the work is does in describing the perofrmative processes of medieval theatre and Christian ritual is valuable and important. But it is very problematic to make an analogy between ritual and theatre without a proper understanding of the nature, history and context of theatre. This is work that this paper needs to do before I can recommend it for publication. Once that work is done, it would be a very valuable contribution indeed.

Author Response

Reviewer #2

Changes made in the essay:

 

• Expanded references to Latin American theatre contexts & Liberation Theology
• Additional referencing of TLF and its roots in Boal’s Theater of the Oppressed and Grotowski’s Community Theatre (section #5) without going too much off-topic and focus
• Clarification in Acknowledgments of seeing performances during visits to Honduras
• Distinction/clarification made between artistic director Warner’s objectives and those of the Honduran performers and audience (quotes in-text and footnotes)
• Referencing Nahuatl ritual versus Nahuatl drama (post-Conquest) drama differences and TLF borrowings in section #3
• References to audience response added
• Discussion of imported European sources (section #4), imported American leadership, & local Honduran performers & audience expanded (especially in sections 2, 4, 5)

General Author Comments:

• There were so many interesting suggestions made by the reviewers for further exploration on this topic. I wish that I could have explored all of them in greater depth!
• I tried to make the essay more readable by reorganizing, rewriting, and expanding upon as many as the reviewer suggestions as possible.
• The dedication of separate sections discussing the two TLF cycle plays with only passing reference, when appropriate, to the cycle play not under discussion in that section, made the essay more thorough and more logical in my estimation, at least.
• Since the essay was a bit longer than I had expected to write, I did a recap in the final section (section #6) with a return to the main theme… TLF’s revitalization of biblical drama
• I changed the title of the essay slightly and changed/added most of the subtitled sections, adding appropriate opening quotes to each section as a “prelude” or transition to the content that follows.

This seemed to “weave” together the very diverse sources (medieval and modern) that have influenced TLF and its ongoing experimental mode of production.

• There were some delays in locating and retrieving interlibrary loan sources suggested by the reviewers.
• Overall, this was a very positive and informative endeavor that made me expand on TLF research, whether the essay is accepted for publication or not.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article examines the religious dramas produced by the Honduran troupe Teatro La Fragua. It lays out the ways in which productions use medieval and early modern liturgical mystery and morality plays as models (ritual and spectacle) while combining modern styles and performative adaptations to connect the biblical drama with the social realities of performers and audiences. Drawing on the principles of Liberation theology, La Fragua’s project aims to raise awareness of issues of social injustice —oppression, poverty, persecution, marginalization— that affect the everyday lives of La Fragua’s audience in the rural areas of Honduras. The project, as analyzed by the author, hopes to educate and entertain through humor and an eclectic combination of medieval, modern, and traditional performative methods and styles, with the ultimate goal of transforming the audience by sharing the Gospel’s message of liberation from social, political, and economic oppression. 

 

The article analyzes the methods developed by La Fragua through the lens of medieval liturgical drama. It is not clear, however, to what extent the theater company or its director is directly modeling the project on medieval modes of expression, or if it is just the scholarly framework the author is using to analyze the level of engagement and participation of performers and spectators in the creative process of religious plays in present-day Honduras. The author aims to demonstrate that medieval performances encouraged audience participation and made sacred stories meaningful by relating them to the sociopolitical issues of the day. Thoroughly informed by relevant literature on medieval and early modern liturgy, drama, and festive culture, as well as performance and theater studies, the article traces the history of religious drama in Christian ritual and its incorporation into public spectacles and street pageants in the medieval and early modern periods. 

 

However, it misses the opportunity to consider the expansion and adaptation of religious theater in New Spain. Particularly relevant are the methods developed by Franciscan missionaries for doctrinal teaching that engaged with local languages and other forms of expression (theater, music, and dance), often the result of collaborative projects with indigenous intellectuals to make the biblical story relevant to the indigenous population. (The author mentions in passing the legacy of “Nahuatl liturgical dramas in 16^th-century Mexico,” but is not sufficiently contextualized for the reader to make relevant connections with continuous religious practices in Honduras). The article thus creates a historical vacuum between medieval European religious drama and present-day Honduras, even more so in the first paragraph of the second section (“2. Modern Approaches to the Medieval”), where the author jumps from theatrical modes of expression in the 12^th and 13^th centuries, to the cycle plays of 16^th century Britain to Jack Warner’s mystery plays. 

 

One of the central themes of the article is the extent to which La Fragua’s productions address the social issues that affect its audiences. However, the author does not provide enough information about the rural areas where these productions take place, the racial or ethnic demographics, the historical (colonial and neocolonial), political, or economic contexts. It would be appropriate to at least situate the locale(s) and direct the reader to relevant sources. Similarly, when the author mentions that the performers use “their own linguistic dialects spoken by fellow Hondurans,” without any background information on these communities, readers may wonder if the author is referring to Spanish, Mayan, Miskito, or Garifuna, or a combination of these. Similarly, the article begs for more information about Jack Werner’s role in Teatro La Fragua’s productions and workshops. He is only mentioned as the founder and a native of Chicago, and in the footnotes, he is described as a liberation theologian. Again, if the author does not want to engage with Warner’s Franciscan background, it might be pertinent to at least refer the reader to relevant sources that contextualize his level of engagement with these communities.

 

Author Response

Reviewer #3

Changes made in the essay:

 

• Added references to religious missionary theater in New Spain (section #3)
• Reordering and rewriting of material for more logical and orderly reading of sources and their impact on the two TLF cycle plays discussed
• Additional information added on Honduran locales of TLF performances (in text and footnotes)
• Explanation of drama workshops conducted by Jack Warner in text and footnotes

General Author Comments:

• There were so many interesting suggestions made by the reviewers for further exploration on this topic. I wish that I could have explored all of them in greater depth!
• I tried to make the essay more readable by reorganizing, rewriting, and expanding upon as many as the reviewer suggestions as possible.
• The dedication of separate sections discussing the two TLF cycle plays with only passing reference, when appropriate, to the cycle play not under discussion in that section, made the essay more thorough and more logical in my estimation, at least.
• Since the essay was a bit longer than I had expected to write, I did a recap in the final section (section #6) with a return to the main theme… TLF’s revitalization of biblical drama
• I changed the title of the essay slightly and changed/added most of the subtitled sections, adding appropriate opening quotes to each section as a “prelude” or transition to the content that follows.

This seemed to “weave” together the very diverse sources (medieval and modern) that have influenced TLF and its ongoing experimental mode of production.

• There were some delays in locating and retrieving interlibrary loan sources suggested by the reviewers.
• Overall, this was a very positive and informative endeavor that made me expand on TLF research, whether the essay is accepted for publication or not.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A review of “From Medieval Religious Pageantry to Contemporary Social Messaging: The Medieval Cycle Plays in Honduras’ Teatro La Fragua.”

 

I very much enjoyed reading this article and would approve of an editorial decision to accept it for publication as it is, if that were your inclination. I do, however, think that there are ways in which the article might be strengthened if the author and editor so wished. I offer these as suggestions, not as requirements.

 

Most (but not all) of my suggested changes have to do with the order in which the author presents the material. The accounts of the Navidad Nuestra and El Asesinato de Jesús cycle plays are, in my opinion, the living heart of the article, giving two vivid accounts of what a Teatro La Fragua performance looks like and how it tells its story. I found these gripping and very moving. I believe the article would be stronger if the reader’s appetite were roused at the outset by these two powerful accounts. Such a change would also establish from the beginning that the creative energy of TLF, rather than any medieval precedent, is the true subject of the article. The account of medieval theater in part 1 is, in my opinion, both questionable in its accuracy (see below) and comparatively lifeless.

 

Having introduced the reader to the active practice of TLF, the author could then raise the question of what influences, both recent and historical, contributed to shaping TLF’s theatrical experiment. My sense is that the Latin American encounter with liberation theology was and is the primary and most powerful influence on the development of TLF, both in its Christian resistance to political oppression and in its commitment to inviting and incorporating the interaction of its poor and rural audiences. I was reminded, in this respect, of Carlos Mesters’ work with base communities, lyrically set out in his Defenseless Flower: A New Reading of the Bible. Grounding TLF’s cycle plays in the practices of liberation theology places them firmly in the needy present rather than in a distant theatrical past.

 

When it comes to theatrical influences, I would suggest that no less emphasis be placed on more recent theatrical traditions than on the medieval cycle plays. The author briefly mentions both Jerzy Grotowski and Peter Brook, the two most influential experimental theater directors of the late twentieth century. The work of TLF reminds me strongly of Grotowski’s and Brook’s commitment to community theater and to the need only of an “empty space” to reach an audience with a powerful theatrical experience. Grotowski’s adaptation of Wyspianski’s Akropolis is one of the simplest and most powerful pieces of political theater ever staged. (For an online film of this play, with Spanish subtitles, see “AKROPOLIS, de Grotowski con subtítulos en español” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDlWO2IpO_o). Linking TLF’s cycle plays to the work of Grotowski and Brook, in terms of the mode of performance, would establish TLF’s identity as a contemporary experimental theater company rather than as one indebted only to a distant medieval tradition. It would also avoid the mistake of labeling all “modern theater” as “a fixed stage in a darkened room” (p. 3).

 

The author might also consider reference to the rich and still vital folk performance traditions of Semana Santa, carnival, and saints’ days in Honduras and throughout the Spanish-speaking world. Festive celebration of the Christian story outside the church and its formal liturgy has a very long history. It is perhaps misleading to link TLF to the medieval (and primarily English) tradition of cycle plays and to pay little or no attention to the living and local folk traditions that celebrate the Christian story and the annual church calendar in ways that clearly appeal to and are performed by the common people. I would also like to see some mention of other performance genres employed by TLF. YouTube videos I found showed folk bailes and ballet classes, but sadly no cycle plays. I may not have searched long enough.

 

Part of my discomfort with the prominence shown by the author to the medieval cycle plays has to do with the author’s limited knowledge of recent scholarship in the sphere of medieval European theater. Scholars have long abandoned the notion that secular drama developed out of performance elements in the church liturgy, recognizing that secular performance traditions had all along thrived outside the church and its rituals. Scholars have also for some time been unwilling to use the term “liturgical” to describe medieval church drama, fearing that it over-simplifies the character of various and differing performance traditions. To speak of “liturgical cycle plays” (p. 4) is particularly misguided. The cycle plays were never part of a formal liturgy. Moreover, it is naïve to suppose that “the audiences” of the Corpus Christi plays “were believers, steadfast in the principles of the Christian faith and firmly invested in the truthfulness of what was being performed in the medieval religious dramatic piece and its biblical origins” (p. 5). Doubt and mockery are not exclusive to the twenty-first century.

 

Nevertheless, if Jack Warner consciously based TLF cycle plays on what he understood to be medieval theatrical practice, then it is legitimate to note those directorial decisions in some detail and to show how their implementation strengthened the scripting and performance of TLF’s own cycle plays. Part 3 of the article does this well. The Navidad Nuestra and El Asesinato de Jesús cycle plays are well worth the full attention of theater historians and communal audiences. I would suggest, however, that the link to medieval theater be explained in terms of Jack Warner’s understanding of the medieval tradition (with an appropriate quote from Warner to that effect) rather than on what the article’s author believes is an objective account of the medieval tradition. I would also prefer that liberation theology, other modern experimental theater practices, and perhaps Honduran folk celebrations to be given proportional credit alongside the claim of medieval precedent.

 

Please regard my comments as suggestive rather than definitive. They are offered as a kind of anonymous dialogical exchange with the author on a topic that enthralls us both. I therefore repeat the affirmation with which I began: I recommend publication of this article, whether or not the author acts on my suggestions.

 

In closing, here are three typos:

1)     Jody Enders not Endlers (pp. 8, 22)

2)     “over days” not “overs days” (p. 13)

3)     “elevated to” not “elevated tp” (p. 16)

Author Response

Reviewer #4

Changes made in the essay:

 

• Re-ordering of most of the material presented with clearer subtitles in each of the 6 sections
• Additional explanation of modern (as well as medieval) precedents in TLF’s bricolage approach to drama
• Classification of TLF as an eclectic experimental theater drawing on medieval past (quotes from the artistic director in this regard) and more contemporary sources (such as Grotowski and Boal)
• Only passing references to Honduran folk traditions of Semana Santa. Since the essay was getting quite long, I was unable to add a separate section on this topic. But it would be an interesting idea for a separate essay. I published an article on the folk dramas based on Honduran and other folk traditions.
• Correction of typos

 

General Author Comments:

• There were so many interesting suggestions made by the reviewers for further exploration on this topic. I wish that I could have explored all of them in greater depth!
• I tried to make the essay more readable by reorganizing, rewriting, and expanding upon as many as the reviewer suggestions as possible.
• The dedication of separate sections discussing the two TLF cycle plays with only passing reference, when appropriate, to the cycle play not under discussion in that section, made the essay more thorough and more logical in my estimation, at least.
• Since the essay was a bit longer than I had expected to write, I did a recap in the final section (section #6) with a return to the main theme… TLF’s revitalization of biblical drama
• I changed the title of the essay slightly and changed/added most of the subtitled sections, adding appropriate opening quotes to each section as a “prelude” or transition to the content that follows.

This seemed to “weave” together the very diverse sources (medieval and modern) that have influenced TLF and its ongoing experimental mode of production.

• There were some delays in locating and retrieving interlibrary loan sources suggested by the reviewers.
• Overall, this was a very positive and informative endeavor that made me expand on TLF research, whether the essay is accepted for publication or not.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Pp 2-3 (section 1): there is still some confusion here about the relationship between Cycle plays and liturgical drama, and some phrasing that is contradictory or confusing for a reader (e.g. ‘By the end of the 12^th century, street performances at marketplaces… gradually were taken over by the laity and performed outdoors…’ – is the author suggesting that previous ‘street performances’ were undertaken by clergy in Latin?  And is there a difference between ‘marketplaces’ and ‘outdoors’ as the syntax implies?)

I’d recommend focusing on one example in this section (York, probably, as that seems to be the most relevant).  The problem with the kind of sweeping statements that are being made here about Corpus Christi plays is that actually York is the only real example that survives, so in fact it’s an exception, not the rule (Chester is a later survival, NTown isn’t a cycle, and Towneley isn’t either – see useful contextualisation here: The York Corpus Christi Plays: Introduction | Robbins Library Digital Projects (rochester.edu)).  The discussion of vernacular drama, teaching, embeddedness in civic life and guild identities, skills, etc will be more convincing if the author makes the point specifically about York. 

For me, section 1 still reads in quite a confused way in terms of the order the points come – the ordering of material is illogical and comes back on itself (Mass, liturgical drama, vernacular drama, back to liturgical drama and ritual). 

In terms of the discussion of liturgy and theatre, I think it is more accurate and probably more helpful both for the author and for readers just to say that the medieval liturgy of the Mass is clearly ‘theatrical’ in some ways ; moreover, the liturgy of the Word also often contained or incorporated performative elements or scenes (these are what is usually referred to as ‘liturgical drama’).  Liturgy in the Middle Ages therefore sits in an interesting position in relation to drama and spectacle – it both partakes of it, but also goes beyond it or is antithetical to it, in some ways (Bell etc).   Vernacular cycle plays like the York cycle do not develop directly from this sort of liturgical phenomena (Norton et al) – but they do provide evidence of a different, vernacular way of embodying the Bible, teaching, and blending civic and religious celebration in spaces around the medieval city.  I think the way to make this section read less vaguely and like it is generalising, and more specifically, is to focus on York a bit more explicitly (rather than trying to talk about ‘medieval theatre’ generally). 

Section 2

This section is more clearly framed now. 

p. 5, line 7 word missing (‘combine with’ not ‘combine’?)

p.7: Speaking as a reader unfamiliar with this material (as a lot of people will be) – I think it might be better to put this summary of the structural order of typical elements in the Navidad Nuestra at the start of their analysis of it, so at the beginning of this section.  Then the author can point to different aspects of it in the ensuing discussion (Herod’s speech, the massacre of the Innocents, Joseph Trinidad Reyes, etc). 

Section 4

p. 15: ‘Stages were arranged…’: where is the author getting this information from? I think there needs to be a citation here.

p.17 note 49: check the spelling in this note, both the names are spelled incorrectly (Sponsler and Enders), also check accuracy of citation and give a page reference for it?

Section 6

p. 21: ‘The church had no control… The most popular themes…’: where is this information coming from?  Once again, I think this needs a citation – how does the author know these are ‘the most popular’ themes? How do they know that ‘peasants from surrounding areas flocked’?  There are an awful lot of assertions here.

OVERALL: This is much more clearly framed than before, with a more cogent structure (medieval borrowing, Nahuatl material, etc).  I think there is still some difficulty in terms of how the author is starting out (liturgy, theatre, etc): as above, that section could be shorter and more logically laid out.  I also found that there seemed to be quite a bit of repetition around the argument that this theatre creates social change: that seemed to be stated a lot.  I'd recommend revisiting this with an eye to cutting down some of the later sections, so that the article feels less repetitive around this point.  I'd also recommend that the author assess where they have made assertions which need some kind of evidence to be cited (see comments above). 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This is mostly clearly written and expressed.  There are some page references and things missing from footnotes - I'd recommend that the author check carefully for accuracy, as well as for accuracy of quotation.   

Author Response

ROUND II REVIEWS:

MY RESPONSES:

REVIEWER #1:

• Wording changed & made more uniform in Section 1 (cycle plays / liturgical drama), as needed.
• Example of York Corpus Christi Cycle Plays expanded upon; general comments about medieval theater cut as a consequence.
• Section 2 changes and reordering completed, as recommended.  I agree.
• Additional citations added in Section 6 and indeed in many portions of the manuscript with additional references related too the topic added.
• Citations checked and corrected, as needed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for adressing the review comments so thoroughly. The practice described is now grounded much more broadly in Mesoamerican and Spanish theatrical history, as well as English examples. It's a much stronger piece as a consequence. There are minor issues of formatting that remain, but they can be fixed in a copy edit. My only notes would be that endnote 41 is very important, and deserves to be incorporated into the main text of the article (and far, far earlier than this late a stage), and the reference in endnote 31 needs fixing. 

Thank you for this importnat, original, and rigorous contribution to scholarship!

Author Response

• ROUND II REVIEWS:

MY RESPONSES:

REVIEWER #2:

• Endnote issues have been addressed.

• A large portion of Endnote #41 had been incorporated into the main text earlier in the manuscript (i believe in Section 2).  I completely agree with this suggestion.