انجمن هنرهای نمایشی ایران تئاتر 17350235 13 1 2026 05 22 The Manifestation and Evocation of the Unseen World in Drama; a Study of the Death of Yazdgerd from the Linguistic Perspective of Peter Brook’s ‘Holy Theatre’ تجلی و استحضار جهان ناپیدا در نمایشنامۀ؛ مطالعه «مرگ یزدگرد» در پرسپکتیو زبانی «تئاتر قدسی» پیتربروک 9 28 242396 10.22034/theater.2026.576179.1163 FA اسماعیل شفیعی دانشیار گروه تئاتر، دانشکدۀ سینما و تئاتر، دانشگاه هنر ایران، تهران، ایران. 0009-0003-7468-0897 مینا امامی کارشناس ارشد رشتۀ ادبیات نمایشی، دانشکدۀ هنر، واحد تهران مرکز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. 0009-0004-2020-5748 Journal Article 2026 02 16 Brook’s theory of the ‘Holy Theatre’ represents a profound rethinking of the function and potential of language within the theatrical experience. For Brook, language in performance transcends its conventional role as a medium for the mere transmission of information or the facilitation of ordinary human communication. Rather, language is conceived as a vehicle for revelation, for invoking forces that exist beyond the tangible world, and for manifesting otherwise unseen realities, hidden, or metaphysically charged. In this conception, the words spoken on stage are not simply carriers of narrative or descriptive content; they serve as instruments that shape the perception of the audience, opening a portal to dimensions that lie beyond ordinary experience. In Brook’s vision, holy language must create a space where the audience is invited to encounter mystery, depth, and spiritual resonance, allowing the theatrical event to function not merely as entertainment or commentary but as a site for metaphysical and spiritual engagement. This perspective positions theatre as an inherently transformative art, where the encounter between performer and spectator can elicit reflection, introspection, and a sense of connection to transcendent realities. The present study seeks to explore and assess the capacity of language in Bahram Beyzaie’s The Death of Yazdgerd to align with Brook’s notion of holy theatrical expression. By focusing on the interplay between linguistic form and spiritual effect, the study examines whether Beyzaie’s text achieves a measure of the elevated, transformative experience that Brook associates with the holy mode. This analysis emphasizes that in holy theatre, language is not simply a tool for conveying a linear plot or delivering a straightforward message; rather, it functions as a means to evoke a heightened experience that is profound, transformative, and imbued with metaphysical significance. The study situates itself within Brook’s theoretical framework and applies his criteria rigorously to the textual fabric of Beyzaie’s play to determine the extent to which its language can be considered ‘holy.’ Drawing from Brook’s writings and conceptual foundations, eight core features have been distilled that characterize holy language in performance. These features serve as analytical touchstones, providing a structured approach to evaluating the text. They include qualities such as brevity, paradoxical construction, sonic resonance, symbolic density, imagistic power, and non-verbal suggestion, each of which plays a distinctive role in generating the experience of the sacred on stage. Brevity, or verbal economy, allows language to carry maximum weight with minimal articulation, intensifying the audience’s focus and opening interpretive space. Paradox introduces tension, ambiguity, and cognitive dissonance, encouraging spectators to engage with the text in a reflective and non-linear manner. Sonic resonance and non-verbal suggestion extend the impact of language beyond its semantic content, engaging auditory and bodily perception and creating a multi-layered theatrical experience. Symbolic density and imagistic power generate layers of meaning, encouraging interpretation on multiple levels and evoking archetypal and transcendent motifs. By combining these elements, Brook constructs a holistic vision of theatre in which every word, sound, gesture, and silence participates in the realization of the sacred, demonstrating that language alone is a dynamic tool capable of producing spiritual and emotional resonance that extends far beyond the literal. Among these eight traits, six were selected for the present study due to their suitability for textual analysis: conciseness, paradox, linguistic imagery, metaphysical resonance, non-verbal potential, and symbolic compression. These six dimensions provide measurable criteria for assessing the degree to which Beyzaie’s language approximates the qualities Brook associates with holy theatre while retaining the subtlety necessary to respect the inherent literary and dramatic qualities of the play. Each dimension is explored in depth, highlighting the mechanisms through which language can evoke spiritual awareness and transcendence. Conciseness emphasizes the deliberate selection of words, ensuring that each utterance carries layered meaning, while paradox challenges linear perception, inviting reflection and cognitive engagement. Linguistic imagery and symbolic compression allow the audience to experience multiple interpretive layers, cultivating an imaginative engagement with the text that resonates with the metaphysical dimensions of Brook’s conception. Non-verbal potential further broadens the sensory landscape of the performance, offering additional avenues for experiential depth and resonance beyond the semantic plane. The findings indicate that The Death of Yazdgerd exhibits a significant affinity with the principles of holy language in multiple domains. The play demonstrates a high degree of verbal economy, with approximately 95% of its language reflecting conciseness and precision. Such economy ensures that each word carries deliberate intention, enabling the audience to engage more deeply with the resonances and implications of speech. Moreover, paradoxical structures, which juxtapose seemingly incompatible ideas or create conceptual tension, constitute roughly 52% of the analyzed material, underscoring the play’s alignment with Brook’s emphasis on contradiction and tension as conduits for transcendence. These paradoxes serve not only to destabilize the ordinary cognitive framework of the audience but also to open interpretive pathways toward spiritual and symbolic understanding. This strategic tension functions as a bridge, connecting narrative and symbolic content to the elevated aesthetic experience that Brook identifies as central to holy theatre. However, the study also identifies limitations in the play’s deployment of other critical features of holy language. Linguistic imagery and mental visualization, which in Brook’s model function to evoke internal landscapes, archetypal scenes, and imaginative engagement, appear with relatively reduced frequency, approximately 24%. While the imagery that is present is vivid and effective, its comparative sparseness may limit the overall impact of the text in transporting the audience fully into a sacred or transcendent space. Likewise, the use of non-verbal or musical elements, which are pivotal in Brook’s holistic model for enhancing the sensory and multisensory dimension of performance, comprises only 8% of the textual strategies. This suggests that auditory, gestural, and non-verbal avenues for evoking a heightened theatrical experience are underutilized in Beyzaie’s play, potentially constraining the multidimensional impact of the performance on the audience’s perception. Such limitations highlight the challenges inherent in translating Brook’s theoretical constructs into a specific cultural and performative context, particularly within the linguistic and dramaturgical conventions of Iranian theatre. A further element affecting the realization of holy language in The Death of Yazdgerd is the presence of violent language and motifs, which account for roughly 15% of the script. While Brook acknowledges that the depiction of violence is not inherently incompatible with holy theatre, its unmediated or stark presentation can conflict with the contemplative and transformative aims associated with the holy mode. In this context, violent or aggressive language may interrupt the spiritual cadence or reflective engagement that characterizes a fully realized holy theatrical experience. The presence of such language introduces tension between the text’s poetic aspirations and its narrative content, creating an effect that is compelling yet occasionally discordant with Brook’s ideal of sustained spiritual resonance. In conclusion, this study finds that approximately 65% of the language in The Death of Yazdgerd aligns with the principles of holy theatre as articulated by Peter Brook. The play demonstrates a partial yet significant movement toward holy theatrical language, revealing Beyzaie’s sensitivity to metaphysical, symbolic, and spiritual dimensions within dramatic form. Nonetheless, the text does not fully embody the holy, remaining in an intermediary space that balances poetic expression with transcendent ambition. The language of The Death of Yazdgerd may thus be understood as a work in transition: a remarkable attempt to touch upon the holy without fully crossing its threshold, evoking reflection, wonder, and a sense of spiritual aspiration, while simultaneously acknowledging the limitations inherent in translating Brook’s abstract and rigorous theoretical constructs into a specific cultural and literary context. This extended analysis underscores the complexity, subtlety, and partial realization of holy theatrical language in Beyzaie’s work, highlighting both its achievements and the dimensions in which further alignment with Brook’s vision could potentially be explored in future studies. Furthermore, it emphasizes the capacity of Iranian theatrical language to engage with universal theoretical frameworks while maintaining its distinctive aesthetic, cultural, and symbolic richness, suggesting avenues for further comparative research between Western theoretical models and non-Western dramatic traditions. از منظر پیتر بروک، ارزش‌هایی که زمانی هستۀ اصلی تئاتر را شکل می‌دادند، امروزه به‌کلی بی‌اعتبار شده‌اند؛ ازجمله این ارزش‌ها، مفهوم «دیدنی کردن امر نادیدنی» است و تئاتری که قادر به تجلی این ارزش باشد، «تئاتر قدسی» نامیده می‌شود. بروک ویژگی‌های متنوع و گوناگونی را برای عناصر اصلی تئاتر قدسی برمی‌شمارد و زبان را مهم‌ترین و تعیین‌کننده‌ترین عنصر آن می‌داند. به عقیدۀ او، زبان نه‌تنها ابزار ارتباط، بلکه وسیلۀ اصلی «تجلی و استحضار جهان ناپیدا» در تئاتر است و این ظرفیت زبان، نقش کلیدی و بنیادین در شکل‌دهی تجربه‌ی تئاتری دارد و می‌تواند اثرگذاری نمایش بر تماشاگر را به سطحی فراتر از ادراک روزمره برساند. علی‌رغم جهانی‌شدن ایده‌های بروک و پذیرش گسترده‌ی نظریه‌های او در حوزۀ تئاتر، تاکنون این کارکرد زبانی و ظرفیت‌های آن برای تحقق تئاتر قدسی در نمایشنامه‌های ایرانی به طور نظام‌مند سنجش نشده و هیچ الگویی مشخص برای چنین ارزیابی‌ای ارائه نگردیده است؛ به همین دلیل، خلأ علمی و پژوهشی در این زمینه کاملاً محسوس است و نیاز به بررسی دقیق و سیستماتیک احساس می‌شود. مقالۀ حاضر با هدف پر کردن این خلأ طراحی شده است. در این راستا، نمایشنامۀ «مرگ یزدگرد» اثر بهرام بیضائی، که از نظر زبان‌شناسان و صاحب‌نظران حوزه‌ی تئاتر یکی از آثار برجسته و ممتاز در حوزۀ زبان نمایشی محسوب می‌شود، به عنوان نخستین اثر ایرانی با رویکرد کمّی مورد کندوکاو و ظرفیت‌سنجی قرار گرفته است. ابتدا، از میان آموزه‌های بروک، هشت خصیصۀ بنیادین برای زبان تئاتر قدسی استخراج شده است که از این میان، شش مورد به دلیل قابلیت سنجش در متن مکتوب، به عنوان مبنای تحلیل و استنتاج انتخاب گردیدند. یافته‌های مهم این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که زبان «مرگ یزدگرد» در ویژگی‌هایی چون «ایجاز کلامی» و «ساختارهای متناقض» به زبان تئاتر قدسی نزدیک می‌شود؛ اما در زمینه‌هایی مانند «تصویرسازی زبانی» و «اصوات غیرکلامی» محدودیت‌هایی دارد و این کمبودها مانع از تحقق کامل زبان قدسی می‌شوند. همچنین، حضور قابل‌توجه «خشونت زبانی» که با اصول زبان تئاتر قدسی در تعارض است، موجب کاهش اثرگذاری و انسجام تجربه‌ی تئاتری می‌شود. پژوهش همچنین نشان می‌دهد که ویژگی‌هایی مانند زبان آرکائیک، تعدد لایه‌های زبانی و دیگر جذابیت‌های زبانی، گرچه می‌توانند بسترساز باشند، لزوماً با «تئاتر قدسی» تناسب مستقیم ندارند، اما نقش تکمیلی و انگیزشی در ایجاد فضای نمایش ایفا می‌کنند.

https://journal.theater.ir/article_242396_ab6f69e80a416f33b990eb2b5ef51da9.pdf

انجمن هنرهای نمایشی ایران تئاتر 17350235 13 1 2026 05 22 An Analysis of Jacques Rancière’s Politics of Aesthetics in the Play The Thirteenth Night واکاوی سیاست زیبایی‌شناختی ژاک رانسیر در نمایشنامه شب سیزدهم 29 43 243358 10.22034/theater.2026.569130.1157 FA هادی انوشا کارشناس ارشد کارگردانی، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشکده هنرهای نمایشی و موسیقی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. 0009-0002-5486-8609 مجید سرسنگی دانشیار، گروه تئاتر، دانشکدۀ هنرهای نمایشی و موسیقی، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران Journal Article 2026 02 13 This study examines The Thirteenth Night, a play by Hamid Amjad, as a contemporary reinterpretation of Iranian historical and traditional contexts that extends beyond the framework of historical comedy-drama. The research argues that the play offers significant potential for analyzing power relations and political dynamics not merely through its thematic content, but through its dramatic form and aesthetic structure. Drawing on Jacques Rancière’s theory of the ‘aesthetic regime of art,’ the study investigates how political meaning is embedded in form rather than message, particularly through disruptions in representation and the redistribution of the sensible. The central issue of this research is the underestimation of the political capacity of dramatic form in Iranian historical drama. Conventional readings often focus on narrative content and socio-historical representation, overlooking how aesthetic form itself can function as a site of political intervention. From Rancière’s perspective, politics in art does not emerge from explicit ideological messaging, but from the reconfiguration of sensory experience and the disruption of established regimes of visibility, speech, and bodily placement. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to analyze the mechanisms of ‘disruption’ and ‘redistribution of the sensible’ in The Thirteenth Night based on Rancière’s aesthetic regime of art. The research specifically focuses on how theatrical devices such as gender cross-dressing and ‘play-within-a-play’ structures challenge hierarchical social orders and destabilize representational logic. The study is grounded in Jacques Rancière’s triadic model of artistic regimes: the ethical regime of images, the representational regime, and the aesthetic regime. Among these, the aesthetic regime is considered the most significant, as it dissolves hierarchical distinctions between subject matter, genres, and forms of representation. Central to Rancière’s theory are the concepts of: 1- Police order: the system that defines what can be seen, said, and heard within a given social order. 2- Distribution of the sensible: the implicit structuring of perception that determines inclusion and exclusion in social and political life. 3- Politics: the moment when this distribution is disrupted through the emergence of previously invisible or voiceless subjects. 4- Aesthetic regime: a condition in which hierarchical distinctions between high/low subjects and artistic forms are abolished, enabling new configurations of perception. From this perspective, politics is not institutional consensus but dissensus—a rupture in the established sensory order that allows new subjectivities to emerge. This research employs a qualitative, descriptive-analytical method based on library and textual analysis. The primary source is the play The Thirteenth Night, alongside theoretical works by Jacques Rancière and related secondary literature. The analytical procedure involves: a) Clarifying key theoretical concepts (aesthetic regimes, police order, redistribution of the sensible). b) Applying these concepts to the dramatic structure of the play. c) Identifying moments of rupture in hierarchical social and symbolic systems. d) Analyzing key dramatic devices such as cross-dressing and role inversion as political-aesthetic acts. The play demonstrates a systematic disruption of the established distribution of the sensible. Set in the Qajar era, it portrays a rigidly hierarchical social system in which gender, class, and spatial boundaries determine visibility and agency. Female characters such as Zarrineh and Sanam-Nesa are initially positioned within domestic confinement, reflecting a patriarchal ‘police order’ that regulates speech, mobility, and bodily autonomy. Their lived experiences reveal a system in which women are excluded from public visibility and decision-making processes. However, Zarrineh’s resistance to these constraints introduces a rupture in this order. Her critique of domestic confinement and gender inequality challenges the legitimacy of inherited social norms, thereby destabilizing the fixed distribution of roles. A central mechanism of disruption in the play is cross-dressing. Zarrineh’s decision to disguise herself as a man in order to leave the domestic space functions not merely as a narrative device, but as a political act in Rancière’s sense. This act reconfigures visibility and mobility, allowing her to occupy spaces previously forbidden to her. Similarly, Kamran-Mirza’s cross-dressing as a woman to enter the female domestic space further destabilizes gender binaries. His action exceeds romantic or comedic function; it becomes an intervention in the sensory and political order of the Qajar society. By crossing gender boundaries, both characters reveal that identity itself is constructed and contingent rather than natural or fixed. These acts expose the arbitrariness of gender roles and demonstrate that subject positions are produced through social and aesthetic arrangements rather than biological essence. In this sense, cross-dressing operates as a form of ‘dissensus’ that interrupts the police order and generates new perceptual possibilities. Another significant device in the play is the ‘play-within-a-play’ structure, which disrupts representational transparency. By exposing theatricality as constructed rather than natural, the play undermines the illusion of realism that sustains representational regimes. This self-reflexive structure dissolves the boundary between performance and reality, compelling the audience to recognize the constructed nature of all social roles and narratives. As a result, the hierarchical relationship between actor, character, and spectator is destabilized. In Rancière’s terms, this transformation redistributes the sensible by dissolving fixed positions of seeing and knowing. The audience is no longer a passive recipient of meaning but becomes an active interpreter engaged in meaning production. The play also reconfigures spectatorship in line with Rancière’s notion of the ‘emancipated spectator.’ Rather than positioning the audience as passive observers, The Thirteenth Night invites interpretive participation. The spectator is compelled to reconstruct meaning independently, thereby becoming a political subject. This shift transforms theatrical experience into a site of subjective emergence, where individual perception replaces imposed interpretation. The spectator’s engagement becomes a form of intellectual and aesthetic emancipation. The findings of this research demonstrate that The Thirteenth Night is not merely a historical or comedic representation of Qajar society, but a politically charged aesthetic structure that enacts Rancière’s concept of the redistribution of the sensible. Through mechanisms such as cross-dressing and play-within-a-play, the work disrupts hierarchical social orders and exposes the constructed nature of gender, class, and visibility. These aesthetic strategies function as political acts that challenge the ‘police order’ and open spaces for previously marginalized voices. Zarrineh’s transgression of domestic confinement and Kamran-Mirza’s violation of gender norms both contribute to a reconfiguration of perceptual and social boundaries. Moreover, the play’s self-reflexive structure destabilizes representational illusion and transforms the spectator into an active interpretive agent. Ultimately, the study argues that Hamid Amjad’s The Thirteenth Night should not be read merely as a comedic or historical drama, but as an aesthetic-political intervention that reconfigures the sensory and symbolic order of theatrical experience. In doing so, it exemplifies Rancière’s notion that art becomes political not through representation, but through the disruption of perception and the redistribution of what can be seen, said, and experienced. نمایشنامۀ شب سیزدهم اثر حمید امجد، بازخوانی مدرنی از بسترهای سنتی و تاریخی ایران است که فراتر از یک کمدی‌-درام تاریخی، ظرفیت‌های قابل‌توجهی برای تحلیل مناسبات قدرت و سیاست در فرم اجرایی دارد. او با تبیین «رژیم زیبایی‌شناختی» در هنر و به‌چالش‌کشیدن نظم بازنمایانه و ساختار دلالت‌مندی ارسطویی، برساخته‌بودن و بی‌ثباتی آن را در هنر و سیاست را به چالش می‌کشد. مسئلۀ اصلی این پژوهش، چگونگی بازتاب «امر سیاسی» نه در محتوا و مضامین، بلکه در ساختار و فرم زیبایی‌شناسانه اثر است. هدف پژوهش حاضر، تحلیل سازوکار «اخلال» و«بازتوزیع امر محسوس» در این نمایشنامه بر اساس نظریۀ «رژیم زیبایی‌شناختی» ژاک رانسیر است. این پژوهش با روش توصیفی-تحلیلی و با تکیه بر منابع کتابخانه‌ای، ابتدا مفاهیم کلیدی نظریۀ زیباشناختی رانسیر که شامل «نظم پلیسی» و «توزیع امر محسوس» می‌شود را به عنوان چارچوب نظری برای واکاوی کنش‌های دراماتیک (نظیر بدل‌پوشی جنسیتی و فرم نمایش‌درنمایش) در متن نمایشنامه به کار گرفته است. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که امجد با استفاده از تمهید «بدل‌پوشی»، مرزهای جنسیتی و طبقاتی تثبیت‌شده اجتماعی-سیاسی در دورۀ قاجار (نظم پلیسی) را مخدوش می‌کند و با تکنیک «نمایش‌درنمایش»، توهم بازنمایی واقعیت را می‌شکند و با ورود به فضا و مکان‌های ممنوع و اخلال در فضای بازنمایانه درام، توسط شخصیت‌های نمایشنامه ایجاد می‌کند. این تمهیدات زیبایی‌شناختی صرفاً ابزاری برای کمدی نیستند، بلکه کنش‌هایی سیاسی‌ در شکل و محتوای نمایشنامه هستند که با ایجاد «اخلال» در سلسله‌مراتب دیدن و شنیدن، امکان ظهور سوژه‌های جدید (مانند زنان و فرودستان) را بر مبنای نظریۀ زیبایی‌شناسانه فراهم کرده است و منجر به بازپیکربندی امر محسوس در جهان درام می‌شوند. به‌طوری که مخاطب را به برساخته بودن نظام بازنمایانه در این اثر نمایشی آگاه می‌کند. این پژوهش، نمایشنامۀ شب سیزدهم را در چارچوب منطق زیبایی‌شناختی رانسیر، با گسست در فضای اجتماعی و سیاسی در دوره‌ای تاریخی، به بازپیکربندی مجدد محسوسات و سیاست‌ورزی، در شخصیت‌ها و هویت‌ها در هنر و سیاست می‌پردازد.

https://journal.theater.ir/article_243358_ffbf79d65e6ed7889533c9cfeffabec2.pdf

انجمن هنرهای نمایشی ایران تئاتر 17350235 13 1 2026 05 22 A Study on Ethical Relations in Two Selected Plays of Neil Simon Based on Emmanuel Lewinas’ Views (Case Studies: Lost in Yonkers and Barefoot in the Park) بررسی مناسبات اخلاقی در دو نمایشنامۀ « گمشده در یانکرز» و «پابرهنه در پارک» اثر نیل سایمون بر اساس آرای امانوئل لویناس 45 61 243790 10.22034/theater.2026.445476.1043 FA زهره حلاجی کارشناس ارشد ادبیات نمایشی، گروه هنر، دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. 0009-0005-0532-9993 پرستو محبی استادیار گروه هنر، دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران . 0000-0002-5763-1693 مهرداد رایانی مخصوص استادیار گروه نمایش، دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری، واحد تهران مرکز، دانشگاه علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران. 0000-0002-2571-3221 Journal Article 2026 01 04 Among the differences that can be seen in philosophical studies is the way of looking at the two concepts of ‘ego’ and ‘other.’ In the modern era, philosophers and thinkers, including Kant, have paid the most attention to the category of ‘ego’ and have neglected ‘otherness.’ Emmanuel Levinas is one of the thinkers who filled this study gap to a significant extent. Levinas believes that philosophy seeks to explain ‘what morality is.’ According to his definition, ethics is concerned with the right to life of ‘others.’ Levinas's philosophy can be called a kind of ‘otherism,’ which is in the opposite direction of ‘self-knowledge’ in the history of Western philosophy. Levinas emphasizes that the subject's relationship with the ‘other’ is an ‘asymmetrical’ relationship, which means that when I face the ‘other,’ it is for the ‘other,’ and this is not a mutual responsibility! ‘I’ will be responsible for answering him, without knowing how he will be in front of ‘I.’ Levinas’s philosophy is essentially an ‘alterity’ or ‘otherness’ thesis, standing in direct contrast to the ‘egology’ or self-centeredness that characterizes much of Western thought. For Levinas, ethics is defined as an attention to the right to life of the ‘Other.’ He posits that the relationship between the subject (the Self) and the Other is fundamentally asymmetrical. In this asymmetry, the Self exists ‘for’ the Other, bearing an infinite responsibility without any expectation of reciprocity. This study applies this rigorous ethical lens to the works of Neil Simon; a playwright predominantly celebrated for his comedy and wit. By shifting the critical focus from the humorous aspects of Simon’s drama to their underlying ethical structures, this paper aims to reveal the profound moral dimensions inherent in human relationships as depicted in his plays. Specifically, the research focuses on two of Simon’s major works: ‘Lost in Yonkers’ and ‘Barefoot in the Park,’ investigating how the dynamics of the Self and the Other, as well as symmetric versus asymmetric ethics, manifest within the narrative arcs of these characters. The primary objective of this research is to conduct a Levinasian reading of Neil Simon’s selected plays to uncover the ethical frameworks governing character interactions. While Neil Simon’s theatrical canon is often dissected for its comedic elements and linguistic playfulness, this study contends that a robust ethical subtext drives the conflicts and resolutions in his work. To achieve this overarching goal, the paper pursues three specific objectives: 1. To determine whether the dramatic structures of ‘Lost in Yonkers’ and ‘Barefoot in the Park’ are designed around the ethical category of Self/Other. 2. To analyse and classify the ethical relationships within these plays as either ‘symmetric’ (reciprocal, based on exchange) or ‘asymmetric’ (non-reciprocal, based on infinite responsibility) in accordance with Levinas’s definitions. 3 To examine the characters' responses to the ‘face’ of the Other—understood in Levinas’s philosophy as the epiphany that commands ‘Thou shalt not kill’—and how this encounter dictates their moral choices and the trajectory of the plot. The theoretical cornerstone of this research is the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas (1906–1995). Levinas argues that Western philosophy, from Parmenides to Heidegger, has prioritized ‘Ontology’ (the study of Being) over ‘Ethics.’ In contrast, Levinas proposes that ethics is the first philosophy. Central to his theory is the concept of the ‘Face’ (visage) of the Other. The Face is not merely a physical feature but a phenomenon that disrupts the Self’s autonomy. In encountering the Face, the subject is called into question and finds themselves hostage to the Other. Levinas introduces the concept of ‘asymmetry’ to describe this responsibility. Unlike social contracts that rely on reciprocity (quid pro quo), the Levinasian subject is responsible for the Other even if the Other does not reciprocate. This responsibility is infinite; the Self must be willing to sacrifice for the Other without the guarantee of return. This stance opposes ‘symmetric ethics,’ where moral obligations are balanced and reciprocal—a view Levinas critiques as reducing the Other to the Same. Furthermore, the study distinguishes between ‘self-centeredness (egoism)’ and ‘other-centeredness (alterity).’ Egoism seeks the maximum good for the Self, often closing its eyes to the needs of others. Conversely, Levinasian alterity involves a ‘wounded humanity’ where the subject is traumatized by the vulnerability of the Other. The ethical subject is one who says, ‘Here I am’ (me voice) in response to the call of the Other. In this research, the descriptive-analytical method is used, and the data collection method is library research and using notes. The analysis of ‘Lost in Yonkers’ and ‘Barefoot in the Park’ through the lens of Emmanuel Levinas reveals that Neil Simon’s comedies are deeply entrenched in ethical questions. The study confirms that both plays function as arenas where the Self and the Other negotiate their existence through symmetric and asymmetric ethical models. The results indicate that Simon’s plays do not merely offer simple humour but reflect the complex, often painful reality of human relationships. The categorization of characters highlights a distinct pattern: 1. Asymmetric and Altruistic Characters: Characters such as Jay in ‘Lost in Yonkers’ and Paul in ‘Barefoot in the Park’ (initially) are portrayed as the moral anchors. They exhibit Levinasian traits—suppressing the ego for the sake of the Other. Jay’s protection of his father and Bella’s devotion to Johnny are prime examples of ethics defined by responsibility and sacrifice. 2. Symmetric and Egoistic Characters: The Grandmother in ‘Lost in Yonkers’ and Corie (in the first act of ‘Barefoot in the Park’) prioritize the Self. Their interactions are governed by a logic of exchange and personal gain, resisting the call of the Other’s Face. The purpose of the present research is to achieve the importance of the two components of asymmetric/symmetric and self/other ethics after analysing two plays—Lost in Yonkers and Barefoot in the Park—and a comparative look between them. How are all three works manifested and also seeking to answer the main question that Simon's plays are based on the reading of Emanuel Levinas and the Self/Other. According to the characters who had the most movement and influence in both plays, most of them had asymmetric morals. The study concludes that in Neil Simon’s dramatic universe, the resolution of conflict often requires a shift from egoism to a recognition of the Other. While characters like the grandmother remain trapped in self-centred isolation, the protagonists who drive the emotional resonance of the plays—Jay, Bella, and ultimately Paul—are those who grapple with the weight of responsibility. This research successfully demonstrates that Levinas’s heavy philosophical concepts of the ‘face,’ ‘asymmetry,’ and ‘infinity’ are not just abstract theoretical tools but are vividly dramatized in the domestic struggles of Simon’s characters. Consequently, reading Simon through Levinas provides a profound understanding of his work, shifting the critical perspective from ‘pure humour’ to a serious exploration of the ethical obligations that bind human beings together. امانوئل لویناس از جمله متفکرانی است که در پی تبیین چیستی اخلاق است. بنا به تعریف او، اخلاق توجه به حق حیات «دیگری» است. فلسفۀ لویناس را میتوان نوعی غیریتشناسی یا دیگریشناسی نامید که در جهت عکس خودشناسی یا منشناسی تاریخ فلسفۀ غرب قرار دارد. خودگروی اخلاقی اینگونه القاء میکند که انسان باید بیشترین خیر و رفاه را به شخص خود برساند. لویناس از این نوع نگاه که معطوف به خود باشد انتقاد میکند. او معتقد است نگاهی که خودگرا و معطوف به خود باشد شاخصۀ یک انسان خودخواه و تصمیمات و تمایلات خودخواهانه او بوده و این‌گونه افراد درصدد برآوردن آرزوها و اهداف شخصی خود هستند و چشمهایشان را بر دیگران و نیازها و امیال آنها میبندند. برهمین‌اساس انسان هیچ مسئولیتی نخواهد داشت جز در برابر خود، منافع و خیرات شخصی خود. لویناس تأکید میکند که رابطۀ سوژه با دیگری، رابطهای غیرمتقارن است، بدین‌معنی که «من» در رویارویی با دیگری، برای دیگری بوده و این در حالی است که این مسئولیت متقابل نیست. من مسئول پاسخگویی به او خواهد بود، بدون آنکه بداند او در برابر من چگونه خواهد بود. لویناس این‌گونه ابراز میکند که با اولین ارتباط با دیگری، مسئولیتی در برابر او ایجاد میشود که منجر به‌نوعی احساس ایثار، بی‌چشمداشتِ هر پاداشی میشود، زیرا دیگری به من ارجحیت دارد. پژوهش حاضر تلاش دارد پس از تحلیل نمایشنامههای منتخب و نگاهی مقایسهای به این دو پرسش پاسخ بدهد: آیا نمایشنامههای نیل سایمون بر اساس مقولۀ اخلاقی خود/دیگری طرحریزی شدهاند؟ در نمایشنامههای نیل سایمون اغلب، اخلاق متقارن بروز یافته و یا اخلاق نامتقارن؟ هدف از تحقیق حاضر این است تا پس از تحلیل دو نمایشنامۀ گم‌شده در یانکرز و پابرهنه در پارک به این مهم دست یابد که دو مؤلفۀ اخلاق نامتقارن/متقارن و خود/دیگری در هر دو اثر با چه تناسبی متجلی شدهاند. نتایج حکایت دارد که نمایشنامه‌ها هم دیگرگرایی و هم خودگروی را بازتاب داده‌اند. همچنین با توجه به شخصیتهایی که بیشترین حرکت و تأثیرگذاری را در هر دو نمایشنامه داشتند، اغلب آنها اخلاق نامتقارن داشتهاند. در این تحقیق از روش توصیفی ـ تحلیلی استفاده شده و روش گردآوری داده‌ها کتابخانه‌ای و با استفاده از ابزار فیش‌برداری است.

https://journal.theater.ir/article_243790_4504e90afa2d9d751f9a9eb1981e7cea.pdf

انجمن هنرهای نمایشی ایران تئاتر 17350235 13 1 2026 05 22 An Analysis of the Collapse of Cartesian Time in Modern Drama: From Hamlet’s Doubt to Godot’s Decay تحلیلی بر فروپاشی زمان دکارتی در درام مدرن: از تردیدِ هملت تا تباهیِ گودو 45 61 243557 10.22034/theater.2026.575098.1162 FA مجید کیانیان دانشجوی دکتری حکمت هنرهای دینی، دانشکدۀ دین و هنر، دانشگاه ادیان و مذاهب، قم، ایران. 0009-0005-9444-7050 ُسید ابوالقاسم حسینی (ژرفا) دانشیار مؤسسۀ آموزش عالی هنر و اندیشۀ اسلامی، قم، ایران . Journal Article 2026 02 17 Time has always functioned as one of the concealed yet decisive foundations of dramatic structure. From classical Greek drama through Renaissance tragedy, time was not merely the neutral container of events but a constitutive principle shaping plot, causality, and dramatic necessity. The coherence of dramatic action depended on a temporal order in which “before” and “after” were meaningfully connected, enabling movement from an initial situation through crisis toward resolution. In modern drama, however, this temporal foundation gradually destabilizes. The result is not only a transformation of themes or characters but also a profound disturbance in the formal logic of dramatic progression itself. Modern drama frequently exhibits fractured temporal continuity, suspended action, disrupted causality, and, in extreme cases, the impossibility of plot formation. These features are often interpreted under broad categories such as the ‘crisis of meaning,’ the ‘crisis of the subject,’ or existential absurdity. Yet such interpretations tend to overlook a more fundamental question: to what extent is the collapse of plot in modern drama rooted in a philosophical transformation of the concept of time itself? Rather than viewing dramatic stagnation solely as a historical or aesthetic development, this article argues that it must be understood in relation to a deeper reconfiguration of time, continuity, and necessity within modern philosophy. From this perspective, Cartesian philosophy occupies a crucial position. René Descartes introduces a radically new understanding of time by detaching it from objective continuity and reinterpreting it as a mental, discontinuous, and secondary construct. Although Descartes does not formulate an explicit aesthetic theory, his conception of time-developed within a broader metaphysical, theological, and epistemological framework—has far‑reaching implications for how action, causality, and continuity can be conceived. This article does not claim a direct historical influence of Cartesian philosophy on modern drama; rather, it treats Cartesian time as a conceptual horizon that helps illuminate structural tensions within dramatic form. The central question guiding this study is how a shift in the philosophical foundations of time affects the possibility of dramatic progression, causal continuity, and plot construction. To address this question, the article adopts a qualitative, descriptive‑analytical approach and examines two canonical dramatic texts situated at different historical moments: William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. These works are analyzed not as thematic reflections of philosophical ideas but as formal structures in which temporal logic either falters or collapses entirely. The first part reconstructs Descartes’ conception of time based on key texts such as Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) and Principles of Philosophy (1644). In Cartesian thought, time is not an objective feature of reality comparable to extension or motion. What truly exists is the duration (durée) of things insofar as they persist in being; ‘time’, by contrast, is a mode of thought—an intellectual measure imposed upon duration through comparison and calculation. Moreover, Cartesian time is fundamentally discontinuous: individual moments do not entail one another, and the existence of a substance at one instant provides no guarantee of its existence in the next. This discontinuity underlies Descartes’ doctrine of continuous creation, according to which the persistence of beings at each moment requires the same divine act as their initial creation. As a result, temporal continuity is not an intrinsic property of reality but an imposed, mental construct. Time has no internal necessity, no inherent directionality, and no immanent force binding moments together. From a dramatic standpoint, this undermines the traditional linkage between knowledge, decision, and action: knowing no longer necessarily leads to doing, because the temporal bridge that once connected insight to consequence has lost its ontological grounding. The second part of the article analyzes Hamlet as a threshold text in which this temporal instability first becomes visible within dramatic form. Shakespeare’s tragedy still operates within the remnants of classical plot structure, yet the temporal order that sustains dramatic necessity is profoundly unsettled. Drawing on theoretical formulations by A. Hübler and Herder (via Manfred Pfister), the article emphasizes that classical dramatic action presupposes a time capable of sustaining continuity, direction, and causality. In Hamlet, however, this temporal framework begins to fail. The appearance of the Ghost initiates the crisis. Traditionally, the ghost in revenge tragedy functions as a guarantor of truth and a catalyst for action. In Hamlet, by contrast, the ghost destabilizes certainty rather than securing it. It returns from the past without being able to anchor the present or compel the future. Knowledge gained through revelation does not generate immediate action; instead, it produces hesitation, reflection, and delay. Hamlet’s soliloquies mark moments in which time ceases to function as a vehicle of progression and becomes an object of thought. The famous “To be or not to be” soliloquy is read not merely as an existential meditation, but as a condensation of temporal crisis: past, present, and future converge into an indecisive ‘now’ that suspends action rather than propelling it forward. Even when all causal prerequisites for action are present—most notably in the prayer scene-Hamlet’s intervention of future consequences disrupts the immediate logic of action. Time no longer guarantees necessity. Yet Hamlet does not represent the complete collapse of time. Events still occur, actions eventually unfold, and death ultimately brings closure. What emerges instead is a drama of temporal doubt: time has become unreliable, but it has not yet disappeared as a structuring principle. For this reason, Hamlet is interpreted as an “anatomy of crisis,” a liminal work in which time is problematized but not annihilated. The final part turns to Waiting for Godot as the point at which this crisis reaches its terminal stage. Here, the minimal conditions of dramatic temporality—succession, anticipation, and consequence—no longer operate. Drawing on Peter Pütz’s formulation of dramatic sequence, the article argues that Beckett’s play begins precisely where this logic fails. Nothing meaningfully precedes or follows anything else; repetition replaces progression, and expectation replaces action. In Godot, time is neither linear nor cyclical, nor even truly static. Days repeat without differentiation, memory fails to stabilize experience, and the future never arrives. The characters’ attempts to think, remember, or interpret their situation repeatedly collapse, revealing the exhaustion of the Cartesian subject itself. If, in Hamlet, thinking suspends action, in Godot, thinking becomes a threat—something to be avoided rather than pursued. Language, which in Cartesian philosophy serves as an instrument of clear and distinct thought, disintegrates into nonsense, most notably in Lucky’s monologue. With the collapse of thought comes the collapse of mental time. There is no longer even a subjective framework capable of organizing duration. As A. Alvarez observes, the play ultimately concerns not what happens, but how time is passed. Habit, boredom, and repetition replace causality and development. The article concludes that the transition from Hamlet to Waiting for Godot can be understood as a movement from doubt about time to the complete collapse of temporality as a dramatic foundation. In this trajectory, Cartesian time-initially conceived as a mental, discontinuous construct-loses even its organizing function within consciousness. Without objective continuity or a divine guarantor, time disintegrates into empty succession, and plot becomes structurally impossible. Modern drama, from this perspective, is not merely the site of existential despair or thematic nihilism but the formal manifestation of a deeper philosophical rupture. The collapse of plot is not imposed from outside but emerges from within the very conditions of temporal experience. Drama continues to exist, but it does so in the absence of time as a meaningful horizon-forced to survive, paradoxically, in a world where time itself has lost the power to sustain action, meaning, and necessity. این پژوهش با هدف تبیین نقش مفهوم دکارتیِ زمان در شکل‌گیری بحران کنش و پی‌رنگ در درام مدرن، به واکاوی دگرگونی بنیان‌های زمانی این‌گونه نمایشی می‌پردازد. مسئلۀ مرکزی آن است که چگونه درک دکارتی از زمان- به ‌مثابه کمیتی ذهنی، انفصالی و فاقد استمرار درونی- موجب می‌شود پیوند سنتی میان آگاهی، علیت و کنش سست شود و امکان‌پذیری ساختار منسجم پی‌رنگ به چالش کشیده شود. پژوهش حاضر با اتخاذ رویکردی کیفی و روشی توصیفی – تحلیلی می‌کوشد نشان دهد چنین برداشتی از زمان صرفاً پیامدی متافیزیکی یا معرفت‌شناختی ندارد، بلکه در سطح ساختارهای فرمی درام نیز اثرگذار است و بنیان‌های زمانی درام کلاسیک را به چالش می‌کشد. لذا، برای بررسی این مسئله، ابتدا تلقی دکارت از زمان بر اساس متون اصلی او و در پیوند با مفاهیمی چون دیرند، خلق مدام و انفصال آنات بازسازی می‌شود تا چارچوب نظری تحلیل فراهم آید. در ادامه، این چارچوب به‌مثابه افق مفهومیِ خوانش در تحلیل دو مطالعه موردی، یعنی نمایشنامه‌های هملت اثر ویلیام شکسپیر و در انتظار گودو اثر ساموئل بکت، به‌ کار گرفته می‌شود. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که در هملت با متنی آستانه‌ای مواجه‌ایم که در آن زمان هنوز به ‌طور کامل فرو نریخته است، اما دیگر قادر به تضمین ضرورت کنش دراماتیک نیست و تعلیق‌های مکرر و گسست میان اندیشه و عمل از تزلزل انتظام زمانی پی‌رنگ حکایت دارند. در در انتظار گودو این بحران به صورتی رادیکال‌تر آشکار می‌شود؛ جایی که تضعیف استمرار و جهت‌مندی زمان، کنش نمایشی را به انتظار و تکرار بدل می‌کند و امکان شکل‌گیری پی‌رنگ را با اختلال مواجه می‌سازد. از این منظر، مقایسه این دو متن امکان مشاهدۀ مسیری را فراهم می‌کند که در آن تزلزل در انسجام زمانی به بحرانی بنیادین در سازمان دراماتیک می‌انجامد. بر این مبنا، پژوهش حاضر نشان می‌دهد که گذار از هملت به در انتظار گودو را می‌توان به ‌منزله گذار از تردید در زمان به تباهی آن فهم کرد. درام مدرن، در این خوانش، نه صرفاً بازتاب بحران معنا یا سوژه، بلکه عرصه‌ای است که در آن فروپاشی بنیان‌های فلسفی زمان به‌صورت فرمی و ساختاری متجلی می‌شود؛ آن قسم از فروپاشی‌ که درنهایت، امکان پی‌رنگ را نه از بیرون، بلکه از درون منتفی می‌سازد.

https://journal.theater.ir/article_243557_53d2d950d3385007e8be949ea45e7da7.pdf

انجمن هنرهای نمایشی ایران تئاتر 17350235 13 1 2026 05 22 Examining the Function of ‘Play-Within-a-Play’ as a Metatheatrical Device in Anthony Shaffer’s Whodunnit بررسی عملکرد «نمایش در نمایش» به عنوان یکی از ابزارهای متاتئاتر در نمایشنامۀ قاتل کیه اثر آنتونی شفر 79 91 243558 10.22034/theater.2026.561912.1152 FA محمد منعم کارشناس ارشد رشتۀ سینما، دانشکدۀ سینما و تئاتر، دانشگاه هنر ایران، تهران، ایران. 0009-0002-5991-3333 Journal Article 2025 11 29 Throughout the history of theatre, two opposing extremes have repeatedly emerged. On the one hand is abstract formalism, which overlooks the fact that the dramatic text constitutes the foundation of theatrical performance. On the other hand, is a text-cantered approach that seeks all meaning exclusively within the script, reducing the play to a vehicle for slogans and ideas while neglecting the aesthetic dimensions that connect it to the contemporary context of its production. Caught between these two poles, genre plays have often been marginalized by both camps. Such works are frequently dismissed as conservative: by the former for their adherence to conventional forms, and by the latter for their perceived conservatism in thought and content. Yet these judgments may be premature. A closer and more rigorous examination of genre plays reveals their potential to make significant contributions to both theatrical form and thematic substance. Rather than viewing them as merely conventional, it is necessary to investigate the distinctive aesthetic and intellectual possibilities they offer to the art of theatre. Meanwhile, Anthony Shaffer is recognized as one of the most significant playwrights and screenwriters working within the genre tradition. The case study of this research is his play Whodunnit and the term ‘whodunit,’ a modified form of the question ‘Who done it?’ which refers to detective novels, plays, and films in which the identity of an unknown murderer is revealed only at the final stage of the narrative. Whodunnit is among Shaffer’s most complex and, at the same time, most captivating works. Nevertheless, there remains a risk that the play may be interpreted in two contrasting ways. On the one hand, directors who seek to assert their own authorship may regard it as a text that restricts their creative freedom in performance. On the other hand, directors who rely exclusively on the script may criticize it for its excessive formal complexity, viewing it as a work preoccupied with technique at the expense of substantive meaning and intellectual depth. But does this play—or others classified as generic dramas—lack formal (theatrical) or thematic accomplishments? This study adopts a descriptive-analytical method and a qualitative approach to explore the theatrical merits of the play, which belongs to the metatheatre category. It investigates both the textual and performative dimensions of the work, drawing on Lionel Abel’s theoretical framework to support its analysis. The plot of Whodunnit is meticulously crafted to keep the audience constantly surprised. While this quality holds more literary than theatrical significance, it stems from a well-established tradition in fiction—seen in the tightly constructed, intelligent narratives of authors like Ellery Queen, Agatha Christie, Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, John le Carré, and Eric Ambler, among others in the detective and spy genres. Similarly, playwrights such as Ira Levin and Agatha Christie herself, particularly in stage adaptations of her stories like The Mousetrap and Ten Little Niggers, display the same deliberate artistry. This attention to intricate plotting also appears in works by Anthony Shaffer and other dramatists, especially English-speaking writers from the 1930s to the 1960s who anticipated their plays being adapted into Hollywood films, including Sidney Kingsley and J. B. Priestley. But what makes this play by Anthony Shaffer different from other similar works, even his own works, is that it is derived from the metatheatrical tradition, which makes it have a specific theatrical form achievement. The nature of this study is structural-formal and its aim is to examine the hidden characteristics and achievements of generic works. The case study here is the play Whodunnit by Anthony Schaefer. In addition, examples from other generic and metatheatrical plays will be mentioned to examine the formal and thematic commonalities of this form of theatre. The research hypotheses are as follows: -Generic works are not necessarily conservative and can act as revolutionaries if the rules of the genre are applied intelligently in them. -The play-within-the-play in the play Whodunnit is the intelligent tool that saves this play from conservatism. -Since the play-within-the-play is one of the tools that can turn a work into a metatheatre, the present work must be viewed within the framework of a metatheatre in order to realize its revolutionary achievements and values in terms of form and thematic theatre. Since Whodunnit is a play that uses the ‘play-within-a-play’ device, it should be noted that this device has generally appeared and been used in different ways throughout the history of drama. One form of using the ‘play-within-a-play’ form is the play Mousetrap in Shakespeare's Hamlet and Brecht's The Caucasian Chalk Circle, in which a conscious play is performed with a specific intention: in the first to determine whether Claudius is guilty or innocent, and in the second to tell an allegorical story in order to make a correct judgment. These two examples have a subtle difference in the use of this form. In Shakespeare's play, the present tense takes up most of the play, and Hamlet's performance lasts no more than ten minutes. In Brecht's play, the present tense is limited to a few minutes at the beginning and a few minutes at the end, and the play that is performed in it takes up most of his play. Another form of using the ‘play-within-a-play’ form can be seen in plays such as Mephisto Forever by Tom Lanoye, Noises Off by Michael Frayne, and The Real Inspector Hound by Tom Stoppard. In this second form, a theatre group is performing a play for performance; in other words, it is not intended to have a function outside the theatrical medium, as in the first type of this form. In fact, Hamlet intends to perform the play to gauge Claudius' reaction, and the performers in The Caucasian Chalk Circle present their play to influence the judges who have come from Tbilisi to the village; but in this second use of the ‘play-within-a-play’ device, the inner play is not merely a tool but an end in itself. Since, in Abel’s view, not all plays he considers examples of metatheatre make use of the device of the ‘play-within-a-play,’ the term cannot be used to refer exclusively to this form of theatre. For this reason, he adopts the term metatheatre. In his opinion, metatheatre refers to a clear and definitive theatrical mode, rather than merely a theatrical device of expression. This study aims to demonstrate that in genre-based plays, the effective application of various techniques embeds the central idea or theme more deeply within the work. When these methods are seamlessly integrated into the overall narrative, they avoid being reduced to mere formal devices. Such plays are frequently criticized as conventional, often assumed to serve only an entertaining function. Yet, a more careful analysis—particularly one focused on their technical aspects—reveals significant formal and structural accomplishments within the theatrical medium. Therefore, it can be said that Schaefer's play, although considered a generic play, was never a conservative one, and by using ‘play-within-a-play’ technique and changing its rules through the creation of a third play (the inspector's play), it adds another level to the already known levels of this technique and, ironically, acts as a revolution. در طول تاریخ و هر از گاه همواره دو حد افراطی از تئاتر را شاهد بوده‌ایم. فرمالیسم انتزاعی و عدم توجه به اینکه نمایشنامۀ اساس و بنیان یک تئاتر به شمار می‌رود. حد دیگر، همه‌چیز را در متن جستن و تبدیل اثر نمایشی به چیزی در حد شعار و خالی از هر جنبۀ زیباشناسانه‌ای که هم‌گام با دوران معاصری باشد که اثر در آن دوره تولید شده است. در این میان نمایشنامه‌های ژانر از سوی هر دو طیف نادیده گرفته می‌شوند. زیرا نمایشنامه‌هایی ازاین‌دست از سوی هر دو گروه به محافظه‌کاری متهم می‌شوند؛ از سوی دستۀ نخست متهم به محافظه‌کاری در فرم و از سوی دستۀ دیگر متهم به محافظه‌کاری در اندیشه و مضمون. اما به نظر می‌رسد باید به این نمایشنامه‌ها نگاهی دقیق‌تر و موشکفانه‌تر انداخت تا فهمید چه دستاوردهای مثبت فرمی و مضمونی می‌توانند برای تئاتر داشته باشند. در این میان آنتونی شفر به عنوان یکی از مهم‌ترین نمایشنامه‌نویسان و فیلمنامه‌نویسان در حیطۀ ژانر شناخته شده است. نمایشنامۀ قاتل کیه از پیچیده‌ترین و درعین‌حال جذاب‌ترین آثار اوست. اما کماکان این خطر وجود دارد تا این اثر از یک‌سو، از نگاه کارگردانانی که می‌خواهند مؤلف باشند به عنوان نمایشنامه‌ای نگریسته شود که دست آنان را در اجرا می‌بندد، و از سوی دیگر از نگاه کارگردانانی که تنها به نمایشنامه اتکا می‌کنند به پیچیدگی زیاده از حد فرم و درنتیجه خالی از مضمون و اندیشه متهم شود. اما آیا این نمایشنامه و یا دیگر نمایشنامه‌هایی که در زمرۀ نمایشنامه‌های ژنریک می‌گنجند هیچ دستاورد فرمی (تئاتری) یا مضمونی ندارند؟ مطالعۀ حاضر بر آن است تا با استفاده از روش توصیفی ـ تحلیلی و با بهره بردن از رویکرد کیفی، ضمن پرداختن به دستاوردهای تئاتری این نمایشنامه که در دستۀ متاتئاتر می‌گنجد، ارزش‌های متنی و اجرایی این نمایشنامه را بررسی کرده و در این راستا از نظریات لیونل آبل نیز بهره می‌گیرد تا ثابت کند که این نمایشنامه با وجود آنکه در دستۀ نمایشنامه‌های ژنریک می‌گنجد، اما هرگز محافظه‌کارانه عمل نکرده و حتی می‌توان گفت با توجه به دستاوردهای فرمی و مضمونی‌ای که دارد، از قضا نمایشنامه‌ای است که هم در فرم و هم در مضمون انقلابی عمل می‌کند.

https://journal.theater.ir/article_243558_c878d0540f3c48772ed55d273489bf2f.pdf

انجمن هنرهای نمایشی ایران تئاتر 17350235 13 1 2026 05 22 An Interpretation of Ibn Arabi’s Tajalli (Manifestation) in the Ta’ziyeh Ritual of Imam Hussein (PBUH) from an Islamic Aesthetic Perspective تفسیرِ تجلیِ ابن‌عربی در مجلسِ شبیه‌خوانی امام‌حسین(ع) با رویکرد زیبایی‌شناسی اسلامی 93 107 244557 10.22034/theater.2026.556955.1146 FA هادی ولی پور قره قیه دانشجوی دکتری تخصصی پژوهش هنر، واحد بین‌المللی کیش، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کیش، ایران. 0000-0001-9500-4466 سیدمحمد میرشفیعی استادیار گروه هنرهای صناعی، دانشکدۀ هنرهای صناعی، دانشگاه هنر اسلامی تبریز، تبریز، ایران. 0009-0000-9676-4395 Journal Article 2025 11 25 Aesthetics in the Islamic worldview extends far beyond subjective, sensory, or purely psychological perception; it is rooted deeply in ontology. Within this framework, aesthetic experience is inseparable from the concept of tajalli (divine manifestation), since every existent being is understood as a sign and epiphany of the Truth, and all creatures are, in essence, loci in which divine lights become manifest within the realm of creation. Islamic aesthetics is fundamentally objective in nature: beauty becomes accessible only insofar as it appears through manifestation and disclosure. In this regard, Ibn Arabi’s metaphysical and mystical thought plays a crucial role in elevating the significance of tajalli within aesthetic interpretation. In his perspective, the invisible signs of God disclose themselves through the multiplicity of beings to the wayfarer and observer, guiding the human being toward proximity to the Divine. Without recognizing this condition of manifestation and without perceiving the harmony and order embedded within it, it becomes impossible to apprehend the meaning of ḥusn (beauty, goodness, and divine loveliness) in the world of existence. One of the most prominent artistic embodiments of this manifestation-oriented aesthetics in Iran is the ritual performance of ta’ziyeh (also known as 'shabih-khani', or passion play). Despite its sorrowful atmosphere and its representation of the tragedy of Karbala, ta’ziyeh, at a deeper level, constitutes an attempt to render invisible truths visible through tangible and symbolic forms. In contemporary society, however, especially among younger generations and particularly students of the arts, there exists a noticeable epistemic distance from this ritual form. Many young people, faced with difficult living conditions, a pervasive atmosphere of social melancholy, and the psychological aftereffects of war and insecurity, tend to view ta’ziyeh merely as an art form that intensifies grief, deepens sorrow, and reinforces hopelessness. The present study, therefore, seeks not only to critique this reductive interpretation but also to identify the dimensions of ḥusn and tajalli in the content and performance of ta’ziyeh, demonstrating how this ritual can, despite narrating suffering and loss, become a site for the manifestation of symbolic divine beauty. Ta’ziyeh has a long-standing history in Iran as a traditional, ritual theater form. Yet it was during the formalization of Shi’ism and the political-religious patronage of the Safavid and Qajar dynasties that this art acquired renewed vitality and achieved its fullest development. In this period, the thematic center of ta’ziyeh shifted from myths, local legends, and pre-Islamic or folkloric narratives toward the events of Karbala in the year 61 AH. Through this transformation, ta’ziyeh evolved from a local dramatic practice into a sacred ritual theater deeply embedded in Shi’i devotional life. As a result, a network of established conventions emerged between performers and audiences, in which each element—color, movement, gesture, speech, costume, and spatial arrangement—carried meanings that exceeded its immediate physical appearance. One of the defining features of ta’ziyeh manuscripts is the relative anonymity of authorship. In many of these texts, the name of the writer is absent from the narrative tradition; where a name does appear, it is often that of a compiler, editor, or reviser rather than an original author. This absence suggests that ta’ziyeh texts have developed over time through collective cultural transmission and in continuous interaction with communal tradition. Likewise, at the level of performance, the Shabih-khan is not, unlike the actor in modern theater, primarily concerned with psychologically embodying a character or performing a naturalistic role. Rather, the performer functions as a narrator who, relying on a text that is often not memorized in the conventional sense, presents the likeness or semblance of the historical figure. This process may be understood as a form of self-effacement within tradition: the artist, writer, and performer see themselves as mere intermediaries for the transmission of a sacred heritage, striving to leave no trace of ego, name, or personal authorship upon the work, so that only the manifestation of truth may be revealed in the performance. The semantic and theological center of this study rests on the interpretation of Lady Zaynab’s famous response in the court of Yazid: “I saw nothing but beauty” (mā raʾaytu illā jamīlan). In the face of Yazid’s hostility and his attempt to turn catastrophe into an exhibition of humiliation and defeat, her statement transcends an earthly and reactive response and enters the sphere of mystical discernment. While Yazid sought to display power, dominance, and contempt, Lady Zaynab, through a gaze directed toward the manifestations that followed the tragedy, recognized the reality of divine ḥusn in steadfastness, martyrdom, and fidelity to truth. This utterance thus reveals a mystical worldview according to which, even amid violence, fragmentation, and bloodshed, beauty remains visible to the one whose gaze is oriented toward the Truth. In this hierarchy of divine manifestation, the Ahl al-Bayt occupy the highest rank as the most complete loci of tajalli. The findings of this study indicate that ta’ziyeh is not merely a ritual performance, but a stage upon which invisible divine lights become manifest to the heart of the believing seeker. A symbolic connection binds all the elements of this sacred art. The relation between form and meaning gives rise to a ritual environment in which both artist and audience participate in a process of fana (self-annihilation) in the presence of the sacred. Accordingly, the central research question asks how the ritual performance of shabih-khani, beyond its inherently sorrowful narrative, can also manifest the symbolic beauties of the Creator in the public encounter with the martyrdom of the Imam. In response, all structural elements of ta’ziyeh, from narrative to form, serve the realization of Islamic aesthetics. At the level of content and narrative, the sorrowful plot is not merely a historical account, but a dramatization of the confrontation between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, and justice and oppression. At the level of form and performance, the interaction between performer and audience creates a ritual bond in which the boundary between representation and reality becomes porous through symbolic presence. At the level of visual and auditory elements, the use of symbolic colors in costume design, stage arrangement, and specific accessories all function as signs that materialize invisible meanings. Likewise, music, lamentation, and devotional recitation create an acoustic space in which hearing becomes a mode of spiritual witnessing. Ta’ziyeh scripts, emerging from the tradition of maqatil (martyrdom narratives), employ these elements to generate both visual richness and spiritual depth. Because historical realities are often more fully understood when they are presented through artistic form, shabih-khani is saturated with symbolism. Through watching and participating in this traditional dramatic practice, the audience undergoes an affective experience that has a profound impact on the self and often leads to emotional release and the expression of hidden inner states. Accordingly, all form-based components of shabih-khani role-playing, audience participation, time, place, color, costume, music, and stage props may be understood as expressions of multiplicity within unity. That unity is grounded in the divine source of being: God creates, manifests Himself in creation, inspires love for Himself in His creatures, and ultimately reclaims them. In this sense, multiplicity is not detached from unity but emerges through it and returns to it. The results show that ta’ziyeh, within the framework of Islamic aesthetics, is a form of divine beauty made visible for remembrance, affirmation, and spiritual awakening. What begins as a conceptual understanding becomes, in Shi’i devotional life, a lived and mystical experience. The mourning of Muslims over the bloodshed of their martyred Imam is not simply sorrow for loss, but an affirmation of absolute goodness and a recognition of divine beauty appearing in suffering. The ultimate implication of this ritual is the cultivation of love for the Imams, the manifestation of divine beauty and loveliness within the performance itself, and the believer’s hope for the intercession of the martyred Imam in the hereafter. Contrary to the superficial perception sometimes held by younger generations, ta’ziyeh is not an instrument for propagating despair; rather, it is an aesthetics of manifestation. Its elements—from script composition to symbolic performance—are grounded in practical mysticism and are oriented toward revealing the dimensions of divine ḥusn and mercy. Unlike Western theater, which often emphasizes anthropocentrism and individual tragedy, ta’ziyeh is founded upon theocentrism and upon the manifestation of truth in the midst of catastrophe. The artist and performer, by accepting their role as nameless mediators, seek to present eternal beauty to the audience through symbols, even within sorrow. Ta’ziyeh thus remains a ritual art through which beauty is seen in the heart of affliction and through which human beings are reconnected to the manifestations of divine beauty in the world of existence. This study was conducted using a qualitative methodology and a descriptive-analytical approach. The primary sources were drawn from classical mystical texts, historical ta’ziyeh manuscripts (maqatil), and contemporary scholarship on ritual performance. Data analysis was based on the relationship between the ontological concepts of Islamic art and the formal elements of ta’ziyeh. زیبایی‌شناسی در اسلام، بُعدی عمیق و هستی‌شناختی داشته و در آن هر موجودی، جلوه‌ای از اسماء و صفات الهی را در خود متجلی ساخته و به مثابه آینه‌ای، نشانه‌ای از ذات اقدس احدیت است. در این چارچوب، مفهوم «تجلی» نقشی محوری در فهم زیبایی‌شناسی اسلامی که تا زمان شکل‌گیری و ظهور، قابل درک نیست ایفا می‌کند و آن را از زیبایی‌شناسیِ کانتی که بر پایۀ سوبژکتیویته بنا شده، متمایز می‌سازد. اهمیتِ تجلی در نظریۀ عرفان عملی ابن‌عربی، که به کشف و شهودِ اسماء و صفات الهی و تجلیِ حق در مراتبِ وجودی اشاره دارد، برجستگی می‌یابد. نمونه‌ای درخشان از این تجلیِ زیبایی‌شناختی، در آیینِ نمایشیِ «تعزیه» در فرهنگ ایران، متجلی می‌شود. تعزیه، به عنوان بازنماییِ وقایعِ عاشورا و مصائبِ امام حسین (ع)، تجسمی هنرمندانه و نمادین از تجلیاتِ غیبی است که بر قلبِ سالکِ عارف می‌تابد و او را به قربِ الهی رهنمون می‌سازد. فهمِ درکِ زیبایی‌شناختیِ تعزیه، مستلزمِ درکِ مقام تجلی است. این مقاله، در پیِ کاوش در تفسیرِ جایگاهِ تجلی، به‌ویژه از منظرِ کلامِ حضرت زینب (س) «ما رَأَیتُ اِلّا جَمیلاً» پس از فاجعۀ کربلا در دربارِ یزید است. این جمله، پاسخی شگرف به جسارت‌ها و تمسخرهایِ یزید و اطرافیانش در قبالِ اسارتِ اهل‌بیت (ع) و مظلومیتِ امام حسین (ع) و یارانش است. حضرت زینب (س)، با این کلام، نه‌تنها پاسخی کوبنده به دشمن می‌دهد، بلکه دریچه‌ای به عالمِ ملکوت و مقاماتِ معنویِ اهل‌بیت (ع) می‌گشاید. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که روایت و محتوا در کنارِ فرم، شاملِ تعاملِ میانِ اجراکنندگان و تماشاگران، مجموعه‌ای آیین‌مند را برای ارتقایِ اجرایِ تعزیه تشکیل می‌دهند. بسترِ زمانی و مکانی، سیالیتِ روایت، شخصیت‌پردازی‌ها، رنگِ لباس‌ها، نمادپردازیِ صحنه، و موسیقیِ آمیخته با مرثیه و نوحه‌سرایی، همگی نشانگرِ تجلیاتِ جمالِ الهی در تعزیه هستند. نسخه‌های تعزیه که ریشه در «مقاتل» دارند، با بهره‌گیری از عناصرِ زیبایی‌شناختی، به اجرا عمقِ بصری می‌بخشند. برای عارفِ سالک که حقیقت را شهود می‌کند، این اجراها فارغ از حزن و شگفتیِ ظاهریِ آن، زیباییِ حقیقت را بازمی‌نمایند. در قرائتِ مثنوی‌گونه، گوهرِ حقیقت تجلی می‌یابد و زیبایی، در جهانِ هستی، همچون جلوه‌ای از وجودِ موجودِ جمیل، ملموس می‌گردد. این پژوهشِ کیفی، با روشِ توصیفی ـ تحلیلی و با اتکا به منابعِ کتابخانه‌ای، نشان می‌دهد که عناصرِ موجود در آیینِ نمایشیِ تعزیه در ایران، ریشه در عرفانِ عملیِ هستی‌شناختی داشته و کارکردی زیبایی‌شناختی دارند. از متن تا اجرا و قراردادهایِ نمایشیِ خاص، همگی جلوه‌هایی از جمالِ الهی هستند که فیض، رحمت و پاداشِ الهی را متجلی می‌سازند. این تواضع، هنرمند-مؤمن را وامی‌دارد تا خود را تنها مجرایی در این آیین بدانند و نامی از خویش برجای نگذارند. درنهایت، این تحقیق در پیِ پاسخ به این پرسش است: آیین نمایشی شبیه‌خوانی چگونه به جز روایت سوگناک ذاتی‌اش، می‌تواند تجلی‌گر زیبایی‌های نمادین پروردگار در مواجهه عموم با شهادت امام‌شان باشد؟

https://journal.theater.ir/article_244557_83664f07a4527421aadbb359c570aacf.pdf