Modern theater is a revolutionary period in theater history in which several theater theorists and practitioners experimented with hitherto unexplored ideas. One of these movements, fundamental to the anti-realistic theater that rebelled against realism and naturalism, is symbolism. Symbolism was a theatrical movement that deviated from logic and the representation of life to illogic and the representation of man's inner being. In exploring the use of this theory in dramatic works, this work uses the famous symbolist play Pelleas and Melisande. The choice of Pilleas and Melisande is important not only for its symbolic strength, but because the author is the most acclaimed of the Symbolist playwrights. The article then explores Pileas and Mélisande from a symbolist point of view using the actions present in the work. The article concludes that although symbolism was short-lived and is no longer practiced today, its components are used variously by playwrights even in contemporary times. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay For historical convenience, Western history has been divided into eras or periods, and the history of Western theater has also been encapsulated by these historical dichotomies. Starting from the time of ancient Egypt, the history of the theater has been traced through the Greek and Roman eras to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Among these historical periods, modern theater occupies an important position, known for its predilection for the diversity of ideas. The period of modern theater began in the autumn of the 19th century. Indices of its early beginnings can be traced back to the works of Richard Wagner who advocated and practiced a musical theater in which "music, through melody and tempo, allows greater control over the performance than is possible in spoken drama" (Brockett, 582) and a theatrical architecture that allowed people, regardless of class, to pay equal dues. Duke George II of Saxe-Meiningen became the ideal figure of the current director. These early innovations preceded the dramatic works of Henrik Ibsen, acclaimed as the father of the modern theater. His dramatic works championed the cause of realism which was closely followed by naturalism (an extreme form of realism). After him (as his later works reflect) there was a revolt against realist theater which led to the escalation of myriad theatrical movements such as symbolism, expressionism, absurdism, eclecticism, dadaism, futurism and so on. RM Wernaer's observation about the Romantics will be enough to move the discussion forward: “Our writers felt possessed by two distinct personalities, one facing the natural world with its sensual qualities, its definable limits, its laws of time and place; the other turned towards God with his circle of infinity, his celestial values, his sentimental tones, his emotional ecstasies, his dreams and visions”. (quoted in Tisdel, 2) The first is the drama of action which Aristotle emphasizes when he defines drama as “the imitation of action” – drama dealing with tangible realistic events full of realism and other movements that precede it. The latter, however, tries to capture the immaterial or surreal world. These have been explicitly explained with theoretical underpinnings by theater artists encapsulated in modern theater movements. The symbolism that takes center stage in this speech was about this inner man. Symbolism was the first major revolt against realistic theatre. It began in France at the end of the 19th century and died out at the dawn of the 20th century. It was a theaterwho advocated the use of symbols and metaphors to suggest deeper meanings than their outward appearances. With this we tried to "objectify the subjective" (Matteo quoted in Valeri, 41) thus bringing out the inner part of man's quality - what had been neglected by the theater of the time. “For the Symbolists, subjectivity, spirituality, and mysterious internal and external forces represented a higher form of external appearance” (Brocket, 584), thus they venerated the internal and intangible nature of man over the realistic one. This change in dimension was motivated by the fact that "scientists' concern for observable superficial details led them to neglect higher truths" (G. Albert quoted in Valeri, 4) because "something eternal, mysterious and essentially unknowable lies in the heart of creation, beyond the scope of scientific research” (Burhan quoted in Valeri, 4). One of the leading playwrights of the Symbolist movement was Maurice Maeterlinck who postulated that: "the most dramatic moments are the silent ones during which the mystery of existence, normally obscured by frenetic activity, makes itself felt" (Brockett, 564). To express this "mystery of existence", he wrote plays such as The Intruder (1894), The Blind Man (1890), The Death of Tentagiles (1894), and Pelleas and Melisande (1892). Henrik Ibsen's last plays can also be traced back to the Symbolist school of thought. They include: The Wild Duck (1884), Rosmersholm (1886) and When We Dead Awaken. In these plays he made use of "symbolism and subjects more interested in personal relationships than social problems" (Brockett, 549). Every symbolist needs some kind of masterly vision to be able to deal with the images that ultimately make up the symbols. For this he needed a high subconscious to enter into symbolist inspiration, he could identify symbols and since "the world of senses and objects simply represented the world of ideas", he would attribute meanings to them. Other writers like Maurice Maeterlinck believe that instead of identifying objects and writing around them, the symbol should arise from the work. According to him: “I don't think the job can be feasible. The work that arises from the symbol cannot be anything other than an allegory... the symbol is an original force and the spirit of man cannot resist its laws". (quoted in Valeri, 9). For him, symbolism is first and foremost the manifestation of the writer's intuition, from which only the symbol is born. Unlike realism, symbolist writers avoided contemporary and practical issues and instead opted for themes of the past and the realm of fantasy. They needed to disengage from the issues of the present because this would allow them the isolation they need to conceive of their works in idealistic terms. Maurice Maeterlinck supports this: I remain of the opinion that we must abstract ourselves from the times to which he is subjected, in spite of himself, and influence him naturally, but this is positive, if we want to create a lasting and long-lasting relationship. strong work, to detach it from the details of the present" (cit. in Valeri, 12). Maeterlinck's characters are seen as messengers of the universe: he does not create them through abstract thought. In creating them, he comes into contact with the universe from which he draws the intuition necessary to create what would make sense to him at a later time. The scenography of Symbolist works is barely sufficient to suggest meanings. His actions are dreamlike and his language muffled and highly stylized to create a mystical impression in order to "objectify the subjective" through vagueness and suggestion that would create evocation rather than description. Despite his short reign, symbolism can be said to have been successful in that it ushered in thesecond phase of modern theater which is a revolt against realism. Published in 1892, Pelleas and Mélisande is a five-act fairy tale about an elderly middle-period prince – Golaud, who finds a beautiful girl, Melisande, on the bank of a spring. He marries the girl with her father's consent and takes her home to welcome his family, especially Pelleas who quickly becomes obsessed with her. Mélisande loses her wedding ring while playing with it at Fountain the Blind with Pelleas. Golaud's knowledge of this arouses his first suspicions and he asks her to go look for the ring. She goes with Pelleas to visit him and soon they are together again when Pelleas plays with Mellisande's hair. Golaud soon discovers their closeness and becomes jealous to the point of attempting to kill Pelleas at the vault. He then questions little Ynoild about them and, convinced that they are meeting, intends to wound them with his sword. Pelleas insists on seeing Melisande one last time before the trip and the location is a fountain in the park where they express their love and kiss. Golaud spies on them and swords Pelleas and Mélisande flees. They are later found, both injured. Mélisande gives birth to a baby boy. Golaud expresses his regret and tries to know if they had sex. Mélisande dies after declaring her innocence to Golaud. Pelleas and Melisande is a classical Symbolist drama, by Symbolism's most acclaimed forefather, Maurice Macterlinck. He uses the work to project the Symbolist doctrine he advocates. Perhaps, the most plausible symbolic feature of the play is the use of a fairy tale instead of contemporary events that were popular in the theater of its time. According to Tisdel, “It is the story of Paolo and Francesca treated not as a representation of life, but as a symbol of life.” (4) The story of Paolo and Francesca is a poem by the medieval playwright Dante contained in his Divine Comedy about lovers thrown into hell for committing adultery. Gianciotto, Francesca's husband, kills them out of jealousy and is thrown into hell together with them. This is in line with the symbolist doctrine of selecting topics from fairy tales and the realm of fantasy. In symbolizing this story, Maeterlinck does not use personification but rather uses suggestions that, because they cannot be interpreted accurately, invoke a kind of vagueness that confuses the audience. Tisdel observes this about the work: The necessary lack of individuality in the figures precludes clear and fine dramatic characterization, and the juxtaposition of real and symbolic characters creates confusion, once again, since the symbol is not a personification and it cannot be, therefore always be equated with what it represents, the result becomes vagueness that baffles the common mind. (5) This disconcerting vagueness is reflected in Scene III, the brief scene in which little Ynoild tries to lift a boulder and later turns his attention to a flock and its shepherds who never appear on the scene. Little Yniold: Oh, this stone is heavy!… It is heavier than me…. It is heaviest of all…. It is heavier than anything that has ever happened…. I see my golden ball between the rock and this bad stone, and I can't reach it…. My little arm is not long enough,… and this stone will not be lifted…. I can't lift it,... and no one could lift it... It's heavier than the whole house;... you'd say it has roots in the earth... [The bleating of a flock can be heard in the distance.] – Oh! OH! I hear the sheep crying.... (He goes to look, on the edge of the terrace.) Why! there is no longer any sun.... They are coming... the sheep... they are coming... There are many!... There are many!... They are afraid of the dark... They crowd together! they are crowded!... They can hardly walk anymore... They are crying! they are crying! and they go fast!... They go fast!...I'm already at the big crossroads. Ah! ah! They no longer know where to go... They no longer cry.... They wait…. Some of them want to go to the right…. They all want to go right…. They can't!… The shepherd throws the earth at them…. Ah! ah! They will pass through here…. They obey! They obey! They will pass under the terrace…. They will pass under the rocks…. I'm going to see them around here.... OH! OH! How many!... How many!... The whole street is full of them... They're all standing still now... Shepherd! shepherd! why don't they talk anymore? (30) In the above passage, the most plausible thing is the vagueness of the action and dialogue. You might wonder why little Yniold is trying to move the boulder, what this suggests and the importance of the sheep and the shepherd. While the action is used as a symbol, it will remain vague to those who do not decipher it. The language of Pelleas and Melisande is lyrical and fragmented. It doesn't flow logically like in the case of realistic works. This is reflected in the play like this: GOLAUD: Nothing, nothing, my daughter. I saw a wolf pass through the forest. – do they get along? – I am happy to learn that they are on good terms. – sometimes they kiss. – No. YNIOLD: Kiss each other, father? No, no, ah! yes, little father, yes; YES; once... once when it was raining... GOLAUD: Did they kiss? But how, how did they kiss? YNIOLD: Well, father, then!... (Gives him a kiss on the mouth, laughing). Ah! ah! your beard, dad!... It stings! It sucks! it stings! They're all turning grey, dad, and your hair too; all grey, all grey, all grey…. [The window under which they are sitting is illuminated at this moment, and the light falls on them.] Ah! ah! little mother turned on her lamp. It is light, little father; it is light… (25) With this fragmented language, it is supposed to reveal to the audience “the hidden consciousness of our existence” (Krasner, 65) by appealing to their subconscious due to its unrealistic nature. The captions for Pelleas and Melisande are very poor. This indicates that his production should not contain many actions and that even the scenario must be sufficient to symbolize an inner truth. Brockett describes the first production of the play: Little property and little furniture were used; the stage was lit from above and most of the actions took place in semi-darkness; a gauze curtain hanging between the actors and the audience gave the impression that fog was enveloping the stage; backdrops painted in gray tones, emphasized the air of mystery; the costumes were vaguely medieval, even if the intent was to create drapery without a particular era. The actors spoke in staccato chants like priests and, according to some critics, behaved like night owls; their gestures were highly stylized. (564) Overall, symbolism emerges more fully in the performance than in the text because the essence of symbolism is to objectify the subjective, unrealistic settings and stylized actions that help make symbolism a successful movement. The period of modern theater is one of ideological revolt in which various theater practitioners exercised their ideas in theories and movements that reflected their thoughts on how and to what end theater should be practiced. Among these myriads of artistic movements is symbolism which serves as a bridge that deviates from realism to the anti-realistic movements of modern theater. The symbolism that transcends logic and wants to draw man's attention to his interiority finds expression in Pelleas and Melisande by Maurice Maeterlinck, his main spokesperson. The above led to this. Symbolism, although short-lived, introduced a new form of theatrical idea upon which subsequent movements would be built. Although not practiced in their entirety today, playwrights still use some of its components when making use of symbols,,: 27/7/2016