Thursday, May 14, 2015
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Dramatic Techniques In AHMED YERIMA'S ATTAHIRU
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 About the
Playwright
Ahmed Parker Yerima’s life and career are a tribute to the
magnificent confluence of possibilities that exist in Nigeria. In a country
often divided by ethnic sentiment, he is fluent in Yoruba and Hausa, as well as
English and his native Auchi dialect. In a nation where pretence is the name of
the game, he has made artistic pretence the basis of unsparing honesty in his
plays. He has worked as a civil servant and as an academic, and has risen to
very high positions in both areas of endeavour. He is, in essence, symbolic of
the immense potentialities that define the archetypal Nigerian.
He was
born in 1957 to Alhaji T. Musa Yerima, a police officer, and Hajiya Saidatu
Yerima, and underwent his primary and secondary education at St. Bernadette’s
Primary School, Abeokuta and Lagos Baptist Academy respectively. In 1977, he
obtained a Certificate in Dramatic Arts from the University of Ife (now Obafemi
Awolowo University) and then went on to receive a Bachelor of Arts degree from
the same institution in 1981. In the following year, he got a Post-Graduate
Diploma in Theatre Arts, and by 1984 obtained Masters of Philosophy (M.Phil.)
and doctoral degrees in Theatre Studies and Dramatic Criticism.
In 1984, he returned to Nigeria and joined the Department of
English and Drama at Ahmadu Bello University as a lecturer. He was at ABU until
1991 when he was appointed Deputy Artistic Director of the National Troupe of
Nigeria in which capacity he led the troupe on performance tours of several
countries across the world. In 2000, he became the Artistic Director of the
National Troupe, and re-appointed to the same position in 2004. In 2006, he
became the General Manager of the National Theatre of Nigeria, with overall
responsibility for the management of both the National Theatre Complex and the
National Troupe.
Professor Yerima has also been a prolific actor, playwright
and theatre director while he was carrying out his duties as an academic and
civil servant. While he was an undergraduate student, he wrote a collection of
three plays, Asylum, The Flood and The Movement. In 1990, he wrote Sakapin
Sarkin Wayo a bilingual adaptation of Moliere’s Les Fourberies de Scapin. His play The Silent Gods was performed by the National Troupe in 1994, and
published in 1996. Several plays were then published in rapid succession,
including Kaffir’s Last Game (1998); Attahiru (1999); The Sick People (2000); Dry
Leaves on Ukan Trees and Tafida
(2001); Yemoja and The Lottery Ticket (2002); Otaelo (2003); The Angel and Other Plays, The
Liman and Ade Ire (2004); Ameh Oboni the Great, Hard Ground and Idemili (2006). Several of these plays have won awards, such as Yemoja, which won the Cervantino
International Arts Festival in Mexico, and Hard
Ground, which secured the prestigious NLNG Annual Prize for Literature in
2006.
His artistic bent was complemented by incisive critical
concerns which are demonstrated in books like Theatre and Democracy in Nigeria (edited with Ayo Akinwale, 2002); Fragmented Thoughts and Specifics: Essays in
Dramatic Literature (2003); Basic
Techniques in Playwriting, Ideology and Stagecraft in the Nigerian
Theatre (2004); and Modern Nigerian
Theatre: The Geoffery Axworthy Years, 1956-1967 (2005).
He is currently Professor of Theatre and Culture Studies,
and Dean of Humanities at Redeemer’s University in Ogun State.
Dramatic techniques are an integral part of any work that is
called by the name of the genre ‘drama’. These techniques help in the building
and giving drama shape or meaning to the entire play as a literature that is to
satisfy the three purposes of what literature is.
1.1 Purpose of
Study
This project is undertaken to examine the dramatic techniques
employed in Attahiru by Ahmed Yerima.
1.2 Objectives
of Study
The objective of this essay is to bring
out the major dramatic techniques that the playwright uses in the development
of the play as a whole.
1.3 Scope of
the Study
The study will be limited to the book under scrutiny—Attahiru by Ahmed Yerima.
1.4 Methodology
This
study is totally qualitative. Primary Source: Attahiru while the secondary sources are library sources, internet,
and lecture papers, reviews etc.
1.5 Literature
Review
A lot has
been said about the author and playwright as well as his works by scholars of
great literary knowledge and appreciation. They have reviewed his works looking
at his styles, tools or source material, themes and motifs etc. Among such are
scholars like Julius-Adeoye ‘Rantimi Jays, Victoria Adeniyi, Ameh Dennis Akoh,
Effiok Bassey Uwatt, Mohammed Inuwa Umar-Buratai, Emmy Umija Idegu, Tunji
Sotimirin and few others have contributed in the criticism of this playwright’s
works. These few mentioned here and their criticisms are what we shall be
concentrating on their reviews as they have a close relevance to our focus—Attahiru.
Julius
considers a play like Attahiru an
adaptation of history in that “drama could also be a documentation of a true
life account for performance before a present or future audience (189).” For
him, there are factual elements of the play that makes the drama a ‘reference
point’ in the study of history. Factual elements like the setting, songs,
costumes and properties; characteristics synonymous with a particular people,
period or locations are what help us understand and get in touch with the past
at the present and for future audience after our generations.
Julius has
little to say on any technique in his consideration of the play. He believes
the plot is only a derivative of a fictionalized material hence, we infer that
either he takes history as a tool or technique for drama or as an accessory to
the play when the historical pointers are out of the play. Of the two
inferences, the former can be said to be partially true; this is because
history on its own is raw and requires refinement to be fashioned into drama.
This process by which history contributes to the development of the plot of a
drama is ‘historical emplotment’. When history is used at the centre of the
plot or as the foundation block to which a plot is built it is historical emplotment.
He is convinced that history is a ready material for socio-political issues of
the day for the construction of plays.
He also
considers Ahmed Yerima’s plays (three of them—Erelu Kuti, Trials of Oba Ovonramwen, Ameh Oboni the Great) as a
window to the Niger-Area because of the historical content. He makes a side way
comment about Yerima’s Attahiru when
he says, “Attahiru is another one
[historical play] written on the colonial effect on the African Traditional
society”, and that it re-enacts the heroism of the Caliph within his short
reign and indelible mark his reign has left in the course of Northern Nigeria
Islamic movement.
Although
Victoria shares the view that history is a material for the creation of drama,
she prefers to make a difference between the historiographer and the dramatist.
To her, the former is one who talks about what has happened, while the latter
talks about what may happen. Just like Julius, she considers any drama that has
history as a material as belonging to the genre referred to as the historical
drama. She sees Yerima using the play (The
Trials of Oba Ovonramwen) to correct some existing distortions of history.
One technique she evidently prefers in her depiction of the theme of oppression
is the monologue which she talks of slightly, which does not only show the
monarch’s pathetic situation but asserts that the black man is bound in
captivity through colonialism. The dialogue also reveals a lot about the plot
of the play which she again takes no notice of. Her discussion was strictly on
the socio-political issues of the day—exonerating the Oba and his people. She
also talks about it-the play as a warning for the future as history is used in
drama.
Ameh also
sees history as a material for the creation of drama like the others discussed
above. History, to him, “is adapted, recreated to serve a purpose, depending on
the social vision or ideological persuasion of the individual writer (110).”
History attempts to be an arbiter of social inconsistencies. He considers
another different thing, totally deviating from the other scholars’
perspectives—faithfulness to material in the creation of drama. In his
consideration of faithfulness to historical fact, he sees the light or comic
note on which the play starts as necessary for the establishment of a
setting—factual pointers. Stage direction is what it seems to have signalled to
this critic the faithfulness to the historical data imported or used in the
creation of the drama though he does not make this his obvious focus.
Uwatt examines
the source of conflict in the two of Ahmed Yerima’s plays namely Trials of Oba Ovonramwen and Attahiru. From his examination, we infer that his study is a study of
the plots of the two plays with historical content. The Oba’s source of
conflict is his refusal of the British access into the hinterland and Attahiru’s,
the resistance of political imperialism. Thereafter we see them choked in the
resultant tragedy. It is clear from his discourse that dialogue reveals a lot
about the two kings and their conflict as he uses a lot of dialogue excerpts to
buttress or stress his points. He takes note of the heroism of Attahiru and
tries to exonerate the Oba from accusations levelled against him and his people
in the biased colonial history.
Buratai, like
the others shares the same perspectives in the naming of the play Attahiru as a historical drama. It
appears he narrows his study to the various interpretation and relevance
attached to Attahiru and its
contribution to Nation Building. “Historical plays to him, presents and asserts
what it adjudges as the authentic history of the people in order to achieve a
kind of self-appreciation (144)”. To him the historical plays helps us see the [evil
of] negative influence of colonialism and Neo-colonialism in modern African
states and awaken the need to redress our past for the development of African
peoples. “This is imperative in order to redress the ills of colonialism and as
a prelude for effective nation building (146)”. This statement on identifying
what is to be depicted from within the historical event is a pointer that he
intends to deal with the build-up of the plot; “it also involves the creation
of a story out of a material as well as the re-arrangement of the story into a
sequence based in action (146)”. His essay could even be considered as an expansion
of the application of history as a tool, material or technique to the building
of the plot as this statement insinuate.
“…a keen understanding and appreciation of the truth behind
the historical subject matter is imperative for the effective dramatization of
history. Through this, the playwright can infuse history with a new meaning and
imbue the historical play with a life of its own. (Yerima, 62)”
The relevance
of history as a material would “seem that the relevance of experience is
informed by the fact that it provides inspiration for the playwriting as an
endeavour that aims at explicating patterns of social relation with a view to
rationalising human behaviours and attitudes in specific context” (149). It
corrects acute biases of colonial history. He comments about the author work
thus: “Yerima’s dramatic representation is significant for its contribution
towards Nigerian dramatic literature and interpretation of colonial history
(151).”
Idegu has a
different view of the play. He takes his point of departure from the angle of
the characters in the play, especially the hero of the play. He discusses the
play in the light of the characters’ identification to a cause—defence of their
religion and defence of themselves from the British imperialism and against
colonial incursion and domination. He says, “the play can be seen an attempt to
project the resistance spirit of the Sokoto Caliphate against colonial
incursion and domination (162).” This can be seen as a play written to support
special pleading of the owners of the history of the erstwhile Sokoto Caliphate
(162).
The playwright
is judged of using the central characters to portray glory honour pride and
valiant deeds of the forbears exemplified by their collective heroism in the
resistance of the Caliphate against colonial forces. He also regards the view
that the North and colonial government relationship issue of indigenous
resistance to foreign rule.
1.6 Thesis
Statement
This essay examines
the dramatic techniques used by the playwright and how they add to the
achievement of the effects the play has on its audience. Dramatic techniques
like characterization, symbolism and flashback and foreshadowing will be
examined giving attention to why they are used.
CHAPTER
TWO
CHARACTERIZATION
2.0
Introduction
We get to
enjoy a play or drama once we get ideas about the characters in the play from
the authors’ opinion, or other characters’ opinion about a character or
themselves. More is also revealed in the stage direction about the characters.
For example, the frequency of times a characters emotions peak or even a
particular habit: like Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot achieves this
as we see Estragon in the habit of putting on and off of his boots and Vladimir
repeatedly helping Estragon and repeatedly reminding Estragon the reason of
their waiting. Characterisation is a veritable tool or technique that allows us
(readers/audience) to get in touch with the characters of the play as the plot
unfolds. Characterisation is that technique the writer uses to reveal the
personality of a character.
Characterisation
can be done in two ways: direct characterisation and indirect characterisation.
Direct Characterisation has to do with the author telling the audience what the
personality of the character is. For example, in the sentence: The patient
boy and the quiet girl are well mannered and did not disobey their
parents. The attributes in bold are the qualities of each of the characters
that the author has succeeded to tell us without engaging our intellect into
finding out on our own and this does not always work with drama but is more
successful with the prose genre.
But should
the author decide that the audience should engage their minds in finding out
what every character is, he employs the indirect characterisation. The indirect
characterisation is most explored by most playwrights because it reveals subtly
the personalities of the characters. It makes use of any of the five tools or a
combination of the five. The five tools that are used in the development of
characters are Speech, Thoughts, Effect (of one character on other characters),
Actions and Looks. Ahmed Yerima seems to be using this technique—indirect
characterisation and he employs just three of the tools: Speech, Actions and
Effect are easily identifiable in play.
This chapter will dwell on Ahmed Yerima’s use of the
indirect characterisation. The speech, actions and the effect one character on
the others shall be examined as the plot unfolds alongside the reason for their
use. Characterisation exposes to us the personalities of the characters’
personalities as we can see from the speech of characters in the book under
study and Actions.
2.1 Speech
Speech
reveals a lot about the character especially their feelings at a particular
time. Ahmed Yerima employs speech to reveal to us the degree of knowledge
acquired, clash of will, respect ascribed to a character, social class,
admiration, fear and dedication to a course.
The speech of
Yakubu and Abbas reveal to us their level of the commoners’ knowledge, which is
based on hearsays. Their knowledge of the issues of state is fair and there is
a deliberate effort to know on their part. The only different thing about them (commoners)
is that their conversation is light-hearted. Consider this:
YAKUBU: Look at them.
First, I hear they came as friend to
your own land, asking for a place to stay. The before long, they say you a
pagan for worshiping Allah and that you will not see heaven for having more
than one wife. And that it is evil in the eye of Annabi Isah Alaihi Salam to…
ABBAS: Annabi
Isah? You mean the Whiteman know of Annabi Isah? Allah be praised
YAKUBU: He
knows. I hear he calls him Jesus,
but all the (sic) story is the same as we have in the Al –Quran. (18)
Their
knowledge of the societal happenings is based on hearsay and therefore has no
solid fact or evidence to back their knowledge of what they are saying above.
This phase of the dialogue establishes their societal class—commoners.
Yerima’s use
of dialogue to differentiate or establish the structure (social) of the land is
exceptional as he portrays one group as common and the ruling class. On the
commoners’ side, we have characters like Yakubu, Abbas, and Ahmed, while the
ruling class have the Caliph, Waziri, Ubandoma, Marafa, Madawaki and Dan Magaji
etc.
Unlike the
commoners’ the nobles have a more serious business to attend to than hearsays
and have more credible reports of issues of state as well as settlement of
disputes. This is seen from their first scene the palace convenes. The Caliph
first, appreciates the palace officials, and settles to matters of the day—the
land issue between the chief of the two trades that also affects the union of
their children in marriage. The case is settled without difficulty, and the
Caliph settles to matters of state.
The
difference between the two classes is that while the commoners have a light
hearted talk the nobles have a more serious talk that affects the state’s
wellbeing. The commoners have the chance of engaging in light-hearted talks
while the other party afford no such luxury. The nobles have mostly matters of
state and civilian dispute settlement:
WAZIRI: Your Royal
Highness, I present before you today the land case between Sarkin Fatake and
Sarkin Zango. Sarkin Zango had come to report the case to me, and I tried to resolve
it. But there is still the knotty issue of the well on the disputed plot of
land. I summoned both parties before
your Highness today for final judgement (18).
The WAZIRI’s
use of serious language is to be noted (bold words—emphasis mine). The words
case, resolve, summoned and final judgement signals a serious air. This allows
Yerima establish in the mind of the reader subconsciously the social classes of
the Caliphate. The social class structure of the Caliphate is such that there
is an upper class (nobles), middle class (traders), and the lower class (commoners).
2.1.1 Actions
(Will)
The resistance of political imperialism by
Attahiru because of a sensed undermining of his powers and the British interest
in uniting the Niger area gives birth to the crises in the play—clash of wills
and defiance. This leaves the two parties involved in fear of the other and to
be determined to stand firm and win their own interests. On the part of the
colonial administration we find Lugard afraid of the caliphate falling in to
the hand s of the French who are nearby. Lugard is also afraid of a JIHAD
because the ‘war never ends’ (35). He voices his fears thus,
“I have studied the situation myself.
It means that we either fight, and take Sokoto now, or the French would cross
the Niger and join Sokoto and thereby cutting us off totally.”(35)
For the time
being we see determined efforts being put by the Colonial governor to ensure
the survival of British interest. They make plans, studies and finally find out
that ‘Sokoto is not ready for war’ though they are calling for it.
Why would
Sokoto call for a war they are not ready for? The answer is simple. They too
are determined to stand and protect the survival of Islam—which they sense is
being undermined. The reaction of the Caliph and the palace officials to Lugard’s
letter is striking, as the house-palace is divided as fear grips some and zeal
and determination falls on some to protect and defend their land and faith.
This is revealed in the speeches of Ubandoma and Madawaki. Ubandoma says Madawaki’s
speech has “touched the depth of my heart and has raised my belief in Islam (30)”
and then fear is sensed in his next sentences.
“But, my concern is how prepared are
we? How safe is it to dare the Whiteman? As a little child, I never dared a
bully in my Koranic class until I was within safe distance of our compound or
the presence of my bigger brothers. How prepared are we? We heard how easily
the Zaria walls fell and how quickly the Whiteman filled the Kano moat with the
bodies and bones of the Kano warriors. Sad. We must ponder deeply great one.
For it is only in pondering that Allah may reveal the true meaning of all these
to us. For now we are like little children offended by the threat of a
bully.”(30)
With what
intention did Ubandoma speak? To infect others with his fear, hence the example
of the bully at Koranic School and the fall of Zaria and of Kano. He brings out
to light the might of the Whiteman to instil fear in the minds of other palace
officials. He (Ubandoma) does not succeed fully as a stronger and more
determined Madawaki stands up to him with great conviction and treats the
threat as inconsequential. He speaks,
“My Caliph, permit to jump and scream
foul play until the high heavens open. The black race makes me want to cry, the
Whitemen are only a handful, then how come he is such a big bad bully, that we
all shiver? Because we all are to blame. We created the big bad bully. Look at
today. It is the market day when usually we rush to the market to buy gold and
rich apparels from the far East. I don’t know about the others, but today is
the day, I normally upgrade my harem. (Laughing
from the house) Not upgrade my fear of the whitemen. (More laughter. Clears his voice) (30/31)”.
Madawaki succeeds
in reinforcing his stand against the whites and succeeds in arousing a great
debate that Ubandoma tries again to instil fear by bringing to the fore the
issue of Sokoto not being friendly and helping Kontagora and Zazzau in their
time of need as long as it affected them not, and goes further to recall to the
mind of the caliph thus: “So great Caliph now it is our turn, and all of a
sudden it was as if we cannot remember that we slept so soundly, when the
hungry dogs came for our dried meat” (32). He succeeds in making the Madawaki admit
his fear of the “Whiteman and his fighting machine”.
Madawaki’s response
to Ubandoma’s argument is, that the army of the white man is made up of Hausa
men, former slaves, who are hungry and prefer to plunder their kind, the former
master with the white man’s might, rather than fight the infidel, “but the time
has come for us to be wary, first of ourselves, especially our slaves and
workers. The time has come for us to know to protect the Caliphate” (32). Note Madawaki’s
use of the word wary. The use of the
word signals his fear of the fellow palace chiefs that speak in a discouraging
manner against the war—signals to us that there could be possible traitors in
their midst. His response still remains a strong call for the resistance.
The speech of
the caliph in response to the debate, samples him as a man of great wisdom. His
consideration of friendship as a delicate aspect of the human life put by Allah
to test human will is insightful. His recall of the teachings of his Mallam
shows also that the caliph is intelligent. His response also indicates his
knowledge of the religion which he so seeks to protect. He is deeply rooted in
the traditions of his people as he speaks conceitedly in proverbs and other
means. The final say of the caliph is one that sums up his personality as the
defender of the Islamic faith.
“But can there be friendship between and infidel and a
believer?”(32)
We sat and listened to the different reaction to the Whiteman’s
letter. From the time of my grandfather, Caliph Atiku, I knew that the Whiteman
smiles more than he speaks….. (33)
To this effect, the Waziri must write to him this reply.
Tell the infidel that we did not invite him to interfere with our problems. He
has his religion and we have ours. (Rises.
The whole court rise.) As my predecessor Caliph Abdul-Rahman had earlier
said, the only relationship that can exist between a believer and an infidel
is…war!
His
admiration for great knowledge or knowledgeable persons has also been explored
by the playwright. Through the Caliph’s speech when he calls the Mallam, he
showers him with words of praise. Other characters see him as humble, for example,
in the instance of him sitting through all the ramblings in the court,
showering of praises to a follower of his etc. all exemplifies his humility.
The commoners
class is not that developed in the play. This class is also less contacted from
the beginning to the end. But this does not show that their personality was not
revealed in speech. The commoners exhibit the most of the characteristics of
the two warring factions—the Britons and the Hausas. For instance, consider Yakubu
and Abbas’s speech which show their awareness of the Whiteman’s might but show
no admiration for it.
YAKUBU: That is why we need a
strong-willed man as the Caliph. A man chosen by the light of Allah, who will
carry the flag of Islam past the Whiteman’s threat. A man who will stand
shoulder to shoulder and eyeball to eyeball with the Whiteman.
ABBAS: My friend, your eloquence moves
me, but it will not raise the dead warriors of Kano or Zaria. The poisonous
arrows of our soldiers, they say, waddles when you compare them to the bullets
of the whitemen’s guns.
YAKUBU:
And the swords…what about the raw, cold shining metal of death of our
soldiers?
ABBAS: They are there,
but it is the man you see that you cut down. (18)
2.2 Actions
(Nobility)
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines actions as “the process of doing something to
achieve an aim. In another sense, the word is described by the 6th
Edition of the Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary as, the process of doing
something in order to make something happen or to deal with a situation. Of the
two descriptions, the later will be adopted for the purpose of this study. This
action could be in speech, bodily movement as it appears in the stage direction
of the playwright. The nobility, heroic acts of defiance and unity of the characters
also shows their personality.
The actions
of the two Sarkis is noble for having
the courage and honesty and care for another’s feelings by bringing their land
dispute to the caliph for settlement as well as their children’s wedding
instead of squabbling amongst themselves even to the extent of fighting. The
honesty lies in their admission of the true ownership of the plot of land and
to accept the judgement of the Caliph is courageous and respectful—this show
their respect for local authority and its judgement.
The action of
not speaking, portrayed by the Caliph in court sittings shows his respect for
the opinions of the palace chiefs—he is respectful and at the same time it
shows that he is a man of manners that is well organised.
In the defence
of the pride of their religion, the Galadima and the Madawaki are characters
that continue strongly without wavering to the end of the play. This goes to
show that they are brave and strong for a cause which they believe to have been
ordained by Allah. So also did the collective whole join in what Shehu Shagari
regards as, the “heroic struggle” (10). He says this about the struggle, “He
gallantly led the patriotic forces of resistance against the British colonial
administration (Shagari, 10)” with strong allegiance to their faith. How? By
not allowing the flag of Islam fall and be left on the ground. For this to have
happened, they must have been united. They have one voice and act as an entity.
The effect the Caliph has on his subjects is overwhelming, since
the chiefs in his cabinet ascribe to him the greatest level of respect and
admiration to the level of willing to die with and for him. Same is also seen
on the part of the commoners, who though disadvantaged still are determined to
part in the suffering or the protection of their beloved caliph. The
personalities of the commoners is something worthy of note, in that they effect
they exact on each other is that of mutual understanding and joviality while
that of the nobles is of deference and disagreement and respect for the
caliph’s decision.
Less is done
to elaborate the other characters on their appearance and their thoughts are
not also shown. This may be because of the fact that this genre does not allow
the thoughts of characters to be elaborate except for case of flashbacks and
foreshadowing (discussed later in chapter four): and their appearance is only
given room for in the description of dramatis personae and stage directions.
CHAPTER THREE
SYMBOLISM
3.0
Introduction
The use of
symbols in Attahiru provides us with
two layers of meaning apart from the meanings on the surface and the deeper
meaning that represents ideas or qualities. The first is the surface plot and
the second id the symbolic layer in which images of objects represent something
in real life. Ahmed Yerima employs this tool or technique indirectly on
delicate matters that may seem controversial. Unlike other symbolists, he
creates an almost totally symbolic play where from the characters to their
speech and actions. It is these symbols that we are interested in in this
chapter as to how they are reflected thematically in the play.
Symbolism can
make use of images. And though sometimes people get it confused and associate
the same meaning to symbolism, imagery is different from symbolism. This is so
because symbolism makes use of an image or thing for deep meaning—to represent
another idea, but imagery does not embody meaning but to create an illusion of
reality by stimulating the readers’ senses.
In this
chapter we shall uncover the meanings of the symbols thematically. We shall
look at symbols of oppression, superiority of wills and inferiority of wills
and symbols of fear and defiance.
3.1 Symbols of
Oppression (Imperialism/Exploitation)
As with all
Colonial African literature Attahiru stresses oppression, exploitation, etc.
Ahmed Yerima’s Attahiru is stuffed
with symbols of exploitation and oppression. Yerima presents to us on the
social plane the situation of the African in colonial times symbolically. The
characters are the first to the signal the representation of the
situation—colonial situation. The whites and their army and their affront is
representative of their oppression which seems to be mild on the surface as in
the case of Lugard removing Emirs without consultation with the Caliph with
directives on the appointment of or selection
of new Emirs. This act alone has made one of the palace chiefs, Ubandoma
and Galadima label the white man as “the big bad bully”. The emphasis on the
big bad bully is to bring our attention to the level of oppression by the
whites.
Presumptively,
any African critic would assume that the whites are bullies by the mere action
of coming into Africa and becoming masters, judges etc. even as visitors to
someone’s land and making them seem lesser than they are by making them work on
their farms, undermining the seat of the sovereign—native rulers of the lands.
If this is so, it would not be out of place to say that the White characters
themselves are symbols of the oppressive exploitation of the British.
The next
question that comes to mind is what are the tools or machinery put in place to
necessitate the oppression or exploitation? The first tool is their military
might followed by their religion that rights their oppressive judgement. The
military is the most effective tool that is used to strike fear into the hearts
of the locals and then gain their trust by using their religion to right the
wrong of Islam in enslavement of mankind and having more than one wife.
So that we
are clear on what oppression is and what exploitation is, let us see what the 6th
Edition of the Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary defines oppression as, “to
treat somebody in a cruel and unfair way, especially by not giving them the
same freedom, rights, etc. as other people. It is also “to make somebody only
able to think about sad or worrying things. Exploitation on the other hand is
defined as, “to treat a person or situation as an opportunity to gain an
advantage for you”. These definitions shall sever as our working definitions on
these two themes.
The letter of
the colonial governor is symbolic of the oppression of the colonial government
on the native authority. This is so because, the rights of the sovereign are
undermined by a visitor who is stronger than he is thereby denying him and his
subjects a say on their leadership as a right of theirs placed by their
nativity. This is denied as not been the case by Lugard in his address after
the little skirmish at the gates of Sokoto. But any critic could see through
this denial of His (Lugard’s).
In the letter which he sends to the Caliph and
the governing council, are threats, warnings and directives with a degree of
authority (when somewhere in the play he tells Abbas he is a visitor and as
such he is not to be fought, the question here is, it is agreed that visitors
are not to be fought, why impose in matters that you as a visitor cannot
handle?) in the matter. This undermines the native authority which has all its
dealings in consultation with the council and not as judge and jury all in one
like the letter sounded. Looking at these words, below, of the letter one would
see the oppression in his undermining the authority of the Caliph.
Since the Emirs of Kontagora and Bida
have been oppressing their people, engaging in slave trade, attacking,
organising stealing parties. I have because of these evils of theirs taken
their crowns from them and banished them. I therefore request that you select
new better Muslim leaders and persons in the place of the deposed leaders to rule
these new territories. May I warn that if the men are not good Muslims, I shall
not hesitate to remove them once again from their thrones. Need I remind you
great Caliph, that though the British Government is willing to work with you,
our soldiers have already established British rule over Muslim lands all over
the world. Your cooperation will be highly appreciated in these circumstances
(27).
We notice in
the Colonial Governor’s letter, brag about their military might that has
succeeded in fully making subject Muslim lands all over the world. This
military might is a symbol of oppression as it is has helped them establish
“British rule over Muslim lands all over the world”. This statement indirectly
refers to oppressing the native authority of the Muslim lands all over the
world. To this end, their military might comprise of guns, gunners and medics
who will tend to the injured in case of the resistance. Resistance comes
naturally to any who feels he is being denied his basic human rights but will
calm down or loosen when confronted with weapons advanced than his. This type
of oppression leaves the resistor/resisting party either supporting them and
alive or dare them and be dead. To be candid many will chose the former. The
likes of Ubandoma, Marafa and the Galadima and even the Waziri as it later
happens to be when the British take over Sokoto after the Caliph flees Sokoto.
Lugard still
braggingly says about his military might:
“Defeat? Never! Right now the morale of
our men is high. With the spoils of Zaria and Kano, they will fight even their
fathers for the glory of Britain (35).”
Why does he
say the morale of his men is high? Because the men fight with the joy of being
the instruments of oppression after being oppressed as slaves by native
authority but freed by the British and so shifts their allegiance to the
British and because of the just past victories on their former oppressors. We
can see the gun as both a symbol of oppression when in use against the native
authority as it challenges their authority gives directives with a warning
(threat) of the same repeating itself again if the instruction are not
followed; and symbol of freedom from past oppression and also as a symbol of revenge
in the hands of the Hausa men in the British army that attacks and wins the
Hausa kingdoms for the glory of Britain.
3.2 Superiority
of Wills & Inferiority of Wills
The
issue of superiority of wills and inferiority of wills is an aspect of imperialism
that cannot be left out in the discussion of colonial literature in Africa. It
is a situation where the imperial head sees all his/her interests as superior
and any other’s interests as inferior, and as a result their interest must be
achieved at all costs. Lord Lugard is the representative of the British
imperial government in the Nigerian; and by definition or description,
symbolism is the use of symbols to represent ideas especially in literature; we
can therefore say that the character of Lugard is in itself symbolic of the
British imperialism. Lugard sees the whole situation as “a war of superiority
of wills” because he has the might—military might, and the feeble military that
thrives on amulets, charms, and religion and that makes them more inferior to
his cause (in the case they refuse his friendly gestures, a little nudge is
required for his cause to override at any rate. That is what he aims at
pointing out in this speech of his:
You know you Muslims are getting it all
wrong. This is not a religious war. It is a war of superiority of wills. I have
the machines and guns; you have what I need to trade with, so if one of us is
stubborn, or refuses to co-operate, then a little nudge is needed. But, you all
get excited, with your charms, amulets, and religion you refuse to be our
friends. It is simple really (56).
While the
imperial governor and the people on his side see the war as one of superiority
of wills, the people on the side of the Caliph also see it as such, and so they
try exert their own superiority in their own way. What an irony it is! The
irony lies in the fact that both sides see the war as one of superiority of
wills but to us the audience we already know the superior side in terms of
might. Consider Abbas who sees it predestined and even and honour to fight and
die with the Caliph for their cause even though he knows the superiority of the
Whiteman. He sees it as something he is ordained to do when he says:
“To join the Caliph, I have been
ordained fight and die for Allah. The Whiteman’s fight is unjustified.”
This view
that one is ordained to fight and die for Allah with the leader of the Muslim
nation and the surety of heaven as reward for dying for Allah is symbolic of
the irony herein, when we, in actual fact know the weaker side of the unfair
war. It is symbolic because death becomes not only the end of man but a pathway
to attaining eternal life on the side of the Caliph and Glory for the
British cause—to ‘trade’ with the
Hausa/Fulani people.
3.3 Symbols of
Fear and Defiance
The major
symbol of fear in the play is the machines and guns of the Whiteman and his
Army. These guns become a symbol of fear for the common man on the street of
Hausa land as it is in itself the same instrument used in giving the “little
nudge that is needed” for British interest to continue. That is to say the guns
are the instruments of oppression. For the common man on the streets among the
natives, the gun is a weapon to reckon with when compared to the locally
prepared weapons of war of the native which may take days to make them read and
available for any war.
Therefore,
the common man, the white man has weapons that he can only describe as weapons
as “raw cold metals of death (18).” Abbas comments of the Whiteman soldiers
kneeling at distance by their gun and hacking down native soldiers with the raw
cold metals of death.
The
description given is that the soldiers of the colonial governor are not seen
closely but rather they kneel by their guns and firing ‘raw cold metals of
death’.
The major
symbol of the resistance is the flag of Islam which the caliph and his
followers hold on to even to their deaths. Their willingness to stand and fight
for the cause of Islam and against arrogance of the colonial governor on the
powers of their one monarch together with the intent of protecting their land from the imperialism of
the colonial masters makes them defiant and even in the face of impending
danger and defeat and the loss of their lives. Defiance was not only for those
who are of noble birth, even those of lower birth took part in the jihad that
is why at the end of the play Yakubu and Mai Wurno recounts this act of
collective heroism and of defiance.
The symbols
give the play a deeper meaning than that which seen on the surface. Ahmed
Yerima employs this technique to add beauty to the play which is to be sought
after through a deeper search for these symbols.
CHAPTER
FOUR
FLASHBACK AND
FORESHADOWING
4.0
Introduction
In
furthering the plot of, there are a number of tools one could use to continue
plot of drama. Characterization takes the most part, symbolism and flashback
and foreshadowing are employed alongside other tools like irony, suspense,
aside, monologues etc. to beautify the plot. It is in the same light that Ahmed
Yerima uses these tools or techniques to create thus piece—Attahiru. Yerima employs the flashback technique to bring us back
to the past at a present time to fill the void/hole in the plot that needs to
be explained.
For example,
if B killed A. B was tried and found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment. The
story or the plot looks complete but it is not (so does Aristotle’s Poetics
tell us). Why? Because we don’t know what caused or motivated the killing of A
by B, whether it is, alcohol, family feud, rival feud, stealing from B, or for
revenge. Now, if we are taken back in the past in the present, where B tells C
a cellmate in prison of events that landed him in prison, we see that that
explanation or recounting of events explains the plot and also completes the plot.
In the same manner, foreshadowing explains, forecasts a possible outcome or
consequences of an action or an event. It helps to give reason for flashback
(it provides room for flashback). For example, Ola Rotimi’s The Gods Are Not
Blame, presents to us the foreshadowing of events where Odewale, the baby
is to be killed or he will grow up to kill his father and marry his mother and
that is by African standards incestuous and heinous. In most cases the
foreshadowing is done by an agent of the supernatural or better put, by the
supernatural since only the supernatural knows what is ahead.
In order for
Yerima to achieve the completeness of plot in which Aristotle prescribes in his
poetics, he had to incorporate these techniques, foreshadowing and flashback.
Foreshadowing being the trigger for flashback does not really follow it locus
on the simple plot prescription, it come at the same time with the flashback.
Yerima blends
the time of the techniques’ appearance neatly that his chronicle play is
enjoyed with lesser strain to knit the new patch that is put at that point. He
adds a real touch of finesse of a good playwright’s skills to the play.
4.1
Foreshadowing
Foreshadowing
triggers flashbacks. If what is foreshadowed comes to pass, and there is need
to know what has come to pass has come to pass, and then a flashback is
triggered. In the case of Oedipus, a soothsayer foreshadows what the
consequence of not killing the child Oedipus would do to kingdom which is same
as that which happens in the Rotimi’s play. When Oedipus is not killed, he
grows up to kill his father accidentally and is crowned king and then marries
his mother without knowledge of committing such Abomination. At the point of
recognition (made possible) through flashback his fortune reverses.
It is almost
the same thing that happens in Attahiru, though the foreshadowing does not come
from the beginning of the play. His dream (the Caliph’s) is an agent of the
supernatural that foreshadows the final battle which is recounted by Mai Wurno
and Yakubu at the end of the play through telling flashback. The dreams
frequency of occurrence is what troubled the mind of the great Muslim king and
he seeks for explanation of the dream form the Mallam, he describes the dream
as such,
There is smoke, heavy smoke. It is at the battlefield. Dead
warriors littered everywhere. Then images of my ancestors appear in a circle
round me. They pass the flag from one hand to another. As they chant, la ilaha
illalah I watch them helplessly as Caliph Atiku gives it Muazu, then to Umaru,
then to Abdul-Rah man, and as he pass it to me the flag falls, dripping blood.
In all this smoky confusion, Dan Magaji tries to help me pick it up, but he is
tripped by a white pebble, he too; falling on his sword (41).
The dream foreshadows what happens by
presenting the ancestors’ struggle to keep the kingdom through the passing of
the flag from one hand to another and how it is going to fall from his hand and
no help can help—his fall. At that point the Mallam recalls the prophecy at the
beginning of the Fodio reign ending after a hundred years. We can see how the
foreshadowing has triggered a flashback.
It is not
normal for someone to interfere with the powers of the Caliph unless there is a
an underground backing that guarantees such, in this case the prophecy
guarantees such at the expiration of their rule, or tension which is explained
through a flash back. Through this technique, Yerima achieves the completeness
of plot that Aristotle prescribes in his Poetics.
4.2 Flashback
In
instances where there is a need for explanation for an unexplained occurrence
like the dream of the Caliph had, a flashback is needed. This is what happens
when the Mallam, in a bid to explain the Caliph’s dreams, recalls the prophecy
of the hundred year’s reign of the Fodios’. The same is, also what happens at
the end of play, where we see Mai Wurno and Yakubu, narrate to us what happened
during the battle that was not acted out.
Yerima’s use
of these techniques varies from the norm though it achieves its objectives. The
norm is that during a flashback, the action is acted is acted again but he
adopts a telling flashback technique where no action is acted again.
Yerima’s
employment of these techniques enable us enjoy a complete plot that has a
recognition and reversal and also evokes fear and pity as any tragedy is
supposed to. Though the material for play is historical one can see clearly
that the play evokes pity and fear as it is with tragedy.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
The
realisation of the techniques employed in the making of Attahiru is an interesting
exercise that allows one to see the framework of the play. Techniques
like characterisation, symbolism and foreshadowing & flashback have been
used in the Yerima’s attempt to dramatize the historical material on the
collective heroic struggle of the Sokoto Caliphate alongside their Caliph and
their fate.
Attahiru has received criticisms as well
as its author, Ahmed Yerima. There are those who looked at his style and those
who looked at his materials for the construction of plays and those who
interpreted the plays as an arbiter of social inconsistencies and others the
heroic nature of the play. On the hand of those who saw his style—adaptations,
simplicity etc. was their concern; on the side of those who take interest in
his material for the construction of the play, the saw the primacy of history
in the plot of most of his plays. There are those who saw this play as an
arbiter of social inconsistencies sought to exonerate the monarch of this
kingdom from the bias of colonial history; and others from the angle that such
a play can bring about nation building because the material of the play in
itself—history. In their discussion of these issues some had made remarks that point
to some of the dramatic techniques employed in the play. Techniques that some
of these scholars touched on without notice are characterization and symbolism
for the most part.
Chapter Two
explores the technique of characterization in the play Attahiru. Characterisation is that technique the writer uses to
reveal the personality of a character. There are two types or modes of
characterisation namely, direct and indirect. The direct mode has more to do
with telling of a characters’ character, while the indirect mode allows the
audience to actively find out the personalities of these characters. Here we
see how the author develops his characters through their speech, effects on
other characters, actions etc. Ahmed Yerima’s use of this technique allows the
reader or the target audience to be absorbed in the play as he/she reads or
watches the performance of the play.
Chapter Three
focuses attention on the deeper meaning of some events, actions, items and even
the factions of the divide. This chapter cover the subject of symbolism in the
play. This is the place where Ahmed Yerima decides to place contrast in the
play; where events are symbolic, the people their actions and some items are
symbolic. Yerima places a symbolic difference between the white people and the
natives of the Sokoto Caliphate in terms of wits or intelligence by weighing
who has the might has the control. The white people with their guns are
superior because they don’t need to come close before they can hack down the
natives who get excited by the thought of a holy war with their swords and
amulets and charms—this is symbolic because the whites with their superior
knowledge stand for the imperialist who plunder on the basis of might not
right. This contrast of race and knowledge sets a difference that is only known
from the actions of the two parties-the oppressor and the oppressed. There is
this symbolic act of defiance by the natives in the war that is described by
Mai Wurno and Yakubu towards the end of the play, in which the native defiantly
not allow the flag of Islam to fall to the ground. That act is symbolic of
their unity and defiance, determination. Some items that appear in this play are also
symbolic. For instance the gun the white man has is a symbol of oppression as
well as revenge in the hands of their (black) soldiers respectively. On the
other hand the flag in the hands of the natives of the Sokoto caliphate and
every Muslim that agreed to go to war is a symbol of pride and unity and of
defiance.
Chapter four
covers two techniques that possess an explaining quality to a person watching
or reading the play. Aristotle explains how these two techniques come to play a
part in the beautification of the play where, for one to occur the other must
have been. That is to say that for flashback to be used foreshadowing has to
come in first. We see how Yerima’s arrangement of the events follows this
pattern. He creates a scene that the Caliph himself is going to seek for
explanations about his dreams (the dream foretells of his end) that triggers a
flashback where the Caliph is told about the prophecy that foretells of his
fall. Another instance is the recall of the war by the Mai Wurno and Yakubu.
The war is being recounted almost as exactly as it was in the Caliph’s dreams.
Yerima’s
careful choice of these techniques enable us or gives us the best of his drama
through an involvement of the audience in the play, through his use of
characterisation, symbolism and the foreshadowing and flashback techniques.
Apart from enjoining the audience to “take part” in the play, these techniques
also beautify the play to the one who appreciates literature. It is also
noticeable that these techniques have helped in the development of the plot of
the play with some traditional drama concept followed.
This research
work opens up new ways of looking at plays for students of literature, such
that the student only have to see the structures that build up the work of
literature and appreciating its beauty rather than just looking for themes (not
that it’s not a literary practise), but it gives the student the chance to find
out something new. It is hoped that this project is going to serve as a
reference material for anyone that intends to seek the beautifying and
developing techniques of a play in other plays or this one.
Works
Cited
Adeniyi, Victoria. "A
Comparative Study of Rotimi's Ovonramwen
Nogbaisi and Yerima's The Trials of
Ovonramwen." Muse and Mimesis:
Critical Perspectives on Ahmed Yerima's Drama. Ed. Gbemisola Adeoti.
Ibadan: Spectrum Books, 2007. 97-109. Print.
Akoh, Ameh Dennis.
"Towards a Historiography of the Text:The Plays of Ahmed Yerima." Muse and Mimesis: Critical Perspectives on
Ahmed Yerima's Drama. Ed. Gbemisola Adeoti. Ibadan: Spectrum Books, 2007.
110-122. Print.
Gardner, T. "Defining
Charcterisation." 05 February 2005. ReadWriteThink.
14 June 2013 <www.readwritethink.org/files/resources>. Web.
Heath, Malcom, trans. Aristotle Poetics. London: Penguin
Books, 1996. Print.
Idegwu, Emmy Unuja.
"Beyond Documentation: A Study of Identity Promotion in Attahiru." Muse and Mimesis: Critical Perspectives on Ahmed Yerima's Drama.
Ed. Gbemisola Adeoti. Ibadan: Spectrum Books, 2007. 159-172. Print.
Profile of Prof Ahmed Yerima. 12 February 2013. 30 June
2013
<https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&ved=0CEgQFjAEOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.run.edu.ng%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D283%26Itemid%3D87&ei=x0_oUt7YHaen0AWX04HIBg&usg=AFQjCNGcNpXwOmbid3gMJAc>.
Soanes, Catherine and Angus
Stevenson, Concise Oxford English
Dictionary. 11th. London: Oxford University Press, 2011.Print
Umar-Buratai, Mohammed Inuwa.
"Historical Drama in Nation Building: Attahiru
and the Relevance Interpretation." Muse
and Mimesis: Critical Perspectives on Ahmed Yerima's Drama. Ed. Gbemisola
Adeoti. Ibadan: Spectrum Books, 2007. 143-158. Print.
Uwatt, Effiok Bassey.
"Yerima's Theatre and Nigerian History: The Trials of Oba Ovonramwen and Attahiru."
Muse and Mimesis: Critical Perspectives
on Ahmed Yerima's Drama. Ed. Gbemisola Adeoti. Ibadan: Spectrum Books,
2007. 123-142. Print.
Yerima, Ahmed. Attahiru. Ibadan: Kraft Books Limited,
1998. Print.
Yerima, Ahmed. Drama as an Arbiter of Socio-Political Crises:
Interview with Ahmed Yerima Gbemisola Adeoti. 21 November 2000. Print.
Yerima, Ahmed. Foreword. Attahiru. By Ahmed Yerima. Ibadan:Spectrum Books, 1998.10. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)