Historically, the educated consciousness naturally assumes that theater once was, and then he began and now continues to be. It is known that the theatre is not in all cultures, in all Nations, but where he was born, he continues to develop, no matter how difficult his way. This applies not only to Western but also the Eastern theatre, many forms of which are from Europe seem frozen, fixed forever. Obviously, this aberration as follows: any theater, the only question is historical rate of change and even more in terms of where the areas in which such changes can be caught.

But, despite all the differences between the Western and Eastern theatre, the historian is certainly right when considering theatre as a process as a set of change radical and trivial, catastrophic and flowing invisible to the eye. Similarly, undeniably logical, if theatre historian begins his narrative that considers the background, since ages, when theatre was not, and was only a distant or close its preamble.

But, on the other hand, no historian can go beyond the above mentioned proposition: theater was not, then he became and continues to be theatre. Although known in the Humanities is impossible and there is no deduction of the postulates, the idea that the theater, once, continues to be the theatre of the historical theatrical 39 science does not require proof. In fact, without having to accept this position for the source, theater historian can be a historian of the theatre.

But just from a theoretical point of view, this assumption should be discussed, it should be questioned: continues to be, but what? At least, not less logical than historical theatrical, different hypothesis: Yes, it so happened that the theater was born, but after that time it became not so much how many is (or was, but now ceased) himself.

If we accept this hypothesis, the question of the actual origin of the theatre, so essential for a historian, for time gives way to another question about the Genesis of the theater, understood narrowly and rigidly defined: not when, and where; how and from what parents?

Historians teach us that the theatre began to be sought in the oldest phenomena known as rites. Haven’t about that, only whether or not the only source of art should be considered as a pagan ritual, but we, fortunately, do not have to wait for the results of this interesting dispute. If you pay attention to the fact that such a ceremony is always a ritual act, to argue, to be, is about something else: what is considered crucial the ritual or effectiveness? The ritual, abruptly identified the signs clearly visible in the theatres of the East, and not in vain appealed to them the idea of theatre (and theatrical fashion) the second half of the twentieth century, when I was looking for the scene alternative “fuel”.

But in the European type theatre, a fundamentally more fluid, with relatively loose forms, the ritual is also, of course, and it cannot be put outside the brackets. However, this does not mean that the ritual is the seed from which grew the theater. In any case, the validity of the old rites is submitted by the property is much more versatile, which is indirectly evidenced by at least almost complete independence, Olympic indifference to the peculiarities of both historical and regional. Efficiency, apparently, is the attribute of the and theatre.

There are a number of cultural forms that are not traditionally considered are considered as not just pre theater, but generating it. Among them the first 40 called the ancient ritual of hunting action. In fact, the act of the transformation of a man into another creature, in such actions there. Hunter puts on a mask made from the head killed the beast, and turns into this beast. Not conditional, but quite literally transforms him. Masks plus a great transformation is truly a performance, not only in appearance, but I think the essence “reminiscent of” the theatre, I want no reasoning to declare first and foremost to the theatre.

However, enough to stop and look and you may find that as time for the future of the theatre hunting ritual, like other ancient rites (e.g. initiation), refers almost in the last turn. This strangeness is particularly noticeable on the background of the Transfiguration. First, in this magic act, there can be spectators, that is, it is absolutely not the spectacle, with point of view “does not even show”. Wearing the head mask of an animal, of course, valid, but not to kindred, evaluating his deed, and at himself and the beast.

Today can be considered proven that the party of such action to put on a mask the head of a Buffalo is to become a Buffalo, that is, to move in the body of the animal his soul, in a sense, with espionage purposes: the hunter must learn to kill the beast and for this you should know the disposition of the enemy and of the future victims. But to learn this temper he may be using a different “technique”: not his soul to introduce into the body of the beast, and the soul of the beast, which drags behind his head, to attach to your body. In fact and this is very important there is one and the same phenomenon. The same one that in this regard, called lycanthropy: everything turns, is transformed.

There is not only, no predecessors of actor and role. There is no promise the theater; and since we are dealing with the phenomenon of life, there is no nod in the direction of future theater of the object. Complete transformation net transformation does not contain anything role playing and from this point of view antineutrino. We note parenthetically that there is a basis for a seductive hypothesis, according to which between the act of transformation and theatre in fact, there is a dependence but not a direct, but opposite: how reliable and decisive transformation, the less opportunity to find out who someone is transformed, and imperative ban on in a word, the more confidence that there’s some kind of an evolutionary dead end: the nature of theatre, like Nature, has arranged the test and made a mistake, she had other, more promising experiments.

Through the millennia after the occurrence of the hunting ceremonies in the Greek town of Eleusis priests were transformed into characters chthonic myth is about Demeter, Persephone and Hades. Here was a cultural form in a narrow strict sense of the concept, there was magic after the birth of a religion on the basis of religion, then the priest didn’t doubt that he’s not Demeter, and even fewer could have predicted that Demeter turns to his priest. It’s much closer to theatre. And yet, perhaps, the Eleusinian mystery is not as confident as we do that, to announce the direct parent of the Greek theatre. Not here to represent here transformed; there is no need in the public, because the priest transforms into Demeter with things that are only his and Demeter.

Becoming on time magic session with Demeter and Persephone priests automatically started to head seasons. They now didn’t have to ask about the mild winter or begging for rain in a drought: a calendar in their hands, they calendar. We are again confronted with deceit history, see again stalled, and if the tunnel, the light at the end of it not theatrical.