“KILL THE FATHER”: SOYINKA’S AESTHETICS AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR OSOFISAN’S DRAMATURGY.

By

Bosede Afolayan, Department of English, University of Lagos

Abstract The influence of on the “second generation” writers in Nigeria, of which Osofisan is its most prolific, is immense. Osofisan developed under the tutelage of Soyinka but has reached maturation by sharply deviating and departing from the philosophy and dramaturgy of Wole Soyinka whom he considers “the master.” To come to his own, he has to literally “kill the father” in order to achieve his prime. Sigmund Freud’s theory of the oedipal Complex becomes relevant especially in the view it lends to our study. Freud believes that the young man achieves adulthood only when he is able to exorcise the spirit of the father. Osofisan has been an ardent follower and critic of Soyinka’s art. Where Soyinka’s predilection has been in the area of exposing the culture of the people and in metaphysical profundity, Osofisan has been Marxian, materialist and revolutionary. However, Soyinka's aesthetics remains the point of departure for his art. This paper examines the nature of the influence Soyinka represents for Osofisan. It explores the point of departure from Soyinka’s aesthetics and concludes with Osofisan’s ability to carve a niche for himself as the most strident, most revolutionary, most “angry” and the most inter-textual of the generation after Soyinka. References would be made to a number of their plays in the course of our discussion to illustrate our argument.

Introduction If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants. (Sir Isaac Newton in a letter to his rival, Robert Hooke, dated February 5, 1976)

Wole Soyinka is a foremost Nigerian playwright. This is attested to by his winning the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1986. He is prolific and profoundly creative. He is also eclectic, exelling in virtually all genres. His works have attracted the attention of many critical commentators and his prodigy has fetched him many followers. Responses to Soyinka’s work have been either of admiration and reverence or of fierce criticism and attack. Many of his followers are not content with just admiring or enjoying his work; rather, it has become the point of departure for their own aesthetics. In other words, Soyinka’s work remains a critical standpoint on which their works are based. In Nigeria, Femi Osofisan has been described as “the leading playwright of the rebellious generation after Soyinka” (Osofisan 14). Both Soyinka and Osofisan are of the Yoruba stock (a major ethnic group in of South west Nigeria). They are exposed to the images, tropes, myths, folktales of the common pool of the Yoruba people and as expected, they have drawn from these and recreated them in their works. However, their reconstructions have been coloured by their ideologies. Soyinka can be seen as a liberal humanist who is interested in the welfare and concerns of the people. He recreates the plight of these people especially their contact with bad leaders but he does not proffer a way out of the quagmire. Osofisan, on the other hand, portrays issues of social concerns like bad leadership and corruption while at the same time proffering solutions to the problems. Where Soyinka’s predilection has been in the area of exposing the culture of the people and in metaphysical profundity, Osofisan has been Marxian, Materialist and revolutionary. To Osofisan, there is no reason why a writer should be involved with metaphysical complexities while people are hungry. He asserts in an interview with Olu Obafemi in 1978 that: If somebody is hungry at the moment, it is no use preaching to him about the eternal laws of starvation, because he wants an immediate solution to his hunger, and you won’t help him by going into a whole range or philosophical explanations about hunger and the like (Excursions 27).

This paper examines the influence Soyinka has on Osofisan and the impact of such influence in both philosophical and dramaturgic essences. Historical Background Nigerian drama is a harvest of traditions. It has evolved from the communal pool of myths, folktales and legends of the people and, on the other hand, the western tradition of playwriting imbibed from western culture and civilisation. These two traditions have been met with the imaginative tradition of our modern playwrights. This statement can be explored in the works of any of our modern writers of which Soyinka is a leading light. Nigerian drama can be divided into three groups; the first being the age of Soyinka, J.P. Clark- Bekederemo, Ola Rotimi and Zulu Sofola. This age has been referred to by Osofisan as the “age of innocence” (Insidious Treasons 114). These first generation writers were confronted with the great task of explaining the African culture to the outside world. They were preoccupied with proving that our drama was as good as any in the West. Therefore, they strove to publish abroad. However, the second generation dramatists like Femi Osofisan, Kole Omotosho and Bode Sowande are faced with a different situation. Nigerian drama has already established itself with the first generation writers. Osofisan’s group therefore grappled with what can be termed post-colonial experiences. These writers attained their maturation with the inadequacies of Nigerian leaders who have stepped into the shoes of the colonial masters. The leaders’ inefficiency, ineptitude and corrupt activities became prime themes to be explored. Of course, Osofisan became the most trident and the most prolific of this generation. The works of Soyinka and Clark are guidelines for the writings of this second generation. Such works became models on which Osofisan practiced his own art. Rather than a blind admiration of the elders’ work, the second generation writers revolted against them. Osofisan for example has taken images, texts and ideas from them to create his plays. Common examples are Soyinka’s The Strong Breed which Osofisan has responded to in No More the Wasted Breed while Clark-Bekederemo’s The Raft has become Osofisan’s Another Raft. Our concern is what Soyinka’s aesthetics represents for the dramaturgy of Osofisan.

Soyinka’s Aesthetics Soyinka’s aesthetics cannot be easily compartmentalised because he has evolved over the years a variety of dramatic styles. Despite this seeming obstacle, one can read some meaning into the variety. According to Osofisan in an article entitled, “Wole Soyinka and a Living Dramatist” plays like The Trials of Brother Jero, The Strong Breed, The Swamp Dwellers and The Lion and the Jewel can be regarded as Soyinka’s “easy” plays. Soyinka’s meaning and style are quite clear and simple in these plays. However, with his more “serious” plays, Soyinka’s themes become weighty (Insidious Treasons 38). It is in both the “easy” and “serious” plays that Soyinka’s aesthetics can be deduced. In both The Strong Breed and in Death and the King’s Horseman, Soyinka’s mythic imagination is explored. He dwells on the Yoruba myth of sacrificial agents or what can also be called “scapegoatism” to convey his message. The use of myth is one aspect of Soyinka’s art that is prominent. Biodun Jeyifo in the introduction to Art, Dialogue and Outrage, asserts that “Soyinka’s mythopoeic aesthetics is deeply rooted in Yoruba mythology and ritual archetypes” (Jeyifo ed XIII). In his use of this myth, he has been able to “humanise” the idea of sacrificial agents as a common fact of life and not the barbarity and mere show of crudity with which the western world have viewed it. The central action in most of Soyinka’s plays is the festival. It is there is A Dance of the Forests and Death and the King’s Horseman. His plays bring the whole of the community on stage in celebration. The plays celebrate the traditional ethos of the people. The spectacle, richness of dialogue, the drum, dance and songs portray the rich culture of the people and ultimately show his plays as Total Theatre. History has been shown in Soyinka’s art as never-changing. To Soyinka, history is a story of pessimism. The past is revered and history becomes one of recurrence; a story of as it was, so it is and ever shall it be. An illustration can be drawn from The Lion and the Jewel where modernity and tradition are in combat and Soyinka resolves this struggle in favour of the old order. It can also be seen in Olunde dying in place of his father in order to keep the old tradition going. This tragic vision or resolution is one area of revolt from which the second generation writers depart. Soyinka’s view of the history of Nigeria is one of despair: ... it should come as no surprise at all that Soyinka’s writings invariably conclude in a grim and sombre epistemology, offering a bleak picture which is only the mirror of history as he and his contemporary have lived and experienced it (Insidious Treasons 10) Soyinka’s characters of note bear the “Ogunian” characteristics. They are like Ogun with their creative and destructive essences. It is in these characters that Soyinka looks for the saviour of the society. In “And After the Wasted Breed?” Osofisan states this succinctly: In all of Soyinka’s writings you will always find the tribute to a man of vision, who is endowed with extraordinary energy and talent, but who ends up being defeated by negative antagonist forces. (7) These are men like Ogun who are in the end consumed by their daring acts. Poor people in Soyinka plays are just there as a group and do not form the focus of attention. They are the victims. Ogun, the Yoruba god of iron is Soyinka’s patron-god. In “The Origins of A Dance of Forests”, James Gibbs explains the essence of Ogun in the play: Ogun – the first darer and explorer. He alone, out of the band of disappointed and suffering gods was “combative”. He alone was willing to test himself against the growth or marsh or - as Soyinka prefers – the “abyss”. Ogun was only able to succeed in crossing the abyss by summoning his creative-destructive powers by, with characteristic paradox, using the iron of the earth to cut the growth of the earth. By making a way through the abyss, Ogun was able to inaugurate the “harmonious Yoruba world” in which gods and men live side-by-side. He was not able to settle in that world himself until he had first realised, in his “disastrous battle on behalf of the people of Ire” that he was violently destructive as well as profoundly creative (70) Gibbs opines that the character of Demoke is like Ogun, for Demoke realises at the end that he is both carver and murderer. Soyinka has also made a great use of other writers’ works. He adapted for the stage ’ The Bacchae where he draws similarities between the essence, worship and features of Ogun and Dionysus. According to Gbemisola Adeoti in “Aesthetics of Adaptation in Contemporary Nigerian Drama”, Soyinka has also adapted King Ubu by Jarry Alfred into King Baabu which is a sardonic representation of the years of political “insanity” of the Late General Sani Abacha of Nigeria (32-38). Language in Soyinka’s works forms another area of his uniqueness. His language in his serious plays has been found to be inaccessible. His images and diction are obscure and tortuous. His work is usually shrouded in mystery and incomprehension. He has been said to be engaged in “linguistic gymnastics”. An example is usually drawn from the first line of his novel, The Interpreters which states: “Metal on concrete jars my drinking lobes....” If one sees this criticism as harsh, Lewis Nkosi’s opinion on Soyinka’s work corroborates this argument. He states “It is high time that a great number of Soyinka’s solecisms are recognised for what they are: failure to communicate” (Gugelberger viii). Soyinka engages in the anecdote of the “Not-I bird” in Death and the King’s Horseman which is not only refreshing but also integral to the theme of death he espouses in the play. Hear him: Death came calling Who does not know his rasp of reeds? A twilight whisper in the leaves before The great araba falls? Did you hear it? Not I! Swears the farmer. He snaps His fingers round his head, abandons A hard-worn harvest and begins A rapid dialogue with his legs.

“Not I,” shouts the fearless hunter, ‘but – It’s getting dark, and this night-lamp Has leaked out all its oil. I think It’s best to go home and resume my hunt Another day. But now he pauses, suddenly Let’s out a wail: ‘Oh foolish mouth, calling Down a curse on your own head! Your lamp Has leaked out all its oil, has it? Forwards or backwards now he dare not move ... (Emphasis mine. Jeyifo 128)

On and on, Soyinka goes to dramatise the fear of death on the courtesan, the Mallam, Ifawomi – the herbalist, the hyena and on the fearless Elesin-oba. I, when that Not-I-Bird perched Upon my roof, bade him seek his nest again Safe, without care or fear. I unrolled My welcome mat for him to see. Not-I Flew happily away, you’ll hear his voice No more in this lifetime ... (Jeyifo 130).

Soyinka’s characters like Elesin-Oba, Iyaloja and the Praise Singer may not be educated in the English language but their diction is rich and it captures the essence of the Yoruba culture: Praise singer: Elesin O! Elesin Oba! Howu! What tryst is this the cockerel goes to keep with such haste that he must leave his tail behind? Elesin: (...) A tryst where the cockerel needs no adornment (Jeyifo 126-127) Characters like these people mentioned above, though traditional people, express themselves in the English that captures their world-view. The female voice in Soyinka’s plays is usually a “silent” one. From Amope in The Trials of Brother Jero, Sidi in The Lion and the Jewel to Iyaloja, the bride and the school girls in Death and the King’s Horseman, women are depicted as mere types. Soyinka’s concern is usually with the men of power, not with the poor people or the women in his plays. This last group of people are presented as a group who may act as foil to the major male character. The female voice like a Titubi/Moremi as we find in Osofisan’s Morountodun is absent on a Soyinka’s stage. Osofisan’s Admiration and Revolt Osofisan grew under the tutelage and apprenticeship of Soyinka both “physically” and intellectually. They were both in Government College, Ibadan (GCI) and at the at different times, but they imbibed what those institutions stood for. According to Osofisan, both himself and Soyinka had taken trips to Europe together, he, as a young student under the umbrella of Soyinka (Insidious Treasons 1). Osofisan has been introduced to the plays of Soyinka ever before he was to meet him as a student/actor under the latter’s direction of the play, Madmen of Specialist in 1971 (34). Osofisan has practically drunk from the master’s choice and treatment of themes. He states in the preface to Insidious Treasons: Needless to say, I am one of those who cannot but read his words. But not because I believe in all of them, uncritically, as infallible utterance. They do not need to be. It is sufficient that Soyinka like all profound thinkers is capable, even when you fervently disagree with him, to provide an insight that is at once illuminating and provoking – provoking in the sense of stirring you into active response – whether the reaction be of fury or despair, of consternation or ecstacy. What I find on a personal note therefore is that reading him has become one of the main strings of my own creativity. When I read him, I inevitably want to write back. (ix Emphasis mine) As stated earlier, Soyinka’s works remain a critical standpoint on which Osofisan’s is based. Osofisan is enamoured with Soyinka’s works but not uncritically. However, Soyinka’s mythic imagination whereby he recreates and treats myths from the Yoruba oral tradition is debunked by Osofisan. To Osofisan, the reverence with which Soyinka treats the gods and their place in society is uncalled for. Osofisan believes that the gods are the creation of man and when they ceased from serving man, they must be discarded. This is the view of Aresa in Osofisan’s The Chattering and the Song when he opines: “We worship Osanyin, god of secrets, but if he stands in the path of justice, we haul him into the stream ...” (45). Latoye’s vituperation captures this irreverence vividly: For centuries, you have shielded yourself with the gods. Slowly, you painted them in your colour, dressed them in your own cloak of terror, injustice and blood lust. But Olori, we know now how Edumare himself arranged his heaven, on which model he moulded the earth. To each of the gods, Edumare gave power and fragility, so that none of them shall ever be a tyrant over the others, and none a slave. Ogun of the forge, king of Ire and outcast; Sango of the flaming eyes, king and captive; Oya, beautiful unfaithful like women; the great mother Yemoja, whose weakness is vanity and oh a thousand other Orisa, all the assurance that power shall not be corrupted by abundant privilege, that neither good nor evil shall be the monopoly of a few .... Sango eats, Ogun eats, and so the ebora of the forest! But in your reign, Abiodun, the elephant eats and nothing remains for the antelope! The buffalo drinks and there is drought in the land! ... (45)

While Soyinka can be seen as a mythopeoist, Osofisan is a myth destroyer or a “mythoclast” who exposes these myths and dialectically positions them for man’s use. A good illustration of this can be seen in Morountodun where Moremi speaks irreverently of the gods who could not save the people: Moremi: Futile prayers! How many times already we’ve watched our festivals change into period of mourning when the Igbos set on us. Yet we have made sacrifices upon sacrifices till the earth is glutted with blood. Our priests have scraped their throat hoarse on incantations, and their latest ploy is to try and make us accept defeats as fate. Tell me, my friend, what more shall we do to learn that the gods will not help us? (Morountodun 34) In No More the Wasted Breed, Osofisan queries why the sacrificial agents should always be from the race of the victims – the poor people. In an interview recorded by Remi Rafi Oyelade, Osofisan proffers: The titles are suggestive. Soyinka calls them ‘the Strong breed’ and I call them ‘the wasted breed’. He sees them as heroes and I see them as victims, and the play, that’s why it doesn’t mean any tragedy. I deliberately wrote it as an answer to his own position. People who are carriers ... are deliberately made to carry the sins of society. Okay, so it has a lot of valour, a lot of bravery but for what purpose? I think they are being cheated. Let each man carry the burden of his own sin (IBA 80-81). What we note in Osofisan is a radicalisation of myth. Ultimately, the characters prominent in Osofisan’s plays are the poor people – the robbers, the peasants and the farmers. His quarrel with Soyinka is based on the neglect of this people in his plays. They are there in society but on Soyinka's stage, they are not given a voice. Osofisan has thus redefined heroism. Heroes do not abound only among the aristocrats but can also be found among “the wretched of the earth”. Language in Osofisan’s work is accessible but not simplistic. Muyiwa Awodiya avers that “the language of Osofisan's drama takes after the simplicity of the folktale. The dialogue is interesting, despite its accessibility and economy” (224). In fact, his plays are usually performed by amateur groups or students. Awodiya corroborates this point when he remarks: Today, Osofisan’s plays are the most frequently performed in the Nigerian theatres, especially at the Universities, colleges, art councils, club houses, etc, because the plays are stylistically and technically accessible to professionals and amateurs alike. Besides the themes of the play are socially relevant ... (Excursions 15) The same cannot be said of the plays of Soyinka especially his A Dance of the Forests which has only been stage once, in Nigeria, at independence where he acted as Forest Head and directed the play (Insidious Treason). While Soyinka embraces the Ogun god as his muse, Osofisan adopts Orunmila. To Osofisan, Ogun is too violent as such violent eruptive characters shown in Soyinka’s plays cannot save the society. Orunmila, on the other hand, shows accommodation, reflection and healing. This informs the choice of the messiah in The Chattering and the Song as the quiet easygoing Leje over the eruptive, angry and volatile Sontri. Osofisan has given voice to women in his plays. Women are no longer limited to types because, as there are good women, there are also bad women. What Osofisan has done is to see the good in them and highlight it. Examples of such women are Moremi/Titubi in Morountodun, Yajin and Funlola in The Chattering and the Song and even Alhaja, the robber, in Once upon Four Robbers. These are women on whose shoulders lie the future of their societies. They are women whose heroic action led to peace in their societies. This portrayal is a revolt against Soyinka’s notion of heroism. Apart from Soyinka’s philosophical stance which Osofisan tries to subvert in his plays, there are also outright borrowings from Soyinka’s work. In A Dance of a Forest for example, Soyinka gives attention to the Ants and the Forest Head questions them. In the question-and-answer session, the Forest Head demands to know the essence of the ants and their leader’s fluency is worthy of note. Forest Head: If the hills are Silent, who are these, If the sun is full and the winds are still, Whose hand is this that reaches from the grave? Ant Leader: We take our colour from the loam And blindness hits them, and they tread us Underfoot Forest Head: Are you my sons? Ant leader: We are the blazers of the trail. If you are the Forest Father, we think we are your sons. Forest Head: But who are you? Ant leader: We take our colour from the fertile loam Our numbers from the hair-roots of the earth And terror blinds them. They know We are children of earth. They Break our skin upon the ground, fearful That we guard the wisdom of Earth Our mother Forest Head: Have you a grievance? Ant leader: None Father, ... (67)

The ants are also important characters in Osofisan’s Many Colours Make the Thunder King. Instead of only feeding Alagemo with answers, the ants criticise human activities. They give a catalogue of human misdeeds. Ants: That’s it! Human beings do not appreciate devotion or love... Ants: Don’t we know that! See How we clean up their Rubbish for them, and how They reward us! Deceit, That’s what they prefer! (65)

The ants dig up the hole that rescues Alagemo. Before this however, they put Alagemo to a test – a riddle – which he is able to answer (66). Osofisan has subverted this process by making a member of the audience interrupt the action on stage (67).

Conclusion Soyinka’s work helps to define Osofisan’s. It is the premise of which Osofisan’s work stands and breaks off. Soyinka’s works remain the point of departure for his art. Osofisan acknowledges the force Soyinka represents for his art. He states: Wole Soyinka is one of the masters who have been very influential in my own development as an artist and as an intellectual. He, it was who provided the first model of what I was going to be as a writer; and for a number of years, I lived with him, travelled with him, worked with him and grew in his company. In those years his thoughts and ideas naturally seeped unto me, and I became marked by his example of courage and compassion. (Insidious Treasons ix) This admiration and love also led to “quarrels” between the two writers; quarrels in which the Left berated Soyinka for his non-Marxian approach. Soyinka, in his usual manner, has sharply reacted to this criticism from Osofisan and others in essays such as “Who’s Afraid of Elesin- Oba?” and “The Critic and Society: Barthes, Leftocracy and other Mythologies”, all in Art, Dialogue and Outrage. In “Who’s Afraid of Elesin-Oba?” Soyinka response to his critics elucidated. Osofisan, Biodun Jeyifo, Ulli Beier and Molara Ogundipe-Leslie are some of the critics to receive the knock from Soyinka’s acerbic response. Soyinka states that he serves: ... warning of the end of my patience with would –be Dowagers of chic radicalism who ignore evidence of a permanent dimension of a writer’s life and art in order to sound suitably and fashionably political. Since I am not a Marxist, I do not “spout” Marxist rhetoric. And when I say I am not a Marxist, I mean that I dispute any form of thinking which insists on conceptualising the “entirety” of experience through a Marxist framework. I find it childish. (114) Soyinka, particularly singles out Osofisan’s essay; “Ritual and the Revolutionary Ethos” and he queries why Osofisan could not “see Ogun ... as a metaphor” To the issues of Soyinka’s inability to be revolutionary in his works, he has this to say: Those who seek easy (optimistic) answers from literature are trapping themselves within the cul de sac where extremist schools of European criticism of “commitment” have stubbornly confronted opaque walls for over a century (119) Soyinka’s conclusion is that it is an illusion to expect to see “efficient fighting forces on the pages of drama” (120). In the essay, “The Critic and Society: Barthes, Leftocracy and other Mythologies”, Soyinka takes a stance against his critics while hiding under the linguistic philosophy of Roland Barthes. He responds to Yemi Ogunbiyi’s criticism of his arts and has this to say: Any theory of what theatre should or can do, what it can achieve, must be anchored in the sociology of what is actually written, done and experienced. What we are offered in the article under consideration which I merely use as an example of the increasingly typical, is a criticism rooted in generalised theories of art or more accurately, in a fragmentary ideology of art, for such an ideology must remain fragmentary unless it is amplified by the dialectics of equal partnership between sociology of the artistic event itself. (160) To Gerald Moore, Femi Osofisan, Kole Omotoso and others, who have taken radical stance against his work, Soyinka believes they commit “literary infanticide” (165). Soyinka is not known to keep quiet over the criticism of his art and the collection of his essays by Biodun Jeyifo is aptly titled: Art, Dialogue and Outrage. However, Osofisan admits in “Wole Soyinka and a Living Dramatist” that: ... our quarrels with Soyinka, are in the end, nothing less than a tribute to his genius; that our disagreements with him represents, with all their fierceness, the kind of homage that admirers pay to masters ... (25) What Osofisan has done is to find the gap in Soyinka’s aesthetics and located his art therein especially in Soyinka’s bleak view of history, his idea of heroism, his philosophy of the sacrificial agent, his use of myth and language. Osofisan has moved in the opposite direction from the Soyinka’s dramaturgy to evolve his own art which is uniquely his. Finally, Soyinka’s work is the premise upon which Osofisan’s work is built and from which he (Osofisan) has sharply deviated. Osofisan had to “kill the father” and exorcised his spirit like in the Oedipal complex in order to come to his own. The myth, folklores and images may be a common communal ancestry but like the Yoruba proverb: “Oko kii je ti baba t’omo, ko ma ni ala”, meaning that a farm cannot belong to both father and son without border lines. Osofisan has crafted a stamp for himself taking Soyinka’s work as a launch pad or a springboard.

References Adelugba, Dapo (ed.) Before our Very Eyes. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited, 1987. Adeoti, Gbemisola. Aesthetics of Adaptation in Contemporary Nigeria Drama. Lagos: CBAAC, 2010. Adeyemi, Sola (ed.) Portraits for an Eagle: Essays in Honour of Femi Osofisan. Bayreuth: African Studies Series, 2006. Akinyemi, Tunde and Toyin Falola (eds.) Emerging Perspectives on Femi Osofisan. Trenton: Africa World Press, 2009. Awodiya, Muyiwa (ed.) Excursions in Drama and Literature. Ibadan: Kraft books Ltd., 1993...... The Drama of Femi Osofisan: A Critical Perspective. Ibadan: Kraft Books Ltd., 1995. Gibbs, James. “The Origins of A Dance of the Forest” in African Literature Today No 8: Drama in Africa (ed.) Eldred Jones. London: Heinemann, 1976. Gugelberger, Georg (ed.) Marxism and African Literature. Britain: James Currey Ltd., 1985. Jeyifo, Biodun (ed.) Modern African Drama. London: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 2002...... “Introduction – Wole Soyinka and the Tropes of Disalienation” in Art, Dialogue and Outrage. Ibadan: New Horn, 1988. Pp VIII – XXXI. Maja-Pearce, Adewale (ed.) Wole Soyinka: An Appraisal. Oxford: Heinemann, 1994. Osofisan, Femi. “And After the Wasted Breed?: Responses to History and to Wole Soyinka’s Dramaturgy” in Insidious Treasons: Drama in a Postcolonial State by Femi Osofisan. Ibadan: Opon Ifa Readers, 2001...... “Wole Soyinka and a Living Dramatist” in Insidious Treasons ...... The Chattering and the Song. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, 1977...... Morountodun and Other Plays. Nigeria: Longman, 1982. Raji-Oyelade, Aderemi. “Myth and Ideology in Nigerian Drama: Reading the Early Plays of Femi Osofisan and Bode Sowande” in IBA: Essays on African Literature in Honour of Oyin Ogunba (eds.) Ogundele Wole and Adeoti Gbemisola. Ile- Ife: OAU Press Ltd., 2003. Soyinka, Wole. Collected Plays I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973...... The Interpreters. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1984...... “Who is Afraid of Elesin-oba?” in Art, Dialogue and Outrage ed. Biodun Jeyifo. Ibadan: New Horn, 1988, 110-131...... “The Critic and Society: Barthes, Leftocracy and other Mythologies”, 146-178. “Standing on the shoulders of Giants” Wikipedia.org. Web. Retrieved 8 April 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants