In this week's Crash Course video, The Spanish Golden Age, Mike Rugnetta states that religious plays were still widely written and performed, in contrast to England. Rugnetta also cites that the most active genre of this was the Autos Sacrementales, religious plays that had a lot of overlap with English morality plays. I think that this monologue by the king, basically granting Segismund the throne because he had positive character development, perfectly represents the mixture of religious values in the theatre of the time. What I'm curious, however, about when the Spanish moved away from this more religious style of plays? I know Rugnetta said that many playwrights wrote both religious and secular plays, but I wonder when or if those religious ever became obsolete, like they did in England and other countries?

In this week's Crash Course video, "The English Renaissance and Not Shakespeare", Mike Rugnetta discussed how there was a crackdown on theatre during this time and, because of this, theatre had to become newer and more innovative. These events also lead to theatres and actors professionalizing and becoming more sophisticated over time, leading the way to more depth of story. I chose this quote because I think that it, and the rest of this iconic soliloquy, really show how the theatre changed into something more than entertainment. They were able to become stories and characters with real depth- like Hamlet here contemplating death- and, because of this, theatre was really brought into a new age.

I came back to this section in particular because I found it a little odd and out of place, not actually taking place in the events of the story and seemingly representing people behind the scenes. I was just kind of curious what this was for. One thing I found in my research was that there was a migration of the Brahman people and they basically ended up having to mix their cultures and traditions, mixing folk and classical traditions, creating lots of changes in theatre traditions. One such outcome was a combination of traditional long narration and interpretation. I'm not sure if this prologue section necessarily stems from that, however, you can tell that this section is different from the rest and had to have come from somewhere.

Source: FOLK TRADITION FO SANSKRIT THEATRE: A STUDY OF KUTIYATTAM IN MEDIEVAL KERALA By Renjitha V.R https://www.jstor.org/stable/44158830?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=traditional%20sanskrit%20theatre&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dtraditional%2Bsanskrit%2Btheatre&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Af04f1b26213ded3b359792149724d8cc

In this module's video, we were shown bits from Antigone. In it, we see that Creon didn't bury Antigone's brother (going against even the gods decree) because he was a traitor to the state. In this scene, Oedipus gets increasingly angry and threatens Teiresias by basically saying "do you want to be an enemy of the state?" Because of what we learned through Antigone, we know that this is a real threat to Teiresias of how much he could be hurt and disgraced by going against his orders, and thus, the state.