This chapter explores Plutarch’s presentation of greatness as it equates with leadership ability and outcomes. He expressly values civic participation and leadership that aims to secure and promote the welfare of the community. Subsequent to the presentation of some basic information concerning his theories of education, especially ethical education, attention is then focused on the innate components of greatness and the appropriate means to develop this inborn talent in training individuals to wield power in an effective and responsible fashion. A comparative analysis is then undertaken to set forth the similarities and differences between the psychological/behavioral makeup of Plutarch’s ideal leader and recent influential work in leadership theory by Daniel Goleman, James MacGregor Burns, and Bernard M. Bass. The significant degree of correspondence elucidated leads to a discussion of the literary techniques Plutarch employs to place in sharper relief the salient aspects of great leadership (and its opposite), including his developed use of synkrisis and the Socratic paradigm, as well as the representation of performative acts of leadership.

Plutarch’s various comments about wealth are usually recognizable as springing from the same personality, but the emphasis is different in different contexts. This chapter explores this variety within the Lives, and in particular the characteristic connection with moral decadence and decay. Two pairs are explored as test-cases, Agis–Cleomenes–Gracchi and Agesilaus–Pompey. Rome, with signs of luxury and decadence everywhere, might be expected to be particularly in focus, but talk of decadence is most frequent in the Spartan Lives. Is this an indirect way of passing comment on Rome without causing offense That may also explain his frequent reluctance to talk as openly about Roman corruption and bribery as one might expect, especially in connection with a Life’s central figure. He may also be sidestepping too great an emphasis on Roman luxury as this had traditionally been associated with the Greek East.

The classical past, for Plutarch, offered a huge reservoir of history, art, and traditions, from which he drew examples of virtue for inspiration and encouragement. He expected that his readers should do the same. But he also insisted that the examples that we draw from that reservoir must be carefully strained and tested, using investigative acumen and skeptical discussion and evaluation, to remove the inevitable debris, the inescapable outcome of human ambition, competition, greed, and desire. Internecine war and personal rivalries polluted those great times even as they did his own day, and still do the present world. The best qualities of the classical past could be reacquired only by the constant exercise of prudent reason and controlled passion. Plutarch dared his readers to accept this challenge.

Jonathan Shandell offers an overview of the Negro Little Theatre Movement, the twenty-year period between the 1910s and 1930s that witnessed the flourishing of small, independent theatres across the country. As Shandell notes, these theatres “took root in library auditoriums, churches, community centers, universities, and anywhere else a platform could be built and artists and audiences might gather.” This chapter spotlights a handful of these theatres – the Anita Bush Stock Company, the Ethiopian Art Theatre, the Krigwa Players, the Harlem Suitcase Company, and the Karamu Theatre of Cleveland – and discusses both their evolution and lasting impact. Along the way, Shandell chronicles the efforts of several individuals, including W. E. B. Du Bois, Alain Locke, and Charles Gilpin, who were instrumental to their creation. The chapter ends with a brief account of the Federal Theatre Project’s “Negro units” and their aesthetic similarity to African American little theatres.

Monica White Ndounou focuses on Bert Williams, George Walker, and Langston Hughes. Through a close reading of their seminal productions, she reveals how the artists attempted to challenge existing theatrical stereotypes and caricatures of Blackness. Ndounou reads these figures as trailblazers, paving the path for future artists who were able to present more accurate depictions of African American life on the Broadway stage. The author covers more than fifty years of theatre history, from the emergence of Williams and Walker in the late nineteenth century to the premiere of Hughes’s The Barrier on the Great White Way in 1950.

Aimee Zygmonski provides a close reading of Amiri Baraka’s play Dutchman followed by a study of the creation of his Black Arts Repertory Theatre to provide an insider perspective into the development of the Black Arts Movement. Her study of Baraka’s racial and political awakening as represented in the increasing self-awareness of his character Clay allows her to identify emergent themes that would eventually inform “the Movement.” Although the Black Arts Movement did not last long, Zygmonski asserts that the awakened consciousness that resulted from this flurry of activity “reverberate[s]” in the works of more contemporary and present-day artists.

Introductory chapter for book that centers the work, labor, and effort of artists to script and share African American experiences on stage from the nineteenth century to the present day. It provides an overview of the major movements and moments in Black theatre, beginning with sorrow songs in the era of legal captivity to twenty-first-century stagings.

Douglas A. Jones, Jr. looks at performance in the antebellum period and casts a critical spotlight on the ambivalent nature of African American theatre. He looks at both the coerced performances of Black captives – such as their singing and dancing during the transatlantic crossing of slave ships and preceding their still stands on auction blocks – and those voluntarily created acts, such as the “wild songs” on plantations and, later, the productions at Brown’s African theatre, to interrogate the multiple purposes to which Black performance could be employed. He demonstrates that Black theatre in itself is not inherently liberating. It has been used to reinforce the condition of oppression. However, it has also been infused with the potential to create an “oppositional culture” capable of challenging the status quo.

Nadine George-Graves discusses the vital role that theatre plays in engaging, healing, and transforming African American communities within her account of the theatrical contributions of producer Barbara Ann Teer, playwright Ntozake Shange, and choreographer Jawole Willa Jo Zollar. She addresses the unifying and recuperative power of theatre and how Teer, Shange, and Zollar embrace Africanist practices with the intent of reaching and elevating the “spirit” of their audiences. The recognition of one’s affinity with others exists as a step toward developing a social activist movement.

Adrienne Macki challenges critics who assert that the plays of Eulalie Spence, Alice Childress, and Lorraine Hansberry were either apolitical or not sufficiently political. In her chapter, Macki reintroduces the playwrights, who were active between 1930 and 1960, and chronicles the vital roles that they played in opening the doors for Black women to have their work staged regionally as well as on Broadway. Furthermore, she makes a convincing case that their plays feature “self-actualized black characters fighting against oppression and consumption while struggling to maintain racial and gender subjectivity.”

Sandra L. Richards shares a hemispheric approach to understanding African American theatre. Centering the writings of Canadian, US, and Caribbean playwrights, she moves not only across the Americas but also the twentieth century. Richards identifies the similar concerns of geographically and temporally separated playwrights as markers of African Diaspora drama. Among the salient features of this category, which includes dramatic works by Amiri Baraka, Djanet Sears, August Wilson, and Aimé Césaire, among others, are plays that retain African cultural elements, depict resistance to colonial governing, and circulate a common or shared understanding of the operations of Blackness within a particular political moment.

Heather Nathans centers the representation of slave rebellions and rebellious Black characters on the theatrical stage “from the colonial era through the beginning of the twentieth century.” She reveals how dramatic representations of captive uprisings were influenced by actual events. For example, the revolution in Haiti (formerly Saint Domingue), which was led by Toussaint L’Ouverture in 1791, inspired the scripting of numerous plays about unrest and revolution in “Hayti,” among other places. Nathans reveals that plays, penned by both White and Black playwrights, frequently depicted the unjust conditions to which Black men and women were subjected. They framed rebellion and revolt as justifiable acts.