Vol. 4(4), pp.

102-114, June, 2013

DOI: 10.5897/IJEL12.075
International Journal of English and
ISSN 1996-0816 2013 Academic Journals Literature
http://www.academicjournals.org/IJEL

Review

Reading kurunmi and ijaye as factual historical war

dramas: A genre and text
Tunji AZEEZ

Department of Theatre Arts and Music, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria.
Accepted 6 July, 2012

The Nigerian dramatic stage has been greatly enriched by the twin concepts of war and insurgence.
Unlike the literatures derived from the Nigerian civil war that have been classified by critics as Nigerian
War Literatures, plays written on war and insurgence have been generally misclassified as tragedy,
historical plays, satire or any other popular genre. Such general classifications, definitely, do not
adequately represent plays on war and insurgence. For this reason, there is a need to re-question these
plays with a view to laying new criteria for their classification as war dramas. The study adopts the
genre theory in its content analysis of two plays that are derived from historical wars and written by two
Nigerian playwrights whose selection is informed by their generational and ideological position vis-a-
vis dramatic recreation of history. Rotimis and Ogunyemis Kurunmi and Ijaye plays on the 19th
century Yoruba war between Ijaye and Ibadan armies are studied in detail to arrive at a sub-genre of war
drama which this study delineates as Factual Historical War Drama. In arriving at this sub-genre of
drama, the paper examines such dramatic devices as theme, characterisation and style as well as the
faithfulness of the writers in utilizing actual historical materials and personalities of the war. It argues
that a conscious reading of the plays as war dramas would make the reader to have the privilege of
having a real sense of the war rather than seeing it as history in his/her understanding and
interpretation of the play.

Key words: Genre theory, factual historical, war, drama, insurgence.

INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of literary drama which historians
have, with ample evidence, traced to ancient Greece, the
concept of genre has been a fundamental one in its
appreciation and evaluation. In fact, this stance is
supported by one of the leading genre theorists of the
20th century, Rick Altiman (1999). Altimans position is,
of the entire concepts fundamental to literary theory,
none has a longer and more distinguished lineage than
the question of literary types or genre; this is also
supported by Grant (2007).
Grant, like Altiman before him, contends that Aristotle,
the first genre theorist known to us, identified two
problems in his discussion of genre when he set the rules
for the writing of tragedy and comedy and went further to
place tragedy above comedy, both aesthetically and
philosophically. By this position, genre theorists have
argued that the Aristotelian prescription has bedevilled
any discussion of genre as readers/audiences, as the
writers have been given parameters for the creation,
enjoyment and evaluation of works of art. This, they
argue, conditions the mind of the audience/reader when
certain works are classified based on certain factors of
genre. One of those who support this position is Kolker
(2007) when he posits, genre helps us to classify and
prepare the viewers for what they will see. But, while it
may seem simple to categorise literary works into
different genres and sub-genres, a critical look at the
parameters guiding our arrival at any classification is
problematic.
As Stam (2000) correctly observed:

E-mail: orunmilababa@yahoo.co.uk. Tel: +234 802 333 0390, +234 813 656 2627.

A number of perennial doubts plague genre
theory. Are genres really out there in the world,
or are they merely the constructions of analysts?
Is there a finite taxonomy of genres or are they in
principle infinite?
The questions raised by Stam above are germane to this
paper, for this paper is predicated on the observation that
existing generic classification of the works to be studied
does not adequately represent them. But before we go
on, what really do we mean by genre? The word
genre, Daniel Chandler (2000) argues:
...comes from the French (and originally Latin)
word for kind or class. The term is widely used
in rhetoric, literary theory, media theory, and
more recently, linguistics to refer to a distinctive
type of text. ...for most of its 2,000 years, genre
study has been primarily nominological and
typological in function. That is to say, it has taken
as its principal task the division of the world of
literature into types and the naming of those
types, as much as the botanist divides the realm
of flora into varieties of plants.
As straight-forward as this definition seems, Chandler
identifies a major problem in it when he contends that
while it may be easy for the botanist or any other scientist
to classify objects and phenomenon biologically, this is
not the case when we get to the realm of literature or the
mass media. The reason for this is that unlike in the
sciences where taxonomy follows defined and definite
criteria, literary genres overlap so much that what is
considered a genre by one theorist may be considered as
a sub-genre or even a style by another theorist
depending on the point of view of such theorists.
The ancestor of all genre theorists, Aristotle, in his
Poetics classified drama into two namely, tragedy and
comedy. Aristotle, as mentioned earlier, went beyond the
merely nominal and typological to ascribe importance to
one genre over the other when he argues that tragedy is
a superior dramatic genre to comedy. However, genre
theorists after Aristotle have contended that difference
does not necessarily mean better or superior as genre
also focuses on the taste and attraction of the reader or
audience. Chandler captures it very succinctly when he
submits that:
How we define genre depends on our purposes;
if we are studying the way in which genre frames
the readers interpretation of a text then we
would do well to focus on how readers identify
genres rather than on theoretical distinctions.
Defining genre may be problematic, but even if
theorists were to abandon the concept, in
everyday life people will continue to categorise
texts.
Azeez 103
From the aforementioned, we may then move to an
understanding of why people consciously or otherwise
categorise literary texts and the parameters employed in
such categorisations. Surely, thematic thrust may be a
valid criterion to categorise texts but it is not sufficient.
The reason for this as advanced by a genre theorist,
Bordwell (1989) is that any literary genre can treat any
theme and how the theme is treated is what is important.
We may therefore conclude that theme, treatment and
purpose are valid criteria to classify literary works into
genres/or sub-genres.
The above, therefore, leads us to the reason for
advancing a sub-genre of historical drama nominally
referred to as Factual Historical War Drama. The
underlying factor behind this categorisation is that certain
salient issues in the dramas could be overlooked if the
plays under consideration are read basically as historical
drama. This is because as Kolker (2007) points out, while
there are relatively stable genres such as tragedy and
comedy, from within these large groupings, subgenres
emerge. He adds further, Genres, though born of
constraints, can be quite supple, stretching and moving
with cultural demands of the moment. Therefore, in an
age where war and conflict of all sorts are rife, such as on
the African continent, a conscious reading of the works
as war dramas, no doubt, will give the reader the
opportunity to see war in its reality and its attendant
effects over and above any other issue in the drama as
would be seen in the discussion of the plays. But before
we do this, it is apt to give a brief background of the
writers whose works are studied below.
From a common back cloth: background to Ola
Rotimi and Wale Ogunyemi
Ogunyemi and Rotimi are writers with keen interest in the
Yoruba history and culture as evident in their works. They
employ such elements as song, music, dance and riddles
of the Yoruba people so much that their plays appeal to
all and sundry irrespective of academic background or
social class. It can be noted also, that both Rotimi and
Ogunyemi are contemporaries in age, with just one year
in-between them, and that both of them are concerned
with reaching out to the ordinary people of Nigeria as
seen in their use and domestication of the English
Language. Rotimi, for instance has this to say in this
regard, quoting Coker (1992):
When I was coming on the scene in 1966, the
atmosphere toward the theatre in English was
one of ambivalence. This was understandable
because foreign language in the expression of
our theatrical thoughts exposes us to doubts in
the minds of our targets, the spectators. It
diminishes our credibility.
The quote above perhaps reflects Ogunyemis view too
104 Int. J. English Lit.
on the need to bring their plays closer to the people by a
deliberate domestication of the English Language to
sound like what Adelugba (1975) refers to as Yoruba
English.
The writers also came onto the Nigerian dramatic
space the same year, 1966. In addition, both of them are
fascinated by the dramatic materials that history offers to
willing dramatists. No wonder, then, that in form and
content as well as in performance style, the two are the
closest allies. Olu Obafemi (1996:89) says:
Ola Rotimi and wale Ogunyemi are perhaps the
closest dramatists in English to the traditional
performing arts in Nigeria in terms of the use of
oral tradition and history. They are both
concerned, primarily, with reaching the Nigerian
audience at whatever levels of competence in
English Language in which they operate.
On performance style, he goes further:
Owing to their strong commitment to the need to
gain rapport with the audience in the mode of
traditional drama, they both prefer to produce
their plays in the round (close to the open air or
village square performance tradition), rather than
the proscenium stage.
It is little wonder, then, that both of them have written on
the 19th century Yoruba wars in particular and generally
on other events, myths and legends of the African
people. Perhaps, one thing that Obafemi did not mention
is the fact that both writers, Rotimi and Ogunyemi began
their careers as staff of their various institutions, Institute
of African Studies. While Rotimi was at the Institute of
African Studies, Ife, Ogunyemi was holding a similar
position at Ibadan. It is no doubt that both of them were
first and foremost researchers into African culture and
tradition, a job which definitely impacted on their creative
geniuses. Rotimi wrote several plays based on history
Kurunmi, Ovonramwen Nogbaisi and Hopes of the Living
Dead (1971, 1974) while Ogunyemi (1997, 1976), on
the other hand, also draws extensively from history and
myth as revealed in Ijaye, Kiriji, Esu Elegbara, Obaluaye,
Be Mighty, Be Mine and Langbodo
This paper discusses these plays not just as historical
drama as other writers such as Obafemi (1996),
Olaniyan (1997), Ebewo (2005) and Adeniyi (2007) etc
have done, but to see these plays as war dramas. This
is because not all plays drawn from history are war
dramas just as not all war dramas are historical dramas.
Factual historical war drama: A study of Kurunmi and
Ijaye
It is important to state that the two writers, Rotimi and
Ogunyemi are writing as postcolonial dramatists both to
deconstruct existing colonial accounts of the war as well
as foreground the fact that the 19th century wars with their
intrigues and consequent resolutions have a place in
contemporary dialogue towards the achievement and
understanding of the postcolonial discourse on war and
peace generally in Africa and particularly in Nigeria. This
approach and belief is not peculiar to Nigerian dramatists,
historians, political scientists and politicians but to their
counterparts in Africa specifically and the world at large.
Niyi (2001), looking at how African writers generally and
Ngugi and Mugo specifically have deconstructed
Eurocentric historical accounts to give privilege to the
margin, says:
It is common knowledge that the history of the
colonised -which was written by the colonisers
and considered objective and authoritative
during the colonial era projects the outlook of
the colonising powers: their biases and their
deliberate misrepresentation of the colonised.
And through the reconstruction of history in this
context by indigenous historians and leading
nationalists, the intervention of writers in the
interrogation of historical distortions underscores
the urgency of retrieving and rehabilitating
marginalized perspectives in the representation
of historical experiences.
The Ibadan-Ijaye war is derived from the rivalry of the
different successor powers of the Old Oyo Empire, an
empire trying to fill the power vacuum created by the
collapse of the empire due to its sack by the Fulani army
in 1831. Before the sack of the Old Oyo or Katunga as it
was then called, the empire had become the most
important power with its territory spreading from South-
western Nigeria to Dahomey. Its capital was well situated
in the Savannah near the River Niger.
After its collapse, Atiba moved with some of the
refugees to establish a new Oyo and by the middle of the
th
19 century, Oyo has bounced back as a major political
force as it was now secure from the threat of the Fulani.
As Smith and Ajayi (1971) noted:
At the new capital also named Oyo, he worked
patiently to regain the power of his ancestors. He
had been a wild dissolute young prince but as
Alafin, he returned to tradition as the only
possible restorer of order.
Atiba succeeded in building a new capital but for military
strength, he depended on two major warrior towns;
Ibadan and Ijaye. He therefore, cleverly, gave titles to the
leaders of these towns the leader of Ibadan, a fierce
warrior; Ibikunle was given the title of Balogun or War
general, while the leader of Ijaye, Kurunmi, was invested
with the title of Are-Ona-Kankanfo or Generalissimo. Of
these two towns, Ibadan and Ijaye,

Smith and Ajayi have this to say of Ibadan:
though Ibadan continued to recognise the
suzerainty of the Alafin, it was largely an
autonomous republic ruled by a military
oligarchy. The class of chiefs trained their young
men in war and set their slaves and prisoners of
war to cultivate their farms. Agriculture was a
lowly and war a noble profession.
On Ijaye they write:
At Ijaye, Kurunmi, the greatest Yoruba general
established a personal ascendancy. He was
king, judge, general, entertainer, sometimes also
executioner. All refugees in the town had to
submit to his will or quit.
Thus, there was rivalry between these towns established.
Therefore, when Atiba sensed that he was soon to die,
he called his leading chiefs, notably amongst them,
Kurunmi and Ibikunle to accept the crowned Prince
Adelu, as his successor. This is contrary to the
constitution of Oyo, which stipulates that at the death of
an Alafin, his eldest son, the crowned Prince has to die
with him. Ibadan accepted Atibas plea while Ijaye, under
Kurunmi, rejected it as a violation of tradition. The
outcome of their respective stance is the source of drama
for Rotimi and Ogunyemi. The plays bring to the fore the
intricacies, manipulations, joys and sorrows of war.
In Kurunmi and Ijaye, based on what is revealed above,
we see two parties: Ibadan warriors, especially
Ogunmola and Kurunmi of Ijaye demonstrating
aggression and the urge for war, while Ibikunle, an older
warrior and the Balogun of Ibadan, a man who has seen
more wars than Ogunmola and perhaps Kurunmi himself
walking the path of peace; but the two aggressors,
Kurunmi and Ogunmola would have none of it. This in a
way negates what Rice (1990) says, it takes two to
make peace, but only one to make war, and because
pride inhibits the admission of gross error, wars are
understandings from which extrication is peculiarly
difficult. This is because here, two people- Ogunmola
and Kurunmi- and not one are war prone.
Ola Rotimis play opens with the feast of Ororun, a
feast where Kurunmi, the lord and master of Ijaye is chief
priest. At this feast which takes place every five days,
Kurunmi feeds all his children, the people of Ijaye. It is a
merry occasion. The play opens on Kurunmis agbo le
or compound, a place, which Rotimi says of in the
opening stage direction as:
In this particular agbo le, for instance, the gods
of the tribe are present in varying images of
earth, granite and wood. Here also exists, or are
believed to exist the spirits of departed
ancestors: ethereal, invisible eternal guardians
Azeez 105
of the bodies of the living, bodies that have
warmth, and blood, and sweat.
The opening scene tells a lot about the personality of
the master of the agbole, Kurunmi. Abogunrin, semi
drunk pours libation to the gods. The mere fact that
several gods, Ogun, Sango, Esu etc are present in this
compound shows the arrogance of the lord of Ijaye,
Kurunmi. He has domesticated all the gods, turned them
into captives whom he alone has the right to consult. This
scene also prepares the audience for the grand arrival of
Aare Kurunmi as drummers, dancers, villagers, praise
singers all perform and announce his coming. All of a
sudden, the dancing and drumming stop; everybody
prostrates himself, in ready deference to Kurunmi
entrance. In fact, Asunraras praise-chant of Kurunmi
foreshadows the awesome nature and personality of
Kurunmi:
Kurunmi, the unfathomable.
Granite.
Lord that must be obeyed.
Like a thief demander of absolutes.
The lion himself, prowling,
unrushed in the mysteries of night.
There is no gainsaying that a character portrayed in
this way will definitely not be reasonable but be stubborn,
arrogant and abrasive, in fact, a perfect war-monger. So,
when Kurunmi storms in, closely followed by his five
sons, we hear the entire crowd pay homage to him, ka
biyesi! Are-ona-kankanfo.
It is important to understand the eternal truth that in the
Yoruba world of that era and even to the present, only a
king, say the Alafin, is addressed as kabiyesi or he-who-
must-not be-questioned. The mere fact that Kurunmi has
turned himself into a king and a demander of absolutes
portrays him as a man who is perfectly arrogant.
Ogunyemi, also in Ijaye opens his play in the
compound of Aare Kurunmi. Like Rotimi, he describes
the compound in the following lines:
Effigy of Sango and Ogun adore his palace.
Kurunmis sword is beside Oguns effigy. In the
distance, the sound of drums is heard, irregular,
suggestive of a tense ensemble of drums. Aare
KURUNMI storms the stage a robust man,
strong in personality, though old, smart in
appearance (1).
In these ways, Rotimi and Ogunyemi put before us a
character that will do all things but listen to any dissenting
voice, any voice of reason. They present to us a perfect
victim of the Yoruba god of war, Ogun.
As mentioned above, we are not concerned with the
historical accurateness of the plays, so we need not
bother whether the historical Kurunmi attended the
106 Int. J. English Lit.
meeting where Atiba persuaded his top chiefs to accept
his son, Adelu as king as presented by Rotimi or that
Kurunmi sent some of his chiefs to attend the meeting -
as presented by Ogunyemi. The important thing, here, is
that Atiba has made his proposal to his chiefs and
Kurunmi has rejected it, while the other chiefs accepted
it. It is his rejection of the Atibas proposal that the two
writers present us with. The two writers present Kurunmi
as a man without respect for constituted authority as
represented by Alafin Atiba. It is then ironical that
Kurunmi, a defender of tradition, would also, in defending
tradition, step on tradition. In reporting the meeting,
Kurunmi in Ola Rotimis Kurunmi tells his subjects:
Oba Atiba came down from his high throne; in
his right hand, the sword of Ogun; in his left
hand, the bolt of Sango. He came towards us:
swear my people, said he. Swear to Ogun and
to my forebear, Sango that my son, Adelu will be
king after me Clown: I yelled, out of my
cursed sight (spits) I shall be no party to
perversion. I picked my staff and walked out.
It is worthy to note that calling Atiba, the Alafin of Oyo,
the very man who made Kurunmi a chief in Ijaye a clown
to his face and before the other chiefs is a slap on
tradition, that very sacred order which he is supposed to
defend.
Of the same proposal, Ogunyemi, in Ijaye, has Kurunmi
bellow:
A slap on my face! An effrontery against my
person and my chieftaincy! This is a challenge,
and we shall meet force with force. They are the
people who speak of peace in public but injure
us in private (My emphasis).
From this point, we know that peace cannot be achieved
as Kurunmi is bent on war. So, when Rotimi and
Ogunyemi allow Kurunmi, the lord of Ijaye to choose
between war and peace as we find in the peace move of
Oluyole and Timi, two prominent Yoruba chiefs, nothing
is achieved. Indeed, he has so indoctrinated his subjects
that they show no respect for the chiefs as tradition
demands. And when the chiefs ask if they have fallen so
low that even slaves will slight them, the following
ensues:
Kurunmi indeed low you have fallen.
Does the aged he-goat have to be told that his
present long beard is no more proof of sexual
strength?
Oluyole: We thank you.
Kurunmi: (to townsfolk) Now prostrate
yourselves to them.
Oluyole: No use.
Kurunmi: Bring them chairs.
Timi: No need.
Kurunmi: Move back for them.
Oluyole: Dont bother.
Kurunmi: (to Oluyole) Go hang! (18-19)
Despite the insult, Oluyole and Timi patiently plead with
Kurunmi to accept Adelu as king now that Atiba is dead
but characteristically, Kurunmi will not budge. So, after
Atibas death and Adelus ascension to his throne,
Kurunmi alone of all the chiefs of Oyo and its surrounding
towns and villages refuses to accept him as king. While
Rotimi does not begin the war early, Ogunyemi presents
Kurunmi as a man who courts war at the slightest
excuse. As his warrior, messenger Oje brings him news
of Asipa of Oyos arrival to see him, he is quick to see
him knowing that Asipa is the son of Oja, the founder of
Old Oyo and a claimant to the throne of Oyo. The Asipas
news for Kurunmi is that two vassal towns under Ijaye,
Okeho and Saki have sworn their allegiance to Oyo and
despised Ijaye. Kurunmi, swiftly, pounces on these towns
taking captives:
Asipa: We had a delegation from Saki this
morning, and another from Okeho pledging their
loyalty to Adelu and denouncing you.
Kurunmi: Now the Ibadan degenerates are
playing with fire.
Asipa: Adelu has now started a campaign
to contest your claim to supremacy over Oke-
Ogun.
Kurunmi: He is finished! He has set fire on his
own roof. I shall destroy his entire kingdom and
bring you back on your ancestors throne Oje,
go and get your men together immediately and
march on Okeho and Saki. Destroy their
buildings, seize everything you can and capture
slaves (5).
By this singular act, apart from the public effrontery
against Atiba and his rejection of Adelu, Kurunmi has
drawn the battle line with Ibadan, a strong force behind
Oyo. We also note, here, that Kurunmi swears that he
would destroy Adelus kingdom. But the question is, why
would a reasonable man see a kingdom that he is
expected to defend, a kingdom that gave him the title
Are- Ona Kankanfo as Adelus kingdom? Had Kurunmi
seen Oyo as his kingdom and not as Adelus, the war,
surely, would have been averted.
Despite these acts of disregard for constituted
authority, however, both Rotimi and Ogunyemi explore
the possibility of peace as against Kurunmis choice of
war. Ogunyemi, for instance, presents the message of
Ibikunle of Ibadan and Alafin Adelu over Kurunmis attack
of Okeho and Saki thus:
Samu: We heard news of the incidence of
Okeho and Saki and I am sent to ask you, for the

sake of peace and goodwill, to release those
captives in your grip.
Kurunmi: What a request! Tell your people
that a fowl on a journey with the kite never
return (14).
After a while, Oje, Kurunmis warrior who marched on the
two towns confers with Kurunmi and Kurunmi demands a
ransom of seventy acres of yam, one thousand bags of
yam flour and twenty horses. All to be brought before sun
set, otherwise the captives die.
From the above, we note a strategy of war-peace-talk
or negotiation. In modern times, as in the old, talks
usually come before war for it is when dialogue fails that
war becomes imminent and unavoidable. In essence, the
Yoruba wars of the 19th century were not waged
senselessly without recourse to military strategies of
averting or prosecuting them. They follow the pattern of
wars in every clime. The need for dialogue as a means to
preventing war is pushed further by Rotimi and
Ogunyemi. Ogunyemi once again shows Samu and
Aijenku, messengers from Ibadan with an Ogboni staff;
symbol of authority and of peace to Kurunmi to release
the captives but Kurunmi will have none of this. Instead,
he demands the ransom and when Samu tells him that
Balogun Ibikunle begs him in the name of Ogboni
fraternity- a traditional and sacred fraternity respected by
all for an easier condition- Kurunmi orders one of his
men, Jongban to go and kill the captives. He even goes
further to snatch the Ogboni staff from Aijenku and
smashes it on the floor. We see him do the same in
Rotimis Kurunmi. When presented with another
opportunity to choose peace, he mocks Adelu and calls
him a child by soiling his white apron with okra soup and
gives the Oyo messengers the soiled apron to give to
their king. This act is an absolute act of derision of the
authority of the Alafin.
At last, when the path of peace and reason seems
closed, the messengers present him with two bowls: one
contains gunpowder, the other contains the sacred twins
of the Ogboni cult:
Obagbori: The Alafin asks you to choose
between peace and war.
Kurunmi: (Grabs the bowl containing
gunpowder and bullets): Now return those twins
to that squit. On his back he may carry them and
dance about, if he wishes. Out!
In this way, Kurunmi has chosen war without consulting
with his soldiers and chiefs. This act of Kurunmi, his
decision to choose war without consulting with those who
will fight for him will later have an effect on him. The
effect was such that, if he had not wisely dealt with it, the
war would have consumed him before it actually began.
The soldiers, acting consciously, conscious of their
importance in Kurunmis battle, confront him on the
Azeez 107
foolishness of his action. This shows that Kurunmi is like
most men who lust after war, personalize all issues with
the sole aim of testing their might against any real or
perceived contender. As Rice (1999) says:
Any conflict, whether it involves firepower or not,
is a psychological contest. It must be waged
against the opponents mind and ones own. But
one will never learn what one needs to know
without first being aware that such a job needs to
be done.
The correctness of Rices position can be seen in the two
warring towns in Kurunmi and Ijaye. To tell his opponents
that he is formidable, that he is the lion who must not be
dared, Kurunmi in Ogunyemis Ijaye attacks Okeho and
Saki to imprint in the mind of the Ibadan warrior and their
Oyo monarch, Adelu, the fear of his awesome powers.
Rotimi does the same by making him smear a white cloth
with okra in derision of Adelu and by making him choose
the calabash containing gun powder. Rotimis description
of Kurunmis eagerness for war is succinctly reflected in
the stage direction: Grabs the bowls containing
gunpowder and bullets. Kurunmi does not accept or
take the bowls; he GRABS them! It was at this time that
Kurunmi remembers Ogun, the Yoruba god of war and
iron: for the first time, Ogun, war has come. Bullets and
gunpowder, Adelu sends the challenge to a fight. He
does not tell Ogun that accompanying the gun and bullets
is also the Ogboni staff, a symbol of peace. Therefore,
we want to believe that the Ijaye war, a war that further
weakened the Yoruba nation was predicated on personal,
egocentric reasons, with Kurunmi not being the only
guilty one but also the young and equally war hungry
Ogunmola.
Ogunmola, the Bashorun of Ibadan, like Kurunmi, is
presented by Ogunyemi and Rotimi as irascible, war
drunk and without regard for constituted authority or age.
All that Kurunmi needs as an excuse to wage war against
Ibadan is the kingship of Adelu, while what Ogunmola
needs is another form of preservation of tradition and
kingship, the defence of Adelu. However, Ogunmola as
presented by Ola Rotimi has a score to settle with
Kurunmi. This is evident in Rotimis Kurunmi:
Ogunmola: Let me finish. I must talk. Cactus is
bitter to him who has tasted it. I, Ogunmola, have
tasted Kurunmis cactus of respect for his fellow
man, and I know how bitter it is to the mouth.
Bale Olugbode: The matter before our council is
one that concerns the life or death of our race;
my brother, so I pray, let us not bring personal
pains into it.
Ogunmola: I thank you. It was my personal fight
that I was fighting before Kurunmi made me
prisoner. Is that it! It was my wife I went to get
from under his bosom in Ijaye when he caught
108 Int. J. English Lit.
me and tied me to a post in his backyard.
Personal problems, he tells me. For fourteen
days Kurunmi kept me prisoner and fed me on
white dry ashes in his backyard.
With Kurunmi and Ogunmola poised for war, the voice of
reason symbolized and personalized in Bashorun
Ibikunle made no headway. Thus, war became the
means of restoring order in the polity as well as a means
of proving supremacy of town and personality. This
certainly would have been unnecessary or even
impossible had the Fulani army not sacked Old Oyo,
render the populace fleeing and making small
communities under Oyo thirsty for freedom from their
former master. Smith and Ajayi (1971) capture it:
The break-up of Old Oyo Empire had posed the
question of what was to take its place. With the
central authority gone, and no one single leader
gaining dominance from units of local
government, each taking its place within a
monarchical structure, the major towns were
seeking to become capitals of rival states with
rival loyalties and patriotisms. In this way, the
love of town came to supplant the love for
country.
With the stage set and the actors of war on their cue, no
one could prevent the war. The major obstacle between
war and peace, Ibikunle, was ridiculed by Ogunmola who
calls him a coward, an old crow. To press home his point
that Ibikunle is old and spent, Ogunmola ties a crow, a
dead black crow to Ibikunles house. This was the height
of humiliation. Rotimi and Ogunyemi dramatize the
Ibikunle, Ogunmola face-off differently. While they both
agree that Ogunmola derided his superior Ibikunle, both
converge on the fact that Ogunmola, the younger man
had the young warriors on his side; they differ on whether
Ogunmola waged the war without Ibikunles forced
consent. In Kurunmi, both Ibikunle and Ogunmola are at
the war front at the same time with Ibikunles supremacy
being recognized by Ogunmola when the Egbas join
forces with Kurunmi; Ogunyemi, on the other hand,
presents Ibikunle joining Ogunmola much later in the
battle but at the same time (the point where the Egbas
arrive) in the course of the war. A word on Ibikunles
position for caution is important.
Before the break-up of Old Oyo and the dispersion of
its people to various towns, the Yoruba people were one.
This oneness stems from the mythic claim to one
ancestor, Oduduwa, whose home is Ile-Ife. For this
reason, all Yoruba saw themselves as one; they inter-
married, had same social, religious and cultural practices;
they recognized the supremacy of the Alafin politically.
Therefore, Ibikunle cautions that a war against Ijaye is
not just another war and not also a war against the
irascible and arrogant Kurunmi. To him, it is a difficult war
unlike other wars that he has fought in defence of Oyo
and her people or for Ibadan, his home town. Rotimi
captures it when Ogunmola calls Ibikunle coward:
Ibikunle: Battles I have seen many, my
brothers. Ogunmola calls me coward! As
Balogun of this land of Ibadan, I know too well
the horrors of battle, my brothers. And I know too
that, of all battles, the battle against ones own
blood brothers, the agony of war brought upon
ones own brothers, is most horrid and heart-
breaking. Ogunmola calls me coward? Marriages
and festivals which we here in Ibadan have had
in common with out brothers, the people of Ijaye,
have made us of one blood who here in
Ibadan has no brother in Ijaye either by direct
line of blood or by marriage? Osi, son of
Osundina! How many blood-branches do you
have in Ijaye?
Osi Osundina: If it is less than one hundred and
twenty, then my head is not well.
Despite this sound argument, war has to be waged, as
Ogunmola and Kurunmi have personal scores to settle,
which takes pre-eminence over the collective interest.
This is exactly what has happened in other cultures. It
has led to the destruction of friendship and alliances.
Funny enough, it has also led to the creation of new
friendships and alliances.
The war began with both sides well prepared. In this
context, we may agree with Clausewitz (1968) that, war
is only a part of political intercourse. What dialogue and
reason could not achieve, war becomes a means of
achieving it.
One interesting thing about the Ijaye war is that both
parties exercised shrewd military intelligence. Before the
war breaks out, Kurunmi mends fences with his soldiers,
giving them gifts, praising their valour, suppressing his
ego all in a bid, like a good general, to go to war with an
army that is loyal to his command. He realized that it is
only in unity that strength lies. Before this time, that is,
before the warriors confront him with his excessiveness,
Kurunmi sees himself as the almighty, a man who has
achieved all his fame and wealth alone, without his
soldiers. But, one of his soldiers, Asegbe tells him, no
mouse fights for you, unless you show us regard while
another warrior, Amodu, tells him, that the reason they
have come to confront him is that his power chokes
them.
So, Kurunmi, the lion is humbled by his soldiers. From
this point on, we see the reason why Kurunmi was given
the title of Aare Ona-Kankanfo. He begins to give
strategic commands; he realizes wisely that once war
starts, no one knows how it will end. Rotimis Kurunmi,
like that of Wale Ogunyemi prepares his soldiers for war
first by performing a ritual of protection on them at the
shrine of Ogun, the god of war and of Sango his personal

god. This phase over, he realizes that wars are not won
through prayer but through ones might and shrewd
strategizing. He realizes that despite the fact that soldiers
are made up of mainly men, husbands and sons are
going to the war front, women, the old and children must
be protected. Rotimis Kurunmi deserves to be quoted at
some length here:
Kurunmi: War has begun. Like conversation
that starts casually, it has begun. And like
conversation, no one knows how it will end. One
thing leads on to another. Fight we must, but our
soldiers must not starve because of fighting. Nor,
must wives and children thirst because we are
fighting. Therefore, to the land of Iwawun, where
food and water come to Ijaye shall we give full
defence defend Iwawun or die there.
It is interesting to note that, Kurunmi realises the
importance of Iwawun to the survival of Ijaye and so, he
chooses no other than his five sons to defend it. It is
possible for one, at this juncture to hypothesize that the
choice of his five sons as those to defend Iwawun could
be as a result of his distrust for his soldiers and the
unflinching faith he has in his sons, to do the bidding of
their father without thinking.
However, it is clear from the above that Kurunmi is truly
a war strategist. He understands that there is every need
to defend the civilian populace made up mainly of the
aged, women and children, in a time of war. He,
therefore, pays great attention to the defence of Iwawun,
Ijayes source of food and water. It is worthy to note that
Kurunmis opponents also realise the centrality and
importance of Iwawun to Ijayes survival so, they attack it
with equal seriousness and determination. This war
strategy, knowledge of ones strength and weakness, is
still employed in contemporary wars both in Africa and
the world over. For Ibadan to starve the entire people of
Ijaye without considering those multitudes who may
suffer, that multitude that were never part of the decision
that led to the war is horrendous. But despite its
horrendousness, it is a legitimate war strategy. So, when
Ibadan took possession of Iwawun, Ijaye suffers from
hunger and disease, which triggers off the primordial
instinct to survive as the people begin to run to strangers
to beg for food. This is reminiscent of the refugee
problem in war torn Africa where millions of families, old
and young run to refugee camps and neighbouring
countries for food rations. We will talk more on this issue
later. Let us now turn to Ogunyemis Ijaye for other
strategies of war.
Wars are fought at different levels but at whatever
level, knowledge of ones opponent is important.
Therefore, Ogunyemi creates the characters of Alore and
Alami as war spies for Ibadan and Ijaye, respectively.
This is in consonance with all wars from primordial times
to the present. It is through their various spies that
Azeez 109
warring factions get to know the strength and weakness
of their opponents. Ogunyemi, in Ijaye, demonstrates the
clever use of spies during war as we see in his use of
Alami on the Ijaye side:
Alami: They are on the banks of Ose River. They
fear to cross (an arrow is shot at Aare Kurunmi
but luckily misses him. He quickly comes down
and joins the troops down the plain).
Kurunmi: They are near!
Balogun: On the other side of the river, expecting
us first to cross.
Kurunmi: Amodu, go with Alami and provoke
them Edun, hide there. You, over there;
others, scatter. Abogunrin, stay with me. Luck
stay with you.
Here, we chance upon another strategy of war,
that of provocation of ones enemy, employed by
Kurunmi. This proves that he is truly a war
strategist deserving of the title, Are- ona-
kankanfo or generalissimo.
He does the same with Alore in the Ibadan
camp:
Alore: They are coming!
Balogun Ibikunle: How many in all?
Bashorun Ogunmola: Over two hundred. I can
see Arawole (To ALORE). You know their war
tune; you heard them play it at Abeokuta, didnt
you?
Alore: I know the tune, Bashorun
Bashorun Ogunmola: Then play the tune. The
fools will rush down thinking we are their men.
Now, everybody hide and be ready to take them
unawares (ALORE picks up a bata drum and
imitates the Ijaye war tune) (45)
The spies do not carry arms, they are armed with the
skill and weapon of deception, for they are usually people
who, like the chameleon, disguise to be of one colour or
character one minute and another the next minute. Alore
of the Ibadan camp, for example, is able to mingle so
much with the Ijaye camp that he knows their war tune.
One can imagine the risk involved in this for him. But,
surely, he must be a dissembler of the very high rank to
succeed in his given task. It is interesting that such a
strategy used even in modern war, has been perfected by
the Yoruba warriors of the 19th century. So, Alore is
asked to play the war tune in order to deceive the Ijaye
warriors into thinking that it was their comrades who are
summoning them!
Of course, the trick works on the Ijaye warriors as they
do exactly what the Ibadan warriors expect them to do!
Several of them are mercilessly killed, including
Kurunmis eldest son Arawole. In the same way,
Ogunyemis Ogunmola gets Kurunmis magic cloth by
bribing Edun, Kurunmis diviner. Kurunmi thus loses his
magic cloth as well as his sons who he wants to protect
110 Int. J. English Lit.
by sacrificing the cloth. These acts show the treachery
inherent in all wars generally and the Ijaye war
specifically.
But in warfare, treachery is a serious crime and
whosoever is found to be treacherous pays dearly.
Kurunmi trusts his diviner, Edun, and gives him his magic
cloth as a sacrifice so he can be victorious in the war but
when he discovers that Edun has betrayed him, Edun
pays the supreme price:
KURUNMI: Where is my magic cloth? Give it to
me now!
EDUN: You sacrificed it, General.
KURUNMI: (Laughs dryly) You sacrificed it?
You sacrificed my strength to Ogunmola and his
men? What a big sacrifice. Now give it to me
(He draws his sword)
EDUN: I dont have it.
KURUNMI: Give it to me now!! (He runs his
dagger through EDUNS stomach
(EDUN groans and collapses).
KURUNMI throws down the sword
and violently picks
EDUN from the floor giving him a
piercing look. I trusted you, you
betrayed me. You sold me cheaply
to Ogunmola, to my enemies. You
sold the whole of Ijaye into slavery
and killed my five sons Somoye,
he was bought, bribed to capture
me without strain.
SOMOYE: Hes paid the price for it.
The above shows that the Yoruba wars of the 19th
century follow the ethics of wars in other climes. In any
society, treason is a serious offence punishable, in most
cases by death. It is the same among the Yoruba and so,
Edun pays the supreme price of treason.
Before we go on to discuss how Kurunmi falls to
Ibadan, let us examine the risk involved in spying. As
mentioned earlier, spies do not carry arms but they are
protected with the skill of deception. Sometimes,
however, they fall victim to the opposition as is the case
of Alami of Ijaye. Ogunyemi presents us with a character
that is so patriotic that he goes through great pains to
perform his duties to his fatherland:
(Alami rushes in with a dagger deep in his back)
ALAMI: We ran into them into them
unawares.
KURUNMI: Then what happened?
ALAMI: Our soldiers were killed, except me.
SOMOYE: All of them?
ALAMI: All- all of them.
KURUNMI: And my sons? Arawole, too?
Arawole killed?
ALAMI: I saw your magic cloth in
Ogunmolas hand
This shows that spies know the risks involved in their
vocation and they accept them with a stoic disposition.
Even at the point of death, Alami endures the pain of a
dagger sticking to his back because he has to let his
general know that he has been betrayed by Edun, his
priest and diviner. This, in my view, is what gives him
strength to run through the forest as he must not die
without alerting Kurunmi of this act of treason. His
mission fulfilled, he dies gracefully and Kurunmi orders
that he be buried properly. As we can see, Alami dies in
active service of his fatherland, Ijaye. So, both patriotism
and treason are adequately rewarded for, while Alami is
to be buried, Kurunmi himself kills Edun, uncere-
moniously.
In the same way that patriotism and treason are
rewarded is military disobedience or insubordination
rewarded. In Kurunmi, we see Ogunkoroju command his
soldiers not to chase the Ibadan warriors but to remain
where they are till his return. No sooner does he leave
than 3rd Warrior, give a counter command, which the
other soldiers obey. They give chase only to their peril as
they find out later that the so-called retreat of the Ibadan
soldiers was only a trick. Ijaye, by this act of
disobedience on the part of 3rd warrior lost a lot of men.
In fact, out of a whole army of five hundred, only three
return. Kurunmi, as a general has to address this to instil
discipline in the other soldiers:
KURUNMI: Who ordered the chase!
3RD WARRIOR: I did, my lord. They were
running back
KURUNMI: Your leader warned you not
to pursue but you did! My boy, it is a foolish
daughter who thinks she knows so much that
she can teach her own mother how to bear
children (He turns about, flips the back of his
hand downwards. Instantly, his bodyguards
pounce on 3rd Warrior and whisk him off)
The above shows that the men who prosecuted the
th
Yoruba wars of the 19 century understood what military
ethics meant and that they abided with them to the letter.
This loss of men by Ijaye foreshadows her defeat at the
end of the day. In scene after scene, Rotimi and
Ogunyemi present us with the superior strength of Ibadan
over Ijaye. Rev. Mann and his wife reveal this in Kurunmi:
REV. MANN: Tomorrow came.
The beginning of the agony.
Ijaye is no match for Ibadan,
either in human resources or in war material.
Ibadan won.
Another tomorrow came.
May 5.
Ijaye arms are fast running short.
Food too is running short.
Despite these loses, Kurunmi still believes that he

would win the war. The last straw that breaks Kurunmi in
both plays, however, is Kurunmis acceptance of the
Egba chiefs advice to cross the River Ose to finish their
Ibadan opponent. Before we go into this, however, let us
have a word on the role of the Egba in the Ijaye-Ibadan
war. As mentioned by some scholars, wars bring about
new friendships and alliances. This is also true of the
Ijaye war. As Smith and Ajayi (1971) remark:
The importance of the war can be judged from
the ramification of alliances which came to
involve practically all the Yoruba states including
Ilorin and, to a lesser or greater extent Borgu,
Dahomey, Benin, Nupe and Ashanti. European
powers also became involved, the British directly
and the French indirectly.
While we shall leave British involvement in the war out, it
is hereby pertinent to look at the roles of the Egbas and
Dahomeys in the drama of the war. The historical note to
Rotimis play explains why the Egbas are interested in
the Ijaye war with the Egbas coming on the side of
Ijaye to fish in the troubled waters of the politics of its
former master, Oyo. As mentioned earlier, several
towns under Old Oyo began with the sack of the empire
by the Fulani to seek independence. Therefore, the
Egbas see an opportunity in this war to be completely
free should Ibadan representing Oyo monarchy fall. They
also, implicitly, would depend on Ijaye after the war, to
run on Dahomey, their perennial rival. So their coming to
fight on the side of Ijaye is not borne out of love but a
calculated attempt at self determination and freedom.
And to achieve this, they had to betray Ibadan or deceive
them that they would either fight on the side of Ibadan or
be neutral in the war. This shows that in war, emotional
attachment give way to practical considerations.
Interestingly, Ogunmola has been told, in Kurunmi that
the Egbas will support Ibadan against Ijaye or they would
be neutral. So Ogunmola is so shocked to see the Egbas
on the side of Ijaye that he exclaims to Ibikunle that the
Egbas have come with a 40,000 strong army to support
Ijaye:
Ogunmola: Perfidy, thats what! They deceived
us. The Egba rogues promised to fight for us.
Either that or they would take no side in the war.
Now what happens? Thousands of them, over
40 000, I tell you, they have come to join Ijaye
troops.
The shock of the Egba armys betrayal of their agreement
with Ibadan on Ogunmola, a younger and less
experienced warrior contrasts sharply with the calmness
of the older warrior, Balogun Ibikunle. After Ibikunle
proves to him that he is no coward as Ogunmola accused
before the war, he gives him courage that they must fight
on no matter the force(s) behind Ijaye. This is an example
in bravery:
Azeez 111
Ogunmola: So why are the dirty noses of Egba
armies. Besides, white men now fight
for Ijaye. I saw them, three white men, with my
own eyes shooting at us.
Ibikunle: That is war, brother. You prepare for
anything. Fair play, foul play,
Anything, that is what war means.
In Rotimis Kurunmi, this is the time when Balogun
Ibikunle proves that he is really the Balogun. Swiftly, he
calls on Kujenyo, his diviner; this is because among the
Yoruba as it is in almost all parts of Africa, wars are
waged at both the physical and spiritual planes, to tell
him what must be done if Ibadan is to win the war. The
solution is in sacrifice. The power of spiritual forces
among the Yoruba in a time like this as found in Kurunmi
and Ijaye is underscored very succinctly by Obafemi
(1996):
When he says that Throughout his plays, Rotimi
employs to great effect the use of incantation
which is the most esoteric and cultic genre in
traditional oral literature.
In addition to incantation, however, Kujenyo consults Ifa
and tells Ibikunle what to do to make Kurunmi and his
soldiers cross the River Ose. So, while to an outsider,
Kurunmi crosses the river due to pressure from the
Egbas, it is believed by insiders that is, traditional Yoruba
people, that Kurunmi was charmed into accepting the
Egbas advice due to the sacrifice performed by Ibikunle.
This point to the fact that for Yoruba warriors, charm,
incantation and sacrifices are as important as arms and
physical strength. Kurunmi, in both plays as in all
historical accounts on the war crosses the River Ose. By
this action, he loses all his sons and countless soldiers.
The Egbas take to their heels leaving Ijaye to count and
mourn her loss. Rotimi captures it succinctly:
Kurunmi: We lost thousands in that game.
Thousands our best warriors too.
Ogunkoroju: My lord must rest, and leave
the watch to us.
Kurunmi: Am I in the wrong in this war?
Despite his loss, Kurunmi remains a warrior who has no
regrets except that he became mortal asking whether he
has waged a just war. When news come that the Egbas
are fleeing and one of his soldiers curses them, Kurunmi
warns him sternly, Enough of that talk, when a one-
legged man needs help he must not say that the friend
who carries him on his back stinks; even if that leper
does stink.
The effects of war on the society
It is at this moment that the horrors of the war on the
112 Int. J. English Lit.
populace begin to manifest. Food supply has been cut off
by Ibadan with the fall of Iwawun. A pregnant woman
runs in, crying. Rotimis paints the picture sadly in the
following:
Enter a pregnant woman carrying a baby.
Kurunmi takes the baby from her, holds it close
to his bosom, regaining as it were, and if
fleetingly, a sense of humanity long lost in the
grim distraction of war.
Woman: (Impatiently): My husband where is
my husband! What happened to him? My
husband, Lejofi?
Kurunmi: (dreamily): We lost thousands most
of our best soldiers.
Woman: Lejofi is not one of your best soldiers,
he is only a boy.
Kurunmi: I did not notice him, then.
Woman: Why not? Was he not fighting for you?
How could you not have noticed him?
Kurunmi: Where elephants were being
slaughtered by the thousands, how would a man
take notice of a house rat? (84)
It is important to underscore that since the beginning of
the play and apart from Mosadiwin, Kurunmis wife, who
does the biding of her lord and master in Rotimis
Kurunmi and Abu his mother in-law who brings warriors
to support him in Ogunyemis Ijaye, this is the first time
that we hear the voice of a woman about the war. This is
because like in most phallocentric societies, women and
children are not considered in decision making. This is in
spite of the fact that the decision by the dominant male
players affects them more. This point has been made by
numerous feminists such as Arneil (1999), Evioierhoma
(2002), Cutrifelli (1983) and a host of others. We see in
the excerpt above that in war everybody suffers,
especially women who become widows and childless. In
the case of the woman above, she is pregnant while
nursing a child and, to make matters worse for her, she
is, no thanks to Kurunmi and his war, left to bring up her
children alone. Such is the fate of women in war across
cultures. For this woman in Kurunmi, she has lost
someone dear to her, her pillar and support. When she
persists that she wants to know if her husband is truly
dead, Kurunmi only muttered, I dont know woman, only
the river Ose can tell it flows on, deep red with the
blood of our men
The response of Kurunmi carries a tragic tone. One can
imagine how many young men like Lejofi, have been
killed in this war. One can only imagine also, how many
widows there would be at the end of the war. No one, not
even Kurunmi, the lion of Ijaye can predict how many
children would be fatherless by his decision to wage war
of personal aggrandisement. Such is the horror of war, a
phenomenon that begins like dialogue but whose end,
unlike dialogue ends in bloodshed. But the tragic picture
is not yet ended for as this goes on, a warrior rushes in:
1st Warrior: My lord, the people are all over the
town stealing food?
2nd Warrior: Some have gone to the Whitemans
house to beg?
Ogunkoroju: Stop them, you
Kurunmi: (Raising a hand to stop Ogunkoroju):
Let them. They are hungry. It is our fault. The
war drags on too long.
We see this also in Ijaye:
ABOGUNRIN: People are deserting the town in
masses, going different directions in fear. Many
are on their way to Abeokuta following the Egba
army who are in flight.
KURUNMI: Let them go. I am also in bits and
pieces. My blood is becoming colder. The
nerves itch less for war: every hope is lost.
ABOGUNRIN: Have courage, my general.
KURUNMI: They need food, disease dont bar
the people. They are starving. They need
protection which I no more can offer them. If I
had known Id be fighting a useless battle, I
wouldnt have provoked this war. And if
provoked, I would have had some restraint.
Now, the gods to whom my aim is clear have let
me down and driven my sons to their death
screaming.
ABOGUNRIN: General, you are shedding tears.
KURUNMI: Come. Relieve me of this garment
for I no longer need it In the past the fun of
sieges and adventures of war made me blind to
the fact that one day the cock will crow when the
brave shall be no more (Abogunrin sits down
beside him). The cloud is thick in the sky (52).
Ogunyemi captures Kurunmi just as Rotimi does, in a
state of total despondency. Here was a man who would
listen to anything but the talk of peace. Here was a man
who would pounce on his enemies, real or imagined at
the slightest excuse of provocation, reduced to nothing.
This is an admission of defeat. Iwawun has fallen; Ijaye
has lost a good number of her warriors. Kurunmi knows
that the end is near. As he himself notes from the
beginning, no one knows the end of a war. It is tragic that
it is only at the end when thousands have been sent to
their graves prematurely including Kurunmis sons, does
the priest of war ask the same question, am I in the
wrong in this war? again and again. But this question, as
innocent and emotion laden as it is ought to have been
asked before the war and not after. However, since the
war is based on ego right from the onset, Kurunmi would
stop at nothing to go to war. Brown (1987) captures it
brilliantly when he says:

At times human violence appears to be primarily
an intense expression of emotions: anger, hate,
fear, rivalry, revenge: at times it seems to be a
product of irrational impulses to dominate, hurt,
or destroy.
Thus, we find almost all the emotional conditions listed by
Brown in abundance in the character of both Kurunmi
and Ogunmola for while Kurunmi feels threatened by
Ibadans military rivalry, Ogunmola seeks revenge of the
hurt he suffers at Kurunmis hand in the past. The two of
them have to test their power against each other and
thereby satisfy their claim of superiority. As Possony
(1996) captures it:
Power, until tested on the battlefield, is
perception or deception; victory on the battlefield
is a function of firepower plus mobility multiplied
by psychological strength factors and of
surprise.
Kurunmi, thus, learns at the end of the day that he only
knows his own powers, without knowing fully the power of
his opponent. It is in this much reduced physical, moral
and economic state, a state where Kurunmi sees his
citizens whom he used to feed every five days at the
feast of Ororun, go begging that he actually understands
how bitter war can be! Ola Rotimi paints this picture
gruesomely in his stage direction where Kurunmi is given
the bag containing the head of his heir, Arawole:
Kurunmi takes the bag, pulls out the severed,
blood-becrusted head of his eldest son, Arawole.
Hugging the head tenderly against him, Kurunmi
moves dazedly away from the group, visibly
shaken.
The scene that follows this also shows the horror of war.
Rev. Mann is pleading with the Egba warriors to cease
fire. They vow to fight on in his presence but no sooner
does Mann leave than Somoye, general of the Egba
army say to his men that they must find a way to escape
quietly. In fact he makes the warriors swear an oath of
secrecy, come around, everybody/ He who noises this
thing about/ may he die before we reach Abeokuta in
peace. In this way does Kurunmi also learn that in war,
there could be foul play, betrayal and outright rejection of
one by ones strongest and closest allies. He is left alone
to mourn. But it is at this moment of awareness of his
fallibility and mortality that finally some wisdom come
from Kurunmi, to generations after him:
Kurunmi: When a leader has led his people to
disaster, and what remains of his present life is
but a shadow of his proud past, then, it is time to
be leader no more.
Here lies an eternal verity: war is cruel and leaders
Azeez 113
should know that. But whether men living in the 21st
century and even men who lived in Kurunmis time have
learnt this lesson can be seen in the various wars fought
after the Ijaye war.
Conclusion
The preceding discussion has been devoted to the
analysis of two texts, Kurunmi and Ijaye. The plays have
been discussed as war dramas. In doing this, the author
has presented the historical background to the plays, as
well as, analysed the wars, not from the historians point
of view but as the dramatists presented them. While very
sparingly references have been made to historical
accounts, such references are made merely to buttress
the views of the dramatists about their chosen materials.
The author has in this way shown how the writers, Rotimi
and Ogunyemi, dramatise the nature, effects and
strategies of war in the plays. The plays discussed in this
paper, it must be emphasised, fall under what the author
classifies as factual historical war dramas. This
classification is based on the fact that the dramatists, in
writing their plays attempted to be faithful, as much as
possible, to historical accounts of the wars, as well as in
their use of historical characters to tell their story.
REFERENCES
Ajayi AJF, Smith R (1971). Yoruba Warfare in the Nineteenth Century.
Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.
Adelugba D (1975). Wale Ogunyemi, Zulu Sofola and Ola Rotimi:
Three Dramatists in Search of Language, Theatre in Africa. Ogunba
O. and A. Irele. Eds. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press. 201-220
Adeniyi V (2007). A Comparative Study of Rotimis Ovonramwen
Nogbaisi and Yerimahs The Trials of Oba Ovonramwen, Adeoti, G.
Ed. Muse and Mimesis: Critical Perspectives on Ahmed Yerimas
Dramas. Ibadan: Spectrum Books. pp. 97-109.
Altiman R (1999). Film/ Genre. London: British Film Institute.
Aristotle (1974). The poetics, Dramatic Theory and Criticism: Greek to
Grotowski. Dukore, B. F. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bordwell D (1989). Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the
Interpretation of Cinema. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brown S (1987). The Causes and Prevention of War. New York: St
Martins.
Chandler D (2000). An Introduction to Genre Theory, WWW.
Document. URL.
http/www.aber.ac.uk/media/Document/intgenre/chandler_genre_theo
ry. Pdf. Retrived online, 20th March, 2010.
Clausewitz KV (1963). What is War? Encyclopedia Britannica. R. M.
Hutchins, J. M. Adler and F. Clifon. Eds. London: William Benton.
Coker Ajr (1992). The Context and Development of Ola Rotimi at Ori
Olokun Theatre, J. Black Studies. 23(1): 60-74..
Ebewo P (2005). History and Dramatic Fiction: Rotimis Kurunmi and
th
the 19 Century Ijaye War, Yoruba Creativity: Fiction, Language, Life
and Songs. Falola T. and A. Genova. Eds. Trenton: Africa World
Press, pp. 477-485.
Grant BK (2007). Film Genre: From Iconography to Ideology. London:
Wellflower.
rd
Kolker R (2006). Film, Form and Culture. 3 edition. Boston: Mac
Graw Hill.
Obafemi O (1996). Reprint. 2001. Contemporary Nigerian Theatre:
Cultural Heritage and Social Vision. Lagos: CBAAC.
Ogunyemi W (1997). Ijaye. Ibadan: Caltop Publications.
114 Int. J. English Lit.

Ogunyemi W (1976). Kiriji. Lagos: African Universities Press Ltd. Rotimi O (1971). Reprint. 1988. Kurunmi. Ibadan: university Press Plc.
Niyi O (2001). Dramatising Postcoloniality: Nationalism and the Rotimi O (1974). Ovonramwen Nogbaisi. Benin City: Ethiope Publishing
Rewriting of History in Ngugi and Mugos The Trial of Dedan Corporation.
Kimathi, History in Africa. 28: 225-237. Stam R (2000). Film Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Olaniyan T (1997). History and the Dramatist: The Example of Wale
Ogunyemis Kiriji, War and Peace in Yorubaland . Akinjogbin, A. Ed.
Ibadan: Heinemann, pp. 477-485.
Possony ST (1996). The Invisible Hand of Strategy. A Brief Introduction
to Psychology Strategy, Defence and Foreign Affairs Strategic
Policy. No. 1, January 31, 1996.
Rice E (1998). Wars of the Third Kind : Conflict in Underdeveloped
Countries. Berkeley: University of California Press.