Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:31:00.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theaterwissenschaft in the History of Theatre Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Michael L. Quinn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent surveys of theatre theory and historiography have given only very limited attention to a critical episode in the organization, development and legitimation of modern theatre scholarship, the Theaterwissenschaft writings of German-language theorists of theatre study in the first half of the twentieth century. I propose to survey briefly the major moments in this group's emergence, characterize the theoretical approaches associated with some principal figures in the group, outline something of their influence (or reception), and make a few suggestions about their importance for further study. Their work has been undergoing a steady re-appraisal in the contemporary German theatre academy, and some members of the group, like Hans Knudsen and Artur Kutscher, were sufficiently self-conscious about the process of institution-building that their own history has itself been subject to historiographic comment. Consequently I will offer some German reconsiderations of the structure and significance of the field where they seem appropriate. Though there is some sense in the current American construction of this group as “positivist,” the label does not quite acknowledge the variety of theatre theories in which their relatively adequate theory of empirical evidence can be applied, nor does it do justice to the group's interest in theatre as a social phenomenon. The work of the group is so varied in relation to its empirical basis, and so involved in the emerging discourses of sociology, anthropology, and psychology, that it gives us reason to doubt any narrow construction of the theatre-historical tradition as theoretically naive or one-dimensional.

Type
Research Article
Information
Theatre Survey , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , November 1991 , pp. 123 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © American Society for Theatre Research 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For theory, see Carlson, Marvin, Theories of the Theatre: A Historical and Critical Survey from the Greeks to the Present (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984)Google Scholar. For historiography, see Vince, Ron, “Theatre History as an Academic Discipline,” in Interpreting the Theatrical Past: Essays in the Historiography of Performance, eds. Postlewait, Thomas and McConachie, Bruce (Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press, 1989), 1–18, which mentions the group but gives no citationsGoogle Scholar.

2 In addition to the historical essays cited below, see how Kutscher characterizes himself in his memoir, Der Theaterprofessor: ein Leben für die Wissenschaft vom Theater [The Theatre Professor: A Life for Theatrical Scholarship] (Munich: Ehrenwirth, 1960)Google Scholar.

3 The crucial essay in this recent American development is McConachie's, Bruce, “Towards a Postpositivist Theatre History,” Theatre Journal 37 (1985): 465–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Unfortunately, theatre sociologists have also sometimes missed the social character of Theaterwissenschaft writings; see, for example, the three-part survey of the field by Shevtsova, Maria, “The Sociology of the Theatre,” New Theatre Quarterly 5, nos. 17–19 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Ron Vince tries to come to terms with the complex formations possible within an empirical perspective in his “Comparative Theatre Historiography,” Essays in Theatre 1 (1983): 64–72Google Scholar.

5 The most comprehensive summary of Dinger's contribution that I have found is, unfortunately, in Czech. Zdenêk Srna covered Dinger in the second installment of his three-part survey of Theaterwissenschaft's founders, “Hugo Dinger. Druhá kapitola z metadologickych počatku divadelní vědy,” [Hugo Dinger. Second Chapter in the Methodological Beginnings of Theatre Scholarship] Otazký divadla a filmu: Theatralia a cinematographica n. s. 2 (1971): 45–62Google Scholar. Dinger's major relevant work is Dramaturgie als Wissenschaft [Dramaturgy as Scholarship], 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1904/1905)Google Scholar.

6 See his later catalogue, Neues Archiv für Theatergeschichte, 2 vols. (Berlin: Gesellschaft für Theatergeschichte, 1929–1930)Google Scholar.

7 Kindermann's war-time writings include books like the Die deutsche Gegenwartsdichtung im Kampf um die deutsche Lebensform [German Poetry between the Wars in the Struggle toward a German Life-form], (Vienna: Wiener Verlagsgesellschaft, 1942)Google Scholar.

8 Röhmer, Rolf and May, Joachim, eds., Beiträge zur Theaterwissenschaft: Theater hier und heute [Reports on Theatre Scholarship: Theatre Yesterday and Today], (Berlin: Henschelverlag, 1968)Google Scholar.

9 See, for example, the well-documented phenomenological work of Dietrich Steinbeck, Einleitung in die Theorie und Systematik der Theaterwissenschaft (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1970)Google Scholar.

10 Herrmann, Max, “Uber die Aufgaben eines theaterwissenschaftlichen Instituts,” originally delivered 1920, printed in Theaterwissenschaft im deutschsprachigen Raum: Text zum Selbstverständnis, ed., Klier, Helmar (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981), 15–24Google Scholar.

11 Herrmann, , Forschungen zur deutschen Theaurgeschichte des Mittelaters und der Renaissance (Berlin: Weidmann, 1914)Google Scholar.

12 Herrmann, “Uber die Aufgaben…,” 19.

13 Bab, , Das Theater im lichte der Soziologie (Leipzig: C L. Hirschfeld Verlag, 1931)Google Scholar.

14 Bab referred to basic theoretical texts by Simmel and Weber, as well as applications of their texts to art forms; for example, he used Simmel's Grundfragen der Soziologie [Basic Questions of Sociology] (Leipzig, 1917)Google Scholar and Zur Philosophie des Schauspielers [On the Philosophy of Acting] (Munich, 1923)Google Scholar. The German sociology of theatre was a thriving enterprise that has been generally overlooked. It included texts as early as Bein, A., Das Drama als Soziologisches Phänomen (Berlin, 1904). Like Bab's works, many of these materials were produced in conjunction with the efforts toward audience development and working-class theatreGoogle Scholar.

15 Bab, 154.

16 Bab, , Schauspieler und Schauspielkunst (Berlin: Oesterheld &Co., 1928)Google Scholar, Bernard Shaw (Berlin: S. Fischer, 1910)Google Scholar, and his collection, Wesen und Weg der deulschen Votksbümenbewegung (Berlin, Wasmuth, 1919)Google Scholar.

17 Bab, Theater tin licht…, 68.

18 Bab, Theater tin licht…, 82.

19 See, for example, Turner's, Victor use of liminal terms in From Ritual to Theatre (New York: PAJ Press, 1982)Google Scholar. Bab's book on women in theatre is Die Frau als Schauspielerin: Ein Essay (Berlin: Oesterheld, 1915)Google Scholar. Many basic sociological materials, including Gotheim's essay, were collected in Verhandlungen des I. deutschen Soziologentages (Tubingen, 1911)Google Scholar.

20 Mukařovský, Jan cites Bab in his major essay on semiotic theory, “On the Current State of the Theory of Theatre,” Structure Sign and Function, ed. Steiner, Peter (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 201–219Google Scholar.

21 Niessen, , Das Bühnenbild, 5 vols. (Bonn: K. Schroeder, 1924–1927)Google Scholar.

22 Handbuch für Theaterwissenschaft, 3 vols. (Emsdetten: Lechte, 1949–1958)Google Scholar.

23 See, for example, Niessen's essay, “Theaterwissenschaft,” in his collection, Kleine Schriften zur Theaterwissenschaft und Theatergeschite, ed., Seehaus, B. (Emsdetten: Lechte, 1971), 12–19Google Scholar. For Malinowski see the collection Magic, Science and Religion (New York: Free Press, 1948)Google Scholar, and for Boas, see the short essay “Race and Character,” in Race, Language and Culture (New York: Fress Press, 1940), 191–195Google Scholar.

24 See Benjamin's, standard, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Illuminations, ed. Arendt, Hannah (New York: Schocken, 1969)Google Scholar, with its notes on aura and authenticity, and Kracauer's, SiegfriedTheory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960)Google Scholar. For Heidegger and his valuations, see his essay “The Origin of the Work of Art,” (New York: Harper, 1971), 17–87Google Scholar, and its criticism by Shapiro, Meyer, “The Still Life and Personal Object—A Note on Heidegger and Van Gogh,” in The Reach of Mind: Essays in Memory of Kurt Goldstein, ed. Simmel, Marianne L. (New York: Springer, 1969), 203–209Google Scholar.

25 Kutscher, , Grundrisse der Theaterwissenschaft vol. 1, Die Elemente des Theaters (1932); vol. 2, Stilkunde des Theaters (1936); published together, Munich: Kurt Desch, 1949Google Scholar. Ferguson's standard work is, of course, The Idea of the Theatre (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949)Google Scholar.

26 The year was 1918. Volker, Klaus, Brecht Chronicle, trans. Wieck, F. (New York: Seabury, 1975), 8Google Scholar. Wedekind died the same year. See Kutscher, , Frank Wedekind: Sein Leben und seine Werke, 3 vols. (Munich: G. Muller, 1922–1931)Google Scholar.

27 Kindermann, , Theatergeschichte Europas, 10 vols. (1957–1974)Google Scholar, the principles for which are articulated in “Aufgaben und Grenzen der Theateiwisenschaft,” [Goals and Grounds of Theatre Scholarship], Wissenschaft und Weltbild, 6 (1953), 325–333Google Scholar. See, for example, his Die Funktion des Publikums im Theater [The Audience Function in Theater] (Vienna, Bohlau in Kommission, 1971)Google Scholar.

28 See Dietrich, Margret, Worüber lacht das Publikum im Theater? Spass und Betroffenheit—einst und heute: Festschrift zum 90. Geburtstag von Heinz Kindermann [What Does the Audience Laugh about in the Theatre? Joke and Perplexity—Then and Now](Vienna, 1984)Google Scholar.

29 Knudsen, , Theaterwissenschaft: Wert und Wertung einer Universitätsdiziplin (Berlin: Christian Verlag, 1950)Google Scholar.

30 See Theaterwissenschaft in Berlin: Beschreibende Bibliographie der am Theaterwissenschaftlichen Institut unter Hans Knudsen enstanden Dissertationen (Berlin: Colloquium, 1966)Google Scholar.

31 Nagler pays tribute to Herrmann in the introduction to his standard English work, A Sourcebook in Theatrical History (New York: Dover, 1952)Google Scholar.

32 Bieber, Margarete, History of ike Greek and Roman Theatre (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1939)Google Scholar, Sachs, Curt, World History of the Dance (New York: Norton, 1939)Google Scholar.

33 Erken, Gunther, Kroeber, Thomas and Scholl, Norbert, Probleme der Theatergeschichte als Geschichte der Thealerideologie (Munich, 1970)Google Scholar.

34 Paul, Arno, “Theater als Kommunikationsprozess”(1972), in Klier, 238–89: see note 35 belowGoogle Scholar.

35 Klier, Helmar, ed. Theaterwissenschaft im Deutschsprachigen Raum: Texte zum Selbstverständnis (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981). Klier also includes supplemental bibliographies and a documentary history of the groupGoogle Scholar.

36 This information comes from a curicular memo provided by Christopher Balme, of the institute faculty; many other aspects of this report are also indebted to his kind attention during my brief research visit to Munich, though of course any errors are my own.

37 Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, “Historiography in Germany Today,” in Habermas, Jürgen, ed., Observations on “The Spiritual Situation of she Age,” trans. Buchwalter, A. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984), 240–241Google Scholar.

38 See, for example, Derrida's introductory analysis of the necessity of a closed sign in “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” Writing and Difference (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), where he explains that “… we cannot do without the concept of the sign, for we cannot give up this metaphysical complicity without also giving up the critique we are directing against this complicity…. For the paradox is that the metaphysical reduction of the sign needed the opposition it was reducing. The opposition is systematic with the reduction.” (281). Or, in terms of political force, even shadow-boxers need something to strike towardGoogle Scholar.

39 Gerald Graff has tried to do something like an institutional history of English in America, though his methods seem relatively haphazard, in Professing Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987)Google Scholar. The closest thing to this effort in dramatic arts seems to be the report of an ATHE committee supervised by Witham, Barry, The Status of Theatre Research (Latham, MD: University Press of America, 1986)Google Scholar.

40 Postlewait, Thomas has made a tentative venture of this sort in his “Criteria for Periodization in Theatre History,” Theatre Journal, 40, 3 (1988): 299–318, though what his essay lacks is precisely this concrete problematic of a canon against which he might offer more definite conclusions or more substantive suggestions. He substitutes the art historical canon insteadCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 A special section of the Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism, 3, 2 (1989)Google Scholar, suggests, on the basis of analogies from Heisenberg and Gramsci, that point of view has become a new kind of epistemotogical absolute. Such a substitution of power for explanation leads from one sort of determinism to another, or at the very least to the paradox of determinate instability. These constructions, too, are merely re-opening closures; what is wanted in all three papers, then, are references to the play of these theories upon actual theatre-historical constructions (work which fortunately seems to already be in process). The essays include: Rosemarie Bank, “The Theatre Historian in the Mirror Transformation in the Space of Representation”; Bruce McConachie, “Reading Context into Performance: Theatrical Formations and Social History”; and Michal Kobialka, “Theatre History: The Quest for Instabilities.”