i | i Introduction 3s. We have no excuse for ie our prey is another ‘The active pursuit conducting it badly power... The world is but a school o Michel de Montaigne, Essays, Book Three, Chapter & (1580) I adore the true, the possible ‘Vincent Van Gogh, letter to Emile Bernard (1889) ‘On some preliminary matters Historical inquiry - the pursuit of truths sbout the past within the conditions and ‘constraints of possible knowledge ~ is the subject ofthis study. Throughout this book, 1 examine the procedures and principles that historians, including theatre historians, follow in their research, analysis, interpretation, ‘process of reconstructing past events, need to determine the authenticity of sources snd the reliability of eyewitnestes. In turn, they must transform the artifacts into facts, develop supporting evidence for their hypothes priate contexts, confront their own organizing assumptions and categorical ideas, and construct arguments based upon principles of possibility and plausibility. Certainty i often attained in matters of who, wit, where, and when. But the answers for how and remain open to debate among historians. of historical inquiry I raise many questions, and, where appropriate, 1 attempt to provide some answers. Three key words in the ttle~ introduction, theatre, and historiography ~ signal my primary aims and set the organizational parameters for meeting those aims. This book provides an intraduction to the basic methods of roductory knowledge is primary; primary knowledge is they novices or old masters, should understand and be able ew research project, which are the primary jon, Unfortunately, some pply the2 ‘The Cambridge Introduction ro Theatre Historiography ed in 1954: “Too mu ing dane by people who do Ww why they are doing public conventions, and related performance events." All kinds of theatrical activities in the past~no matter whet their mode of delivery: stage performance, public go, three centuries ago, or three days ago. will draw most of my examples and case studies from my ‘own specific areas of historical research and classroom teaching in theatre history. Yet /e attempted to identify research procedures and interpretive strategies that apply across al areas and types of performance hi ‘And by historiography 1 mean not only the methods that practice of historieal study and waiting but also the self-reflexive mindses to investigate the processes and aims of historical understanding. Btymologically, the word ay means the writing of history In this sense, it usually refers to the ies, from Herodotus to Carlo inzburg, Sometimes we study history (i.e. what happened in the past), sometimes ‘we study the historians and what they wrate (Le, the methods and aims ofthe reports about what happened in the past) In the process of examnining what historians do and hhow they do i, we can also consider some of the fundamental traits of historical thinking. In doing so, we are entering the realm of epistemology. I take up these basic torical inquiry throughout this book because the traits of the inquiring ‘mind, so crucial to historical understanding, underlie the procedural traits of effective research and good writing. The processes of serve both the historian and the historiographer. The quality of the historian’s scholarship depends directly upon the gualty of the questions being asked. Although the word historiography evokes the writing methods of historians, it has come to mean much more, including the theory and philosophy of history. We thus nieed to keep in mind this warning provided by Peter Noviclc istoriography can be confusing. Runa is a distinction between “logys” and and biography (the description ofl the earth) and geography (the respectable word So, like the word history, the word historiograp! ses it, Writers are not always clear e three organizing concepts for this book, there is one other very and crucial yet often ambiguous tory, which needs clarification. The _meanings from the way a word in several attentive reader has probably noticed already that I have used different ways. In its dozen or more meanings and refer ta or des whatever happened in the past; the actual events that occurred; oy is sometimes calle ality” or the records we have for whatever happened in the past; these documents are tasually located in some kind of archive, though they also exist in people's memories, stories, songs, and cultural practices; the familiar documents or soutces that historians usually investigate are often called “history-as-record” or “archival documents”; of carrying out research; the act of investigating the records of what in this sense, one is researching history or, ‘as some people say, historians present a report, they axe providing an understanding ~ that sppened; this finished product is often called “history-as- an approach to historical stud) approach gives objects, which are valued for themselves all vward as personal, then public torical data and objects is sometimes called this impulse to gather his-‘The Cambridge Introduction 10 Theatre Historiography Introduction: on some preliminary masters 8 fields or disciplines; this expansive meaning of history guided R. G, Collingwood!s argument in The Idea of History, where he claims that “history is what the science of human nature professed to be” because “historical knowledge is the lnowledge of what mind hes done in the past” fom this perspective, history encompasses all of the disciplines of human activity and knewledge inthe arts, humanities socialsciences, various branches of knowledge that study some aspect of science from a fa genre, type, or kind of writing that Is distinct from other kinds of prose today in libraries and ‘own section, apart from the “fiction” section; (9) a genre, type, or kind of writing that understood, all forms of narrative are joined or collapsed together, for exampl the same word, such as histoire in French, can mean both this double meaning also occurs in various languages, 's most famous novel is titled The History of Tom Tones) sease both history and fiction are undk adding to this confusion over the meanings of history and fiction, some people argue that all historical writings partake of narrative techniques: a few people ‘even go co far as to claim that history and fiction cannot be distinguished from genetics, rodlogy, geology, ecology, astronomy, sraphy ~ all ofthese disciplines use history as one ofthe major ways to or the subject matter, consequently, the sciences, excepting the abstract, or “pure” fields such as mathematics, are historical in their basic procedures (and ‘even mathera discipline is considered); and (14) a comprehensive understanding that app 1 archeology to 20ologys each disciptne has s expansive specially at Ge 7 ; } meaning, history serves as both the mode and method of knowledge for al of ians developed “positivist,” “scent | these branches of knovledg; this grand claim for history is based upon the source criticism for the historical discipline; in the process antiquarianism epistemological understanding that human knowledge depends upon “the ds developed into a professional method of historical studys this discipline today .” as Stephen Toulmin and June Goodfield insist. ‘attempts to deal systematically wit the pas; it is sometimes called a "branch of Knowledge"; within the modern university system this discipline is usually located in either the humanities or the socialsciences the lack of agreement an eis yet another sign ofthe confusion over iit an artor a science?) Because of our temporal consciousness, our historical understanding has become as ‘arucial to the study of the natural world as to the study of the human world. Accordingly, numbers 12 and endeavor, “could sweep all other disciplines into certain point of view, subsume them," as Donald R. the idea and disci perspective is quite satislying to historians, who can then prot field is the fundamental basis ofall knowledge. From this perspective, the keepers of the keys to the kingdom of knowledge.* History is the queen of all disciplines. tes, and shapes knowledge: concept of discourse, variously defined and applied, has been used in lingu tics, cultural history, philosophy, and social theory to characterize the epi | sternological codes, rules, and conditions of language that organize and classify s fields of knowledge, including both tite practices of the institution of history and the meanings of history that the dis ‘various branches of knowledge that apply a historical perspective to the dy of human existence, culture, and thought; in this sense, the concept of jon and method for a number of disci and thetoric, psychology, sociology, art, music, and theatre; all of these disciplines organize their subject matter historically, though there are additional ways of organizing and pursuing rvowledge in these fields; because each of these disciplines charts an aspect of hhuman history (e.g use of coins, etymology of words, political systems, philo- | sophical concepts, ete), i is posible to study the history of knowledge in many |° ‘ine Gambrutge Introduction 8 ch means 1 will focus on numbers 1, , 3, and 4, with some attention also given to the problem of narrative (as both a trape and a genre) in the writing of xy. Throughout this study T attempt to specify how I am using the word history. will fer to number 1 as history (or refer to number 2 as “historical ret imber 3. as, ‘hist to avoid using the word history by or signal any of the other possible meanings of the word. Tf, for examy narrative genre, the disciplinary field, or the discourse of history, I will use these hrases in order to clavify what I am trying to say.” etre Historiography Primarily, then, this book offers an introductory study of the operating procedures and shaping aims of theatre historians, as they practice their discipline today. In order to do justice to my task, I have imposed some serious rest ‘Although draw upon the ideas of specific historians, especially Mare Bloch, Louis Gottschall M. I. Finley, and Carlo Ginzburg, I am not offering a survey of their historical methods. Also, T am not investigating historical theories and practices within specific eras, such as the Enlightenment. Nor do I consider historical ideas within intellectual movements, such as Romanticism. Her there are several excellent studies to consult? AS for the wide range of approaches to historical study in modem times, such as the Annales history, Marxist history, women’s history, intellectual his- developments in historiogra critiques of one or more of the moder approaches to historical study.” ‘Moreover, Iam not writing a philosophy of history, though I have benefited from the writings of a number of philosophers, especially Raymond Aron and Paul Ricoeur.” Aron’s measured critique of po introduction to istorical facts necessary, Aron insists, not only the past events and their caust different interpretive approaches in historical scholarship anchors this argumei the process of examining these ap; e provides a basic consideration of the Introduetion: on some prelimina idea of historical change, one of the most important yet evasive concepts in study, He also provides a valuable analysis of the concepts of bis nism, Then, having assembled the isues and problems in methodology as cleatly 2s possible, without recourse sminology and debates, Ido not assume that the reader has studied, ‘Aron’s writings (or those of any other philosopher of history) NNo‘such thing as 3 historical: real reproduce it fanhfully, inevhatistble, 0 Fe __ Raymond Aon, inroducvon to Paul Riceour’s philosophical writings have been even more valuable for me. Riceour, who praised Aron’s assessment of the px of historical objectivity, own critique of the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity in historical anowiedge in his early book History and Truth (1965). Over a decade returned t0 historiography in Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences (1981 reflections on key issues in epistemology and hermeneutics, including the concepts of event and context in relation to “the question of the subject” and oystems of dis- studies of the “narrative fans Time and Narrative (1984, 1985, Both Aron and Riceour provide an epistemological foundation and historical practice, especially in terms of their analyses of event, representation, objectivity, narrative, sime, change, and causality. 1 will feature these concepts when I take up the practical matters of scholarship: the construction of an the criteria for evidence, the narrative aspects of historical writing, the pl ‘models in history, and the nature of the ¢, not philosophy, is my concer, smological arguments of Aron and Ricoeur." ‘and concepts should be clear wi historical procedures. I am not writing a study in hermeneutics or epistemology, though I necessarily take up Key issues in human understanding and knowledge as I probe the nature of theatre historiography.8 The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Historiography In theatre historiography there are several foundat jok, including the one that Bruce MeConachie and I compiled During the last couple of decades a number of important performance studies have refined and expanded historical fel of sy 18 ‘Throughout this book, I draw upon the work of my colleagues. ce, for example, has provided valuable surveys of the development of the fail of ese ‘story. He has also described the emergence of the academic dis- Cipline of theatre history in the universities since the nineteenth century.” In recent years the field of theatre studies hat been greatly expanded and transformed by valuable studies on women’s lives and careers, gender construction, feminist meth- ‘odologies, ethnic and racial studies, and the concepts of divers 7 ‘This work informs ray own ideas on historical issues and problems, tried to summarize these studies and related issues. Likewise, because emerged om historiography and dance studies, I do not need to introduce this topic and work? Nor do I need to offer a study of the various critical theories that get applied to theatre history and performance studies today (e.g. theatre semiot ia studies, postcolonial studies, race theory, cultural studies, gender and sexu , psychoanalysis), Janelle G., Reinelt and Joseph Roach have done this admirably in Critical Theory and Performance.” Although I insist that the basic procedures of historical research are foundational for any and all of these specific critical approach the various critical methodologies need to struggle with the meaninge of certain widely used concepts in theatre studies, such as “performance.” Marvin Carlson, for example, has done this task wit thoroughness and brilliance. And the concept of “theatricality” has been including Tracy C. Davis and myselt* ical study? Despite these various exclu- agenda in the field of historical research , isto map out and snalyze these fundamental performance studies. I will be eluding the use of primary and ternal and external sy tat are applied ‘a the source and a fact as piece of evidence, the nature of circumstan he problem of assigning motives to human actions in the past, and the relationship between historical events and their ie contexts Introduetion: on some prelirainary masters 9 the two case studies in Part One — to cultural history. ‘and warnings about misapplied procedures, but I provide no historians to follow. Instead, [ am interested in the basic methods and challenges in historical study that we all share the fundamental features of historical inquiry. In this Argument not to solve them; to draw attention to afield of inquiry, rather than to survey and to provoke discussion rather than to serve es sper etie The foc onthe fandament factors ad qe ves asa sficent and worthy aim, also subscribe to the principle dodory book that he wrote on te evan grt an obligation to direct its readers elewhe might be of interest and value, induding the writings the historians, theatre historians, and philosophers who have helped me to think enterprise. And in various notes I will identify publications on specific arees ‘of study and on particular aspects of historieal methodology and theory (ef. recent scholarship on clasical Greek theatre, the uses and problems of visual evidence, paral developments in methods of art history). In this way, [offer guide to further readings in historiographical scholarship, but each reader may decide what is useful” In order to launch this investigation into theatre historiography, I want to begin with a preliminary overview that will suggest the range of topics and issues that I take up in the following chapters. For heuristic pusposes, ler’ consider some simple diagrams that suggest the basic categories that guide our historical assumptions: This two-part separation illustrates our starting point for describing the historical such 2g microhistorians, place primary emphasis upon ‘great detail before moving outward t conditions that may be contributing factors in the individual lives and actions. Other historians, such as those associated with the Annales group, place primary emphasis n the large, abiding conditions and structures that direct historical conditions and development. Individual events ~ and individual lives ~ are described as consequences of the shaping context. In self-defining ways, then, the microhistorians narrate spec: fic historical actions or events; the Annales historians deseribe the conditions that frame and explain the events, Both, however, are committed to cultural and social10 The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Historiography interpretation. Yet this division between microhistorians and stracturalist ians ‘seems to reinforce a basis and widespread understanding in historical scholarship: we study events by placing them within some kind of narratives then we identify the lage social, economic, religious, or politcal institutions, forces, or ide ‘and determine the meaning of the narrative. Throughout this book I address this fundamental i sd understanding, which, I believe, hinders our historical research and methods of interpretation. number of theatre ‘They describe the details ofthe event, then quickly conclude thir investigation. They often fil to place events in relation to one anther, either syncheonicaly or diachronically. At best, the 1 is evoked as a familiar generalization (egy categories of racial, sexual, or national identity, « standard period concept). By contrast, there are other scholars who champion a reigning idea, derived from this or that theory. All even ‘lustrations of the theory, which dafines the context and coatrols the interpretation. perpetuate @ simplified inking. historians, though separated by the equal in thei reductive approach to historical study. Because of their fare wis to distance ourselves from them. Yet despite our rejection of these overty neat nnd to perceive the ides of event and context in dualistic ways. We ate an event ftom its context, bt our methods of joining them sil ar own two-part formulas. Typically, instead of defining the we take up the idea of cof correspondence or to peopl context. This relationship suggests the mirror metaphor, which has often been the idea of imitation, though the idea of representation is more appropriate. As we will see, various scholars, including Reymond Williams, ptefer the metaphor of for the relationship between theatrical events and the co his telationship could be rep- (Ever CONTERT] Introduction: on some prel Or, if we wish to insist upon the determining condition of the enclosure, we might surround the event with the cont ‘this manner, we highlight the totality of the context, which frames or surrounds the event: CONTEXT © c ° 8 N N T aay T EB E x x 7 7 According to thi context. In general actually mean by the general concept of “context” when it is understood, at least ly, s the source of all possible factors within the ful circuit, fram Gircumference, or periphery of experience? ‘The problem with this idea of context (and, thus, this model) is tha make the context both a singular and a total condition that completely tod, which imposes a theoretical idea onto the ing context makes the event a mere effet endeavors and accomplishments i ach ofthese models of event ip (e ‘upon a two-part division, one that is usually too reductive in its explanatory pot ‘Alo, the ideas of connection and correspondence ~ imitation, microring, equaling, ‘embodying, enclosing ~ all scem too simple. In the process, the event and context become interchangeable images of one another, a tautological circle if we are not is, the categorical division is part of the problem. By changing the category, we change ugh each event may have a sin- jc codes in a performance event), there is no reason to define the context in the singular. Let me suggest, as the next step in reconfiguration, that we ider a four-part model for the context. OF course all visual diagrams and models, though of pedagogical value, are simplified propositions. If taken up as systematic12 The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Historiography procedures, they are counterproductive. But my hope is th achieved with these models, which, in tum, may help us fo assess the analytical cally when we attempt to place events within their possible cont. th yet another familiar polarity, but one that will be transformed into lentties. This two-part relationship posits some kind of correspondence VENT - WORLD) rovide 4 perspective on and of rovides a basis and meanings for the event. (Note thatthe troubling equal sign (= ) used earlier has now been replaced by a dash, which could have arrow heads on both ends; influence runs in both ditec- ions of in the global envir- le of repre the semantic fields of language, the . the many social | and material worlds. All of the codes, norms, systems, ns of a person's world are in play. The representa- of the theatrical event, thongh partial and often distorting, reveals world while also drawing upon that world for the signifying content. aspects of | ‘This is equally the case for a realistic or an expressionist production, an actor's face in a film or an elaborate mask in Noh theatre, @ puppet show or Mardi Gras costume. Aspects of the formal design, the formal cause, result from ~ not just represent ~ the 1d being influenced by any aspect of the world, in a Iso engage with alternative and the full imaginative realms of po: |. as we fil the stage or the film with gods, demons, ‘and a wild range of human beings. in addition to the exchanges between event and world, the theatrical event can be understood in terms of agency, specifically the relationship that operates between the event and those who crested it: the playwright, the per~ formers, the designers. These people who plan, organize, and realize the event are all process of agency can be visualized as: aaa Introduction: on some preliminary matters. 13 ‘The ides of agents includes the various meanings of author and and implied, both direct and i Each agent, carrying lian terms of the four of the agents’ final cause: the purps theatre events have various agents who contribute to ‘goes wel, the event reveals a combined purpose, The ideas of agent and agency also imply the various strands of creativity: inspiration, ination, ociginlity, genius, ané the muses. Agency taps those inspirational forces that the romantic writers celebrated with the metaphors of lamp and fire, active taphor derived from the concept of the making of the event. If icance ~ from how and society at {in turn, the event takes part ofits meaning eceived and understood by spectators, large. Reception and audience are always part AT CET ‘The idea of reception includes the conditions of percept processes of comprehe recorded by eyewitnesses, expecially in modern times by theatre reviewers an ‘Their reception is part of the event, the final action in the sequence of making @ theatrical event. The meaning of the event is achieved in the reception of the various spectators, But their reception is not the fall significance of the event, even though theatre reviews often serve as our sourees for the meaning of the theatrical event. We ‘quote the ctitcs as if they are the arbitrators: London critics said this, New York sments are major sources f cting a theatrical too easy, ‘meant for 4 hanclul of infiuential people, but they are only one part of the contextual engages a range of posible responses from spectators, emotional as weil as intellectual, psychological as ns may engender pathos, compassion, identification, approval, disapproval, judgement, understanding, mis understanding, and many other possible perceptions and evaluations. The reception culminates (and sometimes fulfills) the purposes of the agents (the final cause). Or in ception disrupts or rejects those aims. In various ways, then, the reception may tell us things about not only the actual audience but also the implied e (which the event and its conceivers each, influence, satisfy, provoke, et.) the event and the community factors and conditions (eg, governmental powers, 5, the beliefs14 The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Historiography ‘word reception implies receptive, but the reaction can be anything but. Sometimes the manner of reception influences the event, which undergoes adaptation, even trans- formation, And responses can influence subsequent artistic works, as happened when Ibsen, angry over the response to Ghosts, wrote his next play, An Enemy of the People, part of the meaning of the event, besides the contextual factors of agents, world, and receptions, a fourth and equally important contributor to the event: the artistic heritage. SAC heritage. The twaditions, conventions, norms, and codes arta, Every artistic event has 2 relation to the artistic tradi it operates, 10 whi ‘which it shapes its own separate identity ~ sometimes in homage, sometimes in revo “The heritage encompasses the artistic miliew of the event, the kinds or genres of drama, the canons, the aesthei ideologies thet may influence the work, the crafs of playwriting and theatre production, the mentors and rmodels, the rhe rules and regulations, the availabe poetic, fall musée imaginaire that actists iy. This heritage contributes to the inter- mn and the yw innovative they may be, exist in relation to an ions and models. The voices ofthe ancestors echo in works, even when an artist may reject or trash the tradition. Jarry's Ubu Roi, no less than ‘Racine’s Phédre, evokes many codes ofthe artistic heritage, These formal codes, styles, and conventions are part ofthe signifying systems that impart identity and meaning ion may be specific to the type of artwork, such as jon may be quite expansive, tes of artworks but also the potential meanings thet get identified in the reception processes, ‘These four basic aspects of the context for a theatrical eve ip us break out of the two-part division of event and context. Even though we are stil thinking in dualistic terms by relating each of the four factors to the event, we have created more clarity by breaking the general idea of context into its several component parts. Introduction: om some preliminary matters 15 of factors can be identified. Within each ofthese four basic conditions, a plu heritage ~ need to be understood as part oft Moreover, we want to integrate these four definitive parts of the context. Our heuristic model, therefore, might take this visual design: ‘WORLD AGENTS EVENT RECEPTIONS ARTISTIC HERITAGE. and reactions of agents and audiences, And we always have to ask: “i whom, “acknowledged” by whom? ‘The aesthetic factors, which Marvin Cerlson calls “ghosts” in his valuable study The Haunted Stage, are always in play. Cadlson charts how the “mnemory machine” of eatre and reception dein ‘of theatre, He would fully agree with Diamond that the theatrical event is haunted also by political conditions, racial gender conventions — all of the many aspect ‘that performance draws upon, represents he points out production in rela 8 directs, produces, or observes in a vacuum, as if for the firs 13 Carlson describes them, appea yne axe true for any play, performer, or writes, acts, designs, 1, So the ghosts of the the retelling of sto direct and indirect quotation of passages ftom previous plays; intertextual references, tropes, and structural elements the generic traditions and their rules; the functions of parody, irony, and burlesque in drama; the training of actors in types of characters, specific roles, and particular ges- tures and modes of16 The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Historiography (7) the reenactment of certain roles and plays: 8). the revival of plays, musicals, operas, pantomime in any repertory process; 1 recycling of costumes, proy O} to recognize them; the recurring patterns and conditions that determine the history of theatre spaces and buildings; and (22) our return to any of these works, players, productions, spaces, buildings, and festivals for the experience of theatre. Il of these cases, each theatrical work, event, and experience carries a ghostly presence of what went before. Historians thus need to be quite skilled in their spectral ‘theatrical event. Critics and literary scholars want to determine how the play itself the many aspects of the a itage, not only as support and supplem as burden and anxiety.™* all of their complexities, Bu ion historians need to figure out how to read these ghostly codes as they contribute to the definitive features of the performance event. How did the various participants draw upon the available traditions? How did ‘turn, recognize and interpret (and misinterpret) these many codest for example, shows in Shaw and the Ninete hhow the playwright used and reformulated the many features ofthe popu the writing and staging of his plays. He wrote with and agains the conve in Realization (1983) Meisel reveals how novels, visual arts, and theatre shared a rich autistic heritage of representational codes and meanings throughout the arts in nineteenth-century England, The challenge for all theatre historians is to recognize how the many traditions functioned forall ofthe agents and audiences in the making ‘of performance events. re are some vital aspects of performance events that ders of the four areas. As David Wiles demonstrates in the idea of performance space is 1 and interpreting a theatrical event. Where should we locate space in this model? Everywhere. Space and time provide the | | Introduction: on some preliminary matters jon provides the spatial coordinate. Both ‘of performance event also achieves its spatial a weanings from the recuring historical practices and patterns of theatre — culture to culture, age to age® The performance event also deri its significance from the geographical, societal, and political uses and purposes of spatial attributes of perf stage properties, scenic design dlements, dramatic texts, permanent and impermanent buildings, performers, and audiences, depend upon the foundational features of the performance space, which has that we need to reflect upon the attributes of each of the four factors ~ agents, world, audiences, and artistic heritage — as we construct any theatrical event Necessarily, an ev acts collectively with all four factors, but we may still decide to focus on only a few key factors ~ not only because the available docu- ‘mentation is partial but also because few research projects call for a comprehensive Cour historical concems (e.g, the role ‘we are more likely to do an effective job if we appreciate how these specific topics and factors are in dialogue with many other ones. ‘This model would benefit, however, from an additional configuration that signals another level of analysis. The four binaries need to be tamed into triads. Four gles should be imposed upon each diagram, linking (1) agent, world, eves (2) agent, artistic heritage, event: (3) audience, world, event; and (4) audience, heritage, event. The 90 degree angles of the four triangles should meet at the cent th open avenues existing in between the four basic binaries ( ) audiences and events; and (4) arti so part of what we find in the event is the artist’s personal relation to the world: biographical factors, Hingui ic codes, sociopolitical conditions, values, belies, and ideologies, and possible understanding. We also need to construct not only the interrelationship between the agent and the wosld18 the Cambrudge Introduction bt also the ways that relationship is delivered sat) the event itself, By roving along the three sides of the triangle ~ in both directions ~ the agent and world join at the event. The event should be understood as a consequence of all of these ns, as they influence or determine the experiences Which are realized in the formal features of the event. to Theatre Historiography POSSIBLE WORLDS. AGENTS EVENT RECEPTIONS Likewise, just as artist and world interact and join atthe event, 0 too does each artist, ‘when creating any artistic work, operate within and against the artistic heritage - the codes, mentors, ions, and the material and immaterial codes of the world experience. F investigate the artist in terms of his or her biological parents (aspects o! just as importantly, we may investigate the artist in terms ‘who shaped identity and purpose. For instance, Eugene by August Strindberg. This year’s Kabuki performance rec stretching back across the centuries Thus, event, from the perspective ofthe artist, these hermeneutical triangles, which provide the con articulation, and action. The triads, as heuristic diagrams, urge us to see that play- vwrights, producers, directors, designers, or players event) deaw upon not only their experiences with and ideas about the world but also their experiences with and ideas about the artistic heritage. Both the world and the hisitage contribute to their artistic e amic process of engegeme ‘world ond tradition operates in the making of play and production. (On the same principle, 5 process of vie upon not only their experiences with and ideas about experiences with and ideas about the artistic heritage. We co ‘based upon the reception, not just conception. The action requires or produces « reaction. The reception network completes the event ~ sometimes in accord with the motives and aims of the agents, but sometimes in accord with the quite different agendas of the spectators. If some spectators, viewing the London prodi Ibsen's A Doll's House (1889) oc Elizabeth Robins’ Votes for Won paternalistic idea of the place of women in society, they may well have re Introduction: on some pre tary matters. 19 ‘world represented on stage. Other spectators, supporting the rights of women and the suffrage movement, might have approved of the dramatic action. Both types of receptions are part of the event, part of its meaning, And in terms of the artistic age, some spectators may have known and enjoyed the well-made plays and an theatre, while other spectators may have been supporters of s' knowledge of the artistic contributes to their understanding and ‘ways, based upon his or her experiences with the world end knovledge of the artistic heritage. The important thin to realize, from this perspective, is that all xspondents bring to the event their experiences and Inovledge that get charted rd and fourth hermeneutical triangles. The responses of the audience members need to be placed within the context of both triads, as much as possible ‘to historical inquiry. But has no set mode of investigation, no preconceived meaning. how to ask ‘The answers wil be al over the map, from 1 therefore want to insist that no theory or unifying idea gui inary outline for how to avoid systematic or for suggests many places to search, many questions to ask. By attending to these four triads, ae each historical event allows, we are capable of enriching our methods of research, analysis, and interpretation. Bach of the four triangles sets up the potential for a three-point investigation and analysis. "Another warning: ¢ some readers may have noted, the model is primarily @ rough synchronic representation of isto take into sufficient consideration: the diach ‘The model does not guide us to the ways that events in time, one after snother, may be connected in a sequence of possible developments and causes. And of major concern, the model does not close the distance between the event and the historian, The event thus occurs at one moment, but the historian, in a different time and place, is a displaced “observer.” ing in Plato's cave, the historian event on the basis of sources, the carriers of coded versions of what apparently happened elsewhere, beyond the enclosure of the present perspective.20 The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Historiography the distance, of seeking after the ian's understanding is co ‘within the present world and knowiedge of the current artistic traditions. Moving retum to the Fhronotopic” ideal of Bakhtin; nonetheless, the ofthe past ev ides confronting the gaps in the documentation, problem ian also struggles with a lick of full and appropriate understanding and the past artistic heritage. The historian may then misread aspects of the agents? activities and aims, along the triads of world and artistic heritage, as well as aspects of the reception codes and meanings, along the similar tviads. A double set of limitations are thus at pay: the partial nature of the docu- ‘mentation, the partial nature of the historian’s understanding. The lack of historical information rough the gaps in our understanding. Distance always creates pointing in the direction that history actually developed. But that later realization in {ime of the supposed potential significance of the event is a meaning that exists in the ‘mind, not necessarily in the event itself. As Paul Ricoeur reminds us, an event could have happened differently.” Yet because of our belatedness, we subse- quently fix itso that it becomes part of a developmental history — part of a plotted narrative, We turn it into something more than ~ if not other than ~ it was at the moment of occurrence, still open to the future. In the following chapters, beginning with two case stadies in chapters 1 and 2.on ‘Shakespeare's Globe Theatre and Alfred Janry’s production of Ubw oi, I will examine 1ods based upon the event-context jon between documentary identified by some people as a struggle ism and post-positvism or theatre history and performance theory), many of us took sides; the arguments defined much about the transformation of the Introduction: on some preliminary matters 21 field of theatre studies in the 1980: and 1990s.” Thus, in the opening two chapters the apparent differences to be accepted ‘Then in chapters 3 and 4 when they attempt to identify and construct historical even events, which have some special traits that increase our di explanation. What are the recover and reformulate the past aims ancl actions of people who created performance and 6 Iwill show how and why we need mul contexts for events. In chapter 5, which takes up the problem of 1d analyze the criteria we us. congue = basis for our general ideas of examine the ways we use the idea of p | events. After Mars, after Foucault, after New Historicism, and after our application of various ideas of political order and disorder (from race and gender theory to postcolonialism), how and where should we locate the political context for any theatre event? Do we, as historians, share some fundamental procedures and fundamental concepts ~ placed is paragraph ~ are always operating in our thought processes when we reconstruct past events, These are the ideas we think with. They organize hey also organize jgate and construct the archives, which we analyze on the ba ‘and reliability, we need to question the sources that allow us to identify the historieal agents and their actions, We to fe those agents and actions within the appropriate temporal and spatial dimen- sions and conditions, We attempt to define not only the diachronic and synchronic axes for the events but also the shaping conditions of era, epoch, ot period. Our ideas 1 as Iwill argue, help to place the events and put them in their contexts. And the present and looking backward (if not fiying 's angel) ~is part of the challenge” By means of our are crucial in historical inquiry. Then, having constructed or reconstruct ind ways to narrate to describe, explain, and interpre iat, where, whem, hos, and why. Whet are the probabl t possible, stores offered up by the achieved representations? Can we show events are related to one another in the dynamic conditions of change and plausible, ‘probable, and even certain in our search for the historical mruths (a22 ‘The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Historiography te and inaccurate, possible and to the defining features of the diagram case, but still In short, q 1 find much to admire in historical study today. My caticism is balanced, T would hope, by not only my full sympathy for the dificulties of| the historical task but also my admiration for the many fine achievements, Otherwise, the criticism would be pointless (as would the writing of this book). Consequently, demonstrates that texts. We are capable of es to ‘we cannot reach certainty. O1 explanations of the details and meanings of many events, especially from the pre- ‘modern eras, will remain inconclusive. We lack suflicient information. But our dif- ficulties are not limited to our lack of evidence. What we know is also constrained by ‘how we know. In tar, our explanations of why depend upon the ways we determine ‘what and how, That is, our questions, along with our answers, are conditioned by the concepts we think with. Indeed, this fundamental problem of the concepts we think ‘with provides the organizing topic and principle for this introduction to theatre historiography. Our procedures of definition, analysis, explanation, and interpret- ation contribute to our successes and failures as hist in ptoarains ed cul of Scheel betorathe Introduction: on some preliminary matters. 23 “age of Sadeen. Sortie wore hale; sore, vere female: Some’ came trom Were immigrants. 5 _ Sanwin te -aaimived by, er of uncertainty does not condemn us to a general condition of historical ioe shovr that our historical data and historical understanding have order to do justice of research and writing R. G, Collingwood: “A body of knowledge is never merely organized; lar way.” Y cannot answer ‘Those signposts confirm that historical inquity is the pursuit of truths abou past within the conditions and constraints of possible knowledge. Although the full attained, verified, and j and explain past events, even though as a group they often disagree about the24 The Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Historiography ‘way to interpret those events, They even disagree in some cases on the definitive facts and factors fr specific events, especially any defining features. But collectively they participate in a community that adjudicates the des. and explanations. The various investigations by the com to and enhance our understanding of not only whet happened in the past but also how and why. Consequentiy, with Mont of truth is our proper busines.” And with Van Gogh, we need to proc the true, the possible.” EE Part one Documentary history vs. cultural history: two case studies