Theatre Theory Reader

Prague School Writings

Edited by David Drozd, Tomáš Kačer and Don Sparling

The original manuscript was reviewed by Prof. Veronika Ambros (University of Toronto) and Prof. Yana Meerzon (University of Ottawa).

Published by Charles University

Karolinum Press

Layout by Jan Šerých

Typeset by Karolinum Press

First English edition

© Karolinum Press, 2016

© Edited by David Drozd (General Editor), Tomáš Kačer and Don Sparling (Associate Editors),

2016

© Introduction by David Drozd, Tomáš Kačer, 2016

© Afterword by Martin Bernátek, Pavel Drábek, Andrea Jochmanová, Eva Šlaisová, 2016

© Translation by Eva Daníčková, Marta Filipová, Ivan Kolman, 2016

© Petr Bogatyrev (heirs), E. F. Burian (heirs), Jiří Frejka (heirs), Jindřich Honzl (heirs), Miroslav Kouřil (heirs), 2016

Photography © Lola Skrbková legacy, Theatre History Department of the Moravian Museum collections

Cover Illustration © Toyen, Bramborové divadlo, National Gallery in Prague, 2016

Matejka, Ladislav, Irwin R. Titunik, eds., Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions, © 1976 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, by permission of The MIT Press.

Veltruský, Jiří. A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure and Style © 1964 Georgetown University Press, by permission of Georgetown University Press.

Mukařovský, Jan. Structure, Sign and Function © 1978; The Word and Verbal Art © 1977 Yale University Press, by permission of Yale University Press.

Peter Bogatyrev, Jindřich Honzl The Prague School: Selected Writings, 1929–1946 © 1982 University of Texas Press, by permission of the University of Texas Press.

This book is published as part of the research project Czech Structuralist Thought on Theatre: Context and Potency (Český divadelní strukturalismus: souvislosti a potenciál; 2011–2015), which is financed with funds from GAČR (the Czech Science Foundation), No. P409/11/1082.

ISBN 978-80-246-4638-1 (epub)

ISBN 978-80-246-4639-8 (mobi)

ISBN 978-80-246-3579-8 (pdf)

ISBN 978-80-246-3578-1 (print)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. List of Figures

2. Acknowledgments

3. Introduction by David Drozd and Tomáš Kačer

4. Editors’ Choices and Guidelines

5. I Theatre in General

6. Otakar Zich: Principles of Theoretical Dramaturgy

7. Jan Mukařovský: On the Current State of the Theory of Theatre

8. Jiří Veltruský: Structuralism and Theatre

9. II Sign – Object – Action

10. Petr Bogatyrev: A Contribution to the Study of Theatrical Signs

11. Petr Bogatyrev: Theatrical Signs

12. Karel Brušák: Signs in the Chinese Theatre

13. Jindřich Honzl: The Mobility of the Theatrical Sign

14. Jiří Veltruský: People and Things in the Theatre

15. Jindřich Honzl: The Hierarchy of Theatrical Devices

16. III Figures and Play

17. Petr Bogatyrev: Playing and the Theatre

18. Petr Bogatyrev: Chaplin and The Kid

19. Petr Bogatyrev: Chaplin, the Fake Count

20. Jan Mukařovský: An Attempt at a Structural Analysis of an Actor’s Figure (Chaplin in City Lights)

21. Jindřich Honzl: The Dramatic Character

22. IV From Page to Stage

23. Jan Mukařovský: On Stage Dialogue

24. Jan Mukařovský: Stage Speech in the Avant-garde Theatre

25. Jan Mukařovský: Dialogue and Monologue

26. Jiří Veltruský: Dramatic Text as a Component of Theatre

27. V Layers of Space

28. Jan Mukařovský: A Note on the Aesthetics of Film

29. E. F. Burian: The New Theatre Space

30. Jindřich Honzl: Spatial Concerns in Theatre

31. Karel Brušák: Imaginary Action Space in Drama

32. Miroslav Kouřil: Theatre Space and a Visual Artist’s Participation in Theatre

33. VI Towards Structures of Modern Acting

34. Jiří Frejka: The Concept of Convention

35. Jiří Frejka: Example in Acting and the Stage as the Superstructure of Life

36. Jindřich Honzl: Defining Mimicry

37. Jindřich Honzl: Mimetic Sign and Mimetic Signal

38. Jiří Veltruský: A Contribution to the Semiotics of Acting

39. VII Ethnographic Encroachments

40. Petr Bogatyrev: Folk Song from a Functional Point of View

41. Petr Bogatyrev: Clothing as Sign (The Functional and Structural Concept in Ethnography)

42. Petr Bogatyrev: Folk Theatre

43. Jiří Veltruský: Broadside Ballads and Dramas

44. Petr Bogatyrev: The Extra-aesthetic Function of Folk Theatre

45. Jindřich Honzl: Ritual and Theatre

46. VIII Art – Media – Society

47. E. F. Burian: The Function of Photography and Film in the Theatre

48. E. F. Burian: The Stage Metaphor

49. Jiří Veltruský: Theatre in the Corridor (E. F. Burian’s Production of Alladine and Palomides)

50. Jan Mukařovský: On the Artistic Situation of the Contemporary Czech Theatre

51. Prague School Theatre Theory and Its Contexts (Afterword) by Pavel Drábek (with Martin Bernátek, Andrea Jochmanová and Eva Šlaisová)

52. The Prague Linguistic Circle and Its Mission

53. The Prague School at the Heart of the Avant-garde

54. The New Multicultural State of Czechoslovakia

55. Controversies and Ideologies Surrounding the Modern Czech Language

56. The Functional-Structural Method

57. The Role of Theatre in Czechoslovak Life

58. Artistic Experiments of the Czech Avant-garde

59. The Prague School and the Cinema

60. The Prague School and the Puppet Theatre

61. The Prague School, Folklore and Modern Ethnography

62. The Prague School’s Ethnographic Theory and the Theatre

63. The Prague Linguistic Circle and Formalism(s)

64. The Prague School and Husserl’s Phenomenology

65. The Prague School and Ingarden’s Aesthetics

66. Karl Bühler’s Language Theory

67. Prague School Theatre Theory and Otakar Zich

68. Hegelian and Marxist Dialectics

69. Conclusion

70. Further Reading

71. Biographies of Authors Presented in the Reader

LIST OF FIGURES

Miroslav Kouřil: Theatre Space and a Visual Artist’s Participation in Theatre

Fig. 1–6 Diagrams of theatre space. Kouřil, Miroslav (1945) Divadelní prostor [Theatre Space], Prague: Ústav pro učebné pomůcky průmyslových a obchodních škol v Praze, pp. 36, 46–50 (schemes), 73–75 (photos). Photo Miroslav Hák.

Jiří Veltruský: Theatre in the Corridor

Fig. 1–5 Kouřil, Miroslav (1945) Divadelní prostor [Theatre Space], Prague: Ústav pro učebné pomůcky průmyslových a obchodních škol v Praze, pp. 36, 46–50 (schemes), 73–75 (photos). Photo Miroslav Hák.

Fig. 1a–b, 2a–b Ground plan of the foyer with disposition of playing area, lights, actors and spectators for Act 1.

Fig. 3a–b Ground plan of the foyer with disposition for Act III.

Fig. 4 Zdeněk Podlipný (Ablamore) and Jiřina Stránská (Alladine) during Ablamore’s opening monologue in Act I.

Fig. 5 Vladimír Šmeral (Palomides) and Marie Burešová (Astolaine) in Act II, Scene 4.

Prague School Theatre Theory and Its Contexts

Fig. 1 Cover of the daily newspaper Prager Presse, vol. 11, no. 60 (1 March 1931), Bilderbeilage no. 9, p. 1. National Museum collections.

Fig. 2 Cover of Slovo a slovesnost (design Jiří Kan), published by the Prague Linguistic Circle from 1935. Slovo a Slovesnost, vol. 7, no. 3 (30 September 1941).

Fig. 3 Cover of Petr Bogatyrev’s Czech and Slovak Folk Theatre. Bogatyrev, Petr (1940) Lidové divadlo české a slovenské [Czech and Slovak Folk Theatre], Prague: Fr. Borový.

Fig. 4 Karel Teige and Otakar Mrkvička: “Liberated Theatre”, photomontage, 1926. OD [Osvobozené divadlo – the Liberated Theatre] (photomontage Karel Teige and Otakar Mrkvička), Pásmo, vol.2, no. 8 (10 April 1926), p. 89. Moravian Library Collections.

Fig. 5 Jan Mukařovský (with E. F. Burian on the left, in white shirt) at an international conference on the avant-garde theatre organized by Theatre D in Prague in May 1937. Program D 38, vol. 3, no. 1 (24 September 1937), p. 41.

Fig. 6 Members of the Liberated Theatre company toast Vsevolod Meyerhold following a performance of Heaven on Earth [Nebe na zemi], 1936. Obst, Milan and Scherl, Adolf (1962) K dějinám české divadelní avantgardy [On the Czech Avant-garde Theatre History], Prague: Nakladatelství ČSAV. Photo Press Photo Service (Alexander Paul, Pavel Altschul, František Illek).

Fig. 7 Karel Teige: collage, 1941 (1968). Problémy literárnej avantgardy [Problems of the Literary Avant-garde], Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied, p. 161.

Fig. 8 Cover of Jindřich Honzl’s first book, The Whirling Stage, 1925. Honzl, Jindřich (1925) Roztočené jeviště [The Whirling Stage], Prague: Odeon. Photo Rössler.

Fig. 9a–b Ivan Goll’s Methuselah, directed by Jindřich Honzl, at the Liberated Theatre, 1927. Obst, Milan and Scherl, Adolf (1962) K dějinám české divadelní avantgardy [On the Czech Avant-garde Theatre History], Prague: Nakladatelství ČSAV.

Fig. 10a–f Series of photos from the anti-war drama The Ass and Its Shadow [Osel a stín], 1933. Svět ve filmu obrazech [The World in Film and Images], vol. 2, no. 55, p. 11. Photo Press Photo Service (Alexander Paul, Pavel Altschul, František Illek).

Fig. 11 Adolf Hoffmeister: “The schoolmaster Roman Jakobson examining his pupils”, 1933. Jakobson, Roman, “Ukázky z chystané monografie o šlágrech V & W” [Excerpts From a Planned Monograph on Voskovec & Werich’s Hits], in (1933) Tucet melodií z Osvobozeného divadla [A Dozen Melodies from the Liberated Theatre], Prague: Hudební matice Umělecké besedy.

Fig. 12 Coloured photo from Burian’s production of The Barber of Seville, set by Miroslav Kouřil, 1937. Život [The Life], vol. 15, no. 3–4 (January 1937), p. 114.

Fig. 13 The director Jiří Frejka with a model of the set for his production of Vladislav Vančura’s Jezero Ukereve [Lake Ukereve] at the National Theatre, 1936. Dvořák, Antonín (1961) Trojice z nejodvážnějších [The Bravest Three], Prague: Orbis.

Fig. 14 E. F. Burian (looking into the camera) and the cameraman Jiří Lehovec shooting a film sequence with the dancer Anna Fischlová. Lehovec, Jiří (2002) “Jiří Lehovec vzpomíná” [Jiří Lehovec Remembers], Iluminace, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 91.

Fig. 15a–c E. F. Burian’s production of his own adaptation of Frank Wedekind’s Spring Awakening at Theatre D 36, 1936.

Fig. 15a Lola Skrbková legacy, Theatre History Department of the Moravian Museum collections. Photo O. Skall.

Fig. 15b The Janáček Academy of Music and Performing Arts in Brno Archive. Photo O. Skall.

Fig. 15c Srba, Bořivoj (2004) Řečí světla [The Language of Light], Brno: JAMU. Photo O. Skall.

Fig. 16a–b A scene from a production of Vladislav Vančura’s The Teacher and the Pupil [Učitel a žák] directed by Jindřich Honzl at the National Theatre Studio, Prague, 1945. Otázky divadla a filmu [Issues of Theatre and Cinema], vol. 1, no. 6 (31 January 1946), p. 288. Photo Josef Heinrich.

Fig. 17 Cover of Karel Teige’s A World of Laughter, 1928. Teige, Karel (2004) Svět, který se směje [A World of Laughter], reprint, Prague: Akropolis – Jiří Tomáš.

Fig. 18 Puppets by traditional Czech puppeteers, from Petr Bogatyrev’s Czech and Slovak Folk Theatre. Bogatyrev, Petr (1940) Lidové divadlo české a slovenské [Czech and Slovak Folk Theatre], Prague: Fr. Borový. Photo CEPS.

Fig. 19 E. F. Burian: War [Vojna], 1935. Srba, Bořivoj (2004) Řečí světla [The Langugage of Light], Brno: JAMU. Photo O. Skall.

Fig. 20 Staged reconstruction of the performance of the St Dorothy folk play in its original setting in Slovakia. Rybák, Miloslav (1904) “Slovenská hra o sv. Dorotě” [The Slovakian St Dorothy Play], Český lid [The Czech People], vol. 13, p. 195. Photo M. Rybák.

Fig. 21 Schematic drawing of the main room of a cottage when St Dorothy is being performed. Kouřil, Miroslav (1945) Divadelní prostor [Theatre Space], Prague: Ústav pro učebné pomůcky průmyslových a obchodních škol v Praze, p. 34.

Fig. 22 From Burian’s production of the St Dorothy play as part of his Folk Suite, 1938. Černý, František (ed.) (1968) Dějiny českého divadla [Czech Theatre History], vol. 1. Prague: Academia, p. 329.

Fig. 23 Studio photo of Jiří Frejka’s production of Miloš Hlávka’s Lady of the Spring [Paní studánka] at the National Theatre in Prague, 1937. Just, Vladimír (2013) Miloš Hlávka – světák, nebo kavalír páně? [Miloš Hlávka – Dandy or the Lord’s Gentleman?], Prague: Akropolis, p. 113. Petr Hlávka private archive, photo Fotoateliér Věra.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book owes its existence to the urgings of Veronika Ambros (University of Toronto) and Eva Stehlíková (Masaryk University), both of whom, firstly, have always asserted that the intellectual legacy of the Prague School theatre writings is a cultural treasure that ought to be cultivated and promoted world-wide, and secondly, stated their conviction that the Department of Theatre Studies at Masaryk University was ideally suited to put together a team capable of undertaking such a project. The book you are holding in your hands proves their latter point; the former is up to you as reader to judge.

We were fortunate to obtain financial support for our research project from the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR). This enabled us to establish a research team, carry out wide-ranging archival research and hold two international conferences. This reader is the final outcome and crowning achievement of the research project. The concept of the book was refined over time in the course of many discussions amongst international scholars and the members of the team, all of whom have contributed generously with their views and findings. The team members were David Drozd (project leader), Martin Bernátek, Barbora Diego Rivera Příhodová, Pavel Drábek, Šárka Havlíčková Kysová, Tomáš Kačer, Radka Kunderová, Martina Musilová, Eva Šlaisová, Jitka Šotkovská, Don Sparling and Eva Stehlíková.

Many thanks go to all those colleagues who attended our two conferences, entitled Prague Semiotic Stage Revisited I (2011) and II (2013), and helped us both to reassess the Prague School in today’s theoretical contexts and to discuss the many complicated translation issues. In addition to Veronika Ambros, who has acted as the unacclaimed patron of the project, four specialists have offered constant support: Andrea Jochmanová, Yana Meerzon, Manfred Pfister and Herta Schmid.

Our research would not have been possible without access to archival materials kept in the Museum of Czech Literature (Památník národního písemnictví), the National Museum (Národní muzeum) and the archives of Charles University and Masaryk University as well as personal family archives. We are grateful for the expert assistance given by all the archival specialists at the above mentioned institutions; special thanks go to Zita Honzlová and Jarmila F. Veltrusky.

Colleagues and friends around the world have helped with the many areas of expertise such a project entails, ranging from linguistic advice through historical and theoretical knowledge to bibliographical assistance: Christian M. Billing, Maria Bochkova, Campbell Edinborough, Francesca Fulton, Elena Khokhlova, Tomáš Kubart, Dita Lánská, Markéta Polochová, Gabriella Reuss, Sergei Tcherkasski, Dmitri Trubotchkin, and James Zborowski.

The results of the research were regularly discussed with students in various seminars held at the Department of Theatre Studies. Their feedback confirmed the continuing relevance of Prague School theory and helped us to shape the selection of texts for the volume.

The whole project lasted five years, throughout which we were fortunate to be able to rely on the administrative (and moral) support of our invaluable departmental Secretary Jitka Kapinusová.

Finally, a symbolic expression of thanks and respect goes to all those scholars who promoted Prague School theory in the 1970s and 1980s. Without their introductions, translations and editions this volume would have scarcely been possible. Among them, foremost respect should go to the memory of Michael L. Quinn (1958–1994), Prague School scholar and enthusiast, editor, translator and author of the seminal book The Semiotic Stage: Prague School Theater Theory (1995).

David Drozd

Project Leader

Brno, August 2016

INTRODUCTION

DAVID DROZD and TOMÁŠ KAČER

Theory can clarify, not sit in judgment. Moreover, theoretical concepts are abstractions that cannot be substituted for concrete facts; these never exist in such a pure form.

Jiří Veltruský, “Theatre in the Corridor”

This book features thirty-eight texts from nine authors connected to the Prague Linguistic Circle (PLC), sometimes referred to simply as the Prague School. In the 1930s and 1940s members of the Circle created a complex theory of the theatre. Though these dates might suggest something outdated, yet another Theory consigned to the ash heap of history, the following two quotes point to a different conclusion.

... the most urgent task of theatre studies is to examine all the individual components within the structure of a theatre performance and to learn how each of the components, with its own specific features, affects the structure as a whole … We should not only describe a word, a gesture or the set as signs but also study the characteristics of the theatrical sign as a whole, which is a synthesis of several sign systems represented by its individual components. (Veltruský 1941: 133)

Jiří Veltruský (1919–1994), who was a member of the PLC, wrote these words in the spring of 1941. That same year his tutor Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975), one of the PLC’s founding members, formulated the goal of structural theory, as he called their approach, in a different way:

We have only a single theoretical task: to show through a few remarks and examples that, despite all the material tangibility of its means (the building, machinery, sets, props, a multitude of personnel), the theatre is merely the base for a non-material interplay of forces moving through time and space and sweeping the spectator up in its changing tension, in the interplay of forces we call a stage performance. (Mukařovský 2016 [1941]: 61)

These two short fragments from Veltruský and Mukařovský grasp the core of the Prague School perspective on theatre performance. They include all the “material” elements of a theatre performance and key concepts employed by the PLC (such as structure, sign and component), providing in fact a structural definition of theatre. Although this may sound simple, it was precisely such a simple formulation that was the starting point for structurally oriented theatre studies – and in fact the task outlined by Mukařovský has remained the point of departure for all subsequent research on the theatre.

Theories of theatre have developed and diversified immensely since the 1930s and 1940s. Fashions changed throughout the twentieth century and even theory as such has often been neglected. This book provides an opportunity to return to one of the founding moments in the history of theatre theory.

The texts in the reader you are holding in your hands were written by a group of critics and scholars, theatre-lovers and theatre practitioners associated with the Prague Linguistic Circle in the period from the 1920s to the 1940s. This whole community has become known as The Prague School. Most of its members dealt with language and literature, but those included in this reader explored methodological approaches to theatre (as well as drama and performance).

Theatre is much more than a play presented on a stage. There are dozens of professions associated with the theatre, and all of them influence what a piece will be like, from actors and the directing team to designers and tech people, to name but a few. But the list of those associated with each theatrical event ultimately runs all the way through to audiences, without whom the whole concept of theatre lacks any meaning. Put simply, theatre can come into existence in a variety of ways and a variety of activities can be understood as theatre. Today the term can be used to cover a funny sketch by a pair of middle-aged jugglers on monocycles in a piece inspired by Hamlet; a local amateur production of the Oresteia in a brutally cut version of this Classical play that lacks virtually all props and has a minimal cast, with Clytemnestra and Electra being played by one actress; or – from a completely different context – the Broadway hip-hop musical hit Hamilton, which has met with immense critical and popular acclaim.

When we say “theatre” in this book, we often mean what is now commonly referred to as “performance”. The development of performance studies in the 1980s was a scholarly reaction to changes in what was understood as performance in the previous decades, and the concepts that were developed then went on to influence performative practices as such. The concept “performance”, with its many secondary and implied meanings (all of which are worth studying), has become commonplace. It distinguishes itself in certain respects from “theatre”, which is often limited to a specific art form. We would like to do away with this division and return to a broader use of the term “theatre”.

In their heyday the Prague School thinkers made a shift in terminology similar to that employed in performance studies. They did not introduce the term “performance” as a generic label for a wide range of human activities, instead using “theatre” in this sense. Therefore this reader calls for an open mind: in nearly all cases, what the Prague School says about the theatre is also applicable to what is now called performance.

This similarity between the two schools is manifested in two areas. The first is their shared interest in non-artistic activities (the Prague School in “folk culture”, “popular culture”, “audience”; performance studies in “rituals”; “happenings”, “performativity”), with the result that they borrow from sociology and anthropology. The second is the conceptualization of the avant-garde theatre movements of their respective eras by both schools. That is why most ideas of the Prague School are applicable to contemporary theatrical activities and to a variety of performative events, including cultural performance. And the latter concept has an immense scope. Imagine you are walking through town, turn round a corner and find yourself in the middle of a political rally. The people gathered there are applauding the speakers, who are addressing them with hand-held megaphones. A minute later, the protesters set out on a march through the streets, holding signs such as “We are the 99%” and “Occupy!” How cleverly shaped this manifestation of exercising citizens’ rights suddenly seems, what a brilliant example of the town as performance itself!

Why, then, should we read the Prague School? Can its rather early investigations of theatre shed any new light on how we see theatre today? We believe so. The reason for this belief lies in the fortunate circumstance that what is referred to as the theory of the Prague School was never theory for theory’s sake. Although we refer to them as theorists, Prague School thinkers always kept close ties with theatre practice. Instead of inventing rigid systems, they developed a multi-faceted set of analytical distinctions that can be used flexibly and universally. Although all these analytical “tools” have their grounding in the theatre of that period, most of them continue to prove useful today and deserve universal application.

Among the most innovative concepts, which have not grown old but on the contrary have become a standard part of the toolbox of any serious analyst of the theatre, are the following: sign, structure, dominant, component, stage figure and dramatic space. These are the most crucial concepts for understanding the Prague School. In what follows we have arranged these concepts into clusters, with brief explanations intended to elucidate the relations between them and the dynamic nature of the system.

Structure is a term that is almost self-explanatory today, but it is important to remember that it was only in the 1920s that it became a key term for aesthetics. Prague School scholars introduced structure as something highly organized yet dynamic, full of inner tension yet unified, energy-charged, yet organized. Only such a concept of structure is then capable of encompassing the variability of avant-garde art, which asks for and provokes such conceptualization. In the early 1930s Mukařovský stated that “the conception of a work of art as a structure – that is, a system of components aesthetically deautomatized and organized into a complex hierarchy that is unified by the prevalence of one component over the others – is accepted in the theory of several arts” (Mukařovský 2016 [1931]: 192), thus providing one of the standard definitions of structure in the work of art.

Excerpt from the e-book