Theater Histories: Historiography Notes
Topic One: Thinking about history
Historiography = interpreting the past; writing theater history involves decisions about what information is most important and how events are related; interpretation is inherent in historical writing.
Goals of theater histories in this text:
Provide information about theater
Present interpretations of that information
Explain how interpretations come into being and how history is written
Caution about extreme relativism: the view that all claims are merely opinions is self-defeating and inconsistent with practice.
Example against pure subjectivity:
Gravity cannot be undone by disbelief; acupuncture is used effectively even if not fully explained scientifically; beliefs don’t change empirical outcomes.
Holocaust denial (e.g., Nazis murdering people) is a falsehood, not a valid opinion.
Nevertheless, interpretation is a necessary part of histography because:
Determining what happened, how, and why is often very difficult or impossible; evidence is fragmented/ambiguous; many events occur simultaneously; historical experimentation is not possible; we can overlook our own assumptions.
History is not a dry, linear plot but a realm of fierce argument; even when we agree on facts, we can connect them differently, offering different insights or explanations.
Example of perspective shaping historiography: US view of the American Revolutionary War (1756–1763, the Seven Years' War) tends to frame British taxation as oppression and American resistance as justified, while Parliament's actions were based on earlier experiences—showing how interpretation depends on perspective.
Interpretation is intrinsic and revision is always possible; our understanding of history is open to revision.
Topic Two: Social context and cultural relativity
Some historians historically tried to write theater history focusing only on theatrical practice, ignoring social context, to avoid interpretation.
This approach is untenable because separating theater from social context itself is an interpretation.
Modern theater history emphasizes that what happens inside theater is deeply connected to what happens outside: topics on stage, how plays are performed, who performs, who attends, and how social developments influence stylistic shifts.
The theatre is embedded in society; the world enters the theatre, and in turn shapes it.
Examples of cultural relativity in theater history:
Medieval/Renaissance Europe conceptions of hierarchy (the great chain of being): rocks < plants < animals < humans < angels < God; people (including actors) were hierarchically ranked; actors were even lumped with prostitutes.
This vertical view coexisted with a later horizontal view (all men are created equal; nation-states; democracies).
Differences across societies mean that neither vertical nor horizontal concepts are universally valid; both are culturally relative.
The risk of projecting one’s own culture onto others leads to misunderstandings; historians must balance avoiding projection with critical critique of inequities.
Debates arise around economics, gender, race, and politics (e.g., capitalism):
Pro-capitalism view: competition and profit drive innovations and improvements in living standards.
Anti-capitalism view: worker dependence on corporations; cycles of boom/bust harming people; or the claim that capitalism doesn't exist and there are only free markets with fair exchanges—arguing the premise is moot.
Historians may adopt pro/con/balance perspectives; the important point is to ask who gains or who is harmed by particular claims.
Gender and performance history: cultures historically restricted performance to men; debates over whether such exclusions were misogynistic or homoerotic; critique of earlier dismissals as insignificant.
The tension in historical work: avoiding cultural projection while still making critical critiques about inequities; the field values both critique and sympathy for original audiences.
Closing reflection: third-century India example shows we cannot know with perfect certainty how audiences then would judge us today; judgments would be colored by their own perspectives.
Topic Three: Evidence, Theory, and Connections
Evidence is often interpreted through historians’ assumptions, values, and contextual information; social position can bias interpretation; wishful thinking can intrude.
Case study: origins of Greek tragedy; Murray’s early 1900s hypothesis tied tragedy to religious ritual; some evidence appeared to support it, but by the late 1920s scholars argued the logic was flawed.
Gerald Els criticized Murray for choosing evidence to fit a mind-made theory, rather than letting evidence guide conclusions.
Conclusion about origins: while Greek theatre may have religious connections, the idea of a simple ritual-origin evolution is not supported; origins are complex and debated.
The appeal of religious/ritual origin narratives persists for some because they feel they capture a vitality of performance; inspiration and lived experience can feel true even if not historically falsifiable.
A key lesson: differing perspectives on what happened can coexist, but they are not equally valid; some perspectives withstand criticism better than others.
The importance of evidence re-evaluation:
The Theatre Of Dionysus capacity debate illustrates how new archaeology can revise accepted histories; old estimates (e.g., 15{,}000–17{,}000) gave way to alternative figures; capacity changes can force revision of theories about theatre’s role.
Evidence can be more recent or city-specific; sources can be unreliable; parts of evidence may be missing.
Historians’ practice: evidence does not speak for itself; historians select, describe, and interpret; interpretations can both reveal new aspects and reflect bias; new interpretations can illuminate previously unrecognized aspects; there is no predetermined theory that must fit all evidence.
Overall message: historiography depends on selecting and interpreting evidence; this is both a challenge and a source of discovery.
Topic Four: Intelligibility, Plausibility, and Narrative
Historians organize evidence to create a plausible narrative; chronology helps readability but historians often move back and forth in time to weave threads.
Narrative devices can shape interpretation: highlighting irony (e.g., President George W. Bush criticizing nation-building but later pursuing similar actions), romanticizing (e.g., Kennedy as “Camelot”).
Different historians may view the same sequence of events as improvement or decline.
Plausibility is not the same as truth; a plausible causal claim can be incorrect.
Example: If a president’s speech coincides with a stock market decline, one might infer causation; extra evidence is needed to establish true causes.
The post hoc ergo propter hoc problem: after this, therefore because of this; the need to avoid inferring causation from mere temporal sequence.
Historians must evaluate what evidence is needed to support claims, and sometimes evidence is unavailable or unknown.
The goal is to arrive at the best plausible narrative given the available evidence, not to assert absolute certainty.
Topic Five: Causes of Historical Change
Narrative about historical change includes debates about cycles, pendulums, progress, or happenstance.
Some view social changes as cyclic or progressive; others view change as contingent and without a predetermined pattern.
A key question: if there is a driving force behind large-scale change, what is it? What explains shifts in theater practice around 1550–1650 across Europe?
Three broad kinds of driving forces commonly proposed:
Material activities: economics, production/exchange of goods, technological developments, gender relations, communication methods, etc.
Institutions: political systems, religious organizations, family structures.
Ideas: belief systems, intellectual currents, values.
Most historians believe that these forces interact; usually one force carries more weight in a given case.
Earlier, the shift from a great chain of being (vertical hierarchy) to more horizontal conceptions illustrates idea-driven history; but such ideas themselves require explanation (what caused the change in ideas?).
Topic Six: History as the Construction of Truth
History is constructed: historians piece together evidence and build arguments.
However, not all perspectives are equally valid; not all interpretations are merely opinions.
Some interpretations are incorrect or misguided; absolute certainty is not required for credible truth, but certainty beyond a reasonable doubt is a reasonable standard for confidence in a claim.
The key claim: history is not a free-for-all; it has objective and subjective facets; not all interpretations are valid, and historians can make mistakes.
Topic Seven: Theater and the History of Communication
Historiography reflects how we perceive the relationship between individuals and society and how social structures interact.
Social structures involved in change include economics, political power relations, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, religion, education, transportation, agriculture, health care, and international relations.
The relative importance of these structures depends on the topic and perspective.
Example application: the history of American popular music may emphasize the role of race; theater history stresses that communication practices drive historical development.
Why focus on communication? Because the primacy of practice posits that knowledge often arises from ordinary practical activities rather than abstract reasoning; testing ideas in real-world contexts provides stronger evidence than logic alone.
The phrase "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" captures this.
Support for the primacy of practice comes from philosophy, child development, cognitive science, and linguistics.
The cognitive science view shows that much human thought is structured by metaphors derived from lived experience; examples include:
Inside/outside and container/contained schemas used to form metaphors
Phrases like , , , etc.
Metaphors like hot/cold heart, long-haul, and mind as a machine illustrate how thought and language are shaped by experience.
Metaphors arise from everyday communication practices; these frameworks influence how we understand the world.
The central claim for theater studies: theater, in its most common form, combines oral performance with written script, blending two fundamental modes of communication; this creates a strong bond between theatrical performance and communication practices.