De Achttiende Eeuw 29 (1997) 2
Henk Gras &
Bennie Pratasik
Studying the Theatre in the Netherlands: a historiographic investigation,
with critical scrutiny of the sources, taking Corver's Tooneel-Aaantekeningen
as a starting-point.
Martin
Corver's Tooneel-Aantekeningen were published in 1786; taking this text
as one of our starting-points, we shall try to investigate the historiography
of the theatre in the Netherlands, with a critical scrutiny of the sources.
Corver wrote his text in response to the biography of the eighteenth-century
actor and his rival Jan Punt, which was written by Simon Stijl, but
published anonymously in 1781. These two texts have determined the historiography
of the theatre in the Netherlands up to the present time. Corver's Tooneel-Aantekeningen
have even been exalted as the most important source for the ins and
outs of the eighteenth-century theatre in the Netherlands.
Even so,
neither the text of Stijl, nor that of Corver have ever been the object
of a critical investigation. Stijl's biography may be regarded as an
attempt to define the position of the Amsterdam City theatre in the
field of theatrical activities in the Republic, and to this are linked
a number of preferences with regard to repertory and style of acting;
implicitly, the latter were in their turn related to a vision on `culture'
and the way society ought to be structured (ideology). In a reaction
to these opinions Corver wrote his Tooneel-Aantekeningen, in which he
had to defend himself passionately; so that these two texts acquired
the character of a debate about cultural policy avant la lettre. Especially
in the nineteenth century the positive evaluation of Corver's text has
acquired a canonical status in the historiography of the theatre. In
the twentieth century the nineteenth-century assessment of Corver's
text has been adhered to in extenso as well. A closer scrutiny shows,
however, that Corver's text is less `reliable' than has been maintained
up to now. When the genesis of the Rotterdam Theatre is studied it becomes
apparent that the text of Corver (and with that, the traditional historical
accounts of these events) should be handled with great caution. It becomes
evident that Corver often has relied on his memory, which, however,
often failed him, with all consequent factual inaccuracies.
Attempts
of students of (systematic) dramaturgy to create new frameworks for
historiographical investigation of the theatre have virtually failed,
mainly because the historical aspect of the discipline has hardly come
in for serious attention; hence the consequences for historical investigation
cannot but be regarded as disastrous. Within the study of dramaturgy
historical criticism of the sources and a good tradition of editing
are still lacking. In most recent historical accounts of the theatre
(cf. nn. 2 and 26) the consequences of that are very evident, because,
notwithstanding claims to the opposite, there is hardly any trace of
a break with the past.
It is hoped
that this contribution will give at least an initial impetus for a more
critical handling of source material and the theatrical past.
>omhoog
Anna de Haas
French Classicism and the Theatre in the Netherlands 1660-1730
During the 1660s the French doctrine classique found
its way to the Netherlands. The Dutch adherents of this theory, and
in particular the art society (kunstgenootschap) `Nil Volentibus Arduum'
started a campaign to `reform' the theatre, launching attacks on current
stage practice, on the audience, and on the playwrights. Of the genres
cultivated at that time the neoclassicists appropriated tragedy and
comedy. These in particular ought to conform to the requirements of
verisimilitude (vraisemblance) and decorum (bienséance). The
first requirement implied a criticism of the then popular Spanish drama
(neglecting the unities of time and place), and the supernatural phenomena
(ghosts, gods, metamorphoses etc.) of the pièces à machines.
Following the second requirement, no allusions to politics, religion
or sex should be allowed in any play, as being potentially offensive;
nor should scenes of cruelty be represented on stage (as in revenge
tragedies).
Although,
when one goes by the titles of the plays performed, all these `irregular'
genres continued to be staged throughout the eighteenth century, there
is evidence that actually they were thoroughly `neoclassicized'. Texts
were censured and adapted, cruel scenes `acted' backstage. For the audience,
then, neoclassicism consisted mainly in things not heard and not seen.
During the
1720s the Spanish drama ceased to be a source of inspiration for playwrights;
the machines were banished from tragedy to other genres (e.g. the morality
plays). In the neoclassical universe of the early eighteenth century
each genre (except the revenge tragedy) had been assigned its own place:
tragedy and comedy in the centre, minor genres like the morality plays
and pièces à machines in the border regions where neoclassical
rules were only partly applicable.
This might
be viewed as a victory for neoclassicism, but it was short-lived: by
1730 the neoclassical elan seems to have withered; the production of
original Dutch plays dropped sharply. Various causes may be pointed
out for this: (1) of the playwrights originally inspired by the doctrine
classique some died and others stopped writing plays; (2) the historical
and literary sources, used for tragedies were depleted; (3) playwrights
lost their elan because their plays were never very successful onstage
(if they made the stage at all). Thus, for any or all of these reasons
Dutch playwrights fell silent until 1760 when new ideas from France
and Germany inspired a new generation again to take to the stage.
>omhoog
Jan Konst
`The Guilt is Heavy, the Punishment just': poetic justice in the
non-Biblical plays of Claas Bruin (1671-1732)
This article focuses upon the non-Biblical plays of a dramatist
in the French-classicist tradition, Claas Bruin. During the first decades
of the eighteenth century he was a reasonably popular and successful
playwright; nowadays, however, he is like so many eighteenth-century
Dutch tragedians almost wholly forgotten. His oeuvre will be studied
in connection with the doctrine of poetic justice, which has played
an important role in tragedies written in the late seventeenth and early
eighteenth century. Special attention will be paid to Bruin's last play,
Epaminondas. It will be argued that in Bruin's conception poetic and
divine or providential justice converge.
>omhoog
Marijke Jonker
Le Brun's Expression generale et particulière and the eighteenth-century
actor
Charles
Le Brun's theory about the expression of the passions was widely acclaimed
in eighteenth-century discussions of acting. Prints copying Le Brun's
original illustrations were used as models by actors trying to master
the art of facial expression.
Even so,
Le Brun's theory of expression was strictly analytical, and part of
the austere culture of the `honnête homme' prevailing in seventeenth-century
France; this article will attempt to answer the question which part
it played in eighteenth-century theatre history.
It will
be made clear that during the greater part of the eighteenth century
Le Brun's influence was at the most superficial. While eighteenth-century
theorists of the theatre and facial expression never forgot to mention
him, they emphasized the importance of the imagination (Du Bos), observation
(Parsons), or calculation ((Riccoboni, Diderot). Mentioning Le Brun
probably served merely to remind the reader that the actor's ability
to give visual expression to the passions gave him the right to share
the high social status of the history painter. The eighteenth actor
was claimed to be a man of intellect and taste.
Only in
the Theoretische lessen over de gesticulatie en de mimiek (1827) by
Jelgerhuis the influence of Le Brun on acting became clearly noticeable.
The reasons for this, given by Kirchner (1991), are accepted; yet one
should also be aware of the debate on the authentic style for Dutch
acting, which went on during the 1780s between Simon Stijl and Martin
Corver, and which may have prompted Jelgerhuis to advocate classically
authentic acting, which was not limited to Dutch examples, and only
fit for the Dutch stage.
>omhoog
Rudolf Rasch
Opera troupes in Amsterdam 1750-1763
Before
opera was established as a standard element in the programming of the
permanent theatres in Amsterdam around 1780, opera performances were
given either by touring theatre companies or by troupes formed locally.
They performed within the walls of Amsterdam in the City Theatre, or
outside the walls in temporary or semi-permanent theatres on the Overtoom
and the Amstel. This article briefly discusses the comings and goings
of a number of such companies during the years 1750-1763: the Italian
opera buffa companies directed by Crosa, Giordani, Lapis, Ferrari, De
Amicis, and Gurrini respectively; the French troupes which, among other
genres of French theatre, also presented operas, and who were directed
by Jean-Benoît Leclair, Garnier, Duplessis, Quinault respectively,
and the visiting companies from The Hague; the `children's operas' in
the French language of Sieur Frédéric and Monsieur de
Bruyère; and the `Flemish opera' of Neyts. The composition of
the companies is also investigated, as well as their ways of doing business,
their repertoires, and their successes.
>omhoog
Bennie Pratasik
The flourishing of drama societies in the Netherlands around 1800
In
the historywriting about the Dutch theatre scant attention has been
paid to the dramatic societies. Consequently, as yet little is known
about their activities. Even so, the dramatic societies have occupied
a prominent position. For instance, to a large degree they have contributed
to the introduction of a new repertory in the Netherlands. To mention
one example: the High German theatre played, probably for the first
time, Kotzebue's Misanthropy and Repentance in German in The Hague on
7 May 1790. What has probably been the first performance of this play
in a Dutch translation was the initiative of the Haarlem dramatic society
Leerzaam Vermaak (Instructive Entertainment); it took place in Haarlem
on 25 January 1791. In the Amsterdam City Theatre this play was for
the first time performed on 3 May 1792.
It is not
always possible to determine incontrovertibly how these dramatic societies
should be defined; the more so because regular organizational forms
of theatre groups also might have characteristics in common with the
societies. In the case of the majority of dramatic societies one had
to be a member, and this membership was acquired through election; hence
in most cases the list of members displayed a homogeneous composition.
Members who were also playwrights have recurrently advocated proposals
generally to improve the theatre. They had, then, in general no high
opinion of the regular theatre. Contemporaries often mentioned in lyrical
terms the role played by the dramatic societies. In such discussions
it was in particular the high level of the performances which was praised.
>omhoog
Henny Ruitenbeek
Classicistic Tragedies for Nineteenth-century Spectators
It
is commonly believed that the interest in tragedy faded away in the
nineteenth century. Many theatre historians tend to think that tragedies
were rarely performed and that when this actually happened, the performance
attracted only a small audience. These historians seem to base their
opinion on contemporary statements, but I doubt whether the interpretation
of such remarks has taken their original meaning and context into account.
For the investigation of this issue I propose first to focus on the
reviewers of the two theatre journals, Pandora, in het bezit van het
Toneelklokje (Pandora, possessing the little Theatre bell) and De Toneelkijker
(The Pair of Binoculars). Then their views will be compared with the
figures available on the share of tragedies in the programming, and
on the number of the spectators; in this we shall concentrate on the
repertory of the Amsterdam Theatre in the beginning of the nineteenth
century.
The two
journals claim that the audience was less interested in classical tragedy
than in new theatre genres like melodrama and ballet. There are grounds
to query the reliability of such statements when it is realized that
they served a political purpose. Pandora intended primarily to criticize
the new board of the city theatre; it was believed that the board members
had not kept their promise to reform the repertoire in the classical
spirit. The Toneelkijker was governed by its political aim to purify
society from its `individualism' - which was also felt to be present
in the new theatre genres. As for the figures, these do not support
the claim that old classical tragedy disappeared in the nineteenth century.
We may conclude that both Pandora and the Toneelkijker caricatured the
real situation.
>omhoog
|
