A Cultural History of Theatre in the Early Modern Age by Henke Robert;

Author:Henke, Robert; [Henke, Robert]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
Published: 2019-08-03T00:00:00+00:00

FIGURE 6.3: Frontispiece of the ‘scherzo carnevalesco’ entitled Scola di Pulcinelli, printed in Roncilione in 1676. A copy of this commedia ridicolosa is held by the Biblioteca Casanatense in Rome.

Actors everywhere in early modern Europe were fascinated with inventing scenes showing that social relationships were based on simulation and dissimulation. Many early modern theatre scenes reveal the impact of pretence on politics, love, and daily business affairs. Professional actors and actresses, widely considered to be impostors per se, time and again showed in staged acts how social relationships and dominant truths were constructed – which means that they demonstrated a similar sensibility to the humanist philosophers while choosing a different angle (except for Erasmus, who temporarily adopted a buffoonish point of view). The actors neither idealized a society consisting of bodiless philosophers nor promoted the ascetic ideal. Instead they emphasized the capacities of the body, whose basic function in European comedy consisted of connecting the individual’s existence with the universe. This meant that allusions to taboo bodily functions involving eating, excretion and procreation served as source material for the European professional comedy, which also juxtaposed bodily needs and desires in a confrontation between secular and religious ideals. Furthermore, the awareness that the body is involved in the construction of reality inspired professional actors to play exactly with this condition of social life, showing off corresponding mechanisms. Such plays reached their pinnacle with the construction of other worlds or even the otherworld through strange gesticulations. From the clash of fantasies of this grotesque kind with fictional works denoting real life, the early modern theatre focused on conditions of human existence in a broad sense.43 As a pars pro toto of this theatrical philosophy of life, one can quote Prospero: ‘We are such stuff / As dreams are made on; and our little life / Is rounded with a sleep.’ And with the descent of Prospero, one returns to the ascent of Petrarch, with Prospero adding: ‘And what strength I have’s mine own, / Which is most faint.’44

But such perspectives on human existence, shared by many actors and some humanists, were marginalized in the further evolution of early modern theatre. The intensive and long-lasting debates about the status of theatre in the culture of the time led to a solid compromise, defining a restricted art of acting meant to emulate the everyday life of the average, ethically minded citizen.

During the whole controversy, theatre lovers and haters alike agreed that theatre, because of its visual communication, was the most viable medium for influencing even the uneducated masses. The critics in particular showed an enormous respect for theatre as a ‘living book’.45 Accordingly, the pro- and antitheatrical polemics and the legislation of the early modern era should now be seen as a competition to define the rules for this powerful medium. The Catholic and Protestant churches, the educational institutions, the courts, and the authorities of the growing cities all had distinct expectations regarding the times and places, the repertoires and casts, the aesthetics, and the aims of the expanding theatre industry.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.