Towards a Redefinition of Dramatic Genre and Stage History

Towards a Redefinition of Dramatic Genre and Stage History VESNA PISTOTNIK We cannot know what would have happened if there had been, for example, outside broadcasting facilities at the Globe. 1 The assertion that literary readings of plays profit from consideration of the requirements and effects of staging has become one of the recurrent commonplaces ofdramatic criticism in the past two decades. Even those critics unwilling to pursue the theatrical approach have felt obliged to emphasize the "incompleteness" of their readings. This belief has also prompted a proliferation of stage histories, that is, studies of different lengths and forms - essays, books, academic theses - which deal with plays in performance in descriptive and/or analytical terms. In this article, I propose to explore the rationale behind the taken-for-granted validity ofstage-orientated readings for literary criticism, and to argue that it is the operative notions ofdrama as a genre which have been instrumental in constituting and maintaining the hegemony of text over performance.2 I also intend to examine this new emphasis on the performance dimension and its implications for the status of stage history, which is usually seen as a subordinate activity expected to provide illustrative and supportive examples for the readings of literary criticism. Since this article was initially prompted by the generally low regard for stage history within acadeotic circles, and developed as a result ofmy own dissatisfaction with the current practices of stage historians, I should finally like to suggest how, in my opinion, this sort of work might establish itself as a discipline with its own specific field of inquiry, methodologies, and tools of analysis. Underlying the text/performance duality, as mentioned above, is the division of the experience of drama into two separate modalities: either as a system of graphical notations written down or printed, or as an action realized in a particular space and at a particular time. Whereas one is based on the belief that drama is literature awaiting performance, the other is related to theories which VESNA PISTOTNIK emphasize the importance of the perfonnance aspect. In short, each of the two approaches can be seen as the result of a specific way of defining drama as a genre, which tends to be largely static, with fixed characteristics, some of which are given priority over others. However, if we see genre as a historically conditioned, socio-cultural construct, and not as an absolute concept denoting timeless and universal characteristics shared by a particular group ofworks, we cannot privilege one approach overthe other. When taken out ofthe context ofa specific time and place, the statements that drama is literature and that drama is perfonnance become equally valid. Therefore, by shifting our frame of reference and its governing premises, we may end up distinguishing individual works and cultural fonns according to features other than those found in present classifications. We would then be able to posit genres that would cut across established divisions. In the following pages, I intend to pursue these points in relation to the ways in which present notions of dramatic genre have shaped the practice of stage history. However, as a preliminary consideration, it seems appropriate to explore briefly the currently operative definitions of dramatic genre in tenns of the opposition between drama as literature and drama as theatre. Within traditional literary criticism and various branches of semiotics, the definition of genre seems to have been predicated on the notion of presence: particular fonns are seen as possessing certain features which allow them to be distinguished from others and experienced in their specificity. For example, Aristotle's definition of drama based on the distinction between the concepts of "mimesis" and "diegesis" implies the existence and recognizability of particular (usually fonnal) properties inherent in the genre; in other words, it is assumed that they are there, inhabiting the genre in a pure, unproblematic way. The same is true of traditional twentieth-century criticism which describes drama as that mode of writing which is inscribed in dialogue3 and intended for perfonnance. Since the intention of the work presumably resides with the author, the text is regarded as sufficient in itself, while the perfonnance is seen as its possible complement and not as...