Henryk Markiewicz
Drama and Theatre in Polish
Theoretical Discussions
Literary Studies in Poland 17, 7-26
Articles
H enryk M arkiew icz
D ram a and Theatre
in P olish T heoretical D iscu ssion s
The reflection o n the relation between d ra m a and theatre, particularly intensive in the last thirty years, has a long-standing trad itio n in this co untry. The writings on this subject being very num erous and now n o t always accessible, let us try to reconstruct the m ain lines o f these thoughts. H ow ever in ord er to con fron t clearly p artic u la r statem ents we m ust define the relative term inology. So we assum e th a t d ra m a (its text) can be seen from two angles: as a text intended for the reader and as theatrical proposition. In the first case we have to do with the literary co nception, in the seco n d —w ith the theatrical one, an d when b oth are equal — with the utraquistical conception o f the dram a.
T he theatrical pro po sitio n can be realized in various theatrical artw ork. T he artw o rk exists in one or a series o f perform ances and co n stitutes their invariable elem ent. The theatrical prop osition and theatrical artw o rk o f d ra m a rem ain in a relationship which can be presented by the follow ing p arag ra p h s:
1. sce n ario —in terp retatio n o f the m ain text, a concrete shape o f th e stage vision co n tain ed in th a t text and the didascalia, realizatio n ;
2. p artial scenario —in terp retatio n o f the m ain text, tran sfo rm a tion (i.e. selection, recom position, substitu tio n and am plification) o f th e didascalia, concrete shape, realization ;
3. theatrical m aterial —tran sfo rm atio n o f both the m ain text and the didascalia, in terp retatio n o f th a t transform ed text, concrete shape, realizatio n ;
8 H e n ry k M a r k ie w ic z
4. creative im pulse—creatio n o f a self-existing th eatrical w ork. These varieties should be treated o f cou rse typologically (i.e. there are sm ooth passages betw een th em ); the indicated o rd e r o f these tran sfo rm atio n s in the p ro d u c tio n in relation to th e theatrical p ro p o sitio n m akes these procedures ra th e r schem atic.
T he discussions on the subject: d ra m a and theatre, c a n m ostly be divided into a series o f follow ing questions:
1) w hat is the po sitio n o f d ra m a am ong the fine a rts ; 2) w hat are th e differences in the ontic o r sem antic stru ctu re between the d ra m a text and theatrical p ro d u c tio n ; 3) is the d ra m a text a w ork o f art in its own rig h t; 4) w hat is the statu s o f the m ain text o f a theatrical p ro p o sitio n in the hierarchy o f various elem ents o f a p ro d u c tio n ; 5) w hat are the relations betw een a th ea trical prop o sitio n an d the p ro d u c tio n ; the artistically desirable or adm issible relations.
The early Polish theoreticians an d those o f the .E nlightenm ent period stressed a close link betw een the d ra m a and th eatre. M aciej K azim ierz Sarbiew ski does in fact identify d ram a with p ro d u c tio n since in his lectures De perfecta p o esi (B. IX, chap. 3) he says th a t the p urpose o f all the d ra m a varieties is “an im itatio n o f acts no t only by speech and w ord, b u t also by gesture, voice, m otions, feelings and lastly by m usic, m achinery and scenery,” and he gives m uch atten tio n to the arran g em en t o f the stage, lighting and s e ttin g .1 Sim ilar views can be found in subsequent textbooks o f poetics. Filip N ereusz G olański consistently attrib u tes to the d ra m a the requirem ents o f “re p resen ta tio n ” and o f “the sp e c ta to r.” 2 Jó ze f K orzeniow ski defines it less radically :
D r a m a is gen erally sp ea k in g a p o em d esig n ed to be p ro d u ced by ch aracters actin g by m ean s o f talks and g e stu r e s.3
D u rin g the rom antic period this cau tio u s ap p ro ach becam e even m ore p ro no un ced. T here were in P olan d no co n tin u ato rs o f Hegel, such a stro n g advocate o f the theatrical theory o f d ra m a th at he
1 O p o e z ji d o sk o n a lej, transi, by M . P lezia , W ro cla w 1954, p. 231. 2 O w y m o w ie i p o e z j i (On E loquence a n d P o e tr y ), V iln a 1788, p. 423.
3 “ K urs p o e z ji” (A C ou rse in P o etry , 1829), [in:] D z ie ła zebran e, vol. 12, W arszaw a 1873, p. 89.
D ra m a a n d T heatre in T h e o retica l D iscussion s 9 thought it unjustified to publish stage w orks in p rin t ( Vorlesungen über A esthetik). H ipolit Cegielski says:
T he dram a brings an ev en t in to present, m a k es it to be seen p u b licly, it p resents the p lace, tim e and the plot with all the circu m sta n ces , before our eyes, p u ts them o n the sta g e. T he dram a d o e s n o t tell us a b o u t the b ack grou n d o f the h a p p en in g s but sh o w s us th e m selv es [ ...] H en ce the n eed for sta g in g the dram atic p o em s, and for th e theatre itself. T his is n o t in d isp en sa b le for the dram a a s su ch , but it is very help fu l and d esirable.-4
So Cegielski suggests the possibility o f the d ra m a existing w ithout theatre and being only read bu t considers this case less advantageous. M ickiewicz goes fa rth er along this line. In the fam ous lecture o f the 16th course in Slavonic L iteratu re o f 1843 he does say in the introduction th a t the d ra m a needs “to be bro u g h t to earth , to have a theatrical building, actors and all sorts o f a r t.” But then he goes on to say th a t “all this is necessary bu t by no m eans essential” —in the case o f a true p o et; thus while reading Shake speare the reader “gets the feeling as if he were on the stage am ong the ac to rs.” A nd in view o f the unsatisfactory state o f “the d ra m a ’s auxiliary a rts ” (architecture, painting, lighting) the co n tem p o rary playw rights should get rid o f their requirem ents and “stifle in them selves the desire to see their d ra m a staged,” th at is design them for reading. So in fact M ickiewicz was inclined, as regards the Polish d ra m a o f his day, to accept its literary co n ception. Let us say, by the way, th a t Słow acki too, when he was giving vent to his dream s, w ould consider his d ram as as poem s for reading; this is anyw ay the conclusion th a t can be draw n from the letter o f F ebruary 1845 to his m o th er where he visualizes in a hund red years tim e a C racow “rich p e a sa n t” n o t as a theatrical sp ectato r b u t reader o f S low acki’s B a lla d yn a ...
T he u traquistic co n ception o f d ra m a was form u lated by N orw id in the in tro d u ctio n to Pierścień wielkiej dam y (The Ring o f a Great Lady) o f 1872: while rejecting the purely theatrical works whose aim is “to entertain the viewers w ho have n o thing better to do on a p a rtic u la r evening,” as well as the purely literary “so-called fantastical-philosophical d ra m a ” he opted for d ram atical works which w ould be “as interesting in reading as they are on the stage.”
10 H e n ry k M a r k ie w ic z
In th e m iddle o f the 19th century there was a retu rn to the theatrical conception o f d ram a. F ryderyk H enryk Lew estam deplores, p ro b ab ly under H egel’s influence, “the d etach m ent o f d ram atic poetry from theatrical p ro d u c tio n ” and says quite em phatically:
A b ea u tifu l p lay for the th e a tre w ith o u t b ein g p la y ed by a cto rs w h o can render its q u a lities is like a b o d y w ith o u t so u l. It is vain to e x p e c t that the m ere read in g will reveal all its b e a u tie s.5
A t the sam e tim e there was a grow ing realization, und er the im pact o f W agner am on g o th er things, th a t th e a tre — as H enryk Struve p u t i t —constitutes “an organical unity o f particu lar arts fo rm ing a single artistic w h ole.” In S tru v e’s view the m ajo r elem ents th a t m ake it up are poetry, o ra to ry , m usic and p ain tin g .6 The term “o ra to ry ” has here a special m eaning, th a t o f the “art o f d ra m a ,” th a t is declam ation, m im icry and gesticulation. In a w ork o f d ra m a they supplem ent p oetry which, th o u g h it is in its co n ten t sup erio r to other arts, rem ains less efficient in its form since it can act in the scenes only by m eans o f these arts.
The two lines o f th o u g h t: the theatrical conception o f d ra m a and th e b o th com plex and synthetical ch aracter o f the theatrical w ork, have com e to the fore in the reflection on this subject in the Y o u n g P oland period. W yspiański cared very m uch for the bo okish p resentation o f his d ram as, th at is he m eant them for reading, he would fo rm ulate the d idascalia like poetic texts, or on o th er occasions w ould n o t take into accou nt in them the theatrical po ssibilities; thus he could be considered an advocate o f the u traqu isti- cal conception. B ut he to o is on reco rd as saying to A dam G rzym a- la-S iedlecki:
I c a n ’t read m y d ra m a at all. A n d in d eed I c a n ’t im a g in e a work o f m in e — sh o u ld it be even a lyrical p o e m — in a n o th e r fram ew ork than stage, that is sim p ly a clo se d r o o m , h a lf dark, h a lf lit up, in w hich a cto rs are a c tin g .7
Also Przybyszewski treated his d ram atical w orks as a theatrical pro p o sitio n : in his o p inion the playw right should reduce his indications
5 O p o e z ji d ra m a ty c zn e j (O n D ra m a tic P o e tr y ), W arszaw a 1867, p. 36. 6 “O teatrze i je g o zn a czen iu d la ży cia s p o łe c z n e g o ” (The T h eatre and Its S ig n ifica n ce for S o c ie ty ), B ib lio te k a W a rsza w sk a , 1871, v o l. II, p. 221.
7 “ W ysp iań sk i. C ech y i e lem en ty tw ó r c z o ś c i” (W . T h e F eatu res and E lem ents o f H is W ork, 1909), [in:] O tw ó r c zo ś c i W y sp ia ń sk ieg o , ed. A . Ł em p ick a , K ra k ó w 1970, p. 150.
D ram a a n d T heatre in T h e o retica l D iscussion s 11 to a m inim um and regard his d ra m a as a so rt o f sh o rth an d notes which “the ac to r himself, if he is an artist, should decipher and reproduce or transfo rm as his individuality perm its him .” 8 In the Y o u n g Polish p ronouncem ents on the theatre as a synthe tical art one can already see an appreciation o f th e non-verbal com ponents and o f the initiative o f o th er th an the au th o r co n tri butors to the theatrical work. A n exception is the opinion o f O stap O rtw in for whom the stage h ad no requirem ents th a t w ould n o t be at the sam e tim e those o f dram atical poetry, therefore “the stage technique is com prised in th e technique o f the dram atical form ” ; the theatrical p ropo sitio n is seen as the obligatory scenario: “the so-called stage co nditions are as sim ple as the physical possibility o f ca p tu rin g and rendering the playw right’s co n c ep tio n .” 9 Else where O rtw in stated quite clearly th a t the playw right is the creato r not only o f w ords bu t also o f “sym bols, gestures and m im icry” in the theatrical w o rk .10
It was the opposite opinion o f Juliusz T enner th a t was then ch aracteristic; while calling the theatrical w ork “d ra m a ” he defines it as a com bination o f poetry and stage art. A d ra m a o f this defini tion is by no m eans a sort o f lyrical o r epical po etry , tho ug h it is generally regarded as such, bu t an organical com b in atio n o f several arts. T enner gave equal rights in the theatrical w ork to poetry and the stage art, thus to b o th the playw right and o th er m en o f the th e a tre .11
In the Polish statem ents o f the period o f the G re at R eform the playw right and with him the d ra m a were m oved to the back grou nd as a theatrical p ro position. M ost radical was in this Bolesław Leśm ian as he pu t the director on the top, w ithout even m en tio n in g the playw right am ong the co n trib u to rs to the theatrical a r t . 12 It surely was a lapsus calam i, b u t a significant la p su s...
* O d ra m a c ie i te a trz e {On D ra m a a n d T heatre), W arszaw a 1905, p. 16. 9 “O teatrze tr a g ic z n y m ” (On the T ragic T h ea tre), T y g o d n ik S ło w a P o ls k ie
g o , 1902, n o . 20.
10 “ U to p ie o d ra m a cie” (U to p ia s on the D r a m a ), K r y ty k a , 1901, v o l. II, fasc. 2. 11 “O tw ó r c z o śc i a k to r sk iej” (A b o u t the A rt o f A c tin g ), K r y ty k a , 1904, fasc. 8.
■- “ O sz tu ce teatraln ej” (On the A rt o f T h eatre), L ite r a tu ra i S z tu k a , 1911, n o . 2.
12 H en ry k M a r k ie w ic z
The position o f the young Leon Schiller was n o t co n se q u en t: in the article “N ow y kierunek b ad ań teatrologicznych” (A N ew Line o f T heatrical R esearch, 1913), in accordance with the po stu lates o f the autonom ical theatre using only its own artistic devices he outlined a project o f the theatrical w ork whose “essence is a m ovem ent expressed dram atically ” : th a t is to say “n o t w ord o f m o u th b u t the gesture form s the basis o f theatrical p ro d u c tio n ,” poetry being here o f secondary im p o rta n c e .13 A t the sam e tim e in his in tro d u ctio n in a catalogue to an exhibition o f m odern scenic p ain ting (W arsaw 1913) Schiller is m ore m oderate and liberal in his statem ents. He sees here three different possibilities: the theatrical w ork can be a realization o f a project by an artist o f the th eatre (but he m entions only tw o such a rtists—C raig and W yspiański), it can be form ed jo in tly by the po et and d irecto r (am ong the po ets o f such theatrical intuition were Shakespeare, Słowacki and M aeterlinck), and it can be d one by the director him self who tran sfo rm s the literary values into the stage ones. W riting a b o u t W yspiański in those years Schiller m aintained th a t the form er co nstructed his “lib retti” in such a way as to m ake them be read by the a u th o r “like a detailed scrip t,” he com posed the score o f his d ram as no t with w ritten words, which only in reading can m ake an im pression, b u t with the sym bols o f a “spoken w o rd ” th a t only when p ro n ou nced becom e expressive, he could convey his th o u g h t “ in a theatrical w ork by purely theatrical w ays.” 14 So a p a rt from the texts o f d ram a which should be treated as only creative im pulses, Schiller did a d m it—if only in W yspiański’s w o rk —the existence o f d ram as which were for the th eatre obligatory scenarios.
In the period between wars the au to n o m o u s ch aracter o f the theatrical w ork becam e for the w riters on theatre a generally accepted axiom . T he th e a tre —stated S tefan S rebrn y—is supposed to render the essence o f a poetical w ork with its own m eans, different from those the po et m akes use of; “they ca n n o t be sim ply a psycho logical, physical concretization o f the d ra m a characters and a faithful presen tatio n o f the m ilieu as it is described in the play o r results
13 N a p ro g u n o w eg o teatru . 1 9 0 8 — 1924 (O n the T hresh old o f the N e w Thea
tre), ed. J. T im o sz ew icz, W arszaw a 1978, p. 162.
D ra m a a n d T h ea tre in T h e o retica l D iscussion s 13 from the a u th o r’s in fo rm atio n .” 15 In the d ra m a —adds to it Jan K ochow icz—there ap pear literary and visual signs, while in the p ro d u ctio n we have an action o f h u m an bodies, their sym bols which render through association those particu lar sig n s.16
It is ra th e r paradoxical th a t ju st the theoretician o f Pure F orm , Stanisław Ignacy W itkiewicz did adm it th a t in the four-dim ensional theatrical play (com prising sounds, the rep resentatio ns and m eanings th a t go with them , and the acting o f actors) “poetry (or the d ra m a prose) [...] is the essential elem ent o f w hat is happening on the stage th ro u g h the statem ents o f ch a rac te rs.” 17 It is an o th er m atter th at W itkiew icz’s statem ent was energetically opposed by Jalu K urek who protested against the excessive hegem ony o f the w ord and called for a bigger p a rt to be given to the non-verbal elem ents in the p ro d u c tio n .18
In the opinion o f the theatrical theoreticians o f th a t p re-w ar p eriod the d ra m a text co nstituted only one o f the elem ents o f the p ro d u ctio n , and n o t a ready one a t th at, m ade by the acto rs and director concrete, supplem ented and transfo rm ed. M ieczysław Lim anow ski while w riting ab o u t the a c to r’s a rt applies the term o f a “score” to the d ra m a text, b u t a t the sam e tim e he so extends this term th a t it signifies a “p re te x t” o r an “im pulse” for the a c to r’s w o r k .19 M ieczysław O rlicz allots to the playw right and to the d ra m a text a function in the p ro d u c tio n equal to o th er elem ents, a function o f being only a m aterial o f which the d irecto r creates his p ro d u c tio n as a separate aesthetical value.20 (This is a good exam ple o f the conceptual uncertain ty and term inological inconsistency in those statem ents which ca n n o t be translated into the clear
u “ F orm a literack a w id o w isk a te a tr a ln e g o ” (T hè L iterary F orm o f the T h ea trical P r o d u c tio n ), W ie d za i Ż y c ie , 1931, n o 8 /9 , p. 611.
16 W stęp d o n a u k i o te a tr z e (In trodu ction to the S cien ce o f T heatre), W ar sz a w a 1931, p. 36.
17 “T e a tr” (1 9 2 3 ), [in:] C z y s ta Form a w te a trz e , ed. J. D eg ler, W arszaw a 1977, p. 101.
18 “ P rzeciw k o teorii teatru S. I. W itk ie w ic z a ” (A g a in st S .I .W .’s T h eory o f the T h ea tre), Ż y c ie T ea tru , 1925, n o s 3 8 — 39.
“ Sztuk a a k to r a ” (A c to r ’s A rt), S cen a P o lsk a , 1919, n o . 1.
20 “ P ojęcie i isto ta reży serii” (T he N o tio n and C h aracter o f D ir e c tin g ), S c e
14 H e n ry k M a r k ie w ic z
language o f theory.) P u rsu in g his views O rlicz gives the d irec to r the right to disregard the didascalia and to m ake freely cu ts in the play; how ever with the exception o f “the w orks o f poetical in sp iratio n .’’21
Less num erous were am o ng the m en o f the th eatre those who stood for the integrity o f the d ra m a text, who stressed the loyalty o f the ac to r and d irector to the style and artistic in ten tio n o f the d ram a. “To my m ind it is a m atter o f sim ple aesthetical honesty to bring ou t on the stage essential qualities o f th e play, to ren d er its real co lo u r and und isto rted stru c tu re ” — w rote Jó ze f K o ta rb iń sk i.22
O f course we can find m ore opinio ns o f this k in d in the notices o f th eatre critics. It is enough to recall in this respect the way Boy-Żeleński fought the d irec to rs’ licenses w ith the texts o f the classics. Sim ilarly w ould speak o u t the younger critics, e.g. Z ygm unt Leśnodorski and W ojciech N a ta n s o n .23
A m ong the play w ig h ts one can p o in t to tw o opposite po sitio n s: T adeusz Peiper would give the d irecto r expressis verbis the right to p u t in his own text into unspoken scenes; in the didascalia to the d ra m a Szó sta ! S zó sta ! (S ix ! S ix !, 1925) he w rote: “should som e scenes need cries, w ords, sentences or songs in order to get the right effect, they m ust be added by the d irec to r.” 24 Józef W ittlin, on the o th er h and, having stated “the wild and b arb arian banality o f m ost o f the play s” was suggesting th a t the directo r should receive from the playw right
a score o f the d ram a w ith [ ...] a c o m p le te v isio n o f th e p r o d u c tio n , a sy m p h o n y o f all th e v o ices, w hispers and a list o f ferm atas, as w ell as the w h o le sc a le o f gestu res and all the te m p i.25
21 “ U k ła d sc en iczn y a lo g ik a tea tr a ln a ” (Stage A rra n g em en t an d T heatrical L o g ic), S cen a P o ls k a , 1922, n o s 8 — 12.
22 “ N o w a to r stw o c z y a n a rch ia ? ” (N o v a to r y A p p r o a c h or A n a rch y ? ), [in:] Z e
św ia ta u lu dy, W arszaw a 1926, p. 154.
25 Z. L e ś n o d o r s k i . “P rzerosty form te a tr a ln y c h ” (T he E x u b eran ce o f T h ea trical F orm s), M a rc h o łt, 1937, n o . 4 ; W . N a t a n s o n , “ T eatr i k rytyk a” (T h ea tre and C riticism ), P ion , 1937, n o . 49.
24 P o e m a ty i u tw o r y tea tra ln e (P o em s a n d T h e a trica l P la y s), K ra k ó w 1979, p. 265.
25 “O k o m p e te n c ja c h au tora d r a m a ty c z n e g o ” (A b o u t th e C o m p e te n c e o f the P layw righ t), Ż y c ie T eatru , 1924, no. 21.
D ra m a a n d T heatre in T h e o retica l D iscussion s 15 From the theatrical p oint o f view, d ra m a was su b o rd in ated to the p ro d u ctio n anyw ay. H ence the views th a t it could n o t exist on its ow n w itho ut theatrical p rodu ctio n.
D ra m a is after all a su b stitu te for the p r o d u c tio n — w rote W ik tor B ru m er.— T he best dram a w ill n o t m a k e in read in g the im pression it d o e s w hen s ta g e d .26
This was form ulated even m ore clearly by Jó ze f M irski in a cycle o f articles “T eatralizacja te a tru ” :
D ra m a is n o t a self-su fficien t w ork o f w ord s, but a set o f in d ic a tio n s that are realized o n ly by the acto r; dram a is a text that b eco m es alive o n ly w hen played by the a cto r (in th is respect it ca n be co m p a r e d to a lib retto or a score).
T h at is w hy —he h ad w ritten ea rlier—d ra m a belongs to literatu re only to som e extent “th a t is as m uch as it m akes use o f words,
but it does n o t belong to literature entirely.” 27
Q uite op po site are those views in the theory o f d ra m a , not very num erous after all, according to which the d ra m a texts, especially those o f high artistic quality, can be adequately realized only when being read ; a theatrical produ ctio n can never do it to the sam e degree. R eferring to C raig, K. Irzykow ski said in a review o f The Tem pest (R o b o tn ik, 1926, no. 169) th a t the great poetical and intellectual, even dram atical value o f S h akespeare’s plays “ appears only in re a d in g — in the th eatre it becom es lost and in each prod u ctio n o f these plays there is som ething o f school and som ething o f p a ro d y .” (These views Irzykow ski repeated som e years later in the essay “O d ram acie książkow ym ” 28 where he said th a t “the re a d e r’s im agination is the best stage.”) In a sim ilar vein Jerzy Pański pro n o u n ced him self in th e article “T ea tr na rozdrożu i teatr na bezdrożach. ” 2y
T he utraq uistical conception o f d ra m a was form u lated m ost clearly at th a t tim e by M ieczysław O sto w sk i.30 He rejected the
26 U w a g i o in sce n iza cji (S o m e R e m a r k s on a P ro d u ctio n ), W arszaw a 1922, p. 3. 27 “T h e T h e a tr a liz a tio n o f the T h e a tr e ,” [in:] D u sza tea tru , W arszaw a 1939. 28 “ A b o u t th e B o o k D r a m a ,” T ea tr, 1938, n o s 9 — 10.
2g “T h ea tre at the C r o ss-r o a d s and T h eatre G o n e A str a y ,” Ż y c ie T e a tru , 1926, n o s 3 6 — 37.
30 “ D ra m a t ja k o fo rm a tw ó rczo ści literackiej a je g o realizacja tea tr a ln a ” (D ra m a a s a F orm o f L iterary W ork and Its T h ea trica l R e a liz a tio n ), Ż y c ie Teatru, 1926, n o . 7; “A k to r i d z ie ło ” (T he A c to r and th e W ork ), ibidem , no. 23.
16 H en ry k M a r k ie w ic z
theses ab o u t the artistic unsufficiency o f the d ra m a text a n d said instead th a t d ra m a has two equal facets, alth o u g h they are different in the kind o f feeling they arouse: the re ad er identifies him self with the characters o f the d ram a, whereas in the th eatre “ the live em bodim ent o f the ch a rac te rs” creates betw een them selves and the spectato r an objective distance.
Also R om an Ingarden accepted the u traq u istical co n cep tion as he drew a clear distinction between the w ritten d ra m a and its theatrical prod u ctio n . H e did it in a p a ra g ra p h o f his book Das literarische Kunstw erk (1931) in which he analyzed the art o f the theatre. T ho ugh he did n o t state it, it was obvious to him th a t the p ro d u ctio n m ust be faithful to the d ra m a text. In the p ro d u c tio n the accessory text is elim in ated : instead o f it th ere ap p ear real objects, concrete and visible, representing those in the text; they are, as Ingarden p u t it later on, “the psychophysical existential bases.” 31 A nd ju st the presence o f those m eans o f represen tatio n in it m akes the p ro d u c tio n different from the w ritten d ram a.
N eith er does Ingarden accept the com m o n d escription o f p ro d u ctio n as a realization o f the respective literary w ork, because its m eaning and represented objects ca n n o t be realized at all, nor can the rem aining elem ents be rendered being only created on the p attern s o f their co u n terp arts in the w ritten d ram a. But ju st the identity o f the layers o f m eanings and represented objects “m akes it possible to subordinate the tw o heterogenic w orks, and in this sense m ay we speak a b o u t the sam e d ra m a in tw o different shapes, as a theatrical p ro d u ctio n and as a literary w o rk .” W ith o u t being a purely literary w ork the theatrical p ro d u c tio n rem ains for In g ar d e n —am ong o ther things because o f its layer stru ctu re and its consequences with the presence o f quasi-p ro p o sitio n s and m etaphysical qualities —a b o rd er case o f the literary work. T his conclusion liq u id a t ing in fact the separateness o f theatre am o n g the arts m ust surprise the readers o f In g a rd en ’s earlier pron o u n cem en ts since it is at variance with the presence o f actors in the p ro d u c tio n and
“O funkcjach m ow y w w id o w isk u tea tr a ln y m ” (A b o u t th e F u n c tio n s o f S p eech in a T h ea trica l P r o d u c tio n , 1957), [in:] W p ro w a d zen ie d o n a u k i o te a trz e , ed . J. D eg ler, W roclaw 1976, v ol. 1, p. 168.
D ram a a n d T heatre in T h e o retica l D iscussion s 17 with the things representing the layer o f the d ra m a objects, while what has in the play a schem atic app earance becom es in the production concrete ow ing to the actors and m aterial things.
The relationship between d ram a and literatu re was described quite differently even then by Juliusz K leiner in his university courses, but he form ulated them only after the war in the article “ Istota utw oru d ram atyczn ego” : a w ork o f d ra m a is n o t—he w rote in it—a variety o f literatu re equal to epic and lyrical poetry because it does not create verbal structures suggesting certain representations, but instead it does create separate speaking subjects which influence the plot. A nd above all d ra m a is a “th eatrical c re a tio n ,” a “creation o f the historical reality” and the th e a tre ’s task is to realize the theatrical qualities intended by the a u th o r and to select from am ong a variety o f possible realizations one which will be the m ost faithful and ad e q u a te .32 It ap peared from K lein er’s later pron ou ncem en ts th a t in spite o f these statem ents he did no t rem ove the d ra m a from the area o f literature, its theory and h isto ry .33
This was d one by Stefania Skw arczyńska, who independently o f K leiner, and at the sam e tim e in greater detail and with stronger arg u m en tatio n advanced such tho ug hts in the dissertation “Z agadnienie d ra m a tu ” (The P roblem s o f D ram a, Przegląd Filozo fic z n y , 1949) and who later on w ould retu rn to this q u estio n .34
S kw arczyhska’s theses can be sum m ed up as follows:
1. D ra m a does no t belong to literatu re as an art o f word, it is a separate a rt; the theory o f lite ratu re can consider it only as a border ph enom enon.
2. This separateness results from its m any-m aterial structure. 3. The text o f d ra m a is not in fact a com plete w ork but simply a project o f th e theatrical p ro d u c tio n ; its final m om ent
ł - “T he E ssen ce o f the W ork o f D r a m a ,” L is ty z T eatru , 1948, no. 24. “Stu d ia i sz k ic e S tefan ii S k w a rczy ń sk iej” (Stu d ies and O u tlin es by S .S .),
Ż y c ie i M y śl, 1954, n o . 1.
•u “O ro zw o ju tw o rzy w a sło w n e g o i je g o form p o d a w c z y c h w d ra m a cie” (A b o u t the E v o lu tio n o f th e V erbal M aterial and Its F o rm s in D ra m a ), P ra c e
P o lo n isty c zn e IX , 1951; “N ie k tó r e p ra k ty czn e k o n sek w en cje teatralnej teorii d ra
m a tu ” (S om e P ractical C o n se q u e n c e s o f the T h eatrical T h eo r y o f D ram a), D ia lo g , 1961, n o . 10; “ D ra m a t — literatu ra czy teatr?” (D r a m a — Is It L iterature or T h eatre?),
D ia lo g , 1970, n o . 6.
18 H en ry k M a r k ie w ic z
in which it achieves its fulness and realizes its social fun ction is only the pro du ctio n. (This thesis did not concern the so-called b o o k d ra m a designed only for readers.)
4. T he verbal text is n o t an indispensable co m p o n en t o f the dram a, when it does ap p ear it seems to be less im p o rta n t th an stage m ovem ents, actors, concrete space an d time.
5. But am ong the co n trib u to rs to th e p ro d u c tio n the playw right plays the m ajor p a rt; he is after all the one who “th ro u g h his d ra m a com position initiates the play o f all the theatrical com p on ents, deciding upo n their ch aracter an d d ire c tio n .” T he th eatrical artist is here a co-creato r, bu t his freedom is restricted by his obligation “to be faithful to the d ra m a tist o f w hose will, placed in the play, he is the creative executo r.” H e has no righ t therefore “to alter the d ra m a ’s basic conception and the m essage linked to it,” to “nullify the d ra m a tis t’s general decisions on the tran sfo rm atio n s to which the theatrical m aterial is subjected .” H e may, on the oth er hand, extract from the w orks o f the p ast new, so far unnoticed qualities which o f course involves a right to do selections and change the hierarchy o f the d ra m a ’s co n ten t. He m ay also correct the a u th o r's m istakes in the disposition o f v arious th eatrical elem ents.
Yet for all these reservations this th eatrical con cep tio n o f the d ra m a was at the sam e tim e a literary conception o f the theatre. W hile denying the d ra m a the artistic au to n o m y , dim inishing the role o f the w ords in it, it did regard it as a so rt o f scenario determ ining the prod uction.
B oth the conceptions o f Ingarden an d o f Skw arczyriska proved very fertile for the science o f the d ra m a and th eatre; they initiated an extensive, long-standing discussion in which those taking p a rt were aestheticians, sem ioticians, stud ents o f literature, theoreticians an d m en o f the theatre. (It was only in the 1970s th a t this discussion began to die aw ay having been replaced by an o th er p ro b lem : th e a tre — p a ra th e a tre —non-theatre.) T he discussion was so w ide-ranging and intensive th a t to sum it u p w ould req uire a sep arate book. So we shall restrict ourselves to a synthetical p resen tatio n arran g ed according to the list o f the d isputable q uestions we have m en tioned in the opening o f this article.
1. The thesis excluding d ra m a from the area o f literature, its theory and history, has no t been accepted. It was indicated th at in view o f the fleeting n atu re and a great variety o f theatrical
D ra m a a n d T heatre in T h e o retica l D iscussion s 19 p roductions the text o f the d ra m a rem ains th e only co n stan t invari able form o f the d ra m a ’s existence as an object o f learning; an d its text is a linguistic te x t.35 T he m ain text, th a t is the signs designed for linguistic realization prevail distinctly in it over the m arginal text determ ining th e non-verbal co m po nents o f the prod uction .
2. T he coexistence o f various m aterials (verbal, m usical, m i mical, gesticulatory ones), also with the project o f its staging included in it, can be seen in o th er p ron ouncem ents as well whose literary ch a rac te r is n o t q uestioned; these are n o t therefore argum ents for the non-literary n atu re o f the d ra m a .36
3. T he reflection on the differences in the stru cture o f d ra m a and p ro d u ctio n developed after all along the line traced o u t by Ingarden with som e co rrections introduced in to it. T hus Edw ard C sató argued th at acto rs and accessories are p a rt o f the prod u ctio n and n o t simply psychophysical bases o f being. Stanislaw Sw iontek draw atten tio n to the fact th at the linguistic signs o f d ra m a as a theatrical prop o sitio n fulfil sim ultaneously tw o functions: they designate the represented w orld and designate the stage reality (the sym bolic and ludic re latio n sh ip )37. Ja n in a M ak o ta reduced the stru ctu re o f the p ro d u c tio n to three layers (com bining appearances with represented objects) and stressed the triple stru ctu re : d ra m a — p e rfo rm a n c e —p ro d u c tio n ; she described the last as a schem atical “ intentional creation superim posing itself in each p erform ance on a p a rtic u la r grou p o f people [...] in a scenery with the possible m usical ac co m p an im en t.” 38 Janusz M isiewicz objected to the th eatri cal p ro d u c tio n being regarded as a b o rd e r case o f literature,
•ł5 K l e i n e r , “ Stu d ia i s z k i c e . . . ” ; E. C s a t ó , “ F u n k cje m o w y sc en iczn ej” (F u n c tio n s o f the S ta g e S p eech ), E s te ty k a II, 1962; J. A b r a m o w s k a , “ L ite ratura — dram at — teatr” (L itera tu re— D r a m a —T h ea tre), D ia lo g , 1970, n o . 12.
,6 S. D ą b r o w s k i , “ Z z a g a d n ień d ram atu . N ie k tó r e o p in ie o roli sło w a w d r a m a c ie ” (The P ro b le m s o f D ram a. S o m e O p in in io n s on the R o le o f W ord in D r a m a ), P a m iętn ik T e a tra ln y , 1972, fasc. 2 1; J. Z i o m e k , “P rojekt w y k o n a w czy w d z ie le literackim a p ro b lem y g e n o lo g ic z n e ” (T he P erfo rm a n ce P roject in Literary W o rk and the G e n o lo g ic a l P ro b le m s), [in:] P ro b le m y odbioru i o d b io rc y, ed. T . B u jn ick i, J. S ła w iń sk i, W ro cła w 1977.
■ł7 “O stru k tu raln ych zw ią zk a ch i z a le ż n o ś c ia c h tw o rzy w d zieła te a tr a ln e g o ” (A b o u t th e S tructu ral In ter c o n n e c tio n s o f th e P r o d u c tio n M a teria l), K u ltu ra i S p o
łe c z e ń stw o , 1967, fasc. 3.
•'8 O k la s y fik a c ji s z tu k p ię k n y c h (O n the C la ssifica tio n o f Fine A rts), K ra k ó w 1964.
arguing th a t the sound layer o f objects and app earan ces becom es on th e stage concrete and the linguistic sem antic becom es enriched th ro u g h th e context o f those objects an d ap p e ara n ces.3y
The thesis ab o u t the m ulti-m aterial n atu re o f the theatrical p ro d u c tio n was rein terpreted sem iotically th ro u g h v ariou s attem p ts to system atize theatrical signs.40 In this context the theatrical p ro du ction began being defined as “a tran slatio n o f th e literary text into the language o f th e a tre ,” 41 “the creolized sem iotic tra n sla tio n ,” 42 a creation endow ed w ith “c o n n o ta tio n sem iotics which is com m only expressed by various d en o tatio n sem iotics.” 43 F rom the p o in t o f view o f th e relation o f d ra m a to the theatrical p ro d u c tio n it was im p o rtan t here to d ra w atten tio n to a difference betw een the verbal signs in d ra m a and p ro d u c tio n :
T h e theatrical w ord w hen sp o k en o u t b e c o m e s n o t o n ly realized and co n crete but a lso lo se s its se m a n tic in d ep en d e n c e g e ttin g d isso lv e d in the p r o d u c tio n ’s so u n d and sc e n e r y .44
4. H as the d ra m a text an artistic value o f its ow n? C o n trary to S kw arczyhska’s statem ent, alm ost all the sub sequ en t p articip an ts in the discussion answ ered in the affirm ative, thus confirm ing the utraq u istical theory o f d ra m a accordin g to which d ram a exists b o th as a text for reading and a project for theatrical p ro du ctio n.
D r a m a — w rote A rtur H u tn ik ie w ic z —is a literary w ork ad a p ted , and even d esign ed b ecau se o f its structure to be sta g ed , [but it also] m ay, as a p a r excellen ce literary gen re, reveal its in tellectu a l and artistic q u a litie s .45
20 H en ry k M a r k ie w ic z
34 “ D ra m a t p isa n y a tekst teatraln y” (T he W ritten D r a m a and th e T heatrical T ex t), S tu d ia E s te ty c z n e X , 1973.
40 J. B r a c h , “O zn ak ach literack ich i zn a k a ch te a tr a ln y c h ” (Literary and T h eatrical S ign s), S tu d ia E s te ty c z n e Ii, 1965; T . K o w z a n : “ Z nak w tea tr ze” (The S ign in T h ea tre), D ia lo g , 1969, n o. 3; L itté r a tu r e e t sp e c ta c le , W arszaw a 1970. 41 Z. O s i ń s k i , “ P rzekład tek stu lite ra ck ieg o n a języ k tea tr u ” (T ran slation o f the Literary T ext into th e L an gu age o f T h eatre), fin:] D ra m a t i te a tr. ed. J. T rzy-n a d lo w sk i, W rodlaw 1967.
42 E. K a s p e r s k i , “T ekst w id o w isk o w y ” (T h e T e x t o f th e S p ecta cle), [in:]
P o e ty k a i s ty lis ty k a sło w ia ń sk a , ed . S. S k w a rczy ń sk a , W arszaw a 1972.
43 J. Z i o m e k , “S e m io ty c z n e p ro b lem y sz tu k i te a tr u ” (T he S em io tic P rob lem s o f T h eatre), [in:] P o w in o w a c tw a lite ra tu ry , W a rsza w a 1980, p. 145.
44 B r a c h , op. cit.
45 “C zy d ram at je st d ziełem lite ra ck im ? ” (Is D ra m a a L iterary W ork?), D z iś
D ra m a a n d T heatre in T h e o retica l D iscussion s 21 Also other writers spoke in a sim ilar way:
O ne m ust accept the o b v io u s fact that any text o f d ram a m ay be p erceived by readers as an a u to n o m o u s work o f literature, like any o th e r literary w ork , ep ic or lyrical, and th a t at the sam e tim e every text o f d ra m a can be used as o n e o f the elem en ts m a k in g up the theatrical p r o d u c tio n .46
That is b ecau se th e n atu re o f d ram a is d o u b le . W hile servin g the theatre it rem ains a literary w ork . A n d its literary character seem s to be origin al and essen tial b eca u se its o n ly m aterial is la n g u a g e; it is in a lan g u a g e that its m ea n in g and artistic q u a lities are e x p r e s se d .47
In th e light o f co n tem p o rary experiences one had to question the b o rd er betw een p ro p e r dram as and the b o o k ones designed only for reading. F or it ap peared th a t the d ram as, which in the general opinion an d in th a t o f their a u th o rs were not fit for staging, later becam e a theatrical m aterial o f great artistic energy.
5. In m any pronouncem ents, especially those em anating from theatrical circles, Skw arczynska’s thesis was confirm ed which m ade the statu s o f w ord am o n g the com ponents o f a p ro d u c tio n ra th e r relative. H istory and geography o f the theatre proved th at even in the spectacles in which the verbal text is o f basic im portance, the role o f the w ord is changing according to the kind o f p ro d u c tio n s.48 A t variance with his d a y ’s experiences was surely M arek K oterski when he stated th a t the d ra m a text is su perio r in co n tem p o ra ry theatre, this being simply “a reproductive a p p a ra tu s ” designed for the “th ree-dim en sion al” realization o f the d ra m a .49 T he general situation was m uch b etter described by Stefan T reugu tt when he w rote o f a com m on tendency to b reak up the plot, o f the p re p o n d erance o f sound over w ord as carrying m eaning, o f purely functional and casual treatm en t o f the literary te x t.50
Som e radical advocates o f theatrical reform fought q uite openly the w ord in th eatre since the form er seemed to them in the
46 R. T a b o r s k i , “ D ra m a t jest także lite ra tu rą ” (D ra m a Is A lso Literature),
D ia lo g , 1962, n o . 1, p. 114.
47 A b r a m o w s k a , op. cit.
48 M . R . M a y e n o w a . “ W y p o w ied ź w tek ście d r a m a ty c z n y m ” (E xp ression in D ra m a T e x t), P a m ię tn ik L ite r a c k i, 1964, fasc. 2.
49 “ D r a m a t a tea tr” (D ra m a and T h eatre), P ra c e L ite r a c k ie V III, 1966. 50 “ D r a m a t w sp ó łc z e sn y w o b ec w sp ó łc z e sn e g o tea tr u ” (T he C o n tem p o ra ry D r a m a and th e C o n te m p o r a r y T h eatre), D ia lo g , 1972, n o . 1.
22 H e n ry k M a r k ie w ic z
a c to r’s m o u th “ inefficient, u n b e a ra b le ” and vulgar as a way of expressing m a n ’s sp irit.51
It is a d a n g ero u s and risky illu sio n o f the im p o s sib le theatre th a t c ry in g is a b etter m ea n s o f c o n v e y in g m e a n in g th a n the a rticu la te la n g u a g e. R eferrin g to A r ta u d ’s term in o lo g y I p refer “ a c o n tr a c te d th r o a t,” “ an a b str a c tio n ” w hich is recitin g so m e b o d y ’s text to th e v o ca l c h o r d s that are sh o u tin g th e m selv es h o a rse w ith their o w n cry.''2
6. S kw arczyhska’s dissertatio n was right in draw in g the atten tio n o f the d ra m a researchers to the theatrical p ro p o sitio n included in it. A t the sam e tim e Iren a S ław ińska advanced and realized the suggestion o f investigating the th eatrical vision an d scenery d eterm i ned n o t only by the d idascalia b u t first o f all by th e m ain te x t.53 Zbigniew Raszew ski attach ed to it even greater im p ortan ce th an to the d idascalia; at the sam e tim e he did say th at d ra m a is n o t endow ed with the language and system o f signs which would define the final shape with a precision th a t could com p are with th a t o f the m usical n o tatio n . T h u s the term ““theatrical score,” so often used, is m erely a m e ta p h o re — “ there is strictly speaking n o theatrical m etap h o re and the latest history o f E u ro p ean th eatre was by no m eans favourable to its em ergence.” 54 So Zbigniew O siński puts it cautiously th a t a w ork o f d ra m a can be treated “as a rule as an incom plete pro ject o f a theatrical scen ario .” 55 The co n tem p o rary m en o f the th eatre still th in k in term s o f a “score” b u t they do n o t expect to get it from the playw rights. D ra m a as an obligatory scenario becam e for them an anachronical n o tio n —n o t by the way w ithout the co o p e ratio n o f som e d ram atists, representatives o f “the open d ra m a tu rg y ,” e.g. T adeusz Różewicz. “ In the K artoteka (The File) — he was recalling—anybody could go in and add a fragm ent or ending, extend or supplem ent a scene.” 56
51 K . B r a u n , T ea tr w sp ó ln o ty ( The C o m m u n ity T h ea tre), K ra k ó w 1972, p. 64. 52 “ K o n ie c teatru n ie m o ż liw e g o ” (The E nd o f the Im p o ssib le T heatre), K u l
tu ra , 1981, no. 33.
53 S c e n ic zn y g e s t p o e ty ( The S ta g e G e stu re o f a P o e t), K r a k ó w 1960.
54 “P artytura tea tr a ln a ” (T he T h eatrical Score), P a m ię tn ik T eatraln y, 1958, fasc. 3/4.
55 “ Z p ro b lem a ty k i scen ariu sza te a tr a ln e g o ” (P rob lem s o f th e T heatrical S ce n a rio ), fin:] W p ro w a d zen ie d o n a u k i o te a trz e , v o l. 2, p. 164.
56 “ R o z m o w y o d ram acie. W o k ó ł dram atu rgii o tw a rte j” (T alk s on the D ram a. A b o u t O pen D ra m a tu rg y ), D ia lo g , 1969, n o . 7.
D ra m a a n d T h ea tre in T h e o retica l D iscussion s 23 E dw ard C sató was n o t asham ed o f saying th a t he adm ired the art o f directing first o f all for the du ty o f faithfulness to the au th o r, a virtue th a t seem ed to him attach ed to th a t c ra ft.57 Bogdan K orzeniew ski and Jerzy K reczm ar allowed different degrees o f contrib u tio n to the p ro d u ctio n from the d ra m a tist and d irector, accepted m uch freedom in the staging, provided the d irecto r m ade use o f it with com petence and responsibility.58 But then for K o n stan ty P uzyna the p rob lem o f being faithful to the au th o r was n o t only anachronistic b u t also irritating or ra th e r p u t in correctly .59 Puzy- n a ’s argum en tatio n is n o t wholly convincing: he claim ed th a t each theatrical p ro d u c tio n is n a rro w e r—th ro u g h the fact o f in terp retatio n and concretization, and occasionally quite different from w hat the a u th o r could im agine. But in order to find ourselves on a verifiable ground it is enough to replace “the faithfulness to the a u th o r” with “ the faithfulness to the text” which will enable us to tell w hether a p artic u la r p ro d u c tio n does no t exceed the lim its o f the text. So when we notice a playing against th e text (sneer, parody, pastiche) or th e scenery going far beyond the text then we can say th at the faithfulness to the text has been violated as P uzyna him self, by the way, used to say while w riting a b o u t som e p ro d u ctio n s o f W itkiew icz’s dram as.
This faithfulness has been defended energetically also by K o n ra d G órski in his celebrated essay “Reżyser m a pom ysły” and in the article “L ite ra tu ra i te a tr.” 60
T h e art o f theatre —he w ro te —c o n sists in the visu al co n c r e tiz a tio n o f a schem e o f m ea n in g s ex p ressed by the word and in th e a u d ito ry co n c r e tiz a tio n o f the sp o k en so u n d s. [ ...] T h e a u to n o m y o f th e th eatrical art d o e s n o t c o n sist in a d eta ch m en t from th e literary w ork , in the in tr o d u c tio n o f e lem en ts that have never been in it, but in fin d in g the theatrical m ea n s o f ex p ressio n su ita b le for the c o n ten t o f the d ram a b e in g staged .
57 “ Sztuk a u k r y ta ” (T he H id d en A rt), T e a tr, 1961, n o . 6.
58 B. K o r z e n i e w s k i , “T w ó r ca czy o d tw ó r c a ” (C reator or R ecrea to r), P a
m ię tn ik T ea tra ln y, 1961, fasc. 2 ; J. K r e c z m a r , “C zy k ryzys p ozycji reżysera?”
(Is T h ere a C risis o f the D ir e c to r ’s P o sitio n ? ), D ia lo g , 1969, n o . 12.
“ N ie z n o śn i in sc e n iz a to r z y ” (T he U n b ea ra b le D ir e c to r s ), P a m ię tn ik T ea tra l
n y, 1965, fasc. 3 /4.
60 “T h e D irecto r H a s Id e a s ,” T w ó rc zo ść , 1970, n o . 2 ; “ L iterature and T h ea tre,” D ia lo g , 1973, n o . 2.
24 H e n ry k M a r k ie w ic z
G ó rski was supp orted by several o th e r representatives o f the literary and scholarly w orld, bu t w hat they said did n o t affect the position o f those o ptin g fo r freedom in theatrical p ro du ctio ns. The latter gave a tw ofold justification to their stand. Som e declared openly th a t a d ra m a gave them only an im pulse for creating a com pletely au to n o m o u s w ork o f art. So after the first night o f the Akropolis in 1966 Jerzy G ro tow ski called his u n d ertak in g “an attem p t to build up a spectacle as a w ork inspired by the d ra m a b u t being auto n o m o u s, a so rt o f reaction to the im pulse given by the tex t.” 61 A t th e sam e time others, while speaking ironically o f “the faithfulness to the a u th o r,” referred to the faith fu l ness to the “essence” or “sense” o f th e play, expressed their inten tion to transpose it into co n tem p o rary ideas (e.g. the statem ents by A dam H anuszkiew icz). K ry stian L up a in the pro g ram m e to Powrót O dysa (The Return o f O dysseus, C racow 1981) treating the d ra m a text as “a palim p sest,” “veil” tries to be loyal to the a u th o r’s, W yspiahski’s feelings d u rin g the act o f creation.
Zbigniew O siński tried to give a theoretical fo u n d atio n to such a position in his dissertation “Przekład tekstu literackiego na język te a tru ” (The T ra n sla tio n o f a L iterary T ext into the Language o f T heatre). He distinguished here three m odels o f th eatre according to the kind o f their links to the d ra m a : 1) realistic m odel: a su b stan tial tran slatio n concerned with the substance o f the literary text; 2) antirealistic m odel: a su bstan tial tran slatio n concerned with the theatrical substance; 3) a creative m o del: functional tran slatio n concerned with the analogy o f structures (structural hom ology).
W ithout going into the details o f this conception it w ould be enough to recall the w riter’s conclusions: each o f those m odels is in its own way faithful to the text —because there can be also “faithfulness th ro u g h negation, negation o f literatu re” in the a n ti realistic theatre or th ro ug h the creation o f dialectical antinom ies and “a ju m p into o p p o sitio n ” in the th eatre o f analogy o r stru ctural hom ology (as can be seen the w riter identifies casually those two term s). A pparently Osiński is playing here freely with the sense o f the word “faithfulness.” It also seems th a t the bo rd erline between
ńl Q u o te d after: Z. O s i ń s k i , G r o to w sk i i je g o L a b o ra to riu m (G . m d H is
the antirealistic model o f denying the d ra m a and the hom ological model based on the dialectics o f antinom ies have been traced here very freely. The fact th at the p ro d u ctio n by Schiller o f M ickiew icz’s Forefathers and th at o f Akropolis by G ro to w sk i have been included in the third m odel indicates th at the w riter p u ts into it all the varieties o f theatrical tran slatio n he does accept.
Stefania Skwarczyriska, too, m odified her initial stan d when she acknow ledged the artistic validity o f p ro d u ctio n s which are against the ideological message o f the d ram a text, change the poetic world presented in it into an o th er one, and even, while keeping some fragm ents o f “the verbal m ateria l,” they su b ordinate them to the fictional m otives which are antithetical to the con ten t o f the d ram a text and to its ideological tonality. The au th o r concludes by suggesting th a t an object o f evolution can be only concrete pro d u ctio n s and n ot the relationships between d ra m a as a theatrical propo sitio n and p ro ductions in general.62
T hough with different justifications, m ore and m ore com m on has been becom ing the practice characterized by Osinski in the w ords : “The co n tem p o rary theatre can do [...] with each text all, or alm ost all, it does w a n t.” 63 A lso a grow ing acceptance has been gaining a statem ent by Puzyna, expressed by him back in 1957:
If the sp ec ta to r gets full artictic sa tisfa c tio n , then w e ca n su b scrib e to the sp ec ta cle w ith our m ind at rest. A n d it will n o t m atter w h ether the p ro d u ctio n is or is n ot fully a d eq u a te to the a u th o r ’s tex tu a l v is io n .64
Yes, this is true. B ut also justified were the postulates o f those who w anted to see am on g a variety o f p rod uction s such which rem ained faithful to the theatrical p roposition co n tained in the text and get from them artistic satisfaction. The d ire c to r’s freedom did n o t bring after all the results which always fulfilled the expectations o f its early advocates. T od ay Puzyna having stated
D ra m a a n d T heetre in T h e o re tic a l D iscussion s 25
"O ty p o lo g ię d zieł sz tu k i teatralnej ze w zględ u na sto p ie ń ich o d ch y len ia od d ra m a ty cz n y c h te k stó w ” (F o r a T y p o lo g y o f T h ea trica l P ro d u c tio n s C o n si d erin g the D eg re e o f Their D e v ia tio n from the T e x ts o f D ra m a ), A c ta U n iversi-
ta tis L o d zen sis. Folia L itte r a ria 2, 1981.
63 “Z p ro b lem a ty k i scen a riu sza te a tr a ln e g o .” p. 169.
64 “ R o z m o w y o d ram acie. A u to r a in sc e n iz a to r ” (T alk s on th e D ra m a . A u th o r and D irecto r), D ia lo g , 1957, n o . 1.
26 H en ryk M a r k ie w ic z
th a t “d u rin g the last decade the texts have becom e in the theatre only a grou ndw o rk, m aterial for spectacle and n o t som ething th at is ‘faithfully’ realized” adds with m elancholy: “this is a Pyrrhic victory because it has revealed such inanity with th e directors th a t now we d o no t know which was b e tte r.” 65 W e m ay therefore expect th a t in accordance w ith the usual rhythm o f cultu ral ch an ges we shall witness in the com ing years, b o th in practice and the theory accom panying it, a re tu rn to the principle o f faithful ness o f theatrical p ro d u ctio n s to the th eatrical p ro p o sitio n s included in literary texts; the first signs o f it can already be seen.66
T ransi, by L u d w ik W ie w iô rk o w sk i
“ F irm a ‘D ia lo g ’ ” (T he Firm “ D ia lo g u e ”), D ia lo g , 1981, n o . 5, p. 97. 66 T h is is w h at the d istin g u ish ed d irecto r K azim ierz D e j m e k says (“ W stro nę teatru p o lsk ie g o ” —T o w a r d s the P o lish T h eatre, K ieru n k i, 1981, n o . 22): “ In m y o p in io n , director is the in terp retator o f a work o f dram a as co n d u cto r is o f a p iece o f m usic. B o th m aterialize the resp ectiv e w o rk s, m ake them a cces sib le to the p u b lic [ ...] I w o u ld suggest that th e y o u n g m usician s (w h o envy the m en o f the theatre their freed om o f in terp retation ) tried to treat M ozart or B rahm s as the av a n t-g a rd e d irectors d o it w ith the w ork s o f theatrical au th o rs. I su p p o se that the first step in this d irectio n w o u ld m ake them realize at o n c e the w h o le stu p id ity and w ick ed n ess o f su ch w a y s [ ...] T here is also a m o re m o d e st a p p ro a ch . T h is m o d e sty c o n sists in the ‘m o d e r n iz a tio n ’ [ ...] A part from ‘m o d e r n iz a tio n ’ ou r a v a n t-g a rd ists are in the habit o f u sin g w hat has been ca lled in accu rately ‘th e to p o g r a p h ic a l d ir e c tio n ’ [ ...] T h ro u g h a clash b etw een the p la y ’s p lo t and the u n ex p ected se ttin g result u n usual effects w hich fill with d e ligh t th e critics an d sn o b s. I h a v e to o little c o u ra g e and t o o m uch respect for the theatrical a u th o r, therefore I am n o t an a v a n t-g a r d ist.”
