How the World Became a Stage

William Egginton

Description

What is special, distinct, modern about modernity? In How the World Became a Stage, William Egginton argues that the experience of modernity is fundamentally spatial rather than subjective and proposes replacing the vocabulary of subjectivity with the concepts of presence and theatricality. Following a Heideggerian injunctive to search for the roots of epochal change not in philosophies so much as in basic skills and practices, he describes the spatiality of modernity on the basis of a close historical analysis of the practices of spectacle from the late Middle Ages to the early modern period, paying particular attention to stage practices in France and Spain. He recounts how the space in which the world is disclosed changed from the full, magically charged space of presence to the empty, fungible, and theatrical space of the stage.

Acknowledgments

Introduction: The Legend of Saint Genesius

1. Actors, Agents, and Avatars

Avatars
Performativity
Theatricality

2. Real Presence, Sympathetic Magic, and the Power of Gesture

Magic
Presence
Performances
Religious Spectacle
Political Spectacle
Seeds of Theatricality

3. Saint Genesius on the Stage of the World

Diderot's Paradox
Metatheater
Actors and Martyrs

4. A Tale of Two Cities: The Evolution of Renaissance Stage Practices in Madrid and Paris

Italian Innovations
Theories and Theaters in Paris
Theories and Theaters in Madri
Tales from the Crypt
True Pretense: Lope's Lo fingido verdadero and the Structure of Theatrical Space

5. Theatricality versus Subjectivity

Philosophical Subjectivity
Political Subjectivity
Aesthetic Subjectivit
Theatricality and Media Theory

Epilogue

Notes

Index

Sujets

• Philosophie
• Philosophie moderne
• Philosophie moderne

Informations

• Publié par: State University of New York Press
• Date de parution: 01 février 2012
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9780791487716
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

HOW THE WORLD BECAME A STAGE

This page intentionally left blank.

HOW THE WORLD BECAME A STAGE Presence, Theatricality, and the Question of Modernity

William Egginton

State University of New York Press

Published by State University of New York Press, Albany © 2003 State University of New York All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, elec- trostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.

For information, address State University of New York Press, 90 State Street, Suite 700, Albany, NY 12207 Production by Michael Haggett Marketing by Anne M. Valentine Library of Congress CataloginginPublication Data Egginton, William, 1969– How the world became a stage : presence, theatricality, and the question of modernity / William Egginton. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–7914–5545–9 (alk. paper) — ISBN 0–7914–5546–7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Theater—Europe—History—16th century. 2. Theater— Europe—History—17th century. 3. Theater and society—Europe— History—16th century. 4. Theater and society—Europe—History— 17th century. I. Title. PN2171 .E37 2002 792'.094'09031—dc21 2002070717 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Acknowledgments

C O N T E N T S

Introduction: The Legend of Saint Genesius 1 Actors, Agents, and Avatars Avatars Performativity Theatricality 2 Real Presence, Sympathetic Magic, and the Power of Gesture Magic Presence Performances Religious Spectacle Political Spectacle Seeds of Theatricality 3 Saint Genesius on the Stage of the World Diderot’s Paradox Metatheater Actors and Martyrs 4 A Tale of Two Cities: The Evolution of Renaissance Stage Practices in Madrid and Paris Italian Innovations Theories and Theaters in Paris Theories and Theaters in Madrid Tales from the Crypt True Pretense: Lope’sLo fingido verdaderoand the Structure of Theatrical Space 5 Theatricality versus Subjectivity Philosophical Subjectivity Political Subjectivity Aesthetic Subjectivity Theatricality and Media Theory Epilogue Notes Index

vii 1 9 10 13 20 33 36 42 47 51 56 60 67 69 74 80

85 87 91 99 105

113 123 125 140 153 164 167 171 205

This page intentionally left blank.

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

Thanks are owed first to the professors at Stanford who guided me during the writing of my dissertation, upon which this book is based: to Hayden White, who always knew of one more author to read; to Valentin Mudimbe, who asked questions so profound that sometimes they could not be answered, and whose conversation over lunch always inspires; to Robert Harrison, who understood deeply and immediately what I intended and whose suggestions never failed to improve my work, his friendship is among the things I remem- ber best from Stanford. Now I come to the most important person involved in the years of school- ing, research, and writing that this project represents. It is customary for a dis- sertation advisor to be thanked and acknowledged. But Sepp Gumbrecht deserves more than custom. He is, indeed, much more than a dissertation advi- sor. He is a dear and caring friend, who has always been there for me, for any problem, great or small. He is a thinker of extraordinary imagination and sub- tlety. And he is, quite simply, the best teacher I have ever had. My work benefited greatly from my friends and colleagues at Stanford and elsewhere: David Castillo, my earliest colleague, with whom I began thinking about this topic; Kevin Heller, who keeps my writing in shape; Peter Gilgen, col- laborator and confidant; Jeffrey Schnapp, whose Dante is as extreme as his skiing; Joshua Landy, whose tough reads always gave me something to work on; Tim Lenoir, for being interested in everything; Anston Bosman, who was with me from the ground floor; Nick Spadaccini, who first taught me the Golden Age. The first year of research for this project took place while I was a fellow at the Stanford Humanities Center, 1996-97. My thanks go to all those who made that year possible, especially Keith Baker and Susan Dunn, the director and associate director of the Center, and my colleagues that year, especially Melissa Goldman, Paul St. Amour, Brendon Reay, Angus Locklear, and Richard Rorty. Thanks as well to the Julian Park Fund at UB, for a grant sup- porting this project. During the process of reworking the dissertation into its present form, I have been fortunate enough to be in a new department and university with col- leagues as supportive as they are insightful. Further thanks are due to those, both at Buffalo and elsewhere, who were generous enough to read and com- ment on the manuscript: Henry Sussman, Czeslaw Prokopczyk, Richard

viii

A CKNOWLEDGMENTS

Rorty, John McCumber, Edward Friedman, Jorge Gracia, Angus Locklear, David Glass, Kevin Heller, and my editors, Jane Bunker and Michael Haggett. Thanks go also to my family: my mother, Margaret Maguire, my father Everett Egginton, my stepmother Wynn Egginton, and my mother-in-law Elisabeth Wegenstein (1934-2001). Their love of learning and of me has given me all the support I could need for the seeming eternity of education, which I am, of course, continuing. They are, each in their own way, role models for me, and if I have managed over the years to become, even in some small way, more like them, then these years have been a success. To my life’s companion and intellectual partner, Bernadette Wegenstein, I give my thanks not only for her wondrous presence in my world, but also for all the conversations and debates we have had, readings we have shared, and criti- cisms she has given me on my work. No single aspect of my existence would be the same without her. This book is dedicated to her.

For Berna

Introduction: The Legend of Saint Genesius

Every profession, no matter how unholy, must have its patron saint. The patron saint of actors is the legendary Genesius, who, as legend has it, performed the role of a Christian martyr for the emperor Diocletian so convincingly that he himself became a Christian in the very act of his performance. Unbeknownst to the admiring emperor and his entourage, at some point in the performance Genesius’s playacting, his parody, intended to provoke derision and laughter, became the real thing. When the fact of his conversion was finally realized— when, we might speculate, emperor and entourage finally tired of his perfor- mance and asked him to stop—Genesius met his fate in the most appropriate of ways: a real martyrdom on the very stage on which he had just been prepared to fake it. Genesius’s life and martyrdom may be the stuff of legend, but it is also, and more essentially, the stuff of theater. At least this is what several playwrights in the seventeenth century believed. For what could be more appropriate to an age obsessed with theater than the story of the martyrdom of the patron saint of the theater, played out in the theater? And how better to stage this story than with recourse to the age’s most characteristic technique, the stage within the stage, where actors portray characters who in turn portray actors playing char- acters? This is indeed the technique chosen by Lope de Vega and Jean Rotrou, the most famous and influential poets to write Genesius’s story in early modern times. The fact that they chose this technique is not, nor should it be, surpris- ing. What is perhaps more surprising is that when the same story was per- formed several hundred years earlier in France, in the form of amystère, no such technique was used. In this version, Genesius’s conversion occurs already in the first quarter of the play and is brought about merely by his conversations with Christians.The notion that he is an actor is barely alluded to, and the bulk of the play is devoted to Genesius’s scholastic debates with Diocletian over Chris- tian doctrine, as well as to an extended and rather detailed performance of his martyrdom when he fails to convince the emperor. What is happening here? Did the medievals simply lack imagination? Were they so dedicated to the dry exposition of doctrine that the notion of dramatic

1