Drama Revue 2/2004
Summary

V. Just: Gnosis and Faust (R. Steiner, C. G. Jung and J. W. Goethe)

The paradox of the greatest drama works is that those works are not perfect in style, but heterogenous in the shape and meaning and so they are open to boundless number of interpretations. The typical example is Goethe's Faust. Just because they are often left out, we'll mention in detail all three Goethe's overtures of the drama. We surprisingly discover, that the basic motifs and topics of the work are contained already in them. Not only in Prologue in Heaven, Goethe's frame of Faustus's legend by stake of God and Devil about the character of human soul. And not only in Overture in theatre, where he first distributes the roles in future story. Even the entering "Zueignung" corresponds with the famous epilogue of the work (Chorus Mysticus). There the transitory earth-bound happening (alles Vergangliche) is indicated as only parable (Gleichnis), while everything spiritual, indescribable (Unbeschreibliche) becomes the deed. So even in the beginning Goethe puts in his work inner spiritual dimension which we indicated as "gnostic". Just this omnipresent inner dimension of Faust touched and still touches various research workers who deal with "human soul". Next to our František Bratránek there were in Europe probably the most considerably explorers - the founder of anthroposophy Rudolf Steiner and psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung. Although they were much different in other ways, for both of them Goethe's Faust became life stimulus for thinking, if not the obsession. So they both can be devoted attendants to the spiritual "gnostic" comment of Goethe's dramatic poem.

J. Dvořák, J. Sýkora: Faust as a Potential Television Serial Story?

As yet, it is not quite sure how far mathematical analysis of artefacts could be useful. Bahbouh in 1994 proposed to use a geometrical approach instead of verbal (statistical, information theory) representation. Thus sociometric analysis of dramatic pieces can be realized in form of a sociomap. This is to be read in a similar way as a geographical map. The social situation of the drama is presented as a "social terrain" with subjects featured as "elevation points", their relations represented as their "distances" on the map. The sociomap of Faust von J. W. von Goethe is presented. The results show that his Faust is separated in three parts along different axes - that of the life or feminity (Marguerite, Helene), of the power or secular rule (the Emperor) and that of the knowledge or science (Wagner). Moreover this pattern of analysis points toward what is "behind" - not only the clash between Faust and Mephistopheles, but also the central role of God and the Virgin Maria. The analysis proves that Faust is a really constricted dramatic piece suitable for presentation in form of a television serial story.

J. Černý: 1947 (Czech Theatre and Society in 1947)

The year 1947 was indicated by the communist historians as the year of activisation of bourgeoisie. In reality it was the year of the beginning of Cold War, the year, when we were - thanks to denial of Marshall's plan - definitely incorporated to the Soviet block. Today we know, that in the second part of that year the Communist party started to prepare non-parliamentary acceptance of absolute power. In spite of that, the theatre leaded by national-socialist minister JUDr. Jaroslav Stránský, experienced happy period of free work, sometimes connected with natural existencial risks. At the background there still blustered "the fight for theatre law", in which the indigested theatre community saw the accomplishment of hundred-years long effort for professional emancipation, but the democratic minister exactly felt totalitarian bow, to which the theatre was pushing its head. The end of the year, connected with the obligatory celebrating of the anniversary of the October Revolution in Russia, contributed to the idea, that the theatre starts to acquiesce in so called Ždanov's socialist realism ( two theatres - Burian's D and Zlin Theatre worked in this poetics), nevertheless it seemed, that not everything is lost.

P. Pavlovský: The Classification of Art and the Essence of the Theatre by Otokar Hostinský

Otokar Hostinský (1847-1910) was not only "the father" of Czech general theory of art, but also of taxonomy of art (although it was not named like that in his time). In contrast the species division of works of art according to the criteria of sensually apprehended material with their expressive means we must also look on the other criteria which seem more legitimate to the examined subject. The crucial one is not the material of the works of art, but the way of their creation and functioning. If the process of the creation of the work is identical in the time and space with the space and time of its perception, if the creators and consumers are at least in potential mutual contact, we speak about theatralicity. Modern taxonomy of art creates new taxons, taxons of genetically - modal and functional areas (e.g. contact - incontact art), the criteria of which are connected not only with the works themselves, but at first with the circumstances of their genesis and function.

P. Maťa: "Phasma Dionysiacum Pragense" and the Beginnings of Carnival Calendary at Imperial Court

Phasma Dionysiacum Pragense, presented in Prague on 5th February 1617 was one of the first staging of new Italian musical theatre which took place out of Italy, and it is - as it shows - performance documented in unique way. This study tries to explicate the case in new way and on the base of newly discovered source documents corrects some deep-rooted errors. The new ascertainments are: 1) We must correct the localization of the performance: it didn't take part in giant Vladislav's hall, but in four times smaller space named Judicial chamber, 2) The author was not, as was thought before, Czech aristocrat and "investor" Vilém Slavata, but Italian aristocrat from southern Tyrol Giovanni Vincenzo d'Arco († 1621). 3) The performance was put up in the last days of carnival, and there is the need to interpret it in context of carnival celebrations at Imperial Court during the reign of emperor Matthias who provided much space to such celebrations. Instead of the actual interpretations of Czech historians who had been evaluating Phasma Dionysiacum Pragense as final agitprop celebration boosting the candidature of Ferdinand of Styria for Czech throne, we must take the performance rather for close courtly performance organized as the part of carnival cycle of courtly celebrations without timely political references. Although Czech nobility was financially concerned in the performance, it is not possible to take it as the evidence of progressive orientation of Czech theatre but rather as courtly import.