ABSTRACT
Theatre and drama have existed, and still exist, in a relationship of tensionridden contradictions. To emphasize this state of affairs and consider the whole extent of its implications are the first prerequisite for an adequate understanding of the new and newest theatre. The cognition of postdramatic theatre starts with ascertaining to what extent its existence depends on the mutual emancipation and division between drama and theatre. A genre history of drama in and of itself is therefore only of limited interest to theatre studies. Yet, since the theatre in Europe has practically and theoretically been dominated by drama, it is advisable to use the term ‘postdramatic’ in order to relate the newer developments to the past of dramatic theatre, that is, not so much to the changes of theatre texts as to the transformation of theatrical modes of expression. In postdramatic forms of theatre, staged text (if text is staged) is merely a component with equal rights in a gestic, musical, visual, etc., total composition. The rift between the discourse of the text and that of the theatre can open up all the way to an openly exhibited discrepancy or even unrelatedness. The historical drifting apart of text and theatre demands an unprejudiced redefinition of their relationship. It proceeds from the reflection that theatre existed first: arising from ritual, taking up the form of mimesis through dance, and developing into a full-fledged behaviour and practice before the advent of writing. While ‘primitive theatre’ and ‘primitive drama’ (Ur-theatre and Ur-drama) are merely the object of reconstructive attempts, it seems to be an anthropological certainty that early ritual forms of theatre represented affectively highly charged processes (hunting, fertility) with the help of masks, costumes and props, in such a way that dance, music and role-play were combined.1 Even if this physically semiotic, motor practice already represented a kind of ‘text’ before the advent of writing, the difference with respect to the formation of modern literary theatre is still apparent. The written text, literature, took on the rarely contested leading role of the cultural hierarchy. Thus, even the connection of text with a musicalized form of speech, dance-like gesture and splendid optical and architectonic décor that was still present in baroque representational theatre could
vanish in bourgeois literary theatre: the text as an offer of meaning reigned; all other theatrical means had to serve it and were rather suspiciously controlled by the authority of Reason.
