Historiography and the Theatrical Event: A Primer with Twelve Cruxes

Author(s): Thomas Postlewait

Source: Theatre Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2 (May, 1991), pp. 157-178
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3208214 .
Accessed: 05/08/2014 14:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Theatre Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Historiographyand the Theatrical Event:
A PrimerwithTwelve Cruxes

Thomas Postlewait

I
In guides to historicalmethod,it is commonpracticeto divide the professional
proceduresof the historianinto threesequentialsteps.' First,one investigatesand
examines, then one analyzes and synthesizes,and finallyone communicatesthe
results.The data are gathered,thedata are interpreted, thedata arereported.Setting
aside fora momentthe thirdprocedureof reporting,we can see thatthismodel in
its firsttwo stages posits a separationbetweenfactsand theory,or betweendocu-
mentationand interpretation. This two-partdivision implies that historians,at-
tempting to avoid mistakes and biases, firstfollowcarefulproceduresofidentifying
and testingevidenceforitsreliability. Then,havingobservedrulesofevidence,they
analyze and synthesize the historical
information in orderto arriveat a thesisabout
itsmeaning.The thesisservesas theinterpretive basis fortheargumentofthereport.
Some historians,wishingto avoid or controlinterpretive problems,attemptto
move directlyfromthe firststage of documentationto the thirdstage of accurate
description.The evidence,arrangedin some kind of conventionalor self-apparent
order(e.g., chronologicaland alphabeticalsequences), speaks foritself.All conclu-
sions, all acts of inferenceand synthesis,are based upon objectiveproceduresthat
identifyfacts,testtheirrelevance,and describetheirrelations.Followingprinciples
of proofand probability,these historiansaim to establishan impartialmethodof
researchand analysisthatoperatesas a safeguardagainstpreconception, bias, prej-
udice, ideologicaljudgment,and misinterpretation.2

ThomasPostlewait teachesin theDepartment of Theatreand Drama at Indiana University,

and is
generaleditorof a new series,Studies in Theatre Historyand Culture (University of Iowa
Press).He is theauthorof Prophetof the New Drama: WilliamArcherand the Ibsen
Campaignandco-editor theTheatricalPast.
ofInterpreting

'See, forexample,RobertJonesShafer,A GuidetoHistoricalMethod, 3rded. (Homewood,Illinois:

The DorseyPress,1980),a widelyused manualin departments ofhistory.
2Infamiliarterms,thiskindof scholarship is oftencalled "positivism."
The term,loaded with
connotations,shouldbe used withcare.Forexample,the"logicalpositivism" ofKarlPopperis quite
distinctfromthetraditional
"positivism"thathas carriedforward fromnineteenth-century
Rankean
scholarship.Of course,thistraditional
positivism stilloperateswidelyin historical
studies,and

Theatre 43 (1991)157-178c 1991byTheJohnsHopkinsUniversity

Journal Press

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
158 / ThomasPostlewait

This disciplinarylogic, though admirablein its attemptto avoid not only the
subjectivedistortion offactsbutalso an impressionisticmannerofhistoricalwriting,
is open to questionbecause it requires(or presumesthe possibilityof) a methodo-
logicaldivisionbetweendocumentation Indeed,as I wishtoshow,
and interpretation.
thiskindofcareful,empiricalmethodology,thoughoftengroundedin principlesof
skepticalcriticalanalysis,is based upon several assumptionsabout the natureof
historicalunderstandingthatlack foundationin modernhistoriography - assump-
tionsabout the objectivity of the historian,the "primary"conditionand reliability
ofdocuments,theaccessibility ofthepast,thestructure ofreality,and theneutrality
of the historian'slanguage.3
Itis increasinglycleartohistoriansthattheprocessofinterpretation - oftheoretical

thinking-must occur at each of the three stages of historical

scholarship.Further-
more, the threeprocedures are not neatlydivided intoa progressivesequence. The
historianquite often,perhaps almost always, begins with stage two, a theoretical
idea or seriesof ideas (fromcommonsense propositionsand generalassumptions
to conjecturesand specifichypotheses).And sometimes,as Hayden Whitedem-
onstratesin Metahistory, the historianbeginswithstage three,a rhetorical and nar-
rativemodel thatincludeswithinits "deep structure"specificstrategiesof emplot-
ment,argument,and ideology.4
Whateverthebeginningpoint,thehistorianalways draws upon certainhistorical
presuppositions-
conceptsof order,principlesof causality,ideas ofcontiguity, cat-
egoricalassumptions, models of human behavior, culturalideologies,genderper-
spectives,narrativeparadigms--that alreadyexpresscomplextheoretical ideas. For
instance,the criteriaforperiodization,as I have argued elsewhere,determinein
greatmeasurehow historiansperceiveand comprehendthe fieldof study.Indeed,
historiansquite regularlyuse a period conceptnot only to designatethe fieldof
study,buttautologicallytoshape evidencetofitand justifytheinitialperiodconcept.5

servesquiteadequatelyincalendars,documentary and dictionaries,

registers, lesswellintextbooks,
and poorlyin culturalstudies.Fora critique
ofpositivist see BruceMcConachie,"Towards
history,
a Postpositive
TheatreHistory," TheatreJournal37 (1985):465-86.
3Itis important
to insist,however,thatone mayrejecta positivist approachto researchyetstill
insistupon an empiricalmethodology thatteststheoreticalhypothesesin termsof principles of
understood
"science"(variously as Wissenschaft,
materialism, humanscience,or socialscience).See,
forexample,theMarxist workofE. P. Thompsonand EricHobsbawnin Englandorthescholarship
of theAnnaleshistorians, suchas FernandBraudeland EmmanuelLe RoyLaduriein France.Of
course,we can debatewhetherhistoriography in theseMarxistand structuralist
modesqualifiesas
"science,"but theprimary pointis thatthereis no pretensein thisscholarshipaboutrulingout
theoretical
modelsofinterpretation.
TheHistoricalImagination
4Hayden White,Metahistory: in Nineteenth-Century
Europe(Baltimore:The
JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press,1973).
5Thomas "TheCriteria
Postlewait, inTheatreHistory,"
forPeriodization Theatre
Journal 40 (October
1988):299-318.Muchofthedebateand analysison modernism and postmodernism, forexample,
proceedson a circularbasis.The twoterms,giveneitherformalistor socio-political are
definitions,
used to justify
one's argument, which"proves"thattheworksunderconsideration fittheinitial
definitions.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HISTORIOGRAPHYAND THE THEATRICALEVENT / 159

So, if we are going to accept,forthe sake of convenience,the three-stepmodel

of historicalscholarship,we need to see thatthe historianmustnegotiatebetween
factand theoryat each of the threeproceduralstages. At stage one, the mode of
investigationis a compound of both apprehensionand comprehension.What his-
torianssee-or failto see--depends upon not only wherebut howtheylook, how
theyconstitute boththefieldofstudyand themethodofinvestigation. At stagetwo,
the mode of analysisis a compound of both empiricaland rationalthinking,of a
posterioriand a prioriunderstanding.In otherwords, even the simplestprocess of
historicalanalysispresupposescertainnormativejudgmentsand propositions.Facts
alwayshave theirreasonsin historicaldiscourse,just as acts ofinductionhave their
institutionalor conventionalsanctions.And at stage three,the mode ofwritingis a
compound bothfactualdescriptionand formalor structural
of design. The meaning
and coherenceofinformation dependsupon the explanatorymodel thatthehistorian
to
brings (rather than simply discoverswithin)the data. Change the model,change
the meaning.

II
Fact and theory,information and explanation,empiricismand ideology,docu-
mentationand interpretation--each pairof supposed oppositesis joined at all three
stages of historicalmethodand understanding.Given thisargument,my own pre-
supposition,I want to takeup a specificquestion:what, fromthe historian'spoint
ofview,is a theaterevent?Or,in moregeneralterms,how do we as culturalhistorians
identify,constitute,and analyze historicalevents?
In investigatingthisproblem,we need a definition, even thoughthe conceptof
"historicalevent"seems reasonablyclear.A historicaleventis any single,significant
occurrence,largeor small,thattook place in the past. Besides the obvious matter
ofan event'slocationinthepast,threeessentialproblemsconcernus in thisdefinition:
the size, the nature,and the perceptionof the event.

Anythingdone by or to human beingsqualifies,at least potentially,as an event

forhistorians.The AmericanRevolutionwas an event;so was each act and incident
in thatrevolution.In turn,manypolitical,religious,social, and artisticcauses that
combineactionsand ideas are oftenperceivedby us as events(theReformation, the
"independenttheatremovement,"the Civil Rightscampaign). And even words,
thoughts,desires,principles,customs,doctrines,and beliefsare regularlytreated
as events,and becomeculturalforceswithsome kindofcausal or contingent power
to effectand shape humanlife.Anything, howeverlargeor small,howevermaterial
or immaterial,seems to serveas a possiblehistoricalevent.
Can we then say that"mentalities,"periods,and eras are also events?It would
seem so. For example,the "1960s" was considereda culturaleventby participants
and now has thatstatusforhistorians,who describeitas a periodand as a mentality.
An eventis thus conceptuallycomplex,not onlybecause of its varietyof sizes and
its natureor mannerof "being"but because it has a double perspective:thatof the
We
participantsat the timeof the event and thatof the historiansretrospectively.
can even argue thatthingsthatdo not happen, such as SherlockHolmes's dog that

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
160 / ThomasPostlewait

did notbark,can be perceivedas events.In otherwords,theperceptionofabsence,

of somethingmissing,fillsthevoid withmeaning;the lack of signification
becomes
a locus of significance.6
Of course,thisperceptualproblemof presenceand absence is not limitedto the
specialcases ofthingsthateitherfailto occuror do notremainin place. Bydefinition,
the historicalevent,locatedin the past, is absent. It has disappeared,so historians
do nothave directaccess to it. Carl Beckermakesa similarpointwhen he notesthat
thehistorical factis an illusiveand intangiblething.The historian"cannotdeal directly
withthe eventitself,since the eventitselfhas disappeared.Whathe can deal with
directlyis a statement abouttheevent.He deals in shortnot withthe event,but with
a statementwhichaffirms thefactthattheeventoccurred."7
A gap thus existsbetweenthe eventand our knowledgeof it. We must turnto
documents,artifacts, and reportsin orderto identifyand constructthe event. But
even the best kinds of writtenand materialevidence- officialtestimony,a photo-
graph,an object,a building-are nottheevent;theyare onlytherecordsofthepast
thatstillremainin thepresent.Theyare traces,footprintsin thesand. Theirmeanings
are potentialratherthan received,not onlybecause the historiancannotavoid in-
terpretationbut because the identityof the eventdepends in partupon how it was
constitutedas a separateoccurrencein the documentationitself.That is, someone
else, beforethe historian,has alreadygivenmeaningto the eventin the processof
designatingand representing it. The event'sdocumentedcharacterresultsfromand
is dependentupon a seriesofinitiating conditions:whatis recorded,how the event
is represented,when and whereit was recorded,who did therecording,and why.
Moreover,the personwho recordedthe eventunderstoodit froma particularper-
spective,withinthecontextofa particular and designation.
conditionofidentification

Consequently,all traces of the past are circumstantial.The trace itself,which

designatesan event, reveals an act of making,a complexinterpretive process by
someonewho constitutedtheeventforsome purpose. In thisnormalcondition,the
traceis simultaneouslyorganized(alreadygivenshapebysomeone)and disorganized
(not yet given meaningby the historian).In otherwords, an eventresides in the
tracein an actual and a potentialstate,paradoxicallyhavingbeen and yetto be.8

6PaulRicoeurprovidesa helpfuldefinition of an event,but his ontological

approachdoes not
providesufficient regardforthe problemof perception:"In an ontologicalsense, we mean by
historical
eventwhatactuallyhappenedin thepast." The event,he notes,has threeaspects:(1)
absolutelyhavingoccurred; pasthumanaction;(3) absoluteotherness.
(2) absolutely Also,an event
is whathappenedonce; an eventis whatcould have occurredor been done differently. In this
sense, Ricoeurseparates"theepistemological criteria
currentlyassociatedwiththisnotion[ofan
event](unity,singularity,divergence) fromtheontological criteria
by whichwe distinguishwhat
is onlyfeignedfromwhatactuallytookplace (occur,makehappen,differ in noveltyfromevery
realitythathas alreadytakenplace)." TimeandNarrative, trans.KathleenMcLaughlinand David
Pellauer(Chicago:University ofChicagoPress,1984),1: 96-97,226.
7CarlBecker,"WhatAreHistorical Facts?"ThePhilosophy
ofHistoryInOurTime,ed. HansMeyerhoff
(GardenCity:Doubleday,1959),124;Becker'sitalics.
8Eventhemostdefinitive historicaldatalacka matter-of-fact as PeterMunzargues:"One
identity,
can distinguishthegenuinehistorian bothfromthelaymanand theamateurby theirviewsas to
whatare the'facts'.The thoughtful willknowthateveryevent,no matter
professional how small,
is a constructionand thatforeverytimeand everyplace manyeventscan be constructed. The

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HISTORIOGRAPHYAND THE THEATRICALEVENT / 161

Furthermore, an eventtakes its meaningnotjust as a separateoccurrencebut as

partof a seriesof events. All eventsderiveadditionalsignificance,forparticipants
and historians,accordingto whatcomes beforeand after.The problemwe facewith
anyseries,however,is to determinewhetherthesequenceis contingent, contiguous,
or causal. Our task is complicatedby the factthat the person who provided the
testimony has usuallydesignatedthesequentialorderand meaningoftheevent.At
leastimplicitly,then,evenbeforethehistorianconsidersan event,thedocumentation
expresses a set of assumptions,judgments,and values thatinvestthe eventwitha
specific,perhaps exclusivesequentialmeaning.9
Accordingly,upon examiningavailable documents,the historianis faced witha
constructed event,whichcan be eitheraccepted(i.e., interpreted) in a way consistent
with the originalmethod of documentationor reinterpreted in a new way.'0 No
matterwhat thehistorian'sapproach,the eventis made, not simplyfound.Forthis
reason the absent event precludeseven the possibilityof a positivistoperationof
objectivedescriptionand value-freeanalysis.Interpretation alwaysprecedesdescrip-
tionin historicalscholarship.This is a basic principleof research,and is not to be
confusedwiththefamiliarargument(or complaint)thatthebias, ideology,or theory
of some historiansgets in the way of accuratedescription.

Justas no documentexplainsitself,no documentcontainsonlyone possiblemean-

ing.Even as we are constructing
theevent(fromthealreadyconstructed documents),
we aredoingso froma specificperspective,whichis derivedfroma setofassumptions
thatprovidethebasis fora possiblehypothesis.In KarlPopper'swords:"A historical
document,like a scientificobservation,is a documentonly relativeto a historical
Atleasttheexperimental
problem;and likean observation,ithas tobe interpreted."""
scientistcan make a directobservationof an event,therebyhavingan interpretive
advantageover the historian,whose eventis always absent.
available(a currentevent),itis stillopen to various
Yeteven iftheeventis directly
observations,dependingupon the different possible ways the observernames and

layman,theamateurand manyamateursmasquerading as professionals,

willbelievethatfactsare
facts.Ironically, the onlyhardand fastthingin our knowledgeof eventsis our knowledgethat
certaineventsdid nottakeplace." PeterMunz, TheShapesofTime:A NewLookat thePhilosophy of
History (Middletown: WesleyanUniversity Press,1977),32.
9Atfirst thehistorian maybe gratified to findsuchexplanations (a playwright's ofthe
description
stepsleadingto thewriting ofa play;an actor'sdescriptions ofcareerdecisions),butwhyshould
such statements be takenas solidevidence? Whenthesesequentialexplanations are providedret-
rospectively, theprocessofordering is quiteselectiveand oftenself-serving.And evenwhenthe
explanation is contemporary withtheevent,theapparentorderis stillin theeye of thebeholder
ratherthanin theseriesofeventsthemselves.
1oIuse thewordconstruct insteadof themorecommonwordreconstruct becausetheimplication
ofredoingand recovering can be misleading in historical
work.Too often,whentheaterhistorians
talkabout the reconstruction of past events,such as the originalperformance of Hamlet,or the
reconstruction ofa losttheater
building,suchas theGlobe,theylose sightofhow muchtheproject
is an interpretive act,notsimplya processofreassembling data.The historian,
unliketheembryo,
does notrecapitulate pastforms.
"Karl Popper,"A PluralistApproachto Philosophyof History,"in RoadstoFreedom, ed. Erich
Streissler (London:Routledge& KeganPaul, 1969),196;qtd. by RobertD'Amico,Historicism and
Knowledge (New York:Routledge,1989),29.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
162 / ThomasPostlewait

representsit.As Louis Minkargues(inaccordwithArthurDanto,R. C. Collingwood,

and Max Weber): "we cannot referto events as such, but only to events undera
so therecan be morethanone descriptionofthe same event,all ofthem
description;
truebut referring aspects of the eventor describingit at different
to different levels
Everyeventis open toa numberofdescriptions,
ofgenerality."'12 each ofwhichoffers
a partialperspective-butnot a completeand finaldescription.

III
So, despiteour commitment to accuratedocumentation, description, and analysis,
our access to thehistoricaleventis always problematic.This is notto say, however,
thatthepast is a vacuum,waitingto be filledby any explanation.The argumentfor
interpretive complexityis not an argumentthat anythinggoes. Historicalstudy,
whichby definitionpresupposes a realityoutside of subjectiveconsciousnessand
systemsofdiscourse,mustchallengeanyassumptionthatall explanationsareequally
sufficientor appropriate.Althoughitis probablyimpossibleto provethatany single
historicalexplanationoffers thetruth-a pinnacleofscholarlyattainment fromwhich
all otherexplanationsdeviate in degrees of falsehood-it is stillpossible to show
thatsome explanationsare not just incompleteor inadequate but wrong.We may
be lookingthrougha glass darkly(and thinkingthroughdiscoursesobscurely),but
we are stillseekingto interpreteventsthatdid in factoccur.This said, we stillmust
acknowledgejust how complexand unavoidablethe interpretive processis.
One way to clarify,ifnot simplify,the tasksof research,analysis,and writingis
toidentifythevariousconstraints on historicalscholarshipand understanding. There
are certainfactorsand conditionsthatoperateas filtersbetween the initialevent,
howeverconstituted,and our perceptionof it. At the riskof presentingan overly
schematic(and perhaps too rudimentary) analysis,I will describetwelve"cruxes"
thatthehistorianfacesin theinterrelated processesofinvestigating, analyzing,and
reporting.These dozen cruxes, thoughlacking the status of axioms forhistorical
scholarship,are fundamental conditionsof the historical
perspective.
One caveatbeforebeginningthe catalogue:it should be apparentthatany inves-
tigationof historicalmethodologyraises a numberof topicsand problemsin epis-
temology,fromthenatureofcategoricalthinking to theconsciousnessoftime.These
issues are crucialto any seriousphilosophyofhistory.And theyframeany studyof
workingassumptionsand proceduresin historicalmethodology.But what follows
is nota philosophicaltreatise;instead,I offera primeron some persistentproblems
and demands thatconfront all historiansin the tasksof researchand writing.
In orderto focusthisanalysis,I will use forillustration
a typicaland reasonably
familiartheaterevent,thefirstLondon productionofHenrikIbsen's A Doll'sHouse.
Certainsurvivingdocuments(theaterprograms,theaterreviews,drawings,photo-
graphs,advertisements, letters)recordthatthe production,starringJanetAchurch
as Nora,HerbertWaringas Helmer,and CharlesCharrington as DoctorRank,opened

12LouisO. Mink, HistoricalUnderstanding, eds. Brian Fay, Eugene O. Golob, and RichardT. Vann
(Ithaca: Cornell UniversityPress, 1987), 200.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HISTORIOGRAPHYAND THE THEATRICALEVENT / 163

on June7th,1889at theNoveltyTheatre.The performance was organizedby Char-

ringtonand Achurch,husband and wife,and stagedby Charrington withthe help
of WilliamArcher,who providedthe translation.This event-or set of interrelated
events-for which various kinds of testimonystillexist,surelyoccurred,but how
do we describeand understandit?How are we, as historiansand readersofhistory,
veiled fromthe event,even when we have these undisputedfactsbeforeus?

1) The causes, motivations,aims, and purposes of the initiatingagentor agentsof

a historicalevent
The philosopherR. C. Collingwoodargued, in TheIdea ofHistory,thathistorical
studymustconcernitselfnecessarilywiththe historyof thought:"For history,the
objectto be discoveredis not the mereevent,but the thoughtexpressedin it." The
possiblecause ofan eventis located,in thefirstplace, in thethoughtsof"theperson
by whose agencythe event came about: and thisis not somethingotherthan the
event,it is the inside of the eventitself."3Historyis the studyofhuman events,of
human agents,of human actions,all of which can be understoodat least partially
in termsof human thoughts.

Admittedly, human intentionsand motivationsare not the fulland onlymeasure

ofhistoricaleventsand theirmeanings.As GeorgIggersnotes,". .. a broadagreement
has appeared, sharedby historiansofverydifferent ideologicalperspectives,thata
historycentering on the conscious actionsof men does not suffice,but thathuman
behaviormustbe understoodwithinthe framework of the structureswithinwhich
they occur.These structures
oftenare hidden to the men who make This
history."14
is
agreement pervasivetoday,operating in Marxist, structuralist,
poststructuralist,
and feministhistory.
Still,in our enthusiasmforthe historyof determiningstructures,includingthose
of economics,geography,mentalities,myths,and systemsof symbolicorderand
communication, we need notabandon all recordsand historiesofindividualagency
and intentionality.We should be on guardagainstfalsedichotomies.The specificity
of human thoughtswarrantsattentionin any studyof culturalhistoryand artistic
achievement.The shape of ideas, not just the structureof systems,should attract
ourattention,as PeterMunz argues:"Ifwe wanttofindout whatactuallyhappened,
we mustfindout what people thought,what wentintotheirminds.This is truein
a double sense. We mustfindout what theythoughtin orderto understandtheir
actionsand plans. But we mustalso findout theirthoughtsin orderto understand

13R. C. Collingwood, TheIdeaofHistory (London:OxfordUniversity Press,1956),213. It is still

popularto dismissCollingwood'stheoryas idealistic,and to representhis historical methodas
something similarto methodacting:thehistorian,to understandBrutus,mustbecomeBrutusand
thinkhis thoughts. Thisis nonsense.Fora well-measured analysisofCollingwood'sphilosophy of
history,see twobooksbyLouisO. Mink:Mind,History andDialectic:
ThePhilosophy
ofR. C. Collingwood
(Bloomington: IndianaUniversityPress,1969),andHistorical
Understanding(Ithaca:CornellUniversity
Press,1987).
'4GeorgG. Iggers,New Directions in European rev. ed. (Middletown:Wesleyan
Historiography,
University Press,1984),11.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
164 / ThomasPostlewait

the documentsand charters,lettersand annals, thattheywrotedown. These doc-

umentsare theirown firstattemptsto writehistory.""5
Thus, when we turnto the documentsforthe productionof A Doll's House,we
seek to discover,,among otherthings,the intentionsof Achurch,Charrington, and
Archer.We cannot describethe event fullywithoutdetermininghow and why it
occurredas an expressionoftheirpurposes.Butwe can neverrecoverall theintentions
of any historicalagent,so we mustworktowarda partialdescriptionand analysis.
For example, did Charringtonand Achurch,husband and wife,take up A Doll's
Housein orderto put forwardthe new drama,to make a statementabout women
and marriage,or to finda handyvehiclethatwould bringthemsome fame?Or did
theyselectit (eitherpurposefullyor haphazardly)because theyneeded one more
playto fillouttheirrepertory fora plannedworldtourto theUnitedStates,Australia,
New Zealand,and India?Whatcamefirst: theidea ofthetour(towhichtheproduction
thenwould contribute)or the idea of the production(whichwould be financedin
partby theiragreementto do thetour)?Did theysharethesame intention? Did their
intentions remainunchanged?Shouldwe expecttofinda clear,unambiguousanswer
to thesequestions?Not likely,ifwe assume--one ofour possiblepresuppositions -
thathumanmotivations are seldommonistic,are usuallymixed,oftencontradictory,
and sometimesunconscious.16
Or consideranotherproblem.How and whydid WilliamArcherbecomeinvolved
in theproduction?Whatactuallywas his functionand purpose?Did his involvement
modifythe projectand the intentionsof Achurchand Charrington? For example,
during thisperiod,Achurch and Charringtonbegged a of
gift ?100 fromHenryIrving
to produce a comedycalled CleverAlice,but the moneywent insteadintothe pro-
ductionof A Doll's House. Did thischange in purpose occurbeforeor afterArcher
joined the project?Or was the requesta subterfugefromthe beginning,partof a
plan of eitherAchurchand Charrington or all threeof them?
To answer these questions,we probablyneed to discoverwhen Archerbecame
involved.In otherwords,we are facedwithone of themostpersistentproblemsin
history:identifying the originof an event.17One possible descriptionof thisevent
would reachback threemonthsearlier,to March 1889,when Archerpublishedan
essay, "Ibsen and the EnglishStage," thatadvocated the productionof Ibsen, es-
peciallyA Doll's Houseinsteadof Ghosts.Charrington and Achurchapparentlyread
a
this essay, went to Archer,asked for translation, and thenacceptedhis offerto
help stage the play. Thus, the threeof themjoined forces,but thisdoes not mean

15PeterMunz, The ShapesofTime,178.

16Andyet theaterhistoriesof the production,including my own, provide either no answer to
these questions or only a partialexplanation,usually tied to specificargumentsabout the individuals
involved and the nature of the Ibsen campaign.
"In seeking to understandan event, we examine the intentionsof the agents. But in orderto take
the measure of those intentions(or modes of agency) we must determinetheirorigins,forall events,
once defined,have beginnings.That is, we take up the issue of causality.In essence, then,we find
thattwo major puzzles of philosophy-intentionalityand causality-are intertwinedforhistorians.
And of course an abiding historicalcruxunderlies these two problems: the nature of change.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HISTORIOGRAPHYAND THE THEATRICALEVENT / 165

thattheirintentionswere the same, even thoughtheirproductionaims coincided.

The eventthusbecomes an elaborationof variouspurposes and origins,stretching
over severalmonths,thatthehistorianidentifies,unravels,and explainswithgreat
difficulty.

2) The encompassingconditionsthat directlyand indirectlycontributedto the

event'smanifestidentityand intelligibility
Historianscan identifyvarious contributing conditionsthat help to defineand
explainaspects oftheproductionofA Doll'sHouse,includingsuch contextualmatters
as thecommercialnatureoftheLondon theaterin 1889,theimpactofrealismin the
arts,the campaignsforan "independenttheatre,"the widespreadorganizationof
theaterproductionson theactor-manager model(whichCharrington was attempting
to follow),the starsystem(evident,forinstance,in theway thereviewersassessed
Achurch'sperformance), the marginalstatusof the new drama,the increasingsig-
nificanceofthetheatercriticin London (e.g., Archer,ClementScott),theeconomics
oftheaterpractices,thepoliticsofcensorship,the socio-economicregulationoftaste
and fashion,theculturalmilieuthatproducedand stratified London audiences,the
place of theater in the expandingentertainment industry,the changingstatus of
actressesand in
women Britain, and so on.
Ofcourse,beyondthesefactorsareadditionalmatters,ofnationaland international
affectedLondon theaterand specificproductions.
scope, thatdirectlyand indirectly
Theateris not a self-contained, aestheticenterprise.It always occurs withinthe
shaping, oftendetermining, influencesof political,economic,social, ethical,edu-
cational,and aestheticsystemsand ideas.
Each historian,in attemptingto apprehendand describethespecificevent,defines
and positionsitaccordingtohis orherown understanding (orlackofunderstanding)
of these manyinterrelated,and oftencontradictory, causes. But no two historians
have the same comprehension.Thus, thoughtheymayacknowledge,first,thatthe
productionof A Doll's House is not an isolated, self-definingand self-determining
eventand, secondly,thatthe productionand its circumstances co-existas mutually
definingconditions,they stillwill have troubleagreeingon what the contingent
conditionsand causes forits occurrencewere.
The historian,havingso manypotentialcontextsto selectfrom,becomesa context-
maker,a manipulator as muchas a discovererofrelationsand meanings.Eachpossible
way framing descriptionand analysisimposesan interpretive
of the meaning,to the
exclusion
partial ofothermeanings. Various are
perspectives open. Yet each historian,
one
by privileging explanation for an event, not only containsthe event withinhis
orherown circumstantial perspectivebutalso obscuresother explanations.Ofcourse,
ifone believesthatone's approachis the correctone, to the exclusionof all others,
thenthisprivilegeservesas an intellectualsanctionor fiat.
Understandably, we wishtosituateeventswithina definingcontext,butsometimes
we have a tendencyto grantto conditionsmorecontrolling power thanperhapsthe
is notsimplytoproclaimtheromanticmanifesto
case warrants.To notethispossibility
thatgenius has its prerogatives.More to the point,specifichistoricaleventshave a

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
166 / ThomasPostlewait

way of occurringunsystematically, even chaotically,despitewhateverdetermining

systemssupposedlyoperated at the time.As we are learningfromour experiences
with bureaucracies,institutions,totalitariangovernments,and various communi-
cationsystemsfromtelevisionto computers,complexordersand formations have
theiranomalies,derangements, and ruptures--theirdemonsand imps,theirrandom
fluctuations,theircases of deviancy,theirzones of disorder.Theater,thoughcon-
strainedby its own complexorganizationas well as by the variouscontextualcon-
ditions,can stillcreateformsof irregularity thatcounter(not just reactto) the sur-
rounding order. It can even break freeat times.

3) The signifyingcodes, values, and systemsthatconstitutedthe eventas a com-

prehensibleoccurrencein its own time
Historyis thehistorynotonlyofthoughtand thecontingentsystemsoforderand
powerbutalso ofcommunicative or semioticsystems- whatMarvinCarlsonin Places
ofPerformance calls "the ubiquityof meaning-making in human society."18In other
words,discourseitself,in itsmultipleforms,needs tobe comprehensively examined,
and notjustas a systemofcontrol.The historianshouldrecognizethatthedocuments
articulatetheirpossible meaningsaccordingto the codes of the era. These cultural
and symboliccodes-not just language but gesture,body, clothes,manners,con-
ventions,traditions,taboos,and social,political,and religiouspractices--allconsti-
tutehow, what,and why anythingmeans. Moreover,thesecodes, oftenspecificto
theera, transmit certainmeaningsto the exclusionof others.We need, therefore, to
join two culturalfieldsof study:semioticsand theaterhistory.
In attemptingto describethe productionof A Doll's House,we would want to
identifythe communicative codes and systemsof Victoriantheaterand generalcul-
ture.Then, perhaps,we can know what,ifanything,distinguishedthiseventfrom
much of the contemporary theater,especiallydomesticdramas of the period. For
example, if we wanted to make the case thatAchurch'sactingcontributedto the
new systemof realisticperformance, we would need to understandhow heracting
both reproducedand modifiedthe dominantcodes of gesture,movement,speech,
and costumethatservedas the conventionforpresentingdomesticdrama. In turn,
we mightwant to analyze how herextensivetrainingin Shakespearecontributed to
orhinderedherapproachto Ibsen's methodofpsychologicalcharacterization.19 More
broadly,we would want to understandhow the theaterand the cultureshaped the
representativeideas and models of womanhood and femalesexuality.Withinthis
context,we can begin to place Achurchas an actress-her features,her voice, her
physicaland sexual presencein the role.

"8MarvinCarlson,PlacesofPerformance: TheSemioticsofTheatre Architecture

(Ithaca: CornellUniversity
Press, 1989), 3.
19It
is noteworthythatthe two leading Ibsen actresses in London, Achurchand Elizabeth Robins,
had extensive experience in acting Shakespeare. Robins, for example, toured with Edwin Booth
before coming to England; Achurch worked with F. R. Benson. A study of their trainingand
experience might reveal something significantabout the development of the new psychological
realism. In turn, we mightkeep in mind that Stanislavski also trained in Shakespeare before de-
veloping his acting program.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HISTORIOGRAPHYAND THE THEATRICALEVENT / 167

Everything abouta productionis potentially Forinstance,thesurviving

significant.
theaterprogramnotes thata "band under the directionof Mr. W. C. Lamartine"
played various musical selections,includingGrieg's "NorwegianMelodies," Men-
delssohn's "capricciobrilliant,"Czibulka's "Italienne"serenade, and Arditi's"In-
genue" gavotte. What was the significanceof such music, both forthis specific
productionand fortheaterperformances in general?How commonwas thepractice
of using musicalnumbersin seriousproductionsin 1889?Werethesepieces played
beforethe two curtainsrose on Act 1, betweenthe acts,or even duringthe scenes?
How did theycontributeto-or work against-the "realistic"styleof the acting?
How did theyaffectthe emotionsand understandingof the audience? Why were
theylistedin theprogram?How did thisinformation shape thespectators'responses
to the play? In answeringthese questions,the historianseeks to understandthree
interrelatedyetdistinctaspectsofmeaningin the program:(1) what it revealsabout
theaterpracticesand meanings;(2) what it reveals about the functionsof theater
programsforspectators;and (3) what it revealsabout theaterprogramsas historical
documents.

Similarly,a theaterreview,besides offering

an evaluationofthe production,may
revealclues abouttheculturalmilieuin whichtheproductionoccurred.Forinstance,
a reviewerdescribedthe NoveltyTheatre,at which the play was performed,as
"seedy." Should we concludethatthereviewerintendedto describeonlytheinterior
of the theaterbuilding?Or was he also suggestingsomethingabout the cultural
statusand locationoftheNovelty,in comparisonto mostWestEnd theaters,several
blocks away? More pointedly,was the reviewerimplyingthatthe productionwas
"seedy" or thatAchurchand Charrington were "seedy" charactersin the theatrical
establishment? if
What, anything, does thewordactuallyrevealabouttheproduction
and itsreception?Also, whatdoes itrevealaboutthereviewerand his expectations?
And, just as significantly,
what does our interpretation
of the reviewer'sintended
meaningsuggestabout our historicalunderstanding?Since we know thatthe early
Ibsen productionsin London were oftenattacked,are we retrospectively imposing
meaningwhere none was intended?
Productionreviews,thoughvaluablesourcesfortheaterhistorians,areverydifficult
to interpret.For instance,several theatercriticsdescribedthe productionand the
audience in termsof one another(e.g., a descriptionofNora and women spectators
as "sluttishyounghussies")? Should we interpret thisdescriptionas a moral,social,
political,or aesthetic judgment? However we interpretit, to what extentdoes our
judgment-on the production and the reviewer who used the phrase-cause us to
impose our own moral, social, political,or aestheticvalues on the event? More
generally, what's the relationship between past and present codes in historicalanal-
ysis? One thing seems clear:the documents expressspecificmeaningsfora different
timeand place, so we musttranslatecarefully, keepingin mindthattranslations, at
best, are approximations.

4) The partialdocumentationof the eventby a limitednumberof theparticipants,

witnesses,and social organizations
It is always significant
who the participantsand witnessesare and which ones
produce and pass on historicaltestimony.For example,because we tend to see the

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168 / ThomasPostlewait

productionofA Doll'sHouseas important in itsrepresentationofa woman'srebellion,

we would like to know how Achurchapproachedthe role of Nora: why she chose
it, how she rehearsedit, what she thoughtof the criticalresponse. Unfortunately,
she apparentlykeptno recordof her involvementin the production.20 Only scraps
of informationabout her participationhave survived.This scarcitysurelymodifies
and distortsour understandingof the event.No doubt,ifwe had a detaileddiary,
a majorstudyof Achurchas Nora would be partof our historynow.
Much oftheevidencefortheproductionofA Doll'sHousecomesfromtwo sources:
WilliamArcher,and the theaterreviewers,mostlymen. So we tend to understand
theproductionin termsofhow Archerand the reviewersdescribedits significance.
Obviously,theirreportsarevital,butthesignificance
oftheproductionforus extends,
at least potentially,beyondtheirperspectives.
Moreover,despitethehistoricalimportanceofprimaryevidencefromparticipants
in an event,we should not assume thattheynecessarilyprovidea moretruthful or
morecompletetestimonythanwitnesses.Nor should we believe,in turn,thatwit-
nesses are equallyreliable.But how do we measurereliability?
Today,forinstance,
we readilydiscount,even dismiss,thetestimonyofClementScottand othertheater
reviewerswho attackedtheplayand production.Butwhyshouldwe necessarilysee
thetestimony ofBernardShaw as anyless partial,prejudiced,and opinionated,just
because he was on the "right"side of the debate--thatis, the side thatfitsour
historicalinterpretation, orderingofhistory?Two issues converge
our retrospective
here:(1) our tendencyto writea Whiginterpretationofhistory,theordainedrecord
of the successfuleventsthatpointtowardus and our values; (2) our apparentas-
sumptionthatonly one historicalperspectiveon thisproductionis appropriateor
right.

5) The extraneousor extrinsiccauses thatmodify,limit,or distorta document's

reliability
Establishingproofis a firstprincipleforhistorians,even thoughno absolutetest
of verifiability
is possible. Testimonycan always be purposefullyfalsified-bythe
personwho providesit,by whoeverpreservesit,by anotherhistorianwho uses it.
This potentialitydemandsthat,wheneverpossible,we checkevidenceagainstother

20We do have an angry essay that she and Charringtonpublished in 1894 (probably writtenby
Charrington),which is mainly a complaint about the theatercritics,including Archer,who found
fault with theirattemptto produce plays in 1893. In this essay they make briefmention of their
production of A Doll's House, expressingpride in theirintroductionof Ibsen to the English stage.
"We solemnlyand conscientiouslyaffirmand declare that we introducedhim because we thought
he was an artist,not because we thoughthe was a teacher-an artistwho painted his picturesby
the lightof the coming day-sometimes leaden and sad enough, but still,not the lightof the day
thatis past, or even the day before,and certainlynot the lightof the studio." They claim to have
no didactic purpose, no desire to convert people to women's rights,but only to have taken up
Ibsen's play because they liked doing it. Such formulaicstatements,defensiveand combative,are
hardly the best guide to theirintentionsfouryears earlier.See "A Confession of Their Crimes by
JanetAchurchand Charles Charringtonfromthe Cell of Inaction to which They Were Condemned
in the LatterHalf of the Year of Grace, 1893," New Review10 (April 1894): 488-98.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HISTORIOGRAPHYAND THE THEATRICALEVENT / 169

evidence.But we also need to be on guardagainstotherless purposefulfactorsthat

contributeto the unreliability
of evidence.
Considerthisproblem:what can we discoverabout the set design,whichArcher,
a decade later,describedas thebest ofthe settingsdeveloped forthe seriesof Ibsen
productionsin Londonbetween1889and 1897?One piece ofevidenceis thesurviving
programforthe production,whichincludesthe followingstatement:
Scene.
in Helmer'shouse(a flat)
Sitting-Room
in Christiania.
ByMr.Helmsley.
That seems straightforward and explicit,but who was Mr. Helmsley?What did he
know aboutNorwegian(as opposed to English)sittingrooms?Did he followIbsen's
descriptions?(Does Ibsen's texteven use a wordequivalentto "sittingroom?")More
to the point, did Helmsleyin factoversee and plan the settingor did he merely
arrangethe workof someone else?
Bitsand pieces ofevidencefromothersourcessuggestthatArcherprovidedmany,
perhapsmost,of the suggestionsforthe set design,includingthe use of decorative
china plates and a Norwegianstove. His familiarity withNorway and with Ibsen
gave him a special place in the decision-makingfor the production,but thiscontri-
butiondoes notgetrecordedin theprogram.Also,we now knowfromotherevidence
thatArcherserved as co-director, attendingthe daily rehearsalsand handingout
detailedwrittennotes to the actors,but the programstatesthatthe play was "pro-
duced under the Directionof Charles Charrington."So, forwhateverthe reasons,
the programfailedto provideaccurateinformation on scene design and directing,
thoughmanypeople who attended the productionknew about Archer'ssubstantial
contributions.21
For additionalevidenceof the set design,we mightturnto the fivephotographs
thatwere in a limitedsouvenireditionof A Doll's House (FisherUnwin, 1889, 115
copies). But these often-reproduced photographs,though providingalmost full-
length,close-up shots of the actors,revealnextto nothingofthe settingexceptpart
of a couch on which the actorsare seated. Moreover,the photographspresentthe
actorsin nonspeakingposes againsta neutral,emptybackground,typicalofa photo
studio ratherthan the stage. Thus, these photographsmay provideunreliabletes-
timonybecause both theirfinalcause or aim (publicityshot) and theirformalcause
(aestheticprinciplesof portrait)subverttheirdocumentarypotential.We cannot
assume thatthe furniture in the photographswas used in the production;nor can
we even be sure,based upon thesephotographs,thatthecostumesshown were the
ones actuallyworn.22

21Archer'sabsence in the documentationis a case of the dog that did not bark. We must wonder
why he was an invisible man. This a problem I address, in more general terms,in Prophetof the
New Drama: WilliamArcherand theIbsenCampaign(Westport,Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986).
2A document's reliabilityneeds to be tested in termsof its various causes. Justas an archeologist
attemptsto derive culturalmeanings froma pot or a tool, based upon an examinationof its material,
formal,efficient,and final causes, so too should a historiantryto take the measure of the causal

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170 / ThomasPostlewait

Additionalevidencefortheproductionexistsin fivesketchesthatappeared in the

by someone identifiedas A. J.F.). Threeof themshow
Pall Mall Budget(illustrated
Achurchwearing a fitted,fur-trimmed jacket similarto what she has on in the
photographs.And the evening coats of the men are also similarto those in the
photographs.This corroborativeevidence on costumes suggests, then, that the
sketchesofferreliable,thoughlimitedevidenceon set design.
Butthemostdetailedsketchofthefiveillustrations putsthisassumptionin doubt.
It shows a scene ofAchurchdancing,tambourinein hand, wearinga folkcostume.
Behind Achurch(and behind a table witha full-length tablecloth)a bearded man,
identifiedas Mr.Waring,sitsat an uprightpiano (apparentlyplayingit). A manwith
a shaven face, identifiedas Mr. Charrington,stands nextto the piano, watching
Nora dance. In theplay Dr. Rankplaysthepiano, so thissketchimpliesthatWaring
is Dr. Rank.ButtheprogramidentifiesCharrington as Dr. Rank.And thephotographs
in the editionof the play show Waringwitha beard, Charrington without.So, the
sketchmistakenly reversesthetwomen,therebyoffering unreliableevidence(unless
we want to believethatin thisproductionHelmer,not Rank,played the piano).
It is possible that this mistakeis the only one that the artistmade in the five
illustrations,butwe cannotknowforsure.Ofcourse,a carefulhistorianwould check
the evidenceagainstothersources,foreven what seems to be substantialevidence
may oftenprove to be inconclusive,ifnot misleading.But veryfew theaterevents
beforethe modernera provideus withenough documentationfora reliablerecon-
structivehistory.And beyond the difficulty of attainingsufficientproof,we often
face the problemof interpreting documentsthatpresentnot only unintendeddis-
tortionsand mistakesbut willfulabsences and silences.Thus, as the program,il-
lustrations,and photographsforthe productionof A Doll's House reveal,we are
forcedtoconstruct theevent,tomakeitup outofpartial,oftencontradictory evidence
thatoftenservescauses otherthanthose of accuratedocumentation.

6) The conditionsaffectingthe preservationand subsequent survival,however

piecemeal and random,of the documentsof record
Most events,ofcourse,go unrecorded.And in thecases ofthoseeventsthathave
been documented,the record,withrareexceptions,is piecemeal,the preservation
is inadequate. Much has been lost, destroyed,buriedaway, and misplaced.So the
past, in immeasurableways, is gone and unrecoverable;no amountof cunningcan
conjureitintohistoricalidentity.
We mustmakedo withthefewtracesthatwe have.
Variousfactorscontributeto thesurvivalofdocuments,but seldomis thisprocess
systematic comprehensive.Even when concertedeffort
and is made to preservethe
record,the aims are always in serviceof an interpretive
idea and the processes of

natureofevidence. By doing so, we may discoverhow certaincauses, typicallyunderstoodas means

and ends, modifythe demonstrativeand objectivecharacterof the evidence. For example, though
a reviewermay be committedto providingan accurate report,the shape and importof the theater
review may be primarilycontrolledby its formalcause (size limitof 300 words) and finalcause (need
to sell newspapers).

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HISTORIOGRAPHYAND THE THEATRICALEVENT / 171

documentationare incompleteand faulty.23 We need to consider,therefore, both

how and why some documentssurviveand get used while othersdo not. Today,
forinstance,we have easy access to what Shaw wrote,because of his subsequent
fame. So, we have a tendencyto granthim a centralplace in the fightforIbsen in
1889,althoughin facthe was a ratherobscuremusic and artcriticthen,two years
away fromwritingThe Quintessence and threeyears fromhis firstplay,
ofIbsenism
Widowers' Houses.
Otherpieces ofevidencehave disappeared,includingArcher'srehearsalnotesthat
would revealmuchabout his behind-the-scenesrole.And ofcoursewe have almost
no evidenceofArcher'sconversationswithAchurch,Charrington, Waring,and the
scene designer,Mr. Helmsley.
How, then, could an historiansupport an argument-an interpretation-that
Archerwas the decisivefigurein the production?One possible tacticwould be to
analyze the variousreferencesto Archerin the theaterreviews,letters,and articles
of various otherpeople who wroteabout the productionand its participants.If a
numberofdifferent people attackand praisehim,thenan argumentmightbe made
forhis importance.In thisway, based upon secondaryevidence,the eventis con-
structedto fitan interpretivestrategy.Secondaryevidencemay provemorehelpful
is limitedby the
than primaryrecords.But here, as in all cases, the interpretation
surviving documents.

7) The processesthatidentifythe eventas noteworthy and significant,

thusgiving
it historicalstatus,oftento the exclusionof otherevents
Thisprocessofidentification and valuationfollowstwostages.First,certainevents,
at thetimetheyoccur,are characterized by participantsand observersas significant.
Theyare givena meaning,a place and importin theculturalnarrativesand practices
of the age. Subsequenthistoriansaccept,oftenwithoutmuchquestion,the impor-
tance of the event. That initiatingprocess is thus both an act of constructing
the
eventitself,providingit withan interpretation, and an act of creatingcommentary,
assuringthatthe eventis well documented.
No doubt some eventsproveto be as significant as the contemporary attentionto
them suggests,but not necessarily.For example, althoughthe successful,month-
long run of A Doll's Houseoccurredalmosttwo yearsbeforethe 1891productionof
Ghosts,which onlyhad two performances it is Ghosts,pro-
(one a dress-rehearsal),
duced byJ.T. Grein'snewlyformedIndependentTheatreSociety,thathas achieved
the statusofthedecisiveor mostimportanteventin theIbsen campaignin London.
In part, this is because Ghostswas turnedinto a controversyby supportersand
nonsupportersalike,no doubtin consequenceofearlierproductionsof Ibsen. Hun-
dreds of reviewsand articleswere publishedon the play and production.Also in

'Because theateris an artformthatdisappears,historical is especiallydifficult.

scholarship The
historical
problemis compounded bythefactthatuntilthetwentiethcentury fewpeopleconsidered
theaterdocumentation and researchan important
scholarlygoal.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172 / ThomasPostlewait

1891,followingthe production,Archerpublishedan essay called "Ghostsand Gib-

berings,"whichbroughttogetherin one place muchofthecriticalattackon theplay.
Shaw, in turn,quoted fromthe essay extensivelyin The Quintessenceof Ibsenism,
publishedlaterin the year.
Ghostswas significant, then,notbecause itintroducedIbsen to London audiences,
norbecause ofthe qualityof theproduction,whichwas amateurish,norbecause of
the numberof performances.Instead, it became-and has remained-important
because certainpeople, supportersand nonsupporters, turneditintoa controversial
event, a well-made test case forthe new drama. The constructed controversy(with
its cooked evidence)is of historicalinterest,of course,but the eventitselfneed not
be interpretedby us in accordwiththeinitialtestimony and aims oftheparticipants.

8) The commentarythat builds up, person by person, age by age, around the
it
testimony,describingand circumscribing
Once a specificevent attainshistoricalsignificance, throughdocumentationand
commentary,subsequent historiansare drawn to it. New studiesmay reinterpret
the event,but even revisionisthistoriesseldom questionits statusas an important
occurrence.This chain of commentary is not so surprising,because historiansread
previous and
historians, regularlywriteaboutthesame eventsthattheirpredecessors
describedand analyzed.
The productionof Ghostsin 1891 is a good example of the process of historical
itfitsneatlyintoour general
canonization.Because theproductionwas controversial,
narrativesabout the growthof independenttheatercompanies,the significance of
the avant-garde,and the shockvalue ofmodernart.24Theaterhistorians,guided by
Archerand Shaw, have made muchofthe productionof Ghosts,in partbecause the
eventis alreadygivena shape and meaning,and the evidenceis placed beforeus.
Thus,dozens oftheaterhistorybookshave continuedto repeatthesamebasichistory
of theIbsen campaignin London, featuringGhostsratherthanA Doll's Houseor any
oftheotherplaysand productions,all ofwhichhad moreperformances and usually
had betterproductions.
A revisionisthistoryof the Ibsen campaignmightbetterfocuson A Doll's House.
Or it mightfeatureproductionsofHeddaGablerand TheMasterBuilder, presentedby
ElizabethRobinsas producer,co-director, and lead actress,withWilliamArcheras
translator, and critic.Yet not untilJaneMarcus,Gay Gibson Cima, and
co-director,
Joanne E. Gates began publishingtheirstudiesof Robinsdid we begin to get a new
historyof the Ibsen campaignin London--a new perspective,based upon a feminist

24In my study of Archer,I have argued that the spread of his Ibsen translationsproved more
decisive in the campaign forIbsen and modern drama than the earlyproductionsin London. Tracy
C. Davis makes a similar point in "Ibsen's VictorianAudience," Essays in Theatre4 (1985): 21-38.
But as both of us have discovered, measuring this kind of historical"event" is far more difficult
that describinga production that generated a number of theaterreviews. Documents can thus be
misleading.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HISTORIOGRAPHYAND THE THEATRICALEVENT / 173

understandingof the era's activities.25

Quite likelythe next generationof theater
textbookswill focuson Robins,perhaps exclusively,therebyhighlighting one his-
toricalexplanationwhile obscuringothers.
Itis importanttonote,however,thattherevisionist historiesoftheIbsencampaign,
thoughshifting attentionaway from Ghosts to differentproductionsand people, still
accept the assumption that the arrivalof modern, realisticdrama is the important
issue in the historyof London theaterduringthe 1890s.This focuson modernism
ignores,however,hundredsofotherproductionseach yearthatattractedovernine-
nine percentof the audience and hiredninety-nine percentof the actors.No doubt
a historyof Ibsen, realism,modernism,and the avant garde has substantialmerit
and justification, but our commitment to this specifichistoryhas normallylimited
our studyoftheothertheatrical eventsofthisera. (The obviousexception,ofcourse,
is our studyofa fewfamousperformers, such as Terry,Irving,and BeerbohmTree,
who fitwithinanothercanonicaland meritorious history,oftheShakespeareanstage.)

9) The codes, discourses,values, and culturalsystemsof the historian'sown time

thatshape understanding
We arein history,and ourmethodsofthinking and communicating are necessarily
of our time.Even withthe best of historicalintentions,we findourselvescompre-
hendingin ways thatare tied to the present.Thus, all historyis, in some measure,
unavoidablyanachronistic. The meaningsthatwe discoverin historicaleventsderive
in partfromthe ideas, values, and discoursesthatwe bringto them.This is not to
say thatwe cannotuse moderntheory--suchas Freudianism,Marxism,feminism,
structuralism,poststructuralism,or semiotics--toanalyze previous ages thatmay
nothave had similarideas forunderstanding humanevents.Butas muchas possible
we need to make distinctionsbetweenour conceptualmodels and thoseof thepast
because systemsofmeaning,discourse,ideology,hegemony,patriarchy, and cultural
orderchange fromage to age.
Furthermore, if part of our aim is to discover,as best we can, the intentionsof
historicalfigures(so as to comprehendtheiractionswithintheirown contemporary
contexts),we should recognizeand work to negotiatethe distancebetween our
understandingand theirs.The historian'stask, then, is the reenactmentof past
thoughtin his or herown mind--withtheunderstanding thatthepast is a different,
ifnotundiscovered,country. A guardedlogicofinferential and circumstantialanalysis
should guide us because we are attempting, on the one hand, to take the measure
of similaritiesand analogies between the past and the present,and, on the other
hand, to understanddifferences and discontinuities. In these terms,we are always
writingtwo historiessimultaneously.

25See,forexample, Jane Connor Marcus, "Elizabeth Robins: A Biography,"Diss. Northwestern

University,1973; Gay Gibson Cima, "Elizabeth Robins: Ibsen Actress,Manageress," Diss. Cornell
University,1978;Gay Gibson Cima, "Elizabeth Robins:The Genesis ofan Independent Manageress,"
TheatreSurvey21 (Nov. 1980): 145-63; JoanneE. Gates, "Elizabeth Robins and the 1891 production
of Hedda Gabler,"ModernDrama 28 (1985): 611-19; and Gates's forthcomingbiographyof Robins.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174 / ThomasPostlewait

studythusrepresentsa dialecticbetweendocumentsand historian,

Everyhistorical
betweenpast discoursesand presentones. In RobertWeimann'swords,we need to
findan interpretive balance between "past significance"and "presentmeaning,"
whichlikeeventand circumstance, are mutuallydefining.26
Historicalreality(which
we discoverand construct) and historicalconsciousness(whichshapes thediscovery
and theconstruction)are alwaysyoked.Butarethey- or shouldtheybe - in tandem,
the one leadingthe other?And ifso, whichone leads?

10) The ideas of change thathistoriansuse to describe sequences and interpret

causes of events
As should be quite apparentby now, these variouscruxesunavoidablyconfront
us with the interrelated
historicalproblemsof change and causality.Whetherex-
aminingthemotivesand aimsofthehistorical agentsorinvestigatingthedetermining
powerof social forces,we are tryingto understandhistoricalchangeand itsvarious
causes.
But what is change?Whatunderstandingof it does the historian-as opposed to
the philosopher--need?How is it to be definedand measured?In lookingat it,are
we seeing cause or effect?Duringany particulartime,do historicaleventschange
in morethanone way? Are therecertainhistoricallaws governingchange?Or does
changehave itsown laws and reasonsthatgovernhistory? Perhapsthewhole search
forthe laws, rules,and proceduresof change in historyis misguided,especiallyif
historyconfronts us withdiscontinuities,disjunctions,contradictions,and improb-
abilitiesratherthanwithany dialectical,evolutionary,or teleologicalorder.
Insteadoffocusingonlyon changeas a process(a concernofphilosophy),we need
also to considerchangeas an idea,one of manythatwe apply to events,or impose
upon them,in orderto interpret history.History,we mightthen say, is the sense
we makeoftheprocessesofchangewithan idea ofchange.Not onlydo we attempt
to understandhow historicalchange distancesus chronologicallyand conceptually
frompast eventsbut we also struggleto comprehendboththeprocessand the idea
of change itself.

Consequently,we are concernedwith the conceptualways we linkevents dia-

chronicallyin orderto understandthe relationsbetween and among them. R. C.
Collingwoodremindsus in TheIdeaofHistory that". .. thehistoricalfact,as itactually
exists and as the historianknows it, is always a process in which somethingis
changinginto somethingelse. This elementof processis the lifeof history."27But
the process,by itself,is not the essentialconcernof the historian,who wants to
understandprimarily how people thoughtabout theprocess,how theymade sense
of timeand change,whateverthe processmay actuallybe.
No eventstandsalone. At thetimeofitsoccurrence,itis perceivedby participants
and observersas partof some kindof seriesor sequence, not merelyas a seamless

26RobertWeimann,Structure andSocietyinLiterary
History:StudiesintheHistory
and Theory
ofHistorical
expanded edition (Baltimore:The JohnsHopkins UniversityPress, 1984).
Criticism,
27Collingwood,Idea ofHistory,163.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HISTORIOGRAPHYAND THE THEATRICALEVENT / 175

web of timewithoutsignificance.Its human meaningdevelops out of it how it is

connectedto otherevents. That is, the apparentorderof events derivesfromthe
observer'sown way of thinkingabout them:(1) how he or she thoughtthe events
hung together;and (2) how he or she made sense ofchangesin the passingof time.
We endow timeand the processesof change withmeanings.28 Accordingly, forthe
historian-as opposed to thephysicist--events are joined by thoughts,the thoughts
of the agents in the past and the thoughtsof the historianin the present.Out of
thisdouble perspectiveon timeand change comes historicalunderstanding.
In attempting to comprehendtheprocessofchange,we mustuse an ideaofchange
to configureeventsintoa meaningfulorder.And to make sense oftheidea ofchange
we need to specifythe possible factors,causes, and conditionsthat define and
contributeto change, such as intentionality, motivation,probability,innovation,
renovation,progress,lineardevelopment,continuity, origin,transition,
conclusion,
speed, mobility,alternation,dialectic,cycles,crisis,revolution,transformation,and
retrospectivedesign. These differentideas are variously(and oftencontradictorily)
applied to events,individuals,works,societies,and systemsin orderto make sense
of change. We need to ask, however,why certainmodels of change-for instance,
progressand revolution--appealto us. And what kinds of historyget writtenac-
cordingto these differentmodels?
WilliamArcher,forexample,saw the Ibsen campaignas partof the progressive
historyofdrama'sdevelopmenttowardrealism.The documentshe produced,which
serve as our historicaltraces,expressthisidea of change. To understandhis place
in theIbsen movement,we need to see thattheideas ofevolutionand progresswere
his presuppositions,providingthejustificationforhis advocacyofIbsen, ofrealism,
of liberalism,and of women's liberation.The productionof A Doll's House takes a
fromthismindset.
substantialpartof its historicalsignificance

Today, ofcourse,we look withsuspicionon an evolutionarytheoryof dramaand

theaterhistory.Forinstance,we have generallyacceptedO. B. Hardison,Jr.'scritique
oflatenineteenth-centuryand earlytwentieth-century medievalscholarswho, under
the influenceof evolutionarytheory,tended to see the historyof drama fromthe
medievalto therenaissanceage as a teleologicalprocessofdevelopment,findingits
in the drama of Shakespeare.
fulfillment
Yetbeforewe pat ourselveson theback forour superiorunderstandingofhistory,
we mightpause overouruse oftheconceptof"revolution."The wordis as pervasive
in our discourseand thinkingas "progress"and "evolution"werein Archer's.Often
it operates in quite similarways. For example, when we considerthe historyof
Shakespeareanproduction,we oftensuggestthatthe modern"revolution"in per-
formancemodes is necessarilya progressiveimprovement on previousproductions.

28SeePeterMunz, TheShapesofTime,fora helpfuland astuteanalysisofwhyeventsare joined

by thoughts,and thuswhythewriting of history
is thewriting
ofthehistoryof thesethoughts:
"The historical
narrative
is a storyof changes,ofhow one eventwas followedby another.If we
wanttofindoutwhatreallyhappened,we muststudyhowpeoplethought theseeventswerelinked
toone anotherand howthethoughts ofhow eventsarelinkedchanged[fromeratoera]"(192-93).

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176 / ThomasPostlewait

In the case of the Ibsen "revolution,"whichis regularlyseen as the beginningof

moderndrama,we applytheconceptoforiginto his drama,thenfromour vantage
pointwe tracea developmentalhistory(whichwe contain-thatis, stabilizeby an
act of identification-within a periodconceptcalled the modernage). We providea
retrospective order,based upon a design we read intothe historicalevents,which
becomepartsof a narrativeabout significant, consequentialchanges.The processes
of change take theirmeanings,therefore, fromthe classificationsystemthatis em-
bedded within(and formulated by) the idea of change we use to orderhistory.
Today, as we become aware of our overdependenceupon the idea of revolution
to explainchange,we have shiftedto new concepts,such as Kuhn's paradigmshift
or Foucault's disjunctions.But why should we believe that these new ideas are
somehow superiorto otherideas?

11) The rhetoricaltropesand narrativeschemesthathistoriansuse to constructthe

past
The gap betweenhistory-as-lived and history-as-written,
thoughnot necessarily
a chasm,is alwayswide. As historians,we understandthatour historybooks must
provide,by design, an orderlymeaningthatparadoxicallyis both excessivelyand
comprehensive:excessivebecause we impose coherence,continuity,
insufficiently
becausewe can nevercomprehendthefullness
and closureon pastevents;insufficient
and heterogenity of human existence.
Of all the means we use fororderinghistory,the most prevalentis narrative.
Historiansusuallytellsomekindofstoryabouthumanactions,decisions,conditions,
and values.29We organizehistoricaleventsintoa sequence or storyline thatposits
contiguousand causal lines of development.This history,committedto truthful
descriptionand argument,drawsupon a repertory ofrhetoricaland formalconven-
tions.
These rhetoricaltropes(metaphor,personification, irony,etc.) and narrativetraits
(such as voice, characterization,plot structure) help constitutea historythatpos-
tulatescertainworkingassumptionsabout temporalconfiguration, human motiva-
tions, causal design, individualunderstanding,group behavior,representational
action,and world order.30 This is not to say thatnarrativedevices merelydress up
historicalreports;instead,whatseems increasingly apparent,as David Carrargues,
is thatour understandingof realityand our ways of representing it are dependent
upon narrativestrategiesthatare "prefigured in certainfeatures of life,action,and

29Thisis the case even fora dedicated positivisthistorian,as Louis O. Mink argues: "The most
'analytic' historicalmonograph, one mightsay and could show, presupposes the historian'smore
general understanding,narrativein form,of patternsof historicalchange, and is a contributionto
the correctionor elaborationof thathistoricalunderstanding."See Louis O. Mink, "NarrativeForm
as a CognitiveInstrument,"HistoricalUnderstanding, 184.
3?Perhapswhat most distinguisheshistorywritingfromplaywritingand fictionwritingis not so
much the historian's commitmentto tellingthe truthabout human events but his or her lack of
awareness of the literaryand rhetoricalconventionsthat shape all discourse.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HISTORIOGRAPHYAND THE THEATRICALEVENT / 177

communication."31Narrativityis not merelya technique,borrowedfromliterature,

but insteada conditionof our temporalunderstandingof individualand social ex-
perience.
In turn,thedocumentsfromthepast, such as reportsand autobiographies, reveal
themselvesto be organizedin greatmeasureaccordingto narrativefeaturesof de-
Not surprisingly,
scription,plotting,theme,and characterization. then,mostofour
biographiesand theaterhistories,based upon these documents,reproducesome of
thenarrativeformsand explanationsthatexistin thedocuments.Forinstance,when
using an actor'sautobiography,most theaterbiographersmay balk at this or that
anecdotebutstillacceptmuchabouttheoverallnarrativestructure, characterization,
and assumptionsof the work. Or in the case of the historieswrittenabout almost
all modernplaywrights, and designers,we tella familiar
directors, storyofinnovation
and revolution,thusrecordingyetone moretimethetriumphant battleofindividual
genius againsttraditionsand conventions.
are necessarilyfalsenorthathistorians
The issue hereis notthatall suchnarratives
are naive dupes ofnarrativity.Narrativeform,whichseems to be inherentin human
understanding,is an unavoidable aspect of historicaldocumentsand studies. As
historianswe need tobecomemoreawareofthevariousnarrative devicesand designs
thatwe use to structureevents. Perhaps,then,we can at least recognizesome of
the presuppositionsbuiltintoour narrativeformsand the documentsthemselves.

12) The readingformations, assumptions,values, and expectationsof each person

who, as audienceforthehistorical tounderstandwhatis written
report,attempts
about the event
When we read a historicalreportor book, we are thriceremovedfromthe event
itself.We are readingreadingsthatare readingsofreadingsof the event.The first
readingis the document;the second readingis the historian'sinterpretationof the
document;and the thirdreadingis our own interpretation ofthe historian'sreport.
Historicaldocumentssometimessucceed in findingor callingforththeirdesired
reader,someonewho attemptsto interpret themaccordingto theaimsoftheperson
who providedthetestimony. Forinstance,BernardShaw's dramacriticism has often
succeeded in creatingShaw's desiredreaders,who nod in agreementwithhis witty
versionofevents.Similarly,a positivisttranscriptionofa document,offeredwithout
apparentreinterpretation,can be seen as an attemptto be the desiredreader.But a
resistingreadermaybe thebetter historian.In thatcase, ifone is not an ideologue,
one can at leastacknowledgethat historicaldocumentsare open to variousreadings,
thattheycontaina numberof potentialmeanings,dependingupon each person's
understanding.
to thetask
Justas historiansbringpresuppositions,codes, values, and inclinations
ofreadingand writinghistory,so each ofus reads historicalstudiesfromhis or her

31DavidCarr, Time,Narrative,and History(Bloomington:Indiana UniversityPress, 1988), 16. "His-

toricaland fictionalnarratives... reveal themselvesto be not distortionsof, denials of, or escapes
fromreality,but extensionsand configurationsof its primaryfeatures"(16).

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178 / ThomasPostlewait

own "horizonof expectations."Discourseanalysis,reader-response theory,and re-

ceptiontheoryareall showingus thata dynamicand complexprocessofinterpretation
occursin theactofreading.Thereis no reasonto assume, therefore, thata historical
textis somehow exemptfromthis coded conditionof understanding(and misun-
derstanding).We can become increasinglyself-awareof our own individualper-
spective,but we cannotstep beyondit to a place of value-freejudgmentand com-
prehension.
and writingabout historical
In additionto all the possible ways of constituting
events, there are at least as many ways readinghistory.The readerconstitutes
of
the historicaltextaccordingto the various factorsthathave shaped his or her un-
derstanding.No matterhow cunninglythehistoriandirectsand controlsthereader's
understanding, thereaderalwaysadds to,subtractsfrom,modifies,and evennullifies
what the historianwrites.

IV
In sum, then,historicaleventsresidein no one place: notin the specificpast, nor
the documents,nor the codes and discourses,nor the historybooks, nor the his-
torians,nor the readersof history,but instead in a complexand dynamicinterre-
lationshipamong all these historicallocationsof meaning. Historyhappens and
rehappens,as we continueto reconstitute the past everytimewe comprehendit.
We are always rewritingand rereadinghistory.

This content downloaded from 171.67.34.69 on Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:57:47 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions