This is not the place of philosophical debate. Talking only about the nature of the choice that needs to be done today everyone who came up with the theory of theatrical art, and the relentlessness of such a choice. I tried to indicate.

Where there is history, there is full knowledge of either historical or theoretical. For the next, with a solid background in art history is a thing taken for granted: the understanding of the history more than once so changed, which was forced to re define, the history of which yesterday investigated. We have not. Thoughts about the theater at least fifteen hundred years, but the science of theatre is very young. While directing the revolution raised the first strictly theoretical ideas originated from, along with scientific and historical and this simultaneity has created an illusion that it will and always should be.

The twentieth century showed that this was impossible, and the theory of the theatre, almost immediately behind the history, began to develop, as one would expect, stand alone and so quiet that at times, her pulse barely detectable. Meanwhile, even for one of the twentieth century the theatre had changed so that, on the one hand, it is impossible not to ask again what he is, and with another historical and theatrical knowledge has accumulated so many facts and thoughts that there is scientific hope to get to the sacramental question “what is theatre” as something coherent and believable response.

10 the Theatre of this century and became a significant, if not decisive part of the material that I was considering. I tried not to succumb to the natural aberration: for us, our time is the pinnacle of history, and for history there. It is not true that “everything has already been”, but that the time in which we lived, very special and it is associated with the most important changes in the history of the theater is not problematic.

If I still recall that, speaking of theatrical theory do not mean the General theory of the theatre (which, however, did not), and theory of theatrical art the Preface can be completed. In fact, of the need to demonstrate the conservatism I got rid of, to swear allegiance to the elementary (fundamental) tried, standing in front of me insurmountable difficulties hinted. To finally begin to overcome them, it remains to detail: must still agree on how this will be used the concept of “theatre”. Definition it is the last, now need only a hypothesis or less a Convention which will have to unilaterally conclude with the silent reader. Parallel to the ground plane solid that is separated from this earth but solid pillars, if this plane is not used to sitting on it, called the table.

And, it seems, no one needs to call it Apple. And we start to act as a reasonable and practical? To narrow down the concept and try to call the theater just what that word meant ever since, how it has historically established. If some people are purposely hiding behind the doll, shade or specially treated human face, voice or gestures or voice together with gestures is depicted in front of a specially for this assembled crowd themselves, then this work of theater, then the one who portrays not myself an actor; what is portrayed, is theatrical role; and the crowd theatre audience. If the player does not portray a football player and is them you can, of course, about some entertaining match to say that he’s a football spectacle, but, at least for scientific purposes it is more logical to use the concept of a sports competition. If singing on the stage, the woman represents “the Woman who sings” here the situation is more complicated than in the case with the player, because the image, like any 11 image, exists between the life I theatrical role and so to call this phenomenon the Theatre with a strong desire. But is it necessary?

“Theatre” it is not a compliment and not a curse, just a definition. It is clear that in life there is darkness “impure” and transitional forms, but the theory can work only with the idealized object, and that alone should get rid of the desire to hide behind the eternal greenness of the tree of life, including theatre. The situation of the theater, if you simplify it, wrote Eric Bentley, is that of the author In the eyes. Yes, the simplification is obvious, and the psychoanalytic interpretation that gave each of the three characters, Sam Bentley, don’t have to agree. And yet this lapidary formula “theatre” still seems to me hardly probable not the most correct of those that met. So I will say simply this: in the future the theater will here be referred to the modest part of the culture in which not itself becomes the object of spectacle.