Theatrical history shows that each era almost replay theatre. That is, at all times, Genesis is just at an appropriate level and befitting him database like repeats. In real history, after the theatre had once arisen, he not only continues it always opens like a newborn. Again in the course of genetic mechanisms. Starts a new life, but a life burdened with karma. However, it was a long first day of creation, when the theater was born for the first time, held its first theatrical Genesis, and began the history of the theater.
Has long been known that examine theatre history as a permanent, irreversible improvement, winning the enrichment, strengthening and building of the theatre is impossible. The current theatre is not only not better, but not even richer expressiveness than the ancient.
Historical and theatre studies may consider the history of theatre as a change of form only. And in this change is the real returns to the past, running in place and so on. In a sense the whole history of theatre may be understood as purchase history and how the history of losses. Even such a fact as a specialization, so much having moved the theater forward, not only can, but probably should be regarded as irreversible loss compared to the syncretism and therefore all seem to be comprehensive theatre of Ancient Greece.
But as soon as we return to the hypothesis, according to which the theatre has always continued to be a theatre, the picture could change. There is the opportunity and the need to consider the history of theatre as an irreversible process, a kind of aims and, as it turns out, naturally: in order to increase the quality of the theater.
To see the logic of this development, there seems to be a lot of ways. One of them might be to ensure, to capture the pattern in the change of meanings. Otherwise, to change the theatre of authorship: the author is the one who makes sense.
Agree (with some delay) that we continue to enjoy the advantage or even the only material Western European type of theater. First, it is more familiar, so there are more chances to test our judgments, and secondly that for our purposes more important, the speed of change in it is that these changes we are able to fix.
Aristotle builds in the “Art of poetry” a clear, rigid hierarchy of the parts of tragedy (we would now of course, I wanted to say “tragic play”, but, alas, the rights Aristotle, not us). The legend (in the old translation of the story) that’s the main thing. With him everything else, including the characters. And the actors together with scenery perhaps the most unimportant, showy part, which serves part belonging to the play.
As we proceed from the idea that theatre is when the actors play the roles assigned to them for the audience, before us the theatre. But some special that distinguishes theatre from drama to poetry, the actual theater sense in this theater. If so, he’s on the periphery of the deep common sense. The sense made on the basis of the myth by the playwright. This theatre, but that theatre playwright, strict sense (and this is the understanding we get down). If Aeschylus had played in their performances, the author Aeschylus is an actor, and Aeschylus is a poet. And Aeschylus is an actor, too, in the strict sense, is the contractor.
Without going into details of history, please see the following hub it point to Revival. In the crucial theatre of the era have been many significant changes on the stage and in the audience. First, almost simultaneously, but in many countries was born not seen since ancient times “cage” of the great playwrights. Second, the varying theatres of drama, Opera and others. Accordingly, first appeared in drama, Opera and other actors. Moreover, it is unclear who is the chicken and who the egg. It is not excluded that we must start with the actor. But this is requires evidence.
Experts in the English Revival of long and convincingly showed that in Shakespeare’s day, in contrast to Greek antiquity, when the action on proscenium was a kind of materialization of poetry, each performance was a new version of the play, I was not only a stage figure, but even the text.
With all the obvious peculiarities of this situation, however, neither that play with play or play with a Shakespearean play every night was varied, either from the naivety of the then the viewer is not directly implies that the author of Shakespeare’s play was not the playwright Shakespeare and the actor. In an extreme case, and while agreeing that the center of creativity shifted to the stage, we cannot exclude that the stage work is still predetermined, as in the days of antiquity, the dramatic poet. But see, when it became located not in the play, namely the play: Edgar prints letter of Goneril to Edmond. While he addresses an apology to the wax.