Development of Epic Theatre Theory

The Development of Brecht's Theory of the Epic Theatre, 1918-1933
Author(s): Werner Hecht

Source: The Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Sep., 1961), pp. 40-97
Published by: MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1125006
Accessed: 29-11-2015 23:58 UTC
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.
MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Tulane Drama Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 138.253.100.121 on Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:58:15 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Developmentof Brecht'sTheory
of the Epic Theatre, 1918-1933
By WERNER HECHT
The theatre of today has been significantlychanged because of

Brecht's influentialwork as a playwright,producer, and theoretician.
In fact, anyone working in the theatreof today must come to grips
with the phenomenon that is Bertolt Brecht. True, such an under-
taking will be difficult.Brecht's achievements-literary,theoretical,
and practical--are all parts of a whole which is not understandableif
one part of it is examined by itself.Furthermore,as he wrote in his
poem "Behauptung,"Brechtby no means "alwaysremained the same";
both the man and his views changed. For this reason an investigation
of the developmentof Brecht's theatricaltheoriesapart from the rest
of his work is a questionable undertaking.There are, however, two
justificationsfor it: 1) So far nothing coherent about Brecht's early
ideas concerningthe theatrehas been written.Since Brecht's publica-
tion of themwas scattered,theydon't seem to have been discoveredby
the studentsof Brecht,or at least theyhave not been given the con-
siderationtheydeserve. 2) Just as a knowledgeof Brecht'searly plays
affordsvaluable informationfor the judgmentof the great worksof his
late period, so a knowledge of the beginningsof his theatricaltheory
is fruitful.If Brecht'sstatementconcerninghis early plays that anyone
who wishes to make a broad jump mustgo back a few steps, and that
Today, nourishedby Yesterday,marchesinto Tomorrow,is valid, then
it is verylikely that a studyof the poet's earliest theoreticalviews can
provide us with significantinsightsforthe interpretationof those early
plays. Such is the rationale for thisstudy.
PART I: THE WAY TO THE EPIC THEATRE, 1918-1926
Brechtfirstformulatedhis theoryof epic theatrein the latterpart of
the 1920's. However, in order to understand the idea of theatrical
performancein an epic manner it is firstnecessaryto know the views
which Brechthad previouslyheld concerningboth drama and theatre.
In 1919-20,as staffmemberof Der Volkswille,a daily newspaper of
the Independent Social Democratic Party for Swabia and Neuburg,
Brecht reviewed performancesin the city theatreof Augsburg.Before
thathe had servedin the last yearof the FirstWorld War as an orderly
40
WERNERHECHT 41
in a militaryhospital. Concerningthis activityand concerninghis re-
solve to join the "Soldatenrat" (Soldiers' Council) Brechtwrote on No-
vember9, 1928,on the occasion of the tenthanniversaryof the Weimar
Republic, the followingabout his attitude in 1918:
At thattimeI was a military councilmanin an Augsburghospital,a post
which I only took upon the urgentrecommendation of some friends
whoclaimedthattheywereinterested in mydoingso. (As it laterturned
out, I could not afterall changethe Statein a way whichwould have
We all suffered
been to theirbenefit.) froma lack of politicalconvictions
and I in particularfrommyold lack of a capacityforenthusiasm. I had
a raftof workpiled on me. The plan of the militaryauthoritiesto get
me intothefieldhad been wreckeda fullsix monthsbeforethat.Favored
by fortune, I had contrivedto frustratemy militarytraining:aftersix
monthsI had not even learnedto salute properly,and even for the re-
laxed militaryrequirements of that time I was too sloppy.Verysoon
afterthatI got myselfdischarged. In short:I scarcelydiffered fromthe
overwhelming majorityof the othersoldiers,who had of course had
enoughof war,but who werenot capable of thinkingpolitically.So I
takeno specialpleasurein thinking of it3
Thus, Brechtconfirms what Schumacherwritesabout him in his early

period-that he was "emotionallyan apostate of the bourgeoisie,"'and
moreover,as we see fromhis own confession,a renegade who viewed
the new development very skeptically.He was incapable of thinking
politicallyat a time of great political activityand significantpolitical
decisions. (This does not mean he did not undergo a profound and
lasting "experiencingof the time.") In short,a teen-agesoldier who got
to know the effectsof the war in hospital service,a militarycouncil-
man who lacked political convictions,a civilian writerwhose firstplays
had anarchical tendencies-that is Bertolt Brecht at the beginning of
the Twenties.
This young theatrecritichad begun to write prose and poetryvery
early. His acquaintance with Frank Wedekind had made a strongim-
pressionon him. In 1918 he wrotea touchingobituaryof Wedekind,in
whichhe says,among otherthings:
A fewweeksago he was singinghis songsto the guitarin the "Bonbon-

niere"witha brittlevoice--avoicesomewhatmonotonous and untrained
-and neverhave I been so enthusiastic about and so upsetby a singer.
It was theenormousvitalityof thisman,his energy, whichenabledhim
to create-in spiteof all the scornand ridiculewhichwas heaped upon
him-his songof songsin honorof humanity, and whichalso gave him
such personalcharm.He did notseemmortal.3
Along with Tolstoy and Strindberg,Brechtwrote,Wedekind belonged
42 The Tulane Drama Review
among "the great educatorsof the new Europe." Brecht'slast sentence

was: "His greatestworkwas his personality."
We mentionthesedetails,whichwe cannot pursue furtherwithinthe
contextof this essay,in order to characterizethe political, philosophic,
and intellectualposition of the earlyBrechtas contradictory and multi-
form:his opposition to the bourgeoisiewas still typicallybourgeois.
1. The StartingPoint (The Augsburg Theatre Critiques)
In 1920 the city theatreof Augsburghad been for seventeen years
under the directionof Carl Hiusler, who had been called to Augsburg
fromKiel. In his firstfew yearsHaiuslerhad managed to revitalizethe
ponderous theatricalstyle of that Roman Catholic town. "As to the
repertoryand a properbalance of the performances of operas and plays,"
we read in a report,"Hiusler had found the philosopher'sstone,and if
he achievedveryagreeablealchemisticsuccessesin thenet proceedsof the
box office,thatwas not to be begrudgedhim and was quite as it should
be." In addition to numerousperformancesof the classics,Hiusler pro-
duced plays by Halbe, Wilde, Strindberg,Tolstoy, Hauptmann, Shaw,
Molnmir, and Schnitzler,to name onlysome of the "modern" playwrights.
Characteristicof the theatricallife of Augsburgwas a constantbattle be-
tween opera and drama. As a rule much more moneywas spent on the
opera than on plays.Hiusler metthisproblemby hiringmanyyoungand
thereforeinexpensiveactorsfor the plays,who were oftenunable to do
justice to theirroles. This conflict,in which Brechtalso took a hand-
was finallysettledin 1923 in favorof the opera, when the Civic Drama
Ensemblewas dissolved.In its place productionsby the state theatreand
the Munich Kammerspielewere importedregularly.
At thebeginningof theTwentiesthetheatrewas gravelyshakenby the
economiccrisisof the postwartime,whichbroughtabout an artisticone.
Richard Hauber wrotein 1927:
What toregaps in the theatrethen,whichare severelyfeltto thisday,
was the completeannihilationof the wealthof the middleclass; as else-
where,the middle class in Augsburgcontainedmost loyal and self-
loversof thelocal art theatre,
sacrificing and withits quiet,at timesper-
haps overconservativejudgmentit superintended the development of the
stage.'
It was during this period of artisticand economic distressthat Brecht
wrotehis theatricalcritiques.
THE CONVENTIONAL IDEA OF THE THEATRE
The extent to which Brecht took account of this economic situation,
and whetherhis contentionthat his own critical utteranceswere "the
WERNER HECHT 43
most moderate and mild possible, the extreme limit in tolerance," is
valid, cannot be checked today without a knowledge of the performances.
For this study his amusing, ironic, and sarcastic polemics on local theatre
practices are of little importance, but his attitudes about plays and theatre
practice in general are. A few excerpts from his early reviews indicate
what these attitudes were:5
Mrs. Aicher played the wife with a fine inwardness.She has very strong
moments,especially in the way she uses her voice; on the other hand,
she did not always presenta uniformlygood stage picture.
Miss Stoffas Mrs. Alving played with distinction,but with too little
soul. In her struggle with all the profiteersthis woman must grow to
exceed the measure of an ordinaryelderly lady.
If the Judith of Miss Eberle, although cold and academic, prosaic and in
its human aspects positively boring, did not exactly degenerate into
ridiculousness....
Hartl's Roller was inwardlyshaped and genuine.
Aicher uneven as Tasso...gripping in the scene where he lays the
sword at the feet of the helpless Geffers,with good moments in his
gesturing, once touching in an exit, once shattering in the interview
with Leonore.
Miss Wagner as Luise lovely, unselfconscious,childlike. -There is good
stuffin her. There are uncertainties,one still feels the lack of the fourth
wall, but what grace in everything,and what natural beauty in the
disposition of her figure.She does not yet succeed in the emotional ex-
pression of despair.
Brecht uses such terms as "inwardness," "soulfulness," "fourth wall,"
which would indicate an altogether traditional conception of the the-
atre. It seemed important to him that there be a complete separation
between the stage and the audience. The actress playing Luise is cen-
sured because she does not create the illusion of a "fourth wall," because
she does not behave as if there were no audience. Brecht
praises "fine
inwardness" and in one case even sets down "inward" beside "genuine"
as having equal validity; for him the actor should
shape things intro-
spectively, "psychologically." Such a mode of acting will then have a cor-
respondingly emotional-effect on the audience-it will "grip," "touch,"
"shatter" them.
Obviously, Brecht favors the theatre of illusion, the very kind of the-
atre which later is to become the object of his vehement attacks. How-
ever, in making this observation we must take into account that illu-
sionistic acting had never been challenged,
especially in Augsburg.
What one did on the stage, seemingly "beyond" the audience-was,
quite
simply, "theatre." The perference of Augsburg audiences for opera and
operatic productiontechniquesalso contributedto this attitude.Brecht

stood for the principlesof the theatreof illusion because he knew no
others.
NEW POINTS OF VIEW

While in AugsburgBrechtdid not call forany changesin acting tech-
niques; he probablydid not even considerthem.His attacks,rather,were
directed against the obviouslyuntenable and inartisticdirectingtech-
niques used in the local theatre.Hence, the seeds fromwhichhis theories
of Epic Theatre evolvewill not be foundin his criticismof existingforms,
but ratherin whathe praised and in his critiquesof the plays themselves.
From theoutsetBrechttooka particularinterestin mimeand gesture.
So he praisesAicher'sEveryman:"The best of it is the miming,the pale,
bloated folk-physiognomy at the banquet, etc." Or he says of the actress
von Draaz, "She had and stillhas good moments,in her bodilyexpressive-
ness,has slightand seeminglyaccidentalbodilyinspirations."At another
time he advises Aicher to "take his startaltogetherfromhis gesture,to
overcomethe routinethatlies in the word." What he likes in HoffEman is
"that this artisthas so much feelingfor the boards,played so with hide
and hair, disregardedthe What and createdtheatre,vital unliterarythe-
atre."
One mightbe temptedto assuimethat for Brechtthe main thingwas
the comedymaking,the masteredroutine of play acting,in which the
actor's ineradicable joy in his vocation is expressed.But evidentlythe
revieweris aftermore than that: he wants stratification, the depth of a
presentationalstatement.This is shownforexample in thefollowingde-
scriptionof a pantomimicscene:
And thentheappealingold man shuffles out,and at thedoor-get this-
at the doorhe fishesaroundin his whitevestfora tip to give the valet,
findsnone and giveshim-his hand.
Or anothercase:
Miss Schifershowedespeciallyat one point that she has talent,when

in takingleave she spoke the words"ChamberlainAlving'shouse" as if
she alreadyhad in hergullettherich,goldenbrandywhichshe will love
just as her father,the Chamberlain,
loved it.
Gesture,mime,and everything acousticis consideredespeciallypraise-

worthy if in themmore is expressedor made visible than the merewords
say. The point is the scenic utterance.From the beginning,Brechtcon-
ceives of dramaticspeech as spoken speech. It needs the gestureand the
partner;it is a literarybasis, it contains what the personssay; but the
WERNER HECHT 45
play as performancepresentsmore than that. And here is where the

"vital," "unliterary"actor places his accents,here he interpretsand is
alreadymakingdecisions.That is also possible in the theatreof illusion.
But thisis the spot wherethe reviewersubsequentlybreaksaway.
In these critiquesone is struckby the remarkableuse of the category
of the "pathological." In some actors Brechtmissesthe pathological or
the "pathological touch" (for example, in Schiller'sLove and Intrigue
--Kabale und Liebe--or Hebbel's Judith).In one instancehe says that
"pathologycomes to the aid of the able actor." Had the playwrightal-
ready conceived of an "alienating" styleof production?Does he mean
to say ironicallythatthe onetime"heroes"should now be played (if well
advised) pathologically,i.e., with a touch of the morbid?Evidentlynot.
"Pathology" is to be understood--soit seems--as a kind of emotional
skill, not at all implyinga negativeevaluation of this typeof presenta-
tion, but as the necessarymode of acting for "heroes" in classical plays.
This kind of "pathology"is used by Brechtin contrastto the "false emo-
tions," which he condemnssharplyand with irony.So for example an
actor is censured,for"He has a terribleemotionalismand a catastrophic
tendencyto crudity."Or he will write,"Hartle creates the friendcon-
fidentlyand simply,only a bit too emotionallyand playing towardthe
frontrows."Brecht'srejectionof an elevated way of speakingfindsvery
clear expressionin a critiqueof Schiller'sDon Carlos,a "beautifulopera"
with "arias whose beauty is acknowledged." "The intent was to unite
two kinds of merit,"he writes,"but the capacity for even one of them
was lacking. They wanted to speak humanly (and did not do so alto-
gether,were in part not able to) and yetnot relinquishheavenlysinging
(hand me the cloak of Christianlove, Amandal)." This means that in
his Augsburgdays Brechtcontrastedan emotional and a "human" (i.e.,
natural) mode of speaking; but he recognizesa "pathological" presenta-
tion. From the Augsburgcritiquesit is clear thathe had a similarkind
of attitude towardproductionand directing.The directionof Kaiser's
Gas is called a "verygood achievement,which had intellectual style,
the best work of this winter." Regarding the performanceof Shaw's
Pygmalion we read: "Kurt Hoffmann'sdirection had an intellectual
countenance.Startingout simultaneouslyfromthe intellectualcontent
of the play and the scantyhuman contentof his actors,the directorde-
cided to use a sort of expressionism."As to Strindberg'sThere Are
Crimesand Crimes: "One could feel an intellectualwill power in the
directing,togetherwith much industry.Aicher's Maurice had intellec-
tual styleand an inner line." To be sure, this intellectualwork of the
artistis to be understoodas a permeationof the drama, a search for its
message.For at this time Brechtis still concernedwith the performers

fidelityto the dramatic work. This is confirmedin his judgment of
Oberlinder's staging of Hebbel's Judith: "His lack of intuition and
artisticempathycannot be made so much a reproach to him as his
lack of reverencefor the work of art, permittinghim to surrenderit
to the impudentambitionsof petty,pushing actors,who are no match
for its demands." This leads us to a considerationof Brecht'sattitude
towardplays and playwrights.
ATTITUDE TOWARD THE PLAYWRIGHTS AND

THEIR WORKS
It is not easy to arriveat a clear picture of this.Brechthimselfdoes
not by any meansalwayshave that"reverencefortheworkof art,"which
he reproachesa directorforlacking.Even in his Augsburgperiod he was
not "intimidated by the classical." For example, his attitude toward
Schiller is very critical. He vehementlyattacks Schiller's idealism. In
Don Carlos he findsit a fault "that with Schillerone never findsmore
than a demand for freedom"; he denounces the play as a "beautiful
opera." He describesthe "plot" of Love and Intrigueas follows:
An incomparableplay.A wildtusslebetweenarchangels
and devils,until
the lovedeathwithlemonadeinducedthesubdueddevilsto applaud the
mangledangels(and go to pot...)
For the mostpart,his reviewsare only attacks.Only the Don Carlos re-
view containsa counter-argument-butthisis an importantone. Brecht
writesthat he had "always and always loved" the play, but that after
reading Sinclair's The Pit he saw the play differently.
Concerning this
"storyof a workmanwho is hungered [sic] to death in the slaughter
houses of Chicago," we read in his review:
It is a matterof simplehunger,cold, and sickness,whichget a man

downas reliablyas if theyhad been appointedby God. Once thisman
has a smallvisionof freedom, but thenhe is beatendownwithrubber
truncheons.His freedomhas not the slightestconnectionwith that of
Carlos,I know:but I can no longertakeCarlos'servitudeveryseriously.
Brecht has an affinityfor literaryworks which mirroradequately the
problemsof his time; forhim the classicsare not "up to date.'" Only the
stagingof the classical plays seems to have interestedhim. This may ex-
plain whyin his reviewof Schiller'sThe Robbers (October 23, 1920) he
mentionsonly the directing,acting,and settings,and a good while later
(November 16, 1920), probablybeing prodded, discussesthe plot of the
play. In his review of Goethe's Tasso, too, he says nothing about the
WERNER HECHT 47
drama. He characterizesHebbel's Judith as "one of the weakest and

silliestitemsin our classical German repertory."
Brechthas a betteropinion of naturalisticplays. His reviewof Ibsen's
Ghosts consists-a sign of his high evaluation of its content-above all
in a detailed summaryof the plot. Hauptmann's Rose Bernd is described
as "a piece of human life." He writesin the introductionof the review:
The play does not concernstage emperors...no princessessing in it,
no Lohengrincomesto help thisreviledgirl,but we mustgo to see it,
it is our affairwhichis discussedin the play,our miserythatis shown.
It is a revolutionary
play.
In this case Brecht equates his interestswith those of the workers,al-
thoughto be sure it is an open question how farthe editorof the news-
paper would have wished such an invitationto be issued to the trade-
union members for whose sake this introduction to the play was
published. However that may be, the statementthat a "revolutionary
play" is involvedis made in connectionwith the proletarianpersonwho
has the leading role. The ironic thrustthat for this reason "we" must
see the play, althoughno figuresfromfairytale and legend "sing" in it,
although its action is not that of the opera, commentson the artistic
tastesof the plebeian and proletarianmembersof the tradeunions who
have been influencedby presentationsof fairytales and operas, and is
meant to be provocative.
In a similarway Brecht stressesthe intellectualcontent in Bernard
Shaw's Pygmalion.But in his view-which was to undergo an essential
change, as we shall show-"Shaw lacks both the power of the poet to
shape his themeinto a triumphof what is human and thatof the satirist
to mold the bankruptcyof society."Brechtregardsthe play as a "pho-
netic lark with perspectives."He sees Shaw, as the latterwas so often
misunderstoodby the critics,in the role of a buffoon,withoutpoetic
power. Brecht'sconceptionof the "triumphof the human" is not clear.
One mightget a hintfromtheremarkthatShaw "abstains,in theinterest
of the public, froma discussionof the perplexinglittle question as to
whetherthe social person is identical with the human being as such."
The "restamping"of the flowergirlEliza Doolittle as a "social person"
seems to have struckBrecht,for one thing,as questionable because of
the use of phoneticsas the methodof transformation; foranotherthing,
at thistimeevidentlythe shaping "of the human," "of the human being
as such," was forhim the mosturgenttask of the poet.
It was just this concern,however,which the expressionistsdisplayed,
and it mightalmost seem as if Brecht were sailing in theirwake. But
actuallyhe takesa verycriticalview of thistrend,whichput forthsome
autumnal flowersafter the First World War. He calls the staging of

Pygmalion "expressionistic"and remarksin a parenthesis,"the close
kinshipof expressionismwith the oldest of our comic tales,which does
expressionismall honor, was made evident at times." This distantness
towardexpressionismis also revealed in a reviewof the seriespublished
by Kiepenheuer under the title,Der dramatischeWille. Brecht writes
firstabout Ludwig Rubiner's play, The Powerless(Die Gewaltlosen),in
which a pilgrimageto the "new man" and to the "new society"was to
be presented.In a prefaceRubiner identifiedthe personsof the play as
"representativesof ideas": for according to his intention a "work of
ideas [helps] theage to arriveat its goal, by settingup-over and beyond
the age-the finalgoal itselfas a reality."Brechtcharacterizesthe play,
withoutgoing into its content,as an "essay ruined by dramatization."
Eduard Trautner's one-act play, Imprisonment(Haft), is censured be-
cause of its insufficient
content,"which is perhaps enough fora poem,"
and Trautner's dramatic techniques are related to those of Reinhard
Goering and Maeterlinck.Even Toller, whom Brecht praises for his
"nutured emotions" and for his use of Max Reinhardt's production
techniques,is sharply criticized."Poetized newspaper at best," writes.
Brecht,and he goes on like thisin a parodyof the expressionistic styleof
talking:
Shallowvisions,at once forgotten,
thincosmos.Man as object.Proclama-
tion,insteadof: as man. Man as abstraction,
the singularof humanity.
His causeliesin weakhands.
So Brecht rejectsin these expressioniststhe imitationof the essay and
the newspaper,rejectswhat does not sufficefor a drama, but also the
representationof man as object or as "proclamation,"in short: the un-
concretehuman being in an unconcreteenvironment.
On the other hand, he does praise certain qualities in the farcesof
Iwan Goll. Admittedly,Goll also demands-somewhat like Rubiner-
an extremeabstractionof the human being; but in his prefaceGoll as-
signs to the new drama thistask:
First,all externalformmustbe smashedto bits. The sensiblebearing,.
the conventional,the moral,the formalities
of our whole life..Man and
thingswillbe shownas nakedas possible,and alwaysthrougha magnify-
ing glassto heightenthe effect.6
Brecht is most impressedand pleased by the "magnifyingglass" which
gives theseworkstheirfarcicalcharacter.He observeshere an "emanci-
pation of thedirecting"and praisestherealistic("clear") whimsies,which
are expressed in the form of "newspaper, balladesque lyrics,photog-
WERNER HECHT 49
raphy"and of "supremelyanimated mechanicaldevices." In thesefarces,

he says,thereare "good, childlikeproperties"and "more humanness...
than in Toller."
It is Georg Kaiser, however,whom Brecht praises most. He calls his
"tragedyof pure conviction,"Hell, Road, Earth (H6lle, Weg, Erde),
"greatin its layout,with technicalprofundity"and "one of Kaiser's best
works." "An orgyof ethics.With an incomparableline. Here is a poet
who possessesdevelopment,even in thegraveelephantiasisofconscience."
Kaiser's dramatic formespecially seems to have impressedBrecht.We
finda verycriticalattitudetowardthe idealisticcontentof Kaiser's plays
in a reviewof Gas. Brechtcalls the play "visionary"and then attempts
an interpretationintroducedby the words: "The meaning of the play
is perhapsthis,"but what followsseemsto have littleto do withthe play:
A man is running.He runswonderfully. He is an art-runner.
A gym-
nasticsteacherhas taughthim how to run. When the man has run
foran hour he fallsover and gasps forbreath.He gasps forair in a
thoroughly artisticmanner,he falls to the groundin a whollyunob-
jectionablemanner.The gymnastics teacherhas taughthim how. Then
a thirdman comesand says,You have a heartailment.You mustsit
stillinsteadof running.You see, don'tyou: you are suffering
fromlack
of air and shortness of breath.At this the man gets up and giveshis
gymnastics teachera box on theear, becausehe has not taughthim the
rightway to run. Then the secondman defendsthe gymnastic teacher.
Then thegymnastics teachersays,Give me anotherbox on the ear, run
in a differentmanner,but run. Then the man sees thatthe gymnastics
teacheris the man forhim and thatrunningbadlyis betterthan not
runningat all, and he runsagain. The play is veryinteresting.
This is clearlya mockeryof theidea thata billionaireis supposed to have
gottenhis wealth by running away fromhis pitifulpast with its many
hardships.This same criticismis expressedwhen Brechtreproachesthe
directorfor allowing himselfto be influencedtoo much by Kaiser, es-
peciallyin the thirdact, whichis obscure to begin with.And yet the im-
pressionmade by the formof the play must have been verygreat,for
Brecht calls the performanceof the play "a genuine achievementfor
Augsburg,"and a testwhich "the audience and a part of the press"had
flunked.(It is also importantto note thatin the same reviewBrechtsees
the formof Kaiser'splaysmovingirresistibly towardthe motionpicture.)
Brechtsummarizeshis criticismof expressionismby calling the plays
he reviewed(with the exception of Gide's Bethsabe) "proclamationsof
man withoutman" and (except forHell, Road, Earth) a "dramaticwill
withoutdrama." He praises just those elementsof expressionismwhich
are basicallyin conflictwith the main trendsof the time.The writerof
Baal and Drums in the Night (Trommeln in der Nacht) rejects the
"naked" human being deprived of all objective reality, rejects the "work
of pure ideas" of Rubiner, Goll, and Toller. He is not taken in by the
impotent, idealistic revolutionary hubbub, by the incorporeal proclama-
tions of "ultimate goals." Brecht's conception of "humanness" and of
the "human being per se," of which he speaks in connection with his
critique of the performance of Pygmalion, is more concrete and is linked
to individuals, to vigorous, vital personalities. His interest in the formal
achievements of Kaiser, and in part of Goll, can probably be traced back
to the masterly dialogue--dialectic of the one and the theatrical tech-
nique of the other.
What he likes in Goll is the same thing that made Wedekind so im-
portant to him-the balladesque lyrics. And knowing Wedekind, as we
noted before, was probably the greatest single experience of Brecht's
youth. It was Wedekind's "personality" that was so important to him.
"His vitality," Brecht affirmsin his obituary,
always had been the best thing about him. Whether he entered a hall
filled with hundreds of screaming students, or a room, or whether he
stepped onto a stage-in his peculiar way, i.e., with his sharply-cut,iron
skull slightlylowered and extended-somewhat clumsy and tense-every-
body was silent. Although he himselfwas not a particularlygood actor-
he even kept on forgettingto limp, somethingthat he himselfconsidered
a requirement-and didn't always know his lines, he outdid many a pro-
fessional actor when he played the Marquis of Keith. He filled every
corner with himself. There he stood, ugly, brutal, dangerous, with his
red hair cut short and with his hands in his trouser pockets-and one
could feel that not even the devil could budge him. He stepped in front
of the curtain in his red tailcoat as the ringmaster,with a whip and a
revolver in his fists,and nobody could ever again forget his metallic
hard, dry voice, his iron, sensual face with its "melancholy owlish eyes"
set in its rigid features.
Such a personality was for young Brecht a model worth imitating. Like
Wedekind he wrote songs in the manner of the street ballad singer, like
Wedekind he sang them to a lute accompaniment for the wounded in the
hospital for his friends. With such an attitude he came naively to reject
the subjectivistic idealism of the expressionistic dramatists. However,
there is not even a trace of his yet having come to grips with their world
view or, still less, with their basic philosophic position. Brecht was still
a seeker.
At the beginning of the 1920's Brecht's position was characterized by

his "lack of political convictions." True, he turned against bourgeois
WERNER HECHT 51
conventionsand against the pseudo-rebellionof the expressionists, but

not by refutingthem,ratherby denyingthemor maliciouslyparodying
them.A settlementof questionsas to the formof the drama did not take
place in detail. On the one hand he rejected,as a "dramaticwill without
drama," that expressionistictendencyto smash to pieces the old tradi-
tional forms;on the otherhand he greetedwith enthusiasma drama of
Georg Kaiser indebted to the Platonic (not the Aristotelian)method.
His viewsregardingthe theatreare forthe mostpart based--despiteoc-
casional ouburstsagainst the classics--ontraditionalconceptions.Brecht
stands for the theatreof illusion, but almost intuitivelyhe demands a
greaterintellectualconcern,a message with multiple meanings,and a
greateruse of mime and gesture.It is not until his later theoriesthatwe
finda directrebellionagainstconvention.But even thoughin the Augs-
burg reviewsthe judgmentslaid down are predominantlythose of his
sense of good taste,it is importantto notice the seriousnesswith which
he approaches questions of artistry.His basic propositionis this: "Ob-
jectivityin mattersof art means: innermostparticipation,truthfulness,
intoleranceof injurious procedures.The interestsof art are above those
of the artists.The personal interestsof the artist,insofaras theyhave
nothingto do with art, do not concerncriticism."
EvidentlyAugsburg,with its insecure city theatre,its veryexistence
endangeredby the economic crisis,was not the place wheresuch an in-
terestin art could be developed further.
2. For a Renovation of the Theatre
Shortlyafterthis Brecht began to direct in Munich and Berlin and

finallyonly in Berlin. He stopped writingreviews,and itswas some time
beforehe again wroteabout the'theatre.During thisperiod he wroteIn
theJungleof Cities (Im Dickichtder Stiidte)and preparedhis versionof
Marlowe's Life of Edward the Second of England forits productionin
Munich. Brechtalso startedto writea play called
Hanhnibal,"whichwas
stimulatedby the spatial and acoustic conditionsof the GrossesSchau-
spielhaus, and in 1924 the prelude to G6sta Berling was printed.The
differencesbetweensuch playsas Baal, Drums in theNight,In theJungle
of Cities,or the ultimatelyunfinishedHannibal and Gdsta Berling,are
strikingand are indicativeof Brecht'ssearch fora dramaticformappro-
priate to the time.
Brecht's firstgreat success occurred during these early Berlin years,
when he received (largely throughthe effortsof Herbert
Jhering)the
Kleist Prize. Brecht'searly friendJacob Geis and Lion Feuchtwanger
arrangedforthe premieresof Drums in the Night and In the Jungle of
Cities in 1922 in Munich, and in the same theatreBrechtstagedhis ver-

sion of Marlowe. A year later therewas a great row in connectionwith
the premiereof Baal in Leipzig, but from 1923 to 1925 his plays were
performed,thoughrarely,in several theatres.Brechtbecame known and
was a major concernforliterarypuzzle solvers.In 1923 Jacob Geis noted
thataftereach play people triedto assign Brechtto a different"trend."
In an effortto combatthiskind of labeling,Geis wrote:
We knowonly one thing,modestas we are: this Bert Brechtis one
person.Maybe he is one who belongshere or there.But he is here,
here withan importunacy whichis only endurableand permissibleby
thegraceof a greattalent.For the momenthe is havingtoo manyideas,
a greatmistakeafterthe periodof potentunfruitfulness
whichhas been
deckedout with the collectivename of "expressionism"-but one day
thismistakewill calm down,and the worldwill have one poet more.'
Geis recognizesBrecht'spoetic potential, but he also confirmshis un-
certainty,his seeking.
Brecht'sbehaviorhad its rootsin the economic sphere. It was the pe-
riod of inflationand of the initial restorationof capitalism.Afterthe
suppressionof the workersin Saxony, Thuringia, and Hamburg, the
German imperialists, withthe supportof Americanmonopolisticcapital,
began to consolidate theirpower. German industrywas organizedalong
American lines. An illusoryeconomic boom pacified the plebeian in-
surgents.These economic events-especially the economic revival, the
new machines,and the new methodsof production--resultedin a differ-
ent attitude on the part of the people which was called at that time
"Americanism."It's chief characteristics were a lack of sentimentality,
commercialactivity,and a special interestin engineeringand sport.
A commercialspiritwas dominant to an equal degree in the areas of
art. Numerous theatreswere founded, and the theatre became, to a
greaterdegree than ever before,a theatreenterprise,and the theatreas
art institutebecame an art business.Willi Wolfradtwroteof the theatre
in 1923:
It is widelyknownwhat kind of a gang has our theatresin its grip.
Stardom,omissionof a program,lack of groupspirit,department-store
of the so-calleddirectors,
interpretations theseare the objectsof com-
plaint.Rightlyso: but thebasicfact,thebasiccauseof it all remainsthis,
thatin the theatreas a whole thereis no upwardthrust.8
Even thoughWolfradtclearlyinterchangescause and effect,for us the
admittedcapitalizationof artisticenterprisesremainsan importantmat-
ter.
On the surface,therewas also a greatresurgencein the arts,a timeof
WERNERHECHT 53
florescencewhich Herbert Jhering,for example, praised beyond all

measure in his BerlinerDramaturgie.'But the wealth and multiformity
of thisexperimentationin the artsmustat thesame timebe seen in con-
nection with the capitalisticbasis of the arts.
For Brecht this diversityof new formswas a decisive experience.In
Munich he had already collaborated with Geis, Feuchtwanger,and
Engel, and he had played minor roles with the well-knowncomedian
Karl Valentin. In Berlin, with its more than fiftytheatres,therewere
simplyundreamed-ofpossibilitiesand unlimitedsourcesof stimulation.
But at firstthisgreat diversity--bothin life and the theatre--inBerlin
only heightenedBrecht'sinsecurity.He is enthusiasticabout the "new"
Americanattitudetowardlife and findsthat the older theatricalforms
do not matchup to it. So for the firsttime he begins to directlyoppose
the traditionaltheatre.
ATTACK ON THE "OLD" THEATRE

Afteran intervalof fiveyearsBrechtpublished several essayson the
drama and the theatrein the bourgeois daily BerlinerBdrsen-Courier
whichin a numberof waysweresignificantly differentfromthe Augsburg
reviews:theyno longer(or rarely)took theirstartfromspecificperform-
ances in the theatre,but were Brecht'sfirstattemptsto create an inde-
pendentdramatictheory.In contrastto his earliercritiques,thesearticles
are chieflyconcernedwith Brecht'sown creativework,and with theatri-
cal problemsin general.
In each of theseessaysBrechtbitterlyattackedthe traditionalmethods
of the theatre."The old theatre... no longer has a face," he wrote in
1926. In replyto a public inquiryof the VossischeZeitungas to whether
the theatrewas dying,he wrote:
Periodsof timewhichdrag along withsuch a terriblerubbishpile of
"artforms"(derivedfromotherperiods)can accomplish neithera drama
nor anything else of artisticquality.It mustbe ratherhumiliatingfora
generationwhen the questionarises at its termination whethersuch
workas it did paid its way at all. And we, who afterall have a very
healthyappetitefor good theatre,must confess(and thus make our-
selvesunpopular)that (for example)such cheap and stammered stuff
as this plasterreliefHerod and Mariamne[by FriedrichHebbel] can
no longersatisfyus. But that people of morerecentdate will let the
wholetheatrebe takenawayfromthem,or made repulsive,is not very
likely.'0
It is obvious thatBrechtis discussingtheproblemin termsof a particular
historicalcontext.He judges in termsof the "age" of a workof art alone.
He does not evaluate plays in relationshipto the theatreof theirown
times,but one-sidedlyfromthe standpointof the present.Hebbel, who

had already been attacked in an Augsburgreview,is now stamped al-
togetheras a bungler."Formsof art" are iconoclasticallyrejectedat once
and in toto.
In his judgment of this question Brecht lacks dialectic. Back in the
Augsburgcritiquesa certainannoyancewith the classicshad made itself
felt,but now theyare radicallycondemned. In 1924 the dramatistsaid
provocativelyabout the drama, addressingthe "philologists"in connec-
tion witha "Feststellung"concerninghis use of versesby Rimbaud and
Verlaine,"Even now to be sure the informationcan be released to them
thatthedrama,ifit shouldevermarchahead at all, will in any case march
calmlyover the dead bodies of the philologists."In theseyearsthe gulf
between the "philologically"determinedform of the drama and the
realitywhichis to be dramaticallyshaped seems to Brechtso great that
evidentlyno possibilityexists of putting reality into that form.It is
thereforeonly logical that his strivingsfor a new theoryof the drama
run parallel with his (initiallymechanical) rejection of the older dra-
matic forms.
In addition to thisrejection of older dramatic forms,Brecht also at-
tackedthe "old, antiquated techniquesof the theatre,"especiallythe lack
of contactbetweenthe theatreand the public.
A theatrewhichlackscontactwiththepublicmakesno sense.Our theatre
therefore makesno sense.The factthatthe theatretodayhas as yetno
contactwiththepublicresultsfromits ignoranceof whatpeoplewantof
it. That whichwas once in its powerit can no longerdo, and if it could
stilldo it peoplewouldno longerwantit. But the theatrekeepson and
on doingwhat it can no longerdo and what people no longerwant."1
The old theatreseemsto the dramatist,both as regardsthe formsof the
drama and the modes of performance,antiquated, no longer takingac-
count of the conditionsof the time. This criticism,which is veryques-
tionablyargued, is the foundationfor Brecht's firsttheoriesof a new
type of theatre.
"FUN" IN THE THEATRE

What Brechtparticularlymissesin the existing(middle-class)theatre
is what he refersto as "spass" (literally:"jest," "joke"). "In all the easily
heated, prettilylighted, money-devouring, imposing looking theatres,
and in all the stuffthat is offeredin them,thereis no longerfivecents'
worthof fun." What we get today (he goes on), "instead of real ability
... onlysimulatesintensityand is simplyconvulsions,"is enormouseffort.
But that is just the opposite of what the public expects of the theatre.
WERNER HECHT 55
Surprisingly,Brecht sees as the most hopeful aspect of the theatrethe

people who "leave in frontand at rear afterthe show: theyare dissatis-
fied."Here the critique takesa new tack.The dissatisfiedbecome allies.
EvidentlyBrechtis countingon the discontentedartistsand the discon-
tentedspectators.But he has no clear idea of "the public." He certainly
doesn't thinkof it as an undifferentiated mass, but his distinctionsare
imprecise.On the one hand he turnsagainsta part of the public which
only goes to the theatrein order not "to give up the regularseats be-
queathed by Grandfather,"but the new public he hopes to gain is by
no means determinedby such social points of view. It is a public which,
now as formerly, is composed of "people of all classesand everytypeof
face." We get informationabout the new spectatorsfromthe behavior
which Brecht imagines them to assume in the theatre,and from the
meanswhichhe considerssuitableforattainingthechiefobjective,"fun."
As a man of thisage [he writesto the "gentlemenin the frontrow"]
you feeltheneed to exerciseyourconstructivetalent,and you are firmly
resolvedto make yourgiftfororganization triumphnot onlyover life
but also and no less overmy dramaticcreation. ... You value being a
participantin certainsenselessfeelingsof enthusiasmand discourage-
ment,whichpertainto the funof life.All in all, I mustdirectmy at-
tentionto thetaskof strengtheningyourappetitein mytheatre."
At one time this spectatoris characterizedby being superiorto "life,"
i.e., by unconcerned,sober objectivity,another time-seeminglyin con-
tradictionto that-by thecapacityforbeing able and eager to yieldwith
joy to extremeemotions.In both typesBrechtsees appetites,which he
wishesto strengthen,and he sees in the theatrethe means to stimulate
and satisfytheseappetitesat one and the same time:
If I reachthepointwhereyou feela desireto smokea cigar,and outdo
myself byhavingthatcigar,at definite
spotswhichI havepredetermined,
go out on you,both you and I will be contentwithme. Whichis and
remainsthe main thing.
In thisutterancethe apparent contradictionin the attitudeof the spec-
tatoris dialecticallyresolved.Brechtwishesto reach the "gentlemanin
the frontrow" in a diversifiedmanner:in orderto induce a rationalstate
of mind in him he needs a mood, whichmustbe interrupted.
Brechtprobablyvisualizeshis spectatoras a "self-mademan," a "smart"
(small) businessman,who acquires in the theatrecapabilitieswhich will
be usefulto him in his capitalisticpractice.For thisreason,Brechtthinks
of productionas a formof business.He sells the commodity, art,in order
to get it evaluated. This is expressedclearlyand prosaicallyat the be-
ginning:
I imaginethatforyourmoneyyou wantme to showyou somethingof

life.... You wishto sharein theirascent[i.e.,thepeopleof thiscentury],
and youwantto getyourprofitfromtheirdownfall.
But it is unmistakablethat in thesewords thereis also a pointed irony,
whichcriticizessuch attitudestowardart. The factthaton the one hand
Brechtgiveshis arta functionin thegivenconditionsof capitalism,while
on the other hand he opposes it, is also proven by his postulation of
"fun." In doing so he takes a definitestand against the cheap pleasures
to which a large part of the bourgeoisieand the lower middle-classau-
dience surrendereditself-namely,thesillyoperettasand the expensively
and lavishlystaged revues. For Brecht,the term"fun" derives froma
"lower" sphere and is in contrastto the "pleasure" which the middle
class seeks in the theatre.But what then is the basis of Brecht'sideal
audience?
SPORT AS A MODEL
"Our hope is based on the sport-lovingpublic" is the programmatic
opening of his essay entitled "More Good Sport"; it is "the shrewdest
and fairestaudience in the world." In the early 1920's sportshad be-
come increasinglypopular. "Sport is trumpstoday,"one reads in an ar-
ticle by Carl Diem, the Geperal Secretaryof the Federal Commissionfor
PhysicalExercise; "In the newspapersit takes up more space than the-
atre, art, and literature."In fact,not infrequentlyspecial journals for
art and the social sciences published communicationsabout athletic
events or about the nature of sport. Sport recordswere even taken as
themesfor poems. A new place of entertainmentmade its appearance:
the sportsarena or stadium-a dangerousrival of the existingfacilities,
includingthe theatre.Theatre speculatorswho had suffered lossesproph-
esied the downfall of the theatre,othersagain prognosticatedso-called
"sport theatres,"great open-air theatresin the formof sport forums.
It was not financialconsiderationswhich had made Brecht a lover
of sport.What interestedhim at this time was the "battle-in-itself," as
he had givenit shape in his play,In theJungleof Cities.For thatpurpose
the boxing match seemed to him especially attractive:the opponents
stand on a brightlylighted platform; their punches, their defensive
movementscan be observedfromall sides. So the public can watch the
courseof the fight,judge it, and--what was mostimportantforBrecht-
checkon the decisionsof the referee.
Such a public, which as observersharesin the judging of the "fights"
and enjoysthisactivity,is desiredby Brechtforthistheatre.At the same
time he seems to believe that a healthyspiritof sport is necessaryfor
the artistas well. He remarks:
WERNER
HECrr 57
The decadenceof our theatrepublic derivesfromthe factthatneither

theatrenor public have any idea of what oughtto go on here.In the
sportpalaces,whenpeople buy theirticketstheyknowexactlywhatwill
happen; and that is exactlywhat does happen when theyare in their
seats:namely,thattrainedpeople withthefinestfeelingof responsibility,
and yet in a mannerwhichmakesone believethat theyare doing it
fortheirownfun,exhibittheirparticularpowersin themost
principally
agreeablefashion.
This sportingideal is raised by Brechtinto a requirementforhis new
theatre: "It is not possible to understandwhy the theatretoo should
not have its 'good sport.'" The theatrecould--in Brecht's opinion--
undoubtedlygive somethingto a public "whichis eating todaythe beef
of today." When that happens the lost but (for the theatre)urgently
needed contactwith the public will at last be restored.For the actor,to
be sure,a change in his previousmode of playingwill be necessitated:
I will not say that we have fewertalentsthan othertimesmay have
had, but I don'tthinkthattherewas eversuch a harried,misused,fear-
whipped-uptroupeof actorsas ours.And nobodywho
driven,artificially
doesn'tget fun out of what he does may expectthat it will resultin
fun for anyoneelse.
The "fun" whichgood sportoffersis transferredto the artist,too. Even
thedramatisthimselfmustapproach his workin such a mood. It is there-
forenot surprisingthatBrechtcongratulatestheseptuagenarianBernard
Shaw "on the fun which his work has evidentlyalways affordedhim.""
Brechtthen elaboratesthisidea still further:
I can only say that the effectof this inimitablegaietyand this in-
good humor is quite extraordinary.
fectiously Shaw actuallysucceeds
in conveying theidea thathis mentaland physicalhealthis bound to be
increasedby everysentencehe writes.It is perhapsnot Dionysiacally
intoxicatingto read his writings,but it is withoutquestion extra-
healthful.
ordinarily And his onlyopponents-tosay a wordabout them
too-could onlybe personsto whomhealthis of minorimportance.
The "appetite" of the spectator,in Brecht'sopinion, can only be aroused
by the"appetite"of theartistas absorbedbytheworkofart.
NowBrechtdoesnotthinkhe can achievethisbyordinary sport,only
bygood sport.Thus he expressly cutsthedesiredattitudeofffrombad
sport,fromtheovertaxing of one's forces,fromthemaniaforrecords,
and in generalfromall slaveryto an arbitraryobjective.In a laterarticle
("The SportCrisis")he setsthisforth as follows:
In short,
I am againstall effortsto convert sportintoa cultural good,
if onlybecauseI knowwhat this societyis alwaysdoingwithcultural
goods,and becausesportis reallytoo good for that.I am in favorof
sportbecauseand so long as it is risky(unhealthy),

uncultured(not fit
forgood society),
and an end in itself.14
Somewhatas in his postulationof "fun" we findhim taking a frontal
position against "this society"in his transferof the principlesof sport
to the theatre,meaningmiddle-classsocietyand at the same time intro-
ducing a dubious innovation.Since the objectivesof societyseem to be
unacceptable,Brechtdemands forthe theatrethe rightto be an end in
itself.Referringto the theatreand contemplatinga reform,Brechtex-
presseshimselflogically,in connectionwith a critiqueof the movement
fora "Volksbiihne,"in favorof the "establishmentof a theatrelabora-
tory in which actors, authors,and directorswill work for their own
amusement,withoutany special intention."
The idealisticdialecticwhichBrecht-according to his laterjudgment
-was advocating in his play, In the Jungle of Cities,shows itselfalso
in his firsttheoreticalpronouncementsabout a new theatre.
EPIC OPTICS
At this time Brechtseemed only indirectlyconcernedwith the prob-
lems of stagingplays. His conception of dramaticformwas influenced
by the (silent)movies,whichhad become increasinglypopular. We have
mentionedthe factthat in 1920 BrechtcharacterizedKaiser's technique,
whichhe admired,as cinematic.In the followingyearshe occupied him-
self frequentlywith problemsof the movies. In 1922 he complained of
the inartistic,capitalisticpracticesof the movie industry."Much would
be gained," he wrote,"if at least the sale of artisticallyacceptable movie
plots wereorganized."Thereupon he at once wrotewithArnoltBronnen
the plot of the five-actmovie,Robinsonade auf Asuncion,receivingfor
it a prize of the "Richard-Oswald-Gesellschaft" and of the weeklyDas
Tagebuch. In 1923he informedHerbertJheringthathe was puttingout
"tiny little movies with engel ebinger valentin leibelt faber [names of
collaborators,small initialsused by Brecht]."The filmaffordedpossibili-
ties which were unthinkablein the theatre,and the use of the camera
directedhis attentionto the idea of close-ups.
The whole question of filmoptics is discusssedby Brechtin 1925 in
his Stevenson Marginalia (Glossen zu Stevenson).'" He states that "the
optics of the movie was here on this continentbeforethe movie came,"
and continues:
Not onlyforthisreasonis it ridiculousto maintainthatbecauseof the
moviestechnology
has introduced a newopticsintoliterature.
Considered
as a purely verbal matter, the realignment toward the optic viewpoint
began long ago in Europe.
WERNER HECHT 59
Asan examplehe mentionsRimbaud.In Stevenson, too,he saysthehap-

are
penings visuallyarranged.This is particularlytrueof his favorite
novel,The MasterofBallantrae,in whichBrechtfindsmanyimportant
innovations
in thetechniques
ofform:
Thisoneforexample, thatherea manis surveyed anddescribed byan
expresslyenviousperson:thisbiography waswritten by theenemy....
The injustice
ofall persons,
whichso embitters theMasterandaccounts
formanyof his actions,is so overwhelmingly supplemented by the
evident ofhisbiographer
injustice thatthesympathy ofthereaderturns
to himall themorevehemently. The MasterofBallantrae is theextra-
ordinaryexampleofa novelofadventure in whichthesympathy ofthe
readerfortheadventurer himself(a sympathy whichis theexclusive
life
bloodofall otheradventure novels)is onlyachievedslowlyandwithan
effort.
As aforesaid:an invention of theveryfirstrank.
Whatimpresses Brechtso strongly is theattitudeof Stevensontoward
hishero,as it seemsto be expressed in thepresentation ofhim,and the
effectwhichthistechnique exertsuponthereader.The readermustfight
hisway"withan effort" through to thisposition.Putin anotherwaythis
means:he mustgetawayfromthemannerin whichthewriteroffers his
subjectmatter.Sinceall at once Brecht,thelyricpoet and playwright,
makesmarginalcomments hereon a mannerof epic presentation, we
mayassumethathe is finding, in thisgenreof composition, elements
whichseemto himemployable forhisowngenres.
It is noteworthy thatBrechtthinkstheopticsof the movieto have
been realizedin narrativeliterature even beforethe moviescame to
prominence. in
Consequently judgingmovingpictureshe directshisat-
tentionespeciallyto theepicelements whichpermita reflective consider-
ationof thehappenings In hisessayon BernardShaw(whom
displayed.
he esteemsnowfarmorethancouldbe recognized fromthePygmalion
review)he likewiselaysstresson thenarrative elementswhenhe writes:
These complications [in the plays]cannotbe old enoughand familiar
enoughforShaw,he is quite withoutambitionin thatregard.A really
customary usereris a goldentreasureto him,thereis a patrioticgirlin
the story,and forhim the onlyimportantthingis that to us the story
of thisgirl is as familiaras possible,and the sad end of the usureras
current and desirable as possible, so as to have us derive all the more
thoroughlyour antiquated views regarding these types and particularly
regarding their views.
The modelingof the "heroes" by Shaw (as well as by Stevenson)throws
"our customaryassociations
intodisorder."
Withfullapproval,Brecht
allowsShawto reshapewell-knownplotsin a fashion.Without
different
doubt essential elementsof his subsequent technique of alienation are
foreshadowedhere.
For Brecht,Shaw's plays stand out above others"because theyappeal

so intrepidlyto the understanding,"and in general Brechtis taken with
Shaw'suncommonviews.He accountsas followsforthe preferencehe ac-
cords to the intellect:
Besides,his timeseemsto preserveviewsbetterthanit does feelingsand
moods.It appears that viewsconcerning that whichwas laid down in
thatepochare stillthemostenduringthingabout it.
In theseutterancesBrechttakes a decided turn away fromthe conven-
tional idea of the drama. He advocatesan epic formwhich permitsthe
playwrightto take various "attitudes."The break with the old drama is
made even wider by the fact that accordingto Brecht'sideas a play is
evidentlyno longersupposed to generatemoods but should appeal to the
intellectof the spectator.Thus in formalrespectsdemandsare presented
whichextend to the finalstage of the epic theatreand have continued
to be essentialconstituentsof his dramatictheory.
In 1925, to be sure, these views lacked any materialisticground. For
here too Brecht overrefinesmatterswhen, afterpraisingShaw, he gen-
eralizes:
As in generalat all timesand in everysituationtheforceof an utterance

alwaysseemsto me moreimportant thanits applicability,
and a man of
staturemoreimportantthan the directionof his activity.
The writer,it would seem,is executingan astonishingbow beforeorigi-
nality,the consequence of which would inevitablybe an uncriticalap-
predation of everycontent,if only it is uttered"forcefully."It would,
however,be wrongto detectin thesewordsmerelya neutralitydevoid of
principles.As we have found, Brecht'sjudgmentof Shaw is verymuch
(even thoughformally)related to content.His view of "stature"is un-
questionablypartisan.Brechtconceded stature,as will be shown,to but
few personalities.His extremismis also to be explained froma position
taken for fightingagainst mediocrity,against "artists"withoutviews or
with constantlychangingones.
In his praise of Shaw's originality,which parallels the extolling of
Wedekind,therelies concealed,on the otherhand, the searchfora firm
position of his own. Brecht'sstandpointis determinedby his rejection
of some capitalisticmachinations;but also by the consciousnessof having
to workcreativelyin a timeshowingjust theseconditions.
I certainlythinkthatan artist,even if he worksforcominggenerations
in thenotoriousgarretwiththepublickeptout,can accomplishnothing
withouthavingwind in his sails. And thatwind mustbe just the one
whichhappensto be blowingat thetime,i.e.,nota futurewind.
WERNERHECHT 61
Brechtmay sail against the wind with the greatestcontentment,but as

yethe cares too littleabout the directionfromwhich the wind blows.
The road to epic theatreis verywinding,and as yet we don't know

whereit will take us. There are manypossibilities,includingsome which
lead into blind alleys. Nevertheless,a significanttransformationhas
taken place in the period between the Augsburgreviewsand the first
theoreticalessayswrittenin Berlin. Brechthas been convertedfromthe
theatreof illusion to a theatreof "sport,"and this new concept of the
theatreis the resultof his experiencewith Americanism,fromthe atti-
tude toward life of a capitalistic,industrial society which secures its
restorationwith the aid of modern technologicalmeans. Brecht is im-
pressed by its objectivity,by the (capitalistic) "art of living," by the
heightenedinterestin technologyand sport to such a degree that he
seeks a theatrethat will partake of thesequalities. Even thoughhe at-
tacks those conditionsthat are ruinous,unjust, and in need of reform,
he still does not see theireconomiccauses and persistsin criticizingthe
middle class froma middle-classpoint of view. In the same way,his radi-
cal rejectionof plays "fromthe past" is the resultof an American"atti-
tude towardlife,"an attitudebased on the ideas of technicalperfection
and the ethicsof sports.For Brecht,classical plays have lost all relation-
ship with life as it is now lived. His attitudeis strengthenedby the nu-
merous performancesof the classics,which take place for no other pur-
pose than to show offin a fitting mannersome "star" in a particularrole.
But the youngplaywrightdoes not inveighagainst antiquated perform-
ances of the classics,he denounces the classical dramasas only fitfor the
museum.
In thisquestionable attitudethereis some advance fromhis Augsburg
days,insofaras Brechtnow separateshimselfin full awareness--theoreti-
cally,too-from past worksof art (and theirconventionalrestraint)and
undertakesto fit his dramatic work into the realities of the present.
Dazzled by certain phenomena, he sees a solution in the transferof
sportingideals to the theatre.The man in the frontrow is to get "his
money'sworth"in the theatre.It is now a question of fun beforeand
behind the footlights.But the objects to which the fun is related are ob-
jects "in themselves,"thus: the fightin itself,personalitiesin them-
selves, pleasurable creatingin itself--everything, like "good" sport,as
an end in itself.
Without doubt therehas been some progress,though to be sure the
plan to findsolutionsto problemswiththe aid of a dialectical formalism
was doomed to failurefromthe outset.On the otherhand a
heightened
interestin formopens up an approach to novel means of artisticex-

pression,which are firstsensitivelyobserved in other works but soon
employedin his own plays.
Criticismsof Brecht are limited at this time to an appraisal of the
actual plays. Brecht's pronouncementsabout the theatre were pre-
sumablytoo little known or were not taken seriously.Besides, criticism
was seriouslyhampered by personal enmitiesof the reviewers.Herbert
Jheringcame to be known as a "brechtoman"["Brechtomaniac,"a term
coined by Luma] and thus caused AlfredKerr and his adherentsto de-
nounce and disparageBrecht(and Bronnen).Adversecriticismconsisted
particularlyin the assertionthat Brechtwas writingexpanded ballads.
Brecht'sdramaticendeavorsare more preciselyconsideredin a critical
appraisal by Kurt Miino in the Special-Brecht-Bronnen-Number of the
Journal Die neue Zeit (Dresden); thiswas to be sure a product of the
year 1927,but it dealt withthoseviewsof Brechtset forthin thissection.
Miino remarks:
Our time has threesymbols:the radio towerat Nauen, the towering

chimneysand head framesof the Ruhr, and the stadiumsand sports
palaces of the cities. Mankindtodayis wedged in betweenthese ex-
sport.These threepowers,which
work,technology,
pressivepossibilities:
are encampedabove us todaylike giants,tookmankindby surprise,so
thatno defensecould be offered.16
What must be shown on the stage (Miino goes on) is the human being
working under these conditions "in all transactionsand variations."
Brecht is regardedby Miino as a pioneer; he "found the dramaticex-
pression of the initial feeling of our day, opened up enormous new
possibilitiesof experience in the theatre."In this acceptance of Brecht
(which incidentallyhails Bronnen and Zuckmayerin the same breath!)
the point of departureis of interest:the idea thatman had been "taken
by surprise"by the phenomena of Americanism-whichmeans the as-
sumptionof an absolute technicaldeterminednessof man. Actually,it
was only fromsuch an unilluminatedviewpointthat Brecht'sattempts
at a renewal of the drama by means of a sportingtypeof theatrecould
be regardedas a valid "expressionof the time."(What the youngwriter,
incidentally,understandsby "initial dramaticfeeling"is opaque in the
extreme.)
The new possibilitiesof experiencein the theatre,which are still em-
bryonicin Brecht'sdramatictheory-in thiswe mustagree withMiino-
were neverthelessextraordinary, and the only need was to place them
upon a correctbasis. Effortsin thisdirectionwere soon to follow.
WERNER HECHT 63
PART II: BRECHT'S THEORY OF EPIC THEATRE, 1926-

1929
In 1926 Brechttook a stand forthe epic theatre;in 1930,withthe pub-
licationof his Versuche,it moved into thefinalstagesof itsdevelopment.
In the interveningyears a number of essays appeared in which his
theoryof epic theatrewas postulated.
Brecht finishedMan is Man (Mann ist Mann, 1926); some one-act
plays,The ThreepennyOpera (Die Dreigroschenoper,1928), The Flight
of the Lindbergs (Der Flug der Lindbergs,1929), the Lesson in Under-
standing(Lehrstiickvom Einverstdndnis,1929); he workedon the plays
Saint Joan of the Stockyards(Die heiligeJohanna der Schlachthofe)and
The Yea-Sayerand the Nay-Sayer(Der Jasagerund der Neinsager). His
volume of poems, The Breviary(Hauspostille, 1927), found a large mar-
ket; a year later The ThreepennyOpera had an extraordinarysuccess.
For the firsttimeBrechtwas knownoutsideof Germany.
The economicboom reached itspeak at thistime,and in 1929 and the
succeedingyear a severe depressionset in. Despite a steadyrise in pro-
duction,unemploymentcould not be overcome.In the year 1927,when
the illusoryeconomic rise was booming,more than 12 percent of the
workersin Germanywere unemployed.As a resultmanyworkers
joined
the German Communistic Party, which had developed into a revo-
lutionarypartyof the masses,representingthe interestsof the laboring
population.
In all realms of culture capitalismwas the dominant influence.In a
militantspeech to the German Theatre Club, MontyJacobs denounced
the theatreas soulless and mechanical.
Privateownership oflandedproperty has formed sincetheworkof Brahm
thebasisofall possibilities
of thepracticeof art.... One mustnotsee too
plainlyhow the moneyedman makesliterary history....An unrestricted
dominanceof houseownersand lessorsis settingin. The innersenseless-
ness of privateownershipis shownnow in the
chains." emergenceof theatre
In thesetheatrestherewas no spiritof ensemble,therewas no

repertoire,
and only the star and anticipated "success" determinedwhat was
pro-
duced.
Brecht,who as earlyas the Augsburgreviews,had seen
throughand re-
jected the hollownessof expressionisticproclamationsof man without
men,had progressedon his windingpath to a questionable
of ethics,whichhe feltwas in keepingwiththe time.Whilesporting type
the rebelling
expressionistswere accommodatingthemselvesto middle-classcompla-
cency,Brechtrecognizedthe temporarycharacterof the enonomicboom

and developed a theoryof the theatrewhich had a sociological basis.
1. Epic Forms of Drama

Brecht firstused the termepic theatrein July, 1926 in an interview
Bernard Guillemin conducted for the LiterarischeWelt. Brechtstated,
"I am for the epic theatrel"At about the same time Elisabeth Haupt-
mann,formanyyearsBrecht'scollaborator,notesthatin thecourseof his
studies for the play Joe Fleischhacker,the playwrighthad set up his
theoryof the "epic drama." The designation "epic drama"-at first
seeminglyparadoxical-soon to become exclusively"epic theatre,"was
nothing new at this time. It had appeared previously,as Schumacher
has pointed out, as the subtitleof plays.' Epic elementshad invaded
drama and theatrein different waysand forvarious reasons.Therefore,
if we are to judge what Brecht'sreal innovationsare, we must firstex-
amine those earlymanifestationsof the epic theatreto which the play-
wrightappeals.
Brechtbelieved that since the time of Naturalismdramaticliterature
was developingtowardan epic drama, "at a timewhen exact sciencegot
its greatstart."He saw the trendtowardepic formin the drama coming
as a resultof the influenceof middle-classnovels (Zola, Dostoyevsky,
etc.)
on the Germandramatists.To an even greaterdegree Brechtfound epic
formsin the playsof Shaw. The world of thatIrishman,he remarked,is
one whichcomesinto being throughpointsof view.These viewsconcern-
ing the actors are opposed to those about the spectators.Thus Brecht
findsthe alienation of the spectatorfromthe dramaticevent,the invita-
tion to make an unforceddecision,realized to a large extentin Shaw's
dramaticform.
The most surprisingthing,to be sure, may be the fact that Brecht
refersemphaticallyto Georg Kaiser as the immediateprecursorof the
epic theatre.He considersall dramaticendeavors "withoutthe knowl-
edge of his innovations"to be fruitless,while at the same time he is in
criticalconflictwith Kaiser's "bold fundamentalthesis,"idealism. In a
radio speech at Cologne Brechtstressesthe factthat beforeKaiser,plays
depended essentiallyon suggestion,whereasKaiser appeals to the reason-
ing powerof the public. In thisway (saysBrecht)he "made possible that
whollynew bearingof thepublic, thatcool, searching,interestedattitude
of the audience in a scientificage."
That attitude which Kaiser induces in his audience correspondsin
manywaysto theattitudeof thesports-loving public,in whichBrechthad
placed his hope. The word "searching"has taken on new meaning.It is
WERNERHECHT 65
an attitudeof mind which is characterizedless by "fun" than by the sci-
entificspirit(which,of course,in view of Kaiser's conceptionof thinking
as a sensualpleasure,does not exclude pleasure but is actuallythe primal
source of it).
Brecht,however,does not by any means ignore Kaiser's idealisticfirst
assumptions:
It is correctthatKaiserhas carriedthroughto its extremist consequence
the individualistic
drama whichrestsupon an idealisticpictureof the
world.This trendin himis finding no continuation,sincewithus theeco-
nomic and sociologicalfoundationsare lacking:the developmentskips
about dialectically.
Kaiser developsthe epic form,i.e., the techniqueof
the anti-individualistic,
the collectivistic
drama for the individualistic
happeningsof themiddleclass."
Georg Kaiser had come to know capitalism in its higheststage as im-
perialism;he experiencedthe mass murderof the (first)World War and
the depersonalizationof man in the "rationalized" productionof capi-
talism. This collectivizationof production,which seemed to eliminate
the individual altogether,threw Kaiser, the middle-classintellectual,
back upon himself."Perhaps as singleindividual,man is reallygood," he
ponders,"but in the mass,as a closed body,as society,as state,he is any-
thingbut that."But thisanarchicindividualism,whichinduces Kaiser to
think (not to copy) reality,finds expression now in an artisticform
(the Platonic dialogue) whichis preciselyadequate fordepersonalization.
This is what Brecht means when he observesin Kaiser a dialectic re-
versalof form.His reasoning,however,alreadyindicatesthathe is
taking
over the epic elementsof Kaiser's formforwhollydifferent reasonsand
to servewhollydifferent ends.
The precursorsof the epic theatrenamed by Brechtwere not aware of
theirtrendtowardepic formto the same extent,or at least
theydid not
put epic elementsinto their dramas as a result of deliberatingabout
dramaticgenres.It is ratherthe case that theirformshad
sprung from
theirparticularview of what a play is. While
theywere thereforenot
seldom censuredas non-dramatists, properlyspeaking,undramaticplays
are alreadyfoundin the Twenties to have a certain
rightto existenceon
the stage. Brecht refersespecially to Arnolt Bronnen and Marieluise
Fleisser.
Through the existenceof some epic dramas,whetheror not theywere
so called, and throughhis observationof a trendtoward
epic formsince
the period of Naturalism,the conviction
ripensin Brechtthattheseepic
elementsmust be employed in order to do justice to the
given social
situation.
EPIC FORMS OF REPRESENTATION

Brecht also findsprototypesof the mode of productionsuitable for
epic drama.The famousextemporeactor,Karl Valentin,in whosetheatre
Brechthad himselfplayed fora timein Munich,made a greatimpression
on the young Brecht. As late as 1955, in an interviewwith Giorgio
Strehler,Brechtpoints to Valentin as a fittingexample of the epic mode
of acting. But it was not only the "alienating" styleof deliverywhich
impressedBrecht,but Valentin's whole basic attitude as an artist.As
Eugene Giirsterreportsin his essayon "Der Stegreifspieler Karl Valen-
tin," thisactorsufferedfroma hopeless love foremotion (he was moved
to tearswhile watchingperformancesof heroic plays). Valentin repre-
sented--Giirsterthinks-"per se the impossibilityof his own idea." In
thisway a multidimensional, oftentragicomictypeof wit was produced.
For Valentin no occasion and no happening was single-mindedand cer-
tain.
The systemof relationships

in thisexternalworld,so familiarto us, is at
no pointsufficiently
close-knitted
forKarl Valentinto offerno occasion
fora doubtas to whetherperhapsconnections betweenthings,different
fromthosewhichhave grownfamiliar,are still possible."
This basic artisticprinciplewas taken over by Brechtas stage manager.

But it also exertedan essentialinfluenceon the shapingof his plays.
A totallydifferent kind of influencein Brecht'sdevelopmentcan be
found in the political theatreof Erwin Piscator.Since Schumacherdis-
cusses thisrelationshipin great detail, we don't have to go into it here
exceptto say thatin thelatterpart of the 1920'sBrechtcollaboratedwith
Piscator.Unlike Brecht,Piscatorwas more concernedwith questionsof
contentthan he was with problemsof form;and in this respecthe was
very successful.Brecht was convinced that middle-classtheatreswere
stimulatedby Piscatorto performplays whichdealt with contemporary
subjects.If Brechtseemsto minimizethe importanceof Piscator'stheatri-
cal techniques,thismustbe understoodin the contextof his furtherre-
marks.He believed Piscator'sgreat contributionto the historyof the
theatrewas thathe made thequestionofcontentonce again an important
subject of discussion.This in no way denies the fact that Brecht in-
corporatedmanyof Piscator'sstagingtechniquesinto his own theoriesof
production.
A particularlystrong impressionwas made upon Brecht by a
per-
formanceof Sophocles' Oedipus (Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Co-
lonnus in one evening) staged by Leopold Jessner in 1929 in the
PreussichesStaatstheater.This productionwas the "last halt" on the way
WERNER HECHT 67
to the epic theatre,and Brechtgot manyideas fromit whichhe incorpo-

rated into his theory.In fact,this performancepromptedhim to write
his noteworthy"Dialogue on the Art of Acting" (1929). We shall return
to it lateron.
All these artiststo whom Brecht referspresentedideas and created
formswhich he-sometimes withoutchangingthem at all-assimilated.
The essentialthing,however,is that in everycase he gave thema differ-
ent function.The existing formaltrendswere for Brecht possibilities
fromwhich he chose those which would best serve his aims. We can
betterunderstandtheseaims when we considerthemin relationshipto
the sociologicalstudieswhich he was carryingon at the same time.
2. The Sociological Basis of Epic Theatre

We noted earlierthat the theoryof the epic theatre-accordingto the
statementsof Elisabeth Hauptmann--grewout of Brecht'sstudyof eco-
nomics.She says that Brechtrecognizedthat: "When one sees that our
world of today no longer fitsinto the drama, then it is merelythat the
drama no longerfitsinto the world."
BRECHT'S PREOCCUPATION WITH SOCIOLOGY

Brechtalways sought to thinkclearlyabout historicand social prob-
lems, and for this reason he wrote to and talked with many eminent
sociologists.One of the most importantof thesewas FritzSternberg.At
thistimeSternbergwas a thorough-going Marxist.In an appeal "To the
Intellectuals"(1930) he declaresthathe representsthe "standpointof the
revolutionaryMarxists."Sternbergappealed to the intellectualsto give
up theirneutrality,foronly throughsocialismis thereany chance fora
revivalof culture.He writes:
Culturegoesto piecesin classwarfare. The greatepochsof Germanphi-
losophyand Germanmusicprecedethe fullydevelopedclass struggle.
-The presenttimepresentsnothingbut stragglers. -The classstruggles
mustbecomeintensified. So cultureis possibleonlythroughthedestruc-
tion of the classes,throughsocialism,throughcommunism.2
But socialism (he says) will not come of itself;the way to it is the so-
cialistic revolution,the dictatorshipof the proletariat."Marx analyzed
the forceswhich lead to socialism,and Lenin showed in detail how the
socialisticrevolutionis to be organized in the presentepoch." The his-
torictaskof the intellectuals,Sternbergthinks,is to show the
proletariat
the way to the socialisticrevolution (acknowledgedas
necessary).All
neutralitymeans the supportof imperialism.The political revolutionof
the proletariatprecedes the economic one. "Therefore,it is not fitting

to contrastproletarian and middle-classculture; the latter is not re-
placed by proletarianculture,but by that of socialism,of communism.
Our generationhas as its proper task the organizationof the socialistic
revolution.The taskof the intellectualsis this:to workforit too in their
own sphere."
This appeal of Sternbergtellsus a greatdeal about his philosophicand
political position at the beginningof the 1930's.At a timewhen fascism
was rapidlybecominga menace,Sternbergstandsforthe dictatorshipof
the proletariat and summons the intellectuals to recognize their his-
toric task and decide to promoteprogress.It seems fittingto point ex-
presslyto this espousal of the socialisticrevolution at the time of the
Weimar Republic, for this is the Sternbergwith whom Brechtdiscusses
sociological problems. True, there are some mistaken assumptionsin
Sternberg'sappeal to the intellectuals.For example, he assignsthe lead-
ing role just to "the" intellectuals(meaning evidentlythose converted
to Marxism). He displays extraordinarytrustin them; for in securing
partisansit seems that withhim all thatcounts is the purelymental de-
cision. As forthe culturalfuture,he refusesto give any information,for
theeconomicsituationmustchangein orderto determinethe intellectual
structureof a comingsocialisticsociety.With theseviews thereis germi-
nally the hint of a possibilitywhich later became an actuality: as an
6migr6Sternbergbecame a renegade and a defamerof socialism.
Brecht's lively interestin socialism is expressed in numerous con-
versationswith Sternbergand others,as well as in an intensivestudyof
socialisticliterature."I am eightfeetdeep in Kapital. I have to know that
quite exactly now..." he writesin October, 1926 to Elisabeth Haupt-
mann. For Brecht,sociologyis firstof all a science which gives him ob-
jective standardsfor the judgmentof worksof art. He wrote to Stern-
berg:
The sociologistknowsthat thereare situationsin whichimprovements
[of plays]no longerdo any good. The scale of his evaluationsdoes not
rangebetween"good"and "bad," but between"correct"and "false."If a
play is "false,"he will notpraiseit becauseit is "good" (or "beautiful"),
and he alone will be deafto the estheticcharmsof a performance which
is false.He aloneknowswhatis false;he is no relativist,
he has interests
of
a vitalnature,he getsno funout of provingeverything; he wishesonly
to searchout thatwhichit is rewardingto praise,he does not by any
meansassumethe responsibility foreverything, onlyforone thing.The
sociologistis our man.a
Sociology, which Brecht characteristicallyfails to define precisely,is
preferredto estheticsbecause of the apparent scientificexactnesswith
WERNERHECHT 69
whichit is able to judge worksof art. Brechteven opposes undialectically
the "sociological" to the "esthetic" and decides-because of the possi-
bility of an objective judgment-in favor of the former.In all these
theoreticaldiscussionswhat concerns him, as Sternbergin his answer
sets forthmore specifically,is the liquidation of the old drama, which
according to the judgmentsof sociology,even if it possessesestheticap-
peal, no longer has any right to exist under the given conditions.Ac-
cordingly,the functionof sociologyfor Brecht is to serve as a science
whichconfirms the downfallof theold drama and provesthe necessityof
a new one.
THE DOWNFALL OF THE "OLD" THEATRE

The Brecht-Sternberg discussionof the decline of the drama was pub-
lished in Numbers219 and 253 of the BerlinerBorsen-Courierin 1927.
This exchangeof lettersis of great importanceforany interpretationof
Brecht'stheoryof the theatre.
Sternberg-writinganonymouslyas "Mr. X"--summarizeshis earlier
conversationswith Brechtin his firstletter.In so doing he presentsthe
followingjudgmentof European drama in its relation to the develop-
mentof society.The drama-Sternberg
thinks--hasnot advanced beyond
Shakespeare.The Elizabethan playwrighthad stood at the turningpoint
of two epochs. Medieval man had broken loose fromwhat bound him.
But thatmeant that the relationsof individual to individual,as well as
to the state,had become possible and visible. All later dramas, writes
Sternberg,find their models in these plays of Shakespeare.When the
middle class conquered feudalism,the drama again became "the
play of
the conflictsof single individualswith each other,"with the result that
the drama had had an increasinglyuniform
development.
The first of
sphere experience of thecommoner revolves-inthedrama!-
about therelationships
essentially ofman and woman;man and woman-
not
naturally, as collectivebeings;therelationships are thoseof a specific
man to a specific
woman.All thepossibilitieswhichresultfromtheprob-
lem of the"third"have at sometimebecomemiddle-class drama.
Moreover,thewayoutsoughtbyIbsenand Hauptmann, and
Strindberg
Wedekind-thatof givingshapenot to a "normalcommoner" but an
Outsiderof society-hadnot led to any further
developmentof the
drama.
What is to be done?Since in actual life the individualas such,as indi-
as indivisibleand unexchangeable
viduality, entity,is disappearingmore
and more,sinceat the closeof thecapitalistic age the collectiveis again
the determinant,sincemachinesare in powerand onlythe millionsde-
terminehistory?
When classes take the place of individuals-such is the view of the soci-
ologist Sternberg-then not only the decline of the older drama but of
drama as such is a concomitantof an historic-economic process. And
those plays which attemptedto use the collective forcesof historyas
personae dramaticae (Goethe's Natiirliche Tochter was a failure as a
play, and Georg Kaiser's plays contain figuresthat are too unplastic) do
not justifyany feelingof hope.
When I explainedall thisto you not long ago [the letterconcludes],it
seemedto me thatin our criticism of what has been we werenot very
farapart.But at thesametimeit seemedas if youhad someobjectionto
drawingthelogicalconclusionfromyournew insightand to liquidating
thisdrama as being nothingbut a photographof yesterday, a historic
relic.
Sternbergsees the drama as having a directrelationshipwith bourgeois
society;the shaping of the individual and his conflicts,especiallythose
with other individuals,is in his view the essentialcharacteristicof the
drama. Since capitalisticsocietyis apparentlyliquidating thisindividual,
Sternbergarrivesat the radical conclusion that the drama too must be
liquidated.
The far-reachingdepersonalizationof the individualin the productive
process under capitalism had been recognized by Karl Marx. In Das
Kapital he showed that moderncapitalisticindustryinvolvesa constant
"shiftof work."The resultis that all securityin the laborer'slife situa-
tion is annulled. The contradictionbetween the requisite all-sided
mobilityand the capitalisticformof the division of labor, Marx said,
threatenedto make the laborerhimselfsuperfluousin view of his partial
functioning.'
In thisprocess,however,Marx sees only the negativeside of a proce-
dure whose positive result is the total reorientationof the individual
growingout of the constantshiftof work.This again mustbe regarded
as presuppositionfor an individual who develops as a totality.
Sternbergdenies, however-in this respectdeviatingessentiallyfrom
MIarx-the possibilityof a new, total individual. In his thinkingthe
collectiveappears as an undifferentiated mass. In this connectionStern-
berg arrivesat the monstrousassertionthat with the liquidation of the
individual the poet also has disappeared and become a mere "scribbler."
BrechtonlypartiallyacceptsSternberg'sviewsconcerningthedownfall
of the older drama:
If I askedyou [he repliedto Sternberg'sletter]to judge the dramafrom
thestandpointofsociology, thiswasdonebecauseI expectedthatsociology
wouldliquidatethedramaof today.... No scienceotherthanyourspos-
essessufficient
freedom of thought,all theothersare too muchinterested
WERNERHECHT 71
and implicatedin the perpetuation

of the generalcivilizinglevel of our
epoch.
In the discussionwhich followsBrecht assentsto the rationalizationof
that downfall as set forthby Sternberg.As we showed in the firstpart
of our own discussion,Brechthad taken a stand in radical opposition to
the conventionaldrama and theatre,even beforehis postulationof an
epic theatre.His new position is based on sociology.In all the publica-
tions which fromnow on take a positionwithrespectto the question of
the survivalof the middle-classtheatre,the historicnecessityof its down-
fall is emphasized. So, for example, on one occasion he criticizesthe
senselessexperimentswhich are undertakenin stagingthe classics. His
endeavorsnow take on a new direction-to make thiskind of theatrical
performance"if possible even more rotten,so as to run it as fastas pos-
sible into the ground." This does not mean doing away with the classics
completely,as has already been indicated by Brecht'spraise of Jessner's
staging of Oedipus. Actually, Brecht does not draw from Sternberg's
argumentthe inferenceswhichmighthave been expected.Brechtchooses
the sociological position in order to liquidate the estheticone. The es-
theticposition,Brechtwritesto Sternberg,no longer does justice to the
newestproductions,even when it praises.This falsekind of criticism,he
says,has "been able to produce few convincingexamples of its positive
attitude,and it has only managed to informthe public in a mostinade-
quate way." Ultimately,the'verydownfallof the old theatre,which the
criticshad encouraged to performnew plays, had been postponed by
criticismof that kind. Brecht concludes with the followinglogical se-
quence:
This generation[whichis writiignewplays]has neitherthewill nor the
powerto conquerthetheatrewithits publicand to presenton thisstage
and beforethat public betteror moreup-to-dateplays; instead,it has
the obligationand the possibility
to conquerthe theatrefora different
public. These new productionswhichare bringinginto being the great
epic theatrecorrespond-bothin formand content-tothe sociological
conditionsof our time,and can be understoodonlyby thosewho under-
standtheseconditions. The new theatrewill not satisfytheold esthetics:
it will annihilatethem.
So Brechtdoes not agree with Sternberg'sskepticism;he proclaimsad-
herence to a new drama, with which,beforea new public, he will an-
nihilate the old esthetics.
In these reflectionshe proceeds much more dialectically than Stern-
berg.Whereas the latterin his firstletterdenied the rightof a drama to
exist and challenged Brecht to draw the logical conclusions--i.e., to
liquidate the drama-Brecht liquidates the old drama and the old es-
thetics.
This beliefis basedon theassumption thatifthereis tobe a new
socialstructure,
therewillalso be a newesthetics. WhenBrechtrealizes
thattherecan be a newdramaappropriate to thesociologicalconditions
of our time,he puts his creativeeffort consciouslyat the serviceof
progress.The new playswill not be "better,"but "correct." The old
"esthetic"dramawillbe replacedbya new"scientific" one. However,as
yethis theorieshavenotbeenput to anypracticaltests.
In his secondletterSternberg, dearlyinfluenced by Brecht'sideas,
changeshis positionand insiststhatthe term"drama"be replacedby
"epictheatre."
Youwerebrought to thisbyyourself.
For,letus sayit quitecalmly:epic
thatisyou,dearMr.Brecht.
theatre,
Sternberg contradicts himself in thisstatement. According to hisassump-
tionthatin a capitalistic societyall individuals are liquidated,eventhe
poets,suchoriginality as he evidently ascribesto Brechtoughtnot to
be possible.Will he, thesociologist, actuallyderivefromBrecht'schar-
actertheepic theatre which,as we haveshown,had alreadyexistedfora
longtimein variouspartialforms? Sternberg is notclearaboutthatin
his own mind,and he begsthe playwright to tellhim if his viewsare
correct. Onlythenwillhe be able to decidewhether theconnection of
eposand theatre is morethana personalaffair and whether it is already
anticipating whatwillsomedaybe generally typicalfortomorrow. Un-
fortunately is no recordofBrecht's
there reply.
Elsewhere, however, Brechtdid set forthonce morehis viewof the
wayin whichtheideologicalregrouping takesplaceand thekindofrole
thetheatrehas to playin thatconnection. In "Reflections on theDiffi-
cultiesof theEpic Theatre"he writes:
The complete transformation ofthetheatre must, ofcourse, notobeyan
artisiticwhim, itmustsimply conform tothetotalintellectual transforma-
tionofourtime.Thefamiliar symptoms ofthisintellectual transformation
werehitherto lookeduponsimply as symptoms ofillness. Thereis a cer-
tainjustificationin this,fornaturally whatis first visibleis thedegenera-
tivephenomena of old age.But it wouldbe a mistake to regardthese
phenomena, suchas thatso-called Americanism, as something otherthan
thosemorbid alterationswhichhavebeenbrought aboutin theold body
of our cultureby actualintellectual influences of a newtype.And it
would be a mistake to regard the new ideas not at all as ideas and not at
all as intellectualphenomena, andtobuildup (say)thetheatre as a bul-
warkofthemindincontrast tothem. On thecontrary, thetheatre, litera-
ture,andartmustbe theonesto createthe"ideological superstructure"
fortheeffective, actualregroupings inthemodeoflifeofourtime."
Brechtassignsa veryimportant roletothetheatre, one is almosttempted
WERNER HECHT 73
to say: a revolutionaryone. But as yet, at least in theory,there is no

precise definitionof the goal which this "regrouping"is to serve. How-
ever,it is clear thatBrechthas changedhis basic position,and with this
change of attitudecomes the taskof creatinga new theatre.
3. The First Formulation of the Theory of Epic Theatre
The various elementsof Brecht'stheoryof the epic theatreappear
during the years1926 to 1930,but not in any connectedform.Only now
and thendoes Brechttake a standon specificproblems,and theseappear
in a haphazardway in the mostdiversenewspapersand journals. In fact,
one can trace the gradual developmentof his theoryonly by relatingit
to the plays he was writingat the time. What is the nature of this de-
velopment?
THE NEW THEMES

In an article "On Themes and Forms" (1929) Brecht expresseshim-
self concerningimportantproblems of his creative writing.In it we
read: "The firstthingthenis: thegraspingof thenew themes;thesecond:
the shapingof the new relationships.Because art followsreality."Brecht
stressesexpresslythe artisticcharacterof creativewriting;as an artistic
productit musttake its directionfromreality.Three yearsbefore,in his
conversationwith Bernard Guillemin, Brecht had acknowledged the
existenceof objective reality.In his view "the shiftingoutside" brings
about inner regroupingsin man. A seeminglyresultant"chaos" exists
only "because our head is not a perfectone. That whichremaifns outside
it we call the irrational."GuillemininterpretsBrecht'sview to mean that
in thiscase a "reconciliation"of irrationalismand intellectualismtakes
place. For the highestcommandinentof the intellectis this,"to respect
the chaotic as an insoluble remainder,the overflowingpart, of reality,
and to adjust the shaping of it accordingly."Considered this way, in-
tellectualism--Guillemin a method of the mind, irrational-
ism a propertyof reality."argues--"is
This interpretationis not tenable. Accordingto the text of the con-
versation-translatedby Guillemin,as he writes,fromBrecht's"slang"-
the playwrightdoes not acknowledgechaos to be a propertyof objective
reality,but as a formin which realityappears in our mind, whose im-
perfectionis assumed to be the cause of the existenceof a chaos. '"That
which staysoutside,since we cannot know it rationally,appears to us to
be 'chaotic.'" So "the remainder"is irrationalonly in respectto the ca-
pacityof our mind forknowing.This correctionis important,because all
of Brecht'stheatricaltheoryis based upon this assumption.
For Brecht,the firsttaskof the creativewriteris to know realityas it

presentsitselfwith the aid of the mind, and in this way to grasp the
central"themes"inherentin reality."The point is to give shape to what
is." In his essay "On Themes and Forms"Brechtgives the followingex-
ample to show how all formis derivedfromthe "themesof reality."
The production and utilizationofpetroleumis a newcomplexofsubstance
whichhas createdtotallynewrelationships betweenmen.A definite mode
of action,whichis clearlypeculiarto thepetroleum complex,is developed
forboththeindividualand thegroup.But thenewmodeofactionhas not
beencreatedby thepeculiarmannerofproducing petroleum;theprimary
thingwas thepetroleumcomplex,thesecondary thingis thenewrelation-
ships.These newrelationships theanswerswhichmengiveto the
represent
questionsof "substance,"theirsolutionsof the problems.The substance
(the situation,so to speak) developsaccordingto definitelaws, simple
butpetroleum
necessities, createsnewrelationships. These are as aforesaid
secondary.
It is clear fromthisthatBrechtbelievessocial conditionsare determined
by economic factors.In fact,the primacyof economics is absolute. He
regards the behavior of men as mechanicallydeterminedby the sub-
stance.The relationshipsbetweenmen are produced by the "petroleum
complex." Without doubt thereis somethingto this,but it is less than
dialectic if he overlooksthe fact thatmen can exert an influenceupon
the substancesas well. From a psychologicalstandpointBrecht is here
closelyallied with the behaviorists.
This example shows that Brecht'sconcernwith sociologybringswith
it an overvaluationof materiality, a trendwhichwas also shownin Stern-
berg's letters(i.e., the liquidation of the individual). Despite these ob-
jections,the basic principleset forthby Brecht,that of firstdetermining
the new themes,remains in essence realistic.By orientinghimselfto-
ward objective reality,and choosingthisas the startingpoint of all his
theoreticaldeliberations,he provides himselfwith objective standards
which make it possible "to raise the theatreto the level of science."'
In thisBrechthas made an importantadvance fromhis earlierand un-
certainidea of a "theatreof sport." But he has by no means adopted a
Marxist position. This intermediatesituation is expressed in his prin-
ciple of composition:"I do indeed limitmyselfin my plays to the pure
substance,but I shape only the tragic,and I select-that is orderliness."
This meant that he wished to allow "interpretationthe utmostin free
play." Also in his prefaceto Man is Man (1927) Brecht'sremarkson the
intentof the play seem to nullifyall thathe had said before: "But per-
haps you will arriveat a whollydifferent view.If so, I'll be the last person
to object." This indicatesthathe is to develop his theorystill further, for
WERNER HECHT 75
as early as 1929 he is aware that the representation of events without any

consideration for motivation is "provisional."
THE FORM OF THE EPIC THEATRE

For Brecht the new forms will be derived from the new themes, and
since he views man as largely dependent on economic conditions, man is
engaged in a process of constant change:
Even if a person is involved in contradictions[Brecht writesin 1926], that

is because in two unequal momentshe can never be just the same. The
shifting Outside constantly induces an inner regrouping in him. The
notion of a continuous I is a myth.Man is a constantlydisintegratingand
self-renewingatom.
Consistently, Brecht makes the changes in man dependent on changes in
the world outside him. It is true that this relationship remains one-sided;
here too there is only the influence which works from the outside inward.
Certainly a dialectic in objective reality and a dialectic in man is as-
sumed, but as yet there is no concept of dialectic interaction between
objective reality and subjective man. However, Brecht did come to recog-
nize the inadequacy of such general abstract observations on the subject,
for in 1929 he wrote much more precisely and in greater detail:
Can we talk about money in the formof iambics? The quotation of the
mark, day before yesterdayat fiftycents, today already up to 100 dollars,
tomorrowhigher,etc.-will that do? Petroleumrebels against the fiveacts;
the catastrophesof today do not follow a straightcourse but take the form
of critical cycles; the "heroes" change with each new phase, can be inter-
changed, etc. The curve of the transactionsis complicated by failures,fate
is no longer a unified force,one can rather observe fieldsof force with
currentswhich workagainst each other,and the groups of power show not
only movementstoward each other but also in themselves,etc., etc. Even
forthe dramatizationof a simple news item in the press the dramatic tech-
nique of Hebbel and Ibsen is far fromsufficient.This is no triumphant
observationbut a distressedone. To clarifya figureof today by character
traits,an action of today by motiveswhich would have been sufficientin
our fathers'day, is impossible.2
Here the new drama is defined: All of the characteristics of the "classical"
drama-the elevated verse forms, the fixed division into acts, a
straight-
lined course of action, the unmistakable, predetermined "heroes," and
Fate-are no longer of any use. Further, it should be
emphasized that
Brecht seeks to develop this new dramatic technique, which deviates
from that "of the Hebbels and Ibsens," in distress, and not at all tri-
umphantly. In so doing he makes a value judgment on the conditions of
his time-on the depersonalization of man, the critical
cycles, the
petroleum complexes, which compel him to adopt this epic mode of
presentation.It is not until later essays that Brecht views these new
dramatictechniqueswithany optimism.
A play which must renounce the essential "dramatic"characteristics,
because theyare incapable of expressingthe themesof contemporary life,
will findthe epic formmore compatible.
How thenmustour greatformbe constituted?Epically.It mustreport.It
mustnot believethatone can feelhis wayinto our world,and it must
not wishthat.The themesare monstrous,and our dramaticsmusttake
thatintoconsideration."
In the same essaywe read:
The greatmodernthemesmustbe seen in a mimedperspective,
and they
musthave a gesturalcharacter.
They mustbe organizedaccordingto the
relations
ofmenor groupsofmento eachother.
The epic theatreis consciouslyin opposition to the dramatictheatre.
For example, a characteristicof the old theatrewas the creation of a
responsein the audience forthe actionsand characterson the stage.The
reportingepic theatre,on the contrary,wishesactually to frustratesuch
a response.This necessitatesa new styleof acting. In the same way, all
the elementsof productionmust be decisivelyaltered. For this reason
Brechtverysoon abandons the term"epic drama," and replaces it with
"epic theatre."
THE PURPOSE OF THE NEW ART
The new formis directlyconnectedwitha different choice of goals for
art. Whereas the "old" drama arouses individual emotionby empathy--
as Brechtthinks--theepic theatreappeals principallyto the intellectof
the spectators."It is the new purpose," Brecht comes to see in 1929,
"whichmakesthe new art." The new purpose,the totalfunctionalaltera-
tion of the theatre,cannot be attained with the same public as before.
Repeatedly Brecht pointed out the impossibilityof playing for the
public of old. In the prefaceto Man is Man he speaksof thesubmergence
of a "broad stratumof people," whoselifeutterancesweresteadilygetting
weaker,and whose appetiteswere fading away. This means "that such
personscan no longerparticipatein art of any kind." It should be noted,
however,thatBrechtfails to draw the unmistakableconclusionthat the
public is to be renewedby the alterationof its social composition.
I admit [he writesin 1927] that a personwho has a passion for the
theatrecan no longertakeseriouslythe old typeof theatregoer.
But if
one expectsto have a newtype,one mustnot forgetforone momentthat
thistypemustfirstlearnhow to be a theatregoer,
so thatit wouldmake
WERNERHECHT 77
no sense to take up his requirements,
since theywill inevitablybe er-
roneousones.
So when Brechtstatesunequivocallytwo yearslater, "The new purpose
is called pedagogy,"he is referring,
on theone hand, to the educatingof
a new audience forthe theatre,and, on the other,to the reeducatingof
this new audience with the help of the theatre-two sides of a dialetcic
procedure.
The education forthe theatreis intimatelyconnectedwiththe educa-
tion throughthe theatreinsofaras Brechtwishes the public to be put
into an attitudetowardwhatis presentedwhichis at thesame timea new
attitudetowardlife. The essentialpoint is that therebe an intellectual
graspingof what is shown."I do not writeforthatscum,"Brechtwrites
provocatively in 1926,"whichputsa value on havingitsheartgladdened,"
and he goes on:
The onlyreverence due the public is thatof givingits intelligence
the
highestratingpossible.It is fundamentallyfalseto believein thenaiveth
ofpeoplewhoare grownup at theage of 17.I appeal to theintellect.
The appeal to the intellect,however,is not supposed to come about
throughan intellectuallyinterpretedsubjectmatter,but throughthe ac-
tivationof the public.
The spectatorshouldbe enoughof a psychologist to makehis own way
through thesubjectmatterwhichI offerhim.I guaranteeonlytheabsolute
genuineness and correctness
of thatwhichtakesplace in myplays-I will
takewagerson myknowledge of humanbeings.
As early as the "Ovation forShaw," whichhad been writtenshortlybe-
forethe above, the playwright adopted a distrustful
attitudetowardemo-
tion: the intellectwas more durable, he said. In his conversationwith
Guillemin the same idea is furtherenforced."Emotion is a privateaffair
and is narrow-minded. Intellecton the otherhand is altruisticand rela-
tivelybroad-minded."The denunciationof emotionas such,however,is
soon givenup. Only a yearlaterwe can note a shiftin his attitudetoward
the emotionswhen he writes:
Perhapsthe essentialthingin the epic theatreis thatit appeals not so

muchto theemotionas to theratioof thespectator. The spectatoris not
supposedto sharean experiencebut to cometo gripswithit. At thesame
timeit wouldbe quite utterly
incorrect to denythistheatreall emotional
appeal. That wouldcomedownto trying to denymodernscienceall emo-
tionalappeal.'
It must be rememberedthat these ideas were formulatedin 1927. If
Brecht intends that the spectatoris to "come to grips" with what is
"demonstrated"on thestage,thenthis,as Brechtrecognizes,is more than

an intellectualprocess;it involvesthe emotionstoo, although theyhave
a secondaryrole. Although he admits the place of emotions in the
theatre,Brecht neverthelesscontinues to distrustthem as "unreliable,"
and he protects himself against false interpretationsby clearly re-
fusingto recognizeall emotionsas justifiedin the new theatre,giving
preferenceto thosewhichcan also originatein connectionwithscientific
work.In thisway the view that a play mustprovide "fun" is also taken
over into the theoryof the epic theatre,expressedforthe timebeing very
generallyin the formof an admissionof the emotions.
Thus, when the spectatorgoes to the theatrehe becomes aware of
definitehappenings and connections.Viewed in thisway, the chief ob-
jectivesof the theatreare formaland pedagogical.But in evaluatinghis
early theorieswe must not forgetthat at the same time Brecht was
creativelyshaping quite definitesubject matter.Considered in connec-
tion with Brecht'sown writing,there can be no question of a formal-
pedagogical objective. At this time his theoryis still incomplete.
THE EPIC STYLE OF ACTING
Epic drama (like all drama) is only fullyand authenticallyrealized on

the stage. "Actual plays can be understoodonly in theirperformance,"
Brechtsays to Guillemin. The dialectic connectionbetweendrama and
theatre,which Hegel had stressedso strenuously,is seen by Brecht too.
Consequently,the theorymust work out in theatrical practice. The
epic reformingof a subject matterinto a play requires-in order that
the public shall be broughtinto the attitude of reflecting,pondering
persons-an adequate styleof presentation,the "epic styleof perform-
ance." The principlesof the epic theatre,"forthe mostpart undeveloped
in detail" as Brechtset them forthin 1927,concern "representationby
the actor, stage technique,dramaturgy,special music, the employment
of films,etc." Any theorywhichdealt in particularwith the practicalde-
tails of stagingcould only be based on experiments.New points of view
forstagemanagement,Brechtremarks,"could only be derivedfromcon-
temporaryproductions."After the performancesof The Threepenny
Opera (directed by Eric Engel) and Oedipus (directed by Leopold
Jessner),Brecht attemptedin 1929, for the firsttime, to formulatea
theoreticalexposition in the "Dialogue on the Art of Acting." Ques-
tioned by an assumed partnerin thisdialogue, Brechtcomplains not of
the bad but of the falseactingof the players.They had workedhitherto
"with the help of suggestion.They put themselvesand the public into a
trance."He gives the followingexample:
WERNERHECHT 79
Let us say theyhave to representa leavetaking.

Whatdo theydo? They
put themselvesintoa moodofdeparture. Theywishto havethepublicget
into themoodof departure.At the end, if thesceneis a success,nobody
sees anythingany more,nobodygetsacquaintedwithanything, at best
everybody recalls,in short:everyonefeels.
The playwrightemphasizesin the radio interviewat Cologne the idea
that the suggestivemode of acting has a causal connectionwith the dra-
matic form:
The greatindividualswerethe subjectmatter,and thismatterproduced
the formof thosedramas.It was the so-calleddramaticform,and "dra-
matic"meant:wildlyagitated,passionate,contradictory, dynamic.How
was thisdramaticform?What was its purpose?In Shakespeareyou see
thisprecisely:throughfouracts Shakespearedrivesthe greatindividual,
Lear, Othello,Macbeth,out of all thehumanbondswithhis familyand
the state,out upon the heath,into completeisolation,wherehe has to
showhimself greatin his downfall.This producestheform-letus say--of
harvesting a fieldof oats.The firstsentenceof the tragedyis onlywritten
forthesecondone,and all thesentences existonlyforthelastsentence.It
is passionwhichkeepsthismachinery in motion,and thepurposeof the
machinery is the greatindividualexperience."
For Brechtthe point is a formto fitthe time,one which correspondsto
the subject matter. He consciouslyrejects a reformingof the theatre
whichobeys "an artisticwhim."
But how is a style of acting adequate to an epic type of drama
presentedin theory?The epic play reportson happenings; quite simi-
larly,the actor too has to "narrate." He must-as is broughtout in the
"Dialogue on the Art of Acting"-above all be aware thathe is playing
for "a public of the scientificage." He is to show his knowledgeof hu-
man relationships,attitudes,forces,i.e., to play, in the literal sense,
consciously.In this way the histrionicpresentationbecomes "spiritual,
ceremonial,ritual."
Spectatorand actorare not to approacheach other,theyare to withdraw
fromeach other.Everyoneshouldwithdraw fromhimself.Otherwisethat
terror,whichis necessaryforknowing, fallsaway.
For Brecht,a distancingis the prerequisiteforknowledge;he demands
it of the actor (away fromhis characterin a play) and of the spectator
(away fromhimself).If the distance is sufficient, then knowledge,per-
haps as a terrifyingselfknowledge, will come. The distancingis attained
by having the actor make the persons and happenings alien to the
public and himself,having him "alienate" (verfremden)them-a tech-
nical termwhichis not used until later.
So the actoris not to tryto makethepersonwhomhe represents
under-
standable?Not so muchthe person,rathermorethehappenings.I mean

this:whenI wishto see the thirdRichard,I do not wishto feelmyself
as the thirdRichard;whatI wishis to perceivethisphenomenon in all
its strangenessand incomprehensibility.
This attitude,whichBrechtwishesto assume in the theatre,corresponds
to that of a scientistwho contemplatesthe object of his researchfrom
different sides, in order to betterhis knowledge and explorationof it.
Actually,Brechtadmits,too, that he is himselfsuch a "scientifictype."
The actor of todaywho is whollydependent on the public, he says,has
sometimesplayed "correctly,"that is,
ifhe was talented,stillnaive,and wasstillhavingfun,but eventhenonly
duringthe rehearsal,so long as I was presentand nobodyelse,so long
as he had beforehimthetypeof spectatorof whomI was talkingto you.
The closertheperformance came,themorehe drewawayfromit,chang-
ing visibly;forhe probablyfeltthathe would not please as muchthose
otherspectators who wereto be expectedthen.
For this reason Brechtrejects a "gradual" introductionof this styleof
acting, for instead of making the happenings noticeable, the actor
himselfwould become noticeable.
These performances containa programwhich,as we know,was worked
out in precise detail in the followingyears. In 1929 the foundationis
laid, and the firstdecisive ideas are made public. The direction in
which the individual thesesare to be interpretedis documentedby the
example fromOedipus as staged by Jessner,which Brecht uses as an
illustrationof his exposition.He describesthe playingof Helene Weigel
(as maid servant,i.e., the role of the "messenger")in the scene an-
nouncing the death of Jocasta.Let us tryto analyze thisdescription.
Brechtchoosesa sectionof the scene which is epic in its veryform:a
report.But what is involvedis a tellingof bad news,whichpresupposes
in the messengerand effects in thoseaddresseda stirof emotion(terror,
horror,mourning). In the acting of Helene Weigel-putting the es-
sentials together-Brechtstressesthe following:
1) Insteadof lamenting she spokewithan "apathetic,penetratingvoice";
in thiswayshe made knownthe factof the death--shereportedon the
detailsof thesuicidein sucha mannerthatherown decision,againstthe
queen,becameperceptible.
2) Terrorwas mirrored in her face,whichwas made up white.-At the
summonsto lamentshe flungup her armsmechanically.
From this it is clear that the actressnot only related a happening,
but at the same time she demonstratedher attitude towardit, that is:
she took sides as a critic.In addition she employedgestureswhich per-
WERNERHECHT 81
mit one to infer habituation, ritual, as for example along with the
lament. Or the terrorwas externalized,reduced to nothingbut a defi-
nite color of the face. In a word: the happening was illuminatedfrom
within,presentedfromvarious sides,surrenderedto observation.
Brecht functionsin the description of this scene exactly like the
new typeof spectatorwho sharesin the thinking-but at the end of the
dialogue he is forcedto admit with resignationthat but few "knowers"
had noticed what was new.
Engrossedin feelingtheirway into the emotionsof the personsof the

drama,fewif anyhad participatedin theintellectual
decisionsof the ac-
tion,and thatprodigiousdecisionto whichit had led remainedalmost
withoutany effecton thosewho onlyregardedit as an occasionfornew
emotions.
So thequestionof the public is posed again. The epic styleof representa-
tion cannot simplybe given, it needs a public which learns to under-
stand it. Since it is built up on sociological considerations,the public
must learn to thinksociologically,i.e., it must,aware of its time and
the conditionsof that time, become contemporaryin the true sense of
the word.
Brecht'sconceptionof the epic theatricalstyleis fromthe beginning
thatof a "transportableprinciple."No special styleis to be created,but
one "which will bring to new effectiveness that part of the theatrical
repertorywhichstillhas the forceof lifein it." The directoris given the
obligation
to treattheold worksof theold theatreas puresubjectmatter,
to ignore
theirown style,to make theirauthorsforgotten,and to stampupon all
thoseworks,madeforotherepochs,thestyleof our epoch.
Referringto this article,Schumacherthinksthat Brechthad regarded
"the renewal of old subjects and plays by way of formalexperiments
as possible and necessary."This view is incorrect.The new stylewhich
is to be stamped upon the old plays is one whichstartsout fromsocio-
logical considerationsrelated to the currenttime.Here we noticea con-
siderable development in Brecht's thinkingsince the Augsburg days
when he censured stage managers for their "lack of reverencefor the
work of art."
The postulation of an epic theatreoccurs in connectionwith socio-

logical studies.Brechtfindsin sociologythe proof that the old theatre
must fall and attemptsto put in its place a new epic drama which cor-
responds to the altered sociological situation. For this he findsforms,
both in existingplays and in those stylesof production
actually em-
ployed, which can be used for his purposes. The increasing invasion of
the drama by epic forms, which according to Brecht is perceptible since
the time of naturalism, and which found its peak and its turning point
in Georg Kaiser, is traced back to material causes. A new subject
matter seems to Brecht to be offered by capitalistic reality, which de-
termines the widest extent the behavior and the regrouping of the hu-
man being. In his materialism Brecht goes so far as to absolutize the
primacy of economic conditions.
Friedrich Engels, on the other hand, presented the Marxist conception
of this problem in a letter to H. Starkenburg as follows:
The political, legal, philosophical, religious, literary,artistic,etc., devel-

opment restson the economic one. But theyalso react to each other,all of
them,and to the economic basis. It is not true that the economic situation
is causal and exclusivelyactive, and that all else is passive effect.No, there
is mutual interactionon the basis of the economic necessities,which always
prevail in the last instance.... So what we have is not, as is conveniently
thought in this or that circle, an automatic effectof the economic situa-
tion; people make their own history,but in a given conditioning milieu,
on the basis of preexistingactual conditions,among which the economic
ones, much as theymay be influencedby the other political and ideologi-
cal ones, are decisive in the last instance and constitutethe so-called red
thread which runs throughthe whole, and which alone leads to an under-
standing of it."
As yet Brecht does not consider the active role of consciousness, the so-
called "subjective factor." This undialectical conception of the absolute
role of economics as the determinant of the human being keeps him
from recognizing the man-made character of economics. In this way
Brecht tends toward a fetishism of commercial goods. People are seen
as creatures which react exclusively to influences and claims of the
environment. So the playwright arrives at last at a behavioristic concep-
tion of human doings. Brecht's undialectic views affect his theory to
such a degree that these uncontaminated modes of human behavior
are accepted as the form for the given content.
The regroupings of economic reality, whose causes are not yet recog-
nized, compel man to make constant inner regroupings. Hence the
traditional dramatic schema must be rejected because they are not in
keeping with the time. Toward the end of the 1920's, howeyer, Brecht
recognizes the insufficiencyof a representation of the "pure happenings"
and characterizes his former experiments in this direction as provisional.
The correct point of attack in the theory is to be regarded as the
unconditional referral to reality. There was need "only" of a dialectic-
materialistic penetration of this reality in order to elevate the dramatic
theory to a higher plane.
As compared to his previously published views concerning the theatre,
WERNER HECHT 83
Brecht'stheoryat thisstage does to be sure representa considerablead-

vance. Brechtfreeshis theatrefromits functionas determinedby sports
and technology.Americanism,at one timeseen as the source of his new
theatre,is now condemned as "morbid," although its effectcontinues
to be seen as necessaryand in manyrespectsas renovating.Where earlier
Brecht showed a tendencyto think of the theatreas an end in itself,
he now subordinatesit to a pedagogical purpose. The spectatoris to be
educated and then corrected.Brechtdoes not yet include the objective
of this pedagogical process in his theory,but the progressive-enlighten-
ing intentionwhich he pursues is readily provable fromthe trend of
social criticismin the plays which he wrote at this time.
In his postulationof the epic theatreone can at the same time de-
terminean essential shiftof the accent in his evaluation of emotion.
From a radical rejectionof the emotions(whereinBrechtis at one with
numerous other late-bourgeoiswriters)he proceeds to a conditional
toleranceof feelingsin the epic theatre.For all that,his theoryin detail
is predominantlydeterminedby rational considerations.The epic style
of acting is supposed to prevent "empathy" and create a distance be-
tween the portrayerand what is portrayed,in order that the processes
and personsmay appear in theirstrangenessand thusbecome "known."
Accordingly,the theoryof the epic theatreshowsitselfto be a typical
theory of transition.It has in common with late-bourgeoisesthetic
views the awareness of the fall of middle-classsociety. Since a dis-
crepancyexists between capitalistic-imperialistic reality and the tradi-
tional artisticforms,a terminalpoint is reachedalso in poetic representa-
tion.It seemsto Brechtthatrealitycan no longerbe representedwith the
traditionalmeans of art. This conception is furtherconfirmedby the
recognitionof a supposed liquidation of the individual in a rationalized
industrygoverned by capitalism. Thus, a relation to Georg Kaiser is
possible. But Brechtis differentiated essentiallyfromthe late-bourgeois
writersinsofaras-unlike Kaiser, for instance-he does not lapse into
subjective idealism or simplygive up, but in consideringnew modes
of representationfreeshimselfconsciously,even thoughgradually,from
the old and puts his theatreat the serviceof progress.To give himselfa
clear road forthe necessaryinnovationshe deviatesinto a radical leftish
denunciation of the creativeartisticwork of the past.
PART III: DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY OF THE

EPIC THEATRE, 1930-1933
The last period of time to be consideredin thisstudywas one of global
economic crisis.It began in the USA and had a devastatingeffecton
Germany,wherethe economicrevivalhad been, forthe mostpart,based
on American credit. Unemploymentincreased rapidly. However, the

economic distressand the misery of those affecteddid not prevent
the wealthy bourgeoisie from securing themselvesand -theircapital.
For example,one of the greatsensationsof 1930 was the FigdorAuction.
It hardlyseemed possible that so much money was available during so
great a depression-and certainlynot for the purchase of paintings.
Brecht attacked this auction in the magazine Uhu, where he pointed
out the "profoundand evil connection"thatexisted "betweenthe situa-
tion in whichstarvingchildrencan get no milk and thesepaintingsand
sculptures.""
The universal depression was exploited by Hitler's fascistparty. It
developed a pseudo-nationaland pseudo-socialisticprogramwhich they
pushed in craftyfashion, so that workerswithout class-consciousness
could be won over to this "movement." The many promises which
Hitler made to the land-poorpeasants, the middle class, the merchants
and artisans,and-not least-the laborers, boosted the growthof the
NSDAP [National Socialist German Workers Party] in these years of
the depression.Whereas there were only 800,000 registeredfascistsin
the May electionsof 1928,theirshare of the votes forthe Reichstagelec-
tionsof September,1930 rose to 6.4 millions.The German Communistic
Party,which had likewisegrown considerablyin this period of crisis,
underestimated-as was broughtout in the BrusselsConventionof the
KPD-this fascistdanger.
So at the beginningof the 1930's therewere serious indicationsof a
fascisttrendin cultural policy. In 1931 it was no longer possible to ex-
press political views openly, unless they were those of The National
Socialists,withoutthe risk of exposure to ugly attacks.In a meetingof
the Associated Directorsof Art Theatres concerningthe criticalsitua-
tion of the German theatres,one of the participantsin the discussionre-
marked that the situation of the theatrecould not be detached from
the existingsocial problems,and that the workingclass could resolve
the anarchyin the cultivationof art; he was denounced as a commu-
nistic agitatorand mocked with shoutsof "Heil Moskau." The naivet6
with which many theatreartists"sold out" to the fascistswas amazing.
Alwin Kronacher undoubtedly speaks for a large number of creative
artistswhen,in an articleof 1931 entitled "The Depressed Situationof
the German Theatres," he denies the economic causes of the theatrical
crisisand sees theremedyto lie in an "intellectual"rebirthof the theatre.
'"The German theatreas a public institutionmustbe unpolitical,but it
must be free,"he demands."
Actually,however,the theatreshad got into this depressedsituation
WERNERHECHT 85
becausetheirbudgetshad beencutand theiraudienceshad diminished.
Manytheatres, mostof themprivate, arrangedtheirrepertoire withonly
thebox office in mind.As a result,therewas an unparalleledboomin
operettasand revues.
In January, 1933thefascists
cameintopower.Declarations likethatof
the periodicalDie Scenein August,1932,in whicha vigorousprotest
was made againstthe "fatefulinterference withGermantheatrical life
by forceshostileto art and culture,"had done no good.The guiding
proposition:"In art nothingcountsbut the creativeindividual,"was
evidentlyquite insufficient for any defensiveaction.With an un-
paralleled coldbloodednessthe Nazis throttled
Germanculturallifein
all its branches."Non-Aryans," "Foreigners," and "politicalunrelia-
bles"-thatwas theirfirstsummonsto all people of thetheatre-must
be "removed"fromthe theatres withoutdelayand withoutregardto
theirmerits.
It wasduringtheseyearsofeconomicdepression and politicaldefama-
tionthatBrechtdefinitely committed himselfto Marxism.At thattime
he was completingthe didacticplays,The Yea-Sayerand the Nay-
Sayer,MeasuresTaken (Die Massnahme, 1930),and The Exceptionand
the Rule (Die Ausnahmeund die Regel, 1930),in additionto Saint
Joanof theStockyards and The Mother(Die Mutter,1932).From1932
on he wasworking on theplayThe Roundheadsand thePeakedHeads
(Die Rundk6pfeund die Spitzkdpfe) whichwas not,however,com-
pleteduntil1934.Brecht'sopen embraceofcommunism prevented him
fromgettinga widehearing.In 1931Brechtcould playan important
role in a new production of Man is Man in theStaatstheater; in 1932
The Motherhad its premierein Berlin;but no theatrein Germany
wouldacceptSaintJoanoftheStockyards.
1. The Publication of the Versuche
Earlyin 1930Brecht'stheoryof theepic theatrereachesa newstage
of development. In 1929he had expressedtheopinionthatGermany
was a leaderin thedevelopmentof greatdramaand greattheatre. The
stagingofOedipusbyLeopoldJessner wasa greatlandmark, and Brecht
decidedthatthe timehad cometo makehis theories, whichhad thus
faronlyappearedin scatteredarticles-morewidelyknown.In 1929
he had explainedwhyhe had proceededso cautiously: "In practiceone
musttakeone stepat a time-thetheorymustcontaintheentireline
of march."Accordingly,the principleshad to be triedout in practice
beforetheycouldbe validlyacceptedas partof thetheory.
At thispoint we should say somethingabout the relationship of
-86 The Tulane Drama Review
theory and practice in Brecht's work. It is generally believed that

the theorydeveloped out of the practice,and the publication of the
Versuchein 1930--i.e., after Brecht's practical experime'ntswith epic
plays--is used as evidence to support this position. However, we have
shown this premise to be false. Now to be sure it can certainlynot be
denied that Brecht's practice exerted a very decisive influenceon the
formulationof his theory.But it was just his firstconceptionsof the
purpose and the functionof the theatre-unclear as theywere at first
-which led to the beginnings of his practice. This shows that with
Brechttheoryand practiceare in a dialecticrelationto each other.Prac-
tice, which must "take one step at a time," marchesahead according
to the theoreticalplan, while--during the march-it can exert an in-
fluence(in details) on the plan.
In 1930 several experimentshad been successfullycompleted. Brecht
published his poetic and theoreticalworks as Versuche(Experiments).
He uses this term [more precisely"attempts"or "trials"] to designate
their experimentalcharacter."The new dramaturgy,"he wrote in his
notes to The ThreepennyOpera, "mustfinda place in its form,metho-
dologicallyspeaking,for the 'attempt.'" As in a scientificexperiment,
it must be possible to test the processesand the offerings fromvarious
angles. Indeed, theyare supposed to instigatesuch an examination.The
theoreticalannotations,which are likewiseissued now as Versuche,take
on the characterof experimentationtoo. Besides, the word Versuche
points to a lack of perfectionor completion;in the absence of sufficient
practical tryouts,the playwrightBrecht cannot as yet announce a fully
formed theory(as he will do later in "The Little Organon for the
Theatre" [Kleines Organon fiirdas Theater]), only separateportionsof
it. The essentialinnovationconsistsin the fact that now he presentshis
theories in connection with and in referenceto his own epic plays.
The advantage of this method is obvious: the single trends of epic
writingcan be more effectively presented by using concreteexamples
than in generalprogrammatic remarks.Furthermore, the possibilitynow
exists of discussingthe problems of the epic style of acting by using
examples fromthe stage. It is true that this method has one big disad-
vantage: the reader is inclined to take the theoreticalstudies as ex-
planataory notes, as if they had validity only for a particular work.
Brecht tries to eliminate this impressionby introducinginto the notes
to a given play ideas which are basic to the new theatre.He soon sees,
however,that the method of writingexplanatorynotes, whateverim-
mediate advantages it may offer,will not sufficefor a presentationof
the theory.So he utilizes, as early as the period from 1930 to 1933,
WERNER HECHT 87
two formswhichrecurrepeatedlyalongside the "Anmerkungen"(notes)

that are restrictedto mattersof detail, viz., programmaticaphorisms
and freeverse (unrhymedand irregularin pattern).
STRIVING FOR A MARXIST STANDPOINT

Brecht's sociological studies lead him to Marxism and to the pro-
letariat.As has been shown,back in 1926 he was strivingforan under-
standingof politicaleconomy.But it was onlygraduallythathe acquired
the body of ideas and the mode of thinkingof Marxism.At the time
when he was firstdeveloping his ideas of epic theatreBrechtwas still
speaking vaguely of "sociology."
Toward the end of the 1920's Brecht moved closer to Marxism.He
attended the Marxist School for Laborers in Berlin and engaged in
discussionsof his plays with teachersand students.This turnaway from
sociology to Marxism is reflectedin his plays and theoreticalwritings
writtenin the years 1930 to 1933.
In The ThreepennyOpera he characterizescapitalismas follows:
Capitalismis consistent in practice,becauseit mustbe. But if it is con-

sistentin practice,thenit is inconsistent
in ideology.The usefulthingsit
does are done foritself,but thatdoes notmeanthattheyare onlyuseful
foritself.Realitythencomesto thepointwheretheonlyobstacleto prog-
ressis capitalism.
For this reason Brecht considersit necessaryto do everythingpossible
to hasten the downfall of capitalism. "It cannot die," we read in the
aforementioneddocument, "it has to be killed." In the notes to the
opera, Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny (Aufstiegund Fall der
Stadt Mahagonny),he expressesa similar thought,and in his notes to
The Mother he openly confesseshis allegiance to communism:
But evenif thewholeworlddoes notregardcommunism as itsaffair,

yet
theaffairof communism is thewholeworld.Communism is no mereva-
rietyamong varieties.Radically bent upon theabolitionof privateowner-
shipofthemeansofproduction, it opposesall thetrendswhich,no matter
how theyare distinguished, are at one in theretention of privateowner-
ship,as iftheywereall thesametrend.It makestheclaimto be thedirect
and sole continuation of thegreatphilosophy of theOccidentand in that
capacityto be a radicalreformer of the functioning of thatphilosophy,
just as it is thesole practicalcontinuation of the Occidental(capitalistic)
development and as such at the same timethe radicalreformer of the
functioning of its developedeconomy.We can and mustpointout that
ourstatements are notrestrictedly subjectivebut objectiveand universally
binding.We are not speakingforourselvesas a tinypartbut forall of
humanity as thatpartwhichrepresents theinterestsof all humanity (not
a partofit). No one has therightto drawfromthefactthatwe are fight-

ingtheconclusion thatwe are notobjective.
The writermakes himselfthe spokesman of the interestsof all man-
kind, since he regardsthe propagationand enforcementof communism
as objectivelyof interestto all men.
This switchto Marxism has a correspondingeffecton his theoryof
art. At an early time Brecht had already recognized the commodity
characterof art under capitalism, but whereas formerly--tobe sure
reluctantly--heput up withsellinghis art as a commodity,now he can-
not tolerate it. In taking this attitude,which is a consequence of his
strivingfor Marxism,Brechtsteershis work consciouslyinto the func-
tioning process of social change. In line with dialectic materialism
Brecht rejects the attempt to make form absolute as distinct from
content. "In reality,of course, there is no distinctionat all between
formand content,and here too what Marx says about formis valid:
that formis good only to the extentthatit is the formof its content.""
The agreementof formand contentis now the chiefaim of his creative
work. Brecht realizes:
Today,whenthehumanessencemustbe conceivedof as an "ensembleof

all social relationships,"
the epic formis the onlyone capable of com-
passingthoseprocesses whichservedramaturgy as thematerialfora com-
prehensive pictureof the world.
Logically,Brechtidentifiesthe "new public," of which hithertohe had
spoken but veryvaguely,with a proletarianone:
Our theatresshould,to a fargreaterextentthanis nowbeingdone,or-
ganizethecontrolof productionin thehandsof thatpartof theirpublic
whichis politicallyand culturallymostdeveloped.
Brecht puts his art at the service of the revolutionaryproletariat;he
is strivingfora "proletarianart." In a programmatic declarationhe says:
If we can improvethe organization of our artisticproduction,if we suc-
ceed in keepingourconception of thetheatrefrombecomingpetrified, in
developing our technicalabilityand makingit moresupple,in short,suc-
ceed in learning,we have the possibility, in view of the incomparable
readinessof our proletarianpublicand the undeniablyfreshimpetusof
our youngtheatres, of buildingup a trulyproletarian art.
In what fashionthisprogramfound its precipitatein Brecht'stheoryis
now to be set forthin detail.
2. The Second Version of the Theory
In the followingdiscussion,in order to avoid repetitionwe shall con-
sider only the new points in his theory.
WERNERHECHT 89
(A) THE FAILURE OF THE DRAMATIC THEATRE

The war on the "old theatre"which Brecht had waged since 1920
now takes two new directions.One is in the area of acting style and
the other,in the area of dramaticform.Brecht sees the old bourgeois
theatreas "culinary"and the pertinentdrama as "Aristotelian."Con-
sequently,the new epic theatreis anti-culinary
and anti-Aristotelian.
THE ANTI-CULINARY THEATRE
In his notes to Mahagonny Brecht designatesthe existing opera as
"culinary," as "Genussmittel" (literally, "means of enjoyment," or
"food"). This expressionborrowedfromcookery(and applied likewise
to spoken drama) means a definiteway of playingand a definiteattitude
on the part of the public:
Rushingout of the subwaystation,avid to turnto wax in thehandsof

the magicians,grownmen,testedin the struggleforexistence,dash to
the theatrebox office.In the checkroom theygive up with theirhats
theircustomary behavior,theirbearing"in life";leavingthe checkroom
theytaketheirseatswiththe deportment of kings.
The playwrightcensures the altered bearing of the audience; he ac-
cuses it of going to the theatrewith the intentionof yielding to sug-
gestion. The idea expressedin the radio conversationat Cologne and
in the "Dialogue on the Art of Acting," that the old theatre
actually
exertssuch an effect,is taken up anew and intensified.
In his discussion Brecht alludes to the separation of audience and
stage as it had developed since the eighteenthcentury,especiallyin the
nineteenth century.The shrinkingof the forestageand increasing
prominenceof the peep-showstage is the resultof a change in attitude
concerningthe purposeof the theatre.Whereas in the Middle Ages,and
to some extent even at the beginning of the modern
period, the
theatrehad had a social function(as in public processions,market
place
performances,etc.), and in that way constantlyaddressed the public
and took account of it in playing,now it no longer had such an im-
mediate referenceor social purpose and has become an "end in itself,"
a kind of art institute.Thus, as time goes on the gulf between the
theatreand its public becomes wider and wider. The
increasingcom-
mercializationof the theatreseparated the theatrefromthe public still
more; the "fourthwall" was inventedand acting techniquesand tech-
nical devices were devised to create the illusion that the actors were
playingto no audience at all. But in thisway the audience in particular
was most stronglydrawn into the "magic sphere" of the theatre.The
dramaturgywhichwas developed forthistheatreof illusion and used by
its most prominent representatives did not give the spectator one mo-
ment in which he "gets time for reflection." Thus in the theatre of illu-
sion the esthetic function took precedence over the social one.
Max Reinhardt made a noteworthy attempt to bridge the gap separat-
ing those two spheres of reality. However, his aim was not to make the
spectator more reflective; it was just the opposite-he wanted him to be-
come completely immersed in what was happening on the stage. When
Reinhardt, for example, advises the actor not to "forget" the audience,
he does so merely in order to achieve a greater suggestive effect: "Just
in the moment of supreme excitement," he remarks, "the awareness
that thousands are following him with breathless, quivering tension flings
open the last doors of his inner being."
The illusionary nature of this kind of acting is attacked by Brecht.
He regards the "Rausch" (roughly, "drunkenness") as socially motivated;
it is indispensable in bourgeois society, and there is nothing to put in
its place. He documents his argument with the following quotation from
Freud:
Life, as it is inflictedupon us, is too hard for us, it brings us too much
pain and too many disappointmentsand unachievable tasks. In order to
bear it we cannot do without means of alleviation. So there are three
thingswhich help us disregard our misery,substitutesatisfactionswhich
reduce it, and intoxicantswhich make us insensitiveto it. Something of
this kind is indispensable. The substitutesatisfactionsthat art offersare
illusions against reality,but psychicallynone the less effectivefor that,
thanks to the role which the phantasy plays in our soul life.... These in-
toxicantsare under some conditionsto blame for the fact that great quan-
tities of energy,which might be employed for the bettermentof human
life,are lost to the world.34
Thus Brecht's opposition to the theatre of illusion is based on his
recognition that it is consciously in the service of reaction as a device
for the discharge of emotions, for the diversion of those energies, which
ought to be reserved for more useful (progressive) activities. Brecht's
epic theatre, in opposition to this "culinary" one, is "little interested
in the invested emotions" of the spectator; in essential points it
opposes
Reinhardt's conception of the "generally human." The epic theatre
does not wish to weld the audience into a united empathetic whole.
On this point Brecht writes:
The prevailingestheticsdemands of the workof art, by demanding an im-

mediate effect,also an effectwhich spans all the social and other differ-
ences between individuals. Such an effect,which bridges the differences
of class, is still attained in our day by dramas of the Aristotelian
category,
although individuals are becoming more and more conscious of class dis-
tinctions.It is also attained when the conflictsof class are the subject of
WERNER HECHT 91
theseplays,and evenwhena standis takenin themforone class or the
other.In each case whatoriginates in theauditorium,
on the basisof the
"generallyhuman"whichis commonto all thelisteners, and forthedura-
tionof theartisticenjoyment, is a collective.
The non-Aristotelian
drama-
turgyof the typeof The Motheris not interestedin the production
of thiscollective.It splitsits audience.
In the theatreas elsewherethe attitudeof the class struggleis not given
up. The spectatoris not supposed to become a different person in the
theatre,but to remain the individual thathe is: he is to become aware
of his particularsocial positionand take a stand about it.
THE ANTI-ARISTOTELIAN THEATRE

Brecht,in order to describe the formof plays more precisely,turned
to Aristotle.Epic dramaturgyis negativelydefinedas "non-Aristotelian
dramaturgy."As is well known, accordingto Aristotlethe purpose of
tragedyis to excite the spectatoremotionallyin order to "purify"him
of theseemotionsor to "purify"the emotionsthemselves.In this there
is a definiterelationshipto the Freudian ideas we just quoted. Gustav
Kafka in his book on Aristotledefendsthe view that "the esthetic-moral
effectof catharsisactuallycoincidesessentiallywith the modernpsycho-
analytic concept of catharsisthroughthe 'Abreagieren' (discharge)of
suppressed and frustratedemotions."" Since Brecht was aware of the
Freudian thesisof "Abreagieren,"we may assume thathe takescatharsis
in the same sense as Kafka. This would mean that the Aristotelianform
of drama is one which leads to "culinary"enjoyment.
This catharticeffectis the consequence of a definitestructuralform,
which from the time of the Greeks has been thoughtof as dramatic.
A detailed analysis of the Aristotelianinterpretationof the drama is
beyondthe scope of his study,and anyway,it would not be too helpful;
for what Brecht understandsby "Aristoteliandramaturgy"refersless
to Aristotle'sPoetics than to a type of drama which was writtennot
earlier than Lessing'stime accordingto the classical "rules."
Brecht firstdescribes the anti-Aristoteliancharacter of his epic
dramaturgy in the notes to The Mother:
The play The Mother,writtenin a didacticstylebut demandingreal
actors,is a pieceofantimetaphysical,
materialistic,
non-Aristotelian
drama-
turgy.The latteris far frommakinguse of the self-surrendering em-
pathyof the spectatoras unhesitatingly as thatof Aristotle,
and it also
takesan essentially different
standwithregardto certainpsychiceffects,
suchas thatof catharsis.Justas it doesnotmerelyaim to deliveritshero
overto the worldas an inescapablefate,its intentis also not to deliver
the spectatorover to a suggestive experiencein the theatre.In the en-
deavorto teachitsspectator a veryspecificpracticalbehavior,whichpur-
posesthealterationof theworld,it mustconferupon him,evenwhilehe

is in the theatre,a basicallydifferent
bearingfromthat to whichhe is
accustomed.
The rejection of Aristoteliandramaturgyis inherentin Brecht'swork
fromthe firstplay, Baal, on, and also, accordingto the principleslaid
down in the firsttheoreticalutterances,observableas earlyas the middle
of the Twenties in his theory.But it is only in the second version of
his theorythat the epic theatreis interpretedfromthe point of view of
a non-Aristoteliandramaturgy.(In fact,it is interestingto note thathis
"Little Organon forthe Theatre" is in its formand contentan antipode
of Aristotle'sPoetics.)
(B) THE ALTERATION: THE EPIC THEATRE

Even though Brecht makes his epic theatregrow out of a polemic,
it is surelymuch more than a mere antithesis.It does not wish merely
to negate.The epic theatremustfunctionfor the communisticgoal. To
realize this aim some changes were necessary,or in certain cases more
precise practical applications of the previous theses. The following
remarkswill concentrateon them.
THE ALTERED REALITY

In both his plays and theorythe most importantchange in attitude
concerns the relationshipof realityto individual. As we have shown,
Brechthad assumed that men were absolutelydeterminedby economic
conditionsand he had recognizedonly a one-sideddirectionalinfluence.
Since he underestimatedthe role of consciousnessin this process,he
arrived at a behavioristicview of the human being. In the year 1930
he is still praising behaviorismin The Threepenny Opera as "a psy-
chologywhichstartsout fromthe needs of commodityproductionto get
hold of methodswith which one can influencethe purchaser,i.e., an
activepsychology, preiminentlyprogressiveand revolutionary,"
but now
he realizestheinadequacyof thispsychology:
"In correspondence
with
its capitalistfunctionit has limitations(the reflexesare biological ones,
only in a fewof Chaplin's filmsare theysocial)." Schumacher,who pays
no attentionto Brecht'sactual behavioristictendencies,as expressedfor
example in 1927 in his "Thoughts on the Difficultiesof the Epic Thea-
tre," interpretsthe passage quoted as preciselythe expression of an
"underestimationof the active role of consciousness."Actually at this
time Brecht,recognizingthe limitsof behaviorism,is on the way to a
dialectic assessmentof consciousness.The change was completedby the
time he wrote the notes to The Mother.
WERNERHECHT 93
The spectatoris treatedas facingreproductions of personswhoseproto-
typeshe has to treatin real life,i.e., to inducethemto utterances and
actions,and whomhe mustbyno meansconceiveof as strictly and finally
determined phenomena.His task as regardshis fellowmen consistsin
enteringhimselfamongthe factorswhichdeterminethem.In this task
dramaturgy mustassisthim.The determining factors,suchas socialmilieu,
specialevents,etc.,are to be represented as changeable.
Man is viewed as having an influenceon the economic and social con-
ditions in the sense that he enters himself "among the determining
factors,"i.e., that he himselfexercisesa functionwhich helps to de-
termineothers."Man is to be grasped in his propertyas a destinyto
man (or of the spectator)."In thisstatementBrechtmakes his own the
view of Marxism which was communicatedin another connection in
Engels' letterto Starkenburg.
This dialectic viewing of the subject-objectrelation has as its con-
sequence another aspect of reality (or of the "determiningfactors").
Hithertoit was probablyin existenceoutside our consciousnessand en-
gaged in dialectic motion, but now it too is recognizedas alterable. As
a resultit is now necessaryto showrealityin the theatrein such a manner
that "Eingriffe"(roughly,"interventions")into what is portrayedare
possible. The pedagogical aim of art is now directed to an eminently
political-revolutionary goal. Now, as before,it is a matterof a "zeitge-
misse" ("contemporary")reiducation of the public, but the conception
of what is actuallyusefulto the presenttimehas changed.For his theory
of art, too, Brecht findsthe formwhich is adequate for his dialectic-
materialisticinterpretationof progress.By means of thisessentialinno-
vation the epic theatrebecomesa transferable artisticprinciple.
THE ACTIVE SPECTATOR
In his new formulation, the intellectualactivityof the spectatoris also
definedmore preciselyand in greaterdetail. In connectionwith justify-
ing his use of titlesin The ThreepennyOpera, Brechtargues that the
dramatistmustconvertinto action everythingthereis to be said.
This corresponds to the attitudeof the spectatorin whichhe does not
thinkabout thematterbut out of it. But thisfadof subordinatingevery-
thingto an idea, the maniaforchasingthe spectatorintoa straightline
dynamics,where he can look neither to rightnor left,neitherup nor
down,is to be rejectedfromthestandpoint of thenewdramaturgy.
As he once did in his notes "To the Gentleman in the Front Row,"
Brechtstill wants a spectatorwho "standsfacinglife," no longer in the
interestof profit,to be sure,nor out of pure pleasure in probing,but in
order to create forhimselfa pictureof the world which permitshim to
make revolutionaryinterferences withreality."Only throughverystrong

politicalor at least philosophicalor practicallybehavioralinterestsin the
spectatorcan the theatre be led forwardto a new function,"Brecht
declares. With thispretentiousdemand Brechtproclaimsanew his idea
of the education of the public: "Complex seeing must be practiced.In
that case, to be sure, almost more importantthan thinking-in-the-flux
is thinking-about-the-flux."
SimultaneouslyBrecht,who had meanwhile writtensome "didactic
plays," stressesthe instructivecharacterof the new theatre.As early as
the notes to The Measures Taken he quotes Lenin's view thatthe educa-
tion of the new generation,simultaneouswith the reformingof capital-
istic society,cannot be carried out by the old methods.In Brecht the
education of the proletariatis the artist'sgreatestresponsibility.This
idea is furtherdeveloped in his notes to The Mother wherehe answers
thosewho had criticizedthe play forbeing instructivebut not entertain-
ing.
To inquireinto thisdistinction is not withoutcharm.It maybe surpris-
ing thatin thiscase a degradationof educationas such is intended,in
thatit is notpresentedas enjoyment. In reality,
ofcourse,it is enjoyment
thatis degradedbybeingso carefully divestedof any instructivevalue.
Thus Brecht combines education with the idea of social purpose and
introducesinto his theorythe technical term "Genuss" (literally,"en-
joyment").In 1925 it was the "fun" of the sports-loving public; in 1927
it was the joy of the scientist'sdiscovery;but in 1930 it is the "Genuss"
of the proletariatin education-later it will become the "pleasure" of
the overthrowers of society.Thus, in interpretingBrecht'stheoriesone
mustnot be deceived by apparent similarities.Brechthad good reasons
forchanginghis theoryof the epic theatreby the timehe published the
Versuche.
THE SOCIAL GESTUS
The new aim is mostclearlyexpressedin Brecht'sconceptionof form
as "social Gestus" ("gesellschaftlicher
Gestus").
Brechtunderstandsthistermto mean not just the simple gesturebut
rather the total gesture,the total behavior ("Gesamthaltungen")of a
scene, a person, or a sentence.As a result the "gestus" principle will
determineboth the shaping of the play's form and the nature of its
performance.Brechtgives an example of what he means by "gestures"
in speech by contrastingthe followingsentences:
"Pluck out thine eye if it offendthee."
"If thine eye offendthee, pluck it out!"
WERNER HECHT 95
The second phrasingis "gesturally"richer,since in the firsthalf it con-

tains "the clear 'Gestus' of the acceptanceof something,"and the second
half follows"like a surpriseattack,a liberatingcounsel."
For theepic theatreBrechtdemandsa social Gestus,bywhichhe means
a "Gestus relevantforsociety... one which permitsinferencesconcern-
ing social conditions." Brecht gives several examples of a Gestus that
is importantto society:a defensiveattitudetowarda dog can be a social
Gestus,"if forexample by means of it the fightwhich a poorlydressed
personhas to undergoagainsta watchdogfindsexpression."He goes on:
Attempts to keepfromslippingon a smoothsurfaceonlyresultin a social
Gestuswhensomeone"wouldlose face"by falling,thatis, wouldsuffer a
lossof prestige.The Gestusof labor is withoutdoubta socialone, since
the human activitydirectedto the mastering of natureis an affairof
society,an affairamong people."
To achieve this Brecht believes that the other arts should be used in
theatrefor making the Gestus clear. This is particularlytrue of music
and design.
THE DEMONSTRATING REPRESENTATION
Brecht's theoryof acting as it appears in the Versucheis radically
differentfrom any of his previous remarkson the subject. His ex-
perienceswith the productionof The ThreepennyOpera, the amateur
performancesof the didactic plays,the productionof The Mother,and
the writingof Man is Man all contributedto the developmentof the
new theory--ie., that the actor "demonstratethe social Gestus." What
is essential for the new actor is that he becomes aware of his role as
mediator.In his performancehe should never"lose" himselfin imitation
but should demonstratethe happening.
"In contrastto thedramaticactor,"we read in an articleon the staging
of Man is Man, "who discovershis characterfromthe beginningand
then does nothingbut expose it to the injusticesof the world and the
tragedy,the epic actor createshis characterbeforethe eyes of the spec-
tator."
It must be admittedthat some of these ideas Brecht borrowedfrom
Piscator.This is clear fromhis notes to The Mother where he writes:
This is a non-Aristotelianplay, which uses the production
techniques
of the epic theatre,but which also uses the technicaldevices of the
bourgeoistheatre,as well as thoseof the agitproptroupes.The styleof
the play is unfamiliar
not onlyto the spectators,but also to the actors,
thedirectors,and thedramatictheorists.
Thus, Brecht'stheoryof epic theatre,as it appears in the Versucheis
essentiallycomplete.All that followsis an elaboration of the theoryin

greaterdetail-none of the basic ideas are changed. And as we pointed
out earlier,it is Brecht'sturn to Marxismwhich broughtabout the de-
cisive changes in his theory.
The essentialformalprinciple of the theoryis the workingout of a
social Gestus,i.e., the takingof a position towardthe happeningsfrom
the standpointof what is importantand usefulforsociety,thatis, from
the standpointof the revolutionaryproletariat.Since such an attitude
does not exist in the traditionaltheatre,not even at its most highlyde-
veloped level,a new kind of theatremustbe created.
In termsof production,the new theatreis to be the antithesisof the
"culinary" theatre,and its formis to be the antithesisof the "Aris-
totelian"drama. But epic theatredoes not attemptto completelydestroy
these older forms;it preserveseverythingthat is usefulfor the achieve-
ment of its aims. Consequentlythe theoryof the Epic theatreis an at-
temptto enliven the theatreof the presenttimeand to equip it to meet
contemporarydemands, without breaking abruptlywith the past.
The course of developmentwhich we have traced in this essay is a
long one; it leads througha diversityof landscapes By examining the
theoryof the epic theatrewe can discoverits origins.But its real strength
lies in the fact that it employsmeans already at hand to fulfillits pur-
poses.Piscatoris involvedhere,so too theAgitprop,Valentinand Jessner,
Shaw and Kaiser, and many others;but the epic theatreis much more
than a sum-it is a new quality. The dialectic-materialistic foundation
on which Brecht bases his theoryin 1932 makes of it somethingnew.
For therewill always be progress,and the public will always have to
organize and controlthe progressing.
In his endeavors to alter the spectator,Brecht,himselfa spectator,
likewise altered himself.He roused the bourgeois theatresfrom their
sleep.
Mr. Hecht's essay was translatedby the distin-
guished American scholar, Bayard Q. Morgan.
However, because of the article'slengthand cer-
tain other problems of style and translation,it
has been edited and revised by the editors.
NOTES
As it originallyappeared in Theaterder Zeit (Studien,Nos. 9 and 10),
1958thisarticlehad over200 footnotes.
Becauseof limitations ofspaceand the
awarenessthatmostof the sourcesmentionedin thesenoteswould be un-
availableto our readers,theeditorshave cut or revisedall but the mostim-
WERNER HECHT 97
portant of them. Anyone interestedin checking the original notes is urged

to refer to the German text.
'Film-Kurier (November, 1928).
2Ernst Schumacher,Die dramatischen Versuche Bertolt Brechts 1918-1933,
Berlin, 1955.
3 AugsburgerNeueste Nachrichten,No. 60, 1918.
, Richard Hauber, "Theaterdirecktoren,"Das Stadttheater
Augsburg,Augs-
burg (1927), 29.
5 The followingexcerptscome fromBrecht's reviewsin Der Volkswille.
6Iwan Goll, Der dramatische Wille, No. 6.
7Jacob Geis, "Bertolt Brecht," Theater-Zeitung der Staatlichen Biihnen
Miinchens (1923), 19-22.
8Das Kunstblatt,Potsdam (May, 1923), 156.
9 Herbert Jhering,Berliner Dramaturgie, Berlin, 1947.
10 VossischeZeitung, Berlin
(April, 1926).
1Berliner B6rsen-Courier (une, 1926).
12BerlinerBorsen-Courier (December, 1925).
1BerlinerB6rsen-Courier
(uly, 1926).
14Der
1
Sport,Heidelberg(1928), 146.
Berliner B6rsen-Courier(May, 1925).
16Kurt Miino, Die neue Zeit (April, 1927), 5.
17Monty Jacobs, "Das
Theaterproblem der Gegenwart,"Die Scene, Berlin,
No. 1 (anuary, 1926), 10.
"
Op. Cit. p. 131 ff.
"'"Fragmentarische Aufzeichnung des K81ner RundfunkgesprIchszwischen
Bertolt Brecht, Ernst Hardt, Herbert Jheringund Fritz Sternberg,"Bertolt-
Brecht-Archiv.
2oDer Scheinwerfer,Essen, No. 6/7 (December, 1929), 5 f.
2 Die literarischeWelt, Berlin, No. 13
(March 23, 1930).
2
"Sollten wir nicht die Aesthetik liquidieren?" Berliner
No. 253 (une 2, 1927). B6rsen-Courier,
1 Marx, Das Vol. Berlin f.
Kapital, I, (1953), p. 512
24 FrankfurterZeitung, Literaturblatt(November 27, 1927).
"Der Mann am Regiepult," Das Theater, Berlin, No. 1 (1928), 8.
2S
"Ueber Stoffeund Form," Berliner B6rsen-Courier,No. 151 (March 31,
1929).
27"Letzte Etappe: Oedipus," Berliner Borsen-Courier,No. 51 (February 1,
1929).
2
FrankfurterZeitung, Literaturblatt (November 27, 1927).
* "FragmentarischeAufzeichnung des Kl1ner Rundfunkgespraichszwischen
Bertolt Brecht, Ernst Hardt, Herbert Jheringund Fritz Sternberg,"Bertolt-
Brecht-Archiv.
30 Marx/Engels, Ausgewdhlte Briefe, Berlin (1953), p. 560.
31 Uhu, Berlin, No. 3 (December, 1930), 24.
'Die
S Scene, No. 6 (June, 1931), 175.
"Dreigroschenprozess,"Versuche, No. 3, p. 280.
" Brecht,
Stficke,Vol. III, p. 275. Quoted from Freud, Das Unbehagen in
der Kultur.
~ Gustav Kafka, Aristoteles,Miinchen (1922), p. 174.
3In: Brecht, Schriftenzum Theater. Ueber eine nicht-aristotelischeDra-
matik,zusammengestelltvon S. Unseld, Frankfurta.M. (1957), p. 253.

Development of Epic Theatre Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of Epic Theatre Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development of Brecht's Theory of the Epic Theatre, 1918-1933

Author(s): Werner Hecht

The theatre of today has been significantlychanged because of

Thus, Brechtconfirms what Schumacherwritesabout him in his early

A fewweeksago he was singinghis songsto the guitarin the "Bonbon-

Along with Tolstoy and Strindberg,Brechtwrote,Wedekind belonged

among "the great educatorsof the new Europe." Brecht'slast sentence

operatic productiontechniquesalso contributedto this attitude.Brecht

NEW POINTS OF VIEW

Miss Schifershowedespeciallyat one point that she has talent,when

Gesture,mime,and everything acousticis consideredespeciallypraise-

play as performancepresentsmore than that. And here is where the

message.For at this time Brechtis still concernedwith the performers

ATTITUDE TOWARD THE PLAYWRIGHTS AND

It is a matterof simplehunger,cold, and sickness,whichget a man

drama. He characterizesHebbel's Judith as "one of the weakest and

autumnal flowersafter the First World War. He calls the staging of

raphy"and of "supremelyanimated mechanicaldevices." In thesefarces,

At the beginning of the 1920's Brecht's position was characterized by

conventionsand against the pseudo-rebellionof the expressionists, but

2. For a Renovation of the Theatre

Shortlyafterthis Brecht began to direct in Munich and Berlin and

Cities in 1922 in Munich, and in the same theatreBrechtstagedhis ver-

florescencewhich Herbert Jhering,for example, praised beyond all

ATTACK ON THE "OLD" THEATRE

times,but one-sidedlyfromthe standpointof the present.Hebbel, who

"FUN" IN THE THEATRE

Surprisingly,Brecht sees as the most hopeful aspect of the theatrethe

I imaginethatforyourmoneyyou wantme to showyou somethingof

The decadenceof our theatrepublic derivesfromthe factthatneither

sportbecauseand so long as it is risky(unhealthy),

Asan examplehe mentionsRimbaud.In Stevenson, too,he saysthehap-

For Brecht,Shaw's plays stand out above others"because theyappeal

As in generalat all timesand in everysituationtheforceof an utterance

Brechtmay sail against the wind with the greatestcontentment,but as

The road to epic theatreis verywinding,and as yet we don't know

interestin formopens up an approach to novel means of artisticex-

Our time has threesymbols:the radio towerat Nauen, the towering

PART II: BRECHT'S THEORY OF EPIC THEATRE, 1926-

In thesetheatrestherewas no spiritof ensemble,therewas no

cency,Brechtrecognizedthe temporarycharacterof the enonomicboom

1. Epic Forms of Drama

EPIC FORMS OF REPRESENTATION

The systemof relationships

This basic artisticprinciplewas taken over by Brechtas stage manager.

to the epic theatre,and Brechtgot manyideas fromit whichhe incorpo-

2. The Sociological Basis of Epic Theatre

BRECHT'S PREOCCUPATION WITH SOCIOLOGY

the proletariatprecedes the economic one. "Therefore,it is not fitting

THE DOWNFALL OF THE "OLD" THEATRE

and implicatedin the perpetuation

to say: a revolutionaryone. But as yet, at least in theory,there is no

THE NEW THEMES

For Brecht,the firsttaskof the creativewriteris to know realityas it

as early as 1929 he is aware that the representation of events without any

THE FORM OF THE EPIC THEATRE

Even if a person is involved in contradictions[Brecht writesin 1926], that

Perhapsthe essentialthingin the epic theatreis thatit appeals not so

"demonstrated"on thestage,thenthis,as Brechtrecognizes,is more than

THE EPIC STYLE OF ACTING

Epic drama (like all drama) is only fullyand authenticallyrealized on

Let us say theyhave to representa leavetaking.

standable?Not so muchthe person,rathermorethehappenings.I mean