Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms, Concepts, and Analysis

488 Pages·1999·32.483 MB·English

by  Patrice Pavis, Christine Shantz

DICTIONARY OF THE THEATRE:
TERMS, CONCEPTS, AND ANALYSIS
Patrice Pavis
Translated by Christine Shantz
Foreword by Marvin Carlson
Patrice Pavis is one of France's most bril- of a single, recognized authority. There is
liant academics and a leading expert inter- no other source like it available and it
nationally in the theory of theatre. Diction- will be warmly welcomed by the English-
ary of the Theatre is an English translation of language theatre world.
Pavis's acclaimed Dictionnaire du theatre,
now in its second edition in France.
This encyclopedic dictionary includes PATRICE PAVIS is Professor of Theatre Stud-
theoretical, technical, and semiotic terms ies at the University of Paris VIII.
and concepts. Alphabetical entries range CHRISTINE SHANTZ is Chief of Translation
from 'absurd' to 'word scenery7 and treat at the Inter-American Development Bank,
the reader to a vast panoply of theatre and Washington, D.C. She has held positions at
theory. The extended discussions are sup- the United Nations and Canada's Export
ported by useful examples drawn from the Development Corporation, and has trans-
international repertoire of plays and play- lated a number of literary and scholarly
wrights, both classic and contemporary. works.
This dictionary is remarkably well inte- MARVIN CARLSON is Sydney E. Cohn Profes-
grated, partly because of its excellent sys- sor of Theatre, City University of New
tem of cross-referencing, but also because it York.
represents the vision and scholarship
This page intentionally left blank
PATRICE PAVIS
Dictionary
of the Theatre:
Terms, Concepts,
and Analysis
Translated by Christine Shantz
Preface by Marvin Carlson
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS
Toronto and Buffalo
www.utppublishing.com
© University of Toronto Press Incorporated 1998
Toronto Buffalo London
Printed in Canada
ISBN 0-8020-4342-9 (cloth)
ISBN 0-8020-8163-0 (paper)
Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms, Concepts, and Analysis is a translation of
Dictionnaire du Theatre (edition revue et corrigee; Paris: Dunod 1996)
Printed on acid-free paper
Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data
Pavis, Patrice, 1947-
Dictionary of the theatre : terms, concepts, and analysis
Translation of Dictionnaire du theatre.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8020-4342-9 (bound) ISBN 0-8020-8163-0 (pbk.)
1. Theater - Dictionaries. 2. Drama - Dictionaries.
I. Shantz, Christine. II. Title.
PN2O35-P3131998 792'.O3 098-930987-8
This translation has been published with the assistance of grants from the
Writing and Publishing Section of the Canada Council for the Arts and from the
French Ministry for Culture.
University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing
program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council.
Contents
FOREWORD Vll
PREFACE ix
THEMATIC INDEX xiii
EXPLANATORY NOTE Xviii
Dictionary of the Theatre i
BIBLIOGRAPHY 44!
This page intentionally left blank
Foreword
At the beginning of the 19803 I offered a stopped him, confessing that he had never
seminar at Indiana University on the sub- heard this apparently useful technical term
ject of "Theatre Semiotics," a theoretical and asking him to explain it. For both the-
approach to theatre studies that was at that atre and semiotic students this was a revela-
point just being introduced among English tion. Suddenly both realized that the
speaking scholars. My class was made up of theatre students also had a technical vocab-
graduate students from theatre, compara- ulary, useful and virtually transparent to
tive literature, and semiotic studies, a field them, that needed explanation for someone
which Tom Sebeok had pioneered at Indi- outside that particular intellectual world.
ana University. Much of the first day or two Now, twenty years later, the theoretical
of the seminar was spent in introducing a worlds and theoretical vocabularies of
number of basic terms from Saussure, Aus- literary theory (and more recently cultural
tin, Pierce, and other early theorists in this theory) and theatre studies have to a large
field - necessary preliminaries that no one degree interpenetrated each other, so my
in the class found particularly satisfying. theatre students today find signifiers and
The students from semiotic studies, long signifieds (not to mention more complex
familiar with such terms as signifiers and and more current specialized terms that
signifieds, illocutions, and perlocutions, have appeared as the semiotic analysis of
icons and indexes, found this introduction a the early 19703 has been overtaken by a
little boring and elementary, while the wide variety of competing analytic strate-
theatre students felt barraged by a flood of gies) as common in their reading and their
odd and unfamiliar terms the immediate theoretical speculations as students of an
relevance of which to their own interests earlier generation found such terms as sub-
was anything but clear. text, denouement, or protagonist. Patrice
For the first couple of sessions I felt Pavis has created the first dictionary of
rather like a teacher of French attempting to theatrical terms that reflects this blending of
introduce the language to a class composed the specialized vocabulary that has
partly of beginning students and partly of been borrowed by theatre studies from
students in their second or third year of many other intellectual disciplines.
French studies, and I am sure the students It is particularly fitting that Professor
shared this feeling. About the third session, Pavis should undertake this task, as one of
however, there was a memorable moment the leading scholars to introduce the theo-
when one of the theatre students, quite retical vocabulary of semiotics to theatre
casually, referred in passing to the subtext studies. As a French scholar he is also con-
of a scene. One of the semiotic students tinuing a long tradition of such activity: the
viii Foreword
French encyclopedists LaPorte and Cham- provide a listing that mixes historical and
fort produced the first theatre dictionary, literary terms that one is likely to encounter
the Dictionnaire Dmmatique (1776), and a in writings about the theatre (for example,
French scholar Alfred Bouchard produced comedy, protagonist, minstrel, deus ex
La langue theatrale (1878), the first dictionary machina), with trade terms used by persons
to include both literary and technical the- in the theatre, technical backstage terms
atre terms. The twentieth century has seen a (cyclorama, wings, batten), and theatrical
variety of theatrical dictionaries: some spe- slang (ham, rant, raspberry). Pavis has
cialize in certain dramatic traditions or in moved in a different direction; he has main-
technical and backstage terminology, others tained the listing of historical and literary
seek to provide a general listing of special- terms but replaced the technical and slang
ized theatre vocabulary. The best known listings with entries that introduce some of
among these are W.G. Fay's A Short the specialized theoretical vocabulary that
Glossary of Theatrical Terms (1930), Ken is now regularly employed in theoretical
Carrington's Theatricana (1939), Wilfred writing about the theatre. This shift of
Granville's A Dictionary of Theatrical Terms emphasis makes his new dictionary a
(1952), Bowman and Ball's Theatre Language uniquely helpful guide for readers inter-
(1961), and Joel Trapido's International Dic- ested in understanding the special vocabu-
tionary of Theatre Language. lary of contemporary theatre scholarship.
Most of these earlier dictionaries
attempt, with varying degrees of success, to MARVIN CARLSON
Preface
Alphabetical order can become destiny - Theatre is a fragile, ephemeral art that is
the destiny of the articles in the first and particularly sensitive to what is in the air. It
second editions of this dictionary (1980 and cannot be accounted for without from time
1987) placed the undertaking somewhere to time questioning its foundations and
between "absurd" and "vraisemblable" reviewing the critical apparatus we use to
(believable). This new edition is not describe it.
beyond the reach of such alphabetical con- Theatrical activity has never been so
straints, although it has been completely intense or so marked by diversity in terms
revamped and expanded considerably. An of languages, venues and audiences. Spec-
encyclopedia still seems an immoderate tators today are more tolerant and more
project in terms of both breadth and ambi- interested in avant-garde experiences. They
tion, but one that is all the more legitimate are harder to surprise or shock. No longer
and necessary if we are to grasp the diver- content to be delighted, admiring or fasci-
sity and comprehensiveness of the theatre nated, they need technical or philosophical
phenomenon. This new edition, conceived explanations. Theatre is not afraid of theo-
in the same spirit as the earlier ones and rizing about its own practices, or even mak-
subject to the same limitations, has been ing them the subject of its plays, although
enriched with many new articles and addi- the complacent self-contemplation of the
tions. Is it merely a coincidence that glory years of theory (1965-1975) is now a
"absurd" has given way to "abstraction"? thing of the past. Is it possible that theatre is
And is not abstraction a better response finally being taken seriously as a major art
than absurdity to the proliferation of new in its own right rather than an offshoot of
forms? This is much more than a cursory literature, a substitute for film, or a kind of
update or revision of old materials. The tawdry entertainment?
infinite play of cross-references impercepti- During the 19605 and 19703, theatre stud-
bly weaves a text that needs to be continu- ies developed under the impetus of the
ally revised and corrected in the light of human sciences, splintering off into many
current realities. This edition speaks of the different objects of study and methodolo-
innovations of the 19908, of the cross- gies. The piecemeal, discontinuous
cultural, multimedia and interdisciplinary approach of a dictionary is needed to put
aspects of theatre today. Those influences together the fragments without giving the
mean that we must rethink theories and illusion of unity or totality. Theory requires
their categories, and see Western drama- a precise metalanguage that will define
turgy (as text "representation") from the complex notions without oversimplifying
standpoint of an anthropology of perfor- them. This is a methodological and episte-
mance practices and an ethnoscenology. mological undertaking, rather than a termi-