William Archer - Britain's first...

Disclaimer: since my last outing, in January of last year(!), several things have happened. First, I accepted my place at Exeter to study dramaturgy and playwriting for a year. This done I didn't want to look back at this after graduating and see my work pre-MA become outmoded so quickly by all I was going to learn. 

Now at the other end of the course, actually the discussion of historical dramaturgy hasn't really been discussed. I've progressed as a playwright but other than that...

People I respect have seen the blog and encouraged me to keep going with it (thank you Cathy, Michael and David for saying so too) - so, it's back, with WILLIAM ARCHER. I know, the excitement is palpable.

William Archer [left] was born in Perth, Scotland, on 23 August 1856. He studied at Edinburgh University where he graduated with the degree of M.A. in 1876. He then became a journalist with the Edinburgh Evening News until 1878. In 1878 he settled in London devoting himself to the study of theatre and becoming dramatic critic of The London Figaro between 1879 and 1881. In 1884, Archer became dramatic critic of The World, a post which he held until 1905. He was a prolific translator of the work of Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906) including Pillars of Society which was produced at London's Gaiety Theatre in December 1880, becoming the first Ibsen production in England. As a playwright, his most popular work, The Green Goddess, was produced New York in 1921. A melodrama, it was a popular success, although of much less importance than his critical and translation work. Before his death in 1924, Archer had also held posts as a drama critic of for publications The Tribune, The Nation and The Star, had worked for the abolition of theatrical censorship and, as you will read later, written extensively on the formation of a 'national theatre'. William Archer died on 27 December 1924.

Archer, in a strange quirk toward Lessing, was as a critic and playwright, though not an especially successful one, whose interest was set primarily on the developments of the contemporary theatre of the 1880s. He wrote greatly on the setting of new standards within a 'national theatre' and reviled the narrow-minded approach of much of the theatre scene in London's developing West End. He sought his 'national theatre' by looking to Scandinavia - much like Lessing and his Voltaire - and the work of Strindberg and, his great source of translatable works, Ibsen.

Between 1880 and 1891, he was responsible for translating the bulk of Ibsen's work and editing his collected prose dramas. The translations, whilst a little dated, still stand up, especially his A Doll's House [I own an 1890 Pillars of Society, League of Youth, and A Doll's House, which I found in a second-hand shop in Cromer.] Archer also picked up on Ibsen's acute use of structure and style within his works, the Norwegian writer assisted ably here with his outside eye - Bjornstjerne Bjornson. This way of working would be something Archer himself would later find himself doing with a great British dramatist.

Archer, in his role as a leading Ibsen specialist, prepared historical materials, attended rehearsals, and gave critical notes to the actors and directors for around 25 different productions of Ibsen's work, which he had also translated. It is through this work, and his Ibsen specialism, that he credited as both the first dramaturg specialising in one playwright and the first professional dramaturg working in the UK.

  

His bringing Ibsen to prominence, however tangentially, I've found really important in my development as a writer and dramaturg. Seeing Ghosts at Bristol Old Vic was one of those shows that the text really blew me away - the production wasn't great but I was transfixed by the script. Some people may scoff and hope that I would have come across Ibsen before I was a first year undergrad, I hadn't - oh well. Have now and read plenty of his work over the last 6 years. Another prime example being Enemy of the People at Sheffield with Tony Sher, and a great performance from Trystan Gravelle as underhand journalist Hovstad.

The slightly dodgy picture of a bronze bust of Ibsen was taken by me when I chanced upon it outside the Shanghai Theatre Academy when travelling. Not something I had expected to see in China. Below is the statue of Ibsen outside the Norwegian national theatre in Oslo. I've said it. I love Ibsen, now back to Archer.

Among his various Ibsen related activities, Archer came into contact with up-and-coming actor-director Harley Granville-Barker. Both men had a vision for a 'national theatre' that was driven by progressive ideals in the staging and creating of work and influenced by both men's socialist politics. They both agreed that the predominant actor-manager, profit-seeking model would in the long run be harmful to the development of a world leading British theatre. They proposed a repertory system with the 'Literary Manager' as key link role in this, acting as the pipeline to new writers and new innovations.

In their book A Scheme and Estimate for a National Theatre, Archer co-authored with Granville-Barker, in 1904, Barker defined the 'literary manager' as "an official answering to the German Dramaturg" - "His duties should be to weed out new plays before they are submitted to the reading committee; to suggest plays for revival and arrange them for stage; to follow the dramatic movements in foreign countries, and to suggest foreign plays suitable for production; to consult with the scene painter, producers, etc. on questions of archaeology  costume, and local colour"

Granville-Barker and Archer's idea of thrusting the Literary Manager into the British theatre machine was their attempt at creating a "guardian of literary standards [securing] a playwright's advocate at the heart of theatre" (Luckhurst). Whilst this was part of the two men's campaign to elevate the status of contemporary writers and dramatic literature within the canon, the proposal of literary managers, save for Barker himself and his work on Ibsen, was not seen in the UK for another 50+ years.

There is another string to Archer's dramaturgical bow [see what I did there?]. Archer was a friend of G. B. Shaw's, and assisted in his plays being translated into German. The two remained friends despite a botched attempt at working collaboratively on a text, Widower's Houses, and Archer frequently being called in by Shaw to be critical on his new work - a core role for a modern dramaturg, the outside eye. The two were virtually next-door neighbors for a period, Archer lived at 27 Fitzroy Square in central London, whilst Shaw lived at number 29.

These three areas of Archer's creative practice: Ibsen's translator/expert scholar, Granville-Barker's collaborator in the shaping of a future 'national theatre' and Shaw's trusted second reader, combine neatly to paint William Archer as a thoroughly-modern dramaturg. A researcher and translator who would assist within a rehearsal context, a writer of plays, pamphlets and criticism, an outside eye on both texts and process. In short, Britain's first "official answering to the German Dramaturg"

Rough Bibliography
Mary Luckhurst - Dramaturgy: A Revolution in Theatre

Gabrielle H. Cody and Evert Sprinchorn - The Columbia Encyclopaedia of Modern Drama

Links
William Archer's works, including some Ibsen translations on Project Gutenberg

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing - 'The Patron Saint of Dramaturgs'

"Dramaturgy is the concern with composition, structure, staging and audience from literary analysis and historiography"

- G E Lessing, The Hamburg Dramaturgy, 1767-69.

Today is Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's 283rd birthday so, to celebrate, I've 'scribbled' some thoughts.

If you take the word of Edward Kemp, former NT Associate Director and RSC Dramaturg - plus the current Artistic Director at RADA, then Lessing is the stand-out candidate for the Patron Saint of Dramaturgs. His brief tenure as In-House Critic and Playwright in Hamburg between 1767 and 1769 was the first establishment in a modern western theatre of the practise of the dramaturg and, though Lessing's writings, we get some short glimpse of what he intended the role to be and what he never succeeded in fulfilling himself - though arguably Lessing students, including Schiller, Goethe and, to a lesser extent, Büchner did create the National Theatre of Germany that was intended by Lessing's work. 

Lessing was a literary product of his time: an essay writer and polemicist arguing the toss for whichever side, a ployglot speaking English, French, Spanish, Latin, Greek and Hebrew and a talented playwright writing "the first long-running German comedy, the first bourgeois tragedy, and in Nathan The Wise created one of the most significant dramatic works of the European Enlightenment." (Kemp)

However it was only after training as a doctor, and to the displeasure of his Lutheran father, that Lessing embarked on a career in the arts. I will digress here to one of my favourite quotations for one of my favourite writers.

"If you really want to hurt your parents, and you don't have the nerve to be gay, the least you can do is go into the arts"

- Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country

Lessing role was to create a National Theatre for Germany (this more as a body of work and concepts rather than a building like the concrete edifice on the Southbank - and 'Germany' didn't really exist then but brush over that), encourage discipline, professionalism and literary knowledge in actors, nurture theatrical promise and further the education of audiences.

His creative and critical capacity in this new National Theatre was what has now become known as dramaturgy under similar umbrella principles (although I'd never say I've made actors more disciplined...) and the term itself arising from Lessing's serialised publication on his role: Hamburgische Dramaturgie.

Lessing's hope was to cover and document the creative process of German Romantic theatre-making and put out a discourse on the role he played within the system. He would discuss work, classic plays and give text lectures via the publication. However this was cut short by Lessing's not keeping track of productions in rehearsal and the suspension of the Dramaturgie's serial distribution.

Lessing's work at promoting a new German language theatre was not an instant success either. During his tenure at the National Theatre 308 performances in French to only 176 in German doesn't speak of a great change in direction. However, Lessing was more pragmatic.  He was one of the first great German champions of Shakespeare and loved French and Italian theatre (he joked that he would like to become the German Molière). Whilst this bucked against his role in developing a new German national theatre, he had the foresight to see that imports can be in the expression of that same new theatre (Goethe, you assume, read Marlowe, Brecht had a predilection for adapting restoration comedy, Müller's HamletMachine).

Lessing was also known to prevaricate from some of his set duties and harp on about pet projects (such as ancient sources for the works of Voltaire) in his Dramaturgie publication. As he says "Am I still harping on! Truly, I pity the readers who had hopes of a theatre newspaper in these pages one rich and varied, entertaining and droll... Instead they are getting lengthy, serious and turgid criticism of old familiar plays"

However, all this has made me consider Lessing's legacy today. In this respect the blogosphere and twitter have made the documenting of performance making and practise  an easy and accessible tool for the thoroughly modern dramaturg. Indeed, one dramaturg, who I greatly respect, does it already - Michael Pinchbeck's Making The End*

Equally, with German playwrights such as Marius von Mayenburg, David Gieselmann, Moritz Rinke and Katharina Gericke performing work in the UK and Simon Stephens or Mark Ravenhill having often more profile with our Saxon neighbours then Lessing's encouragement of imports alongside the creation of a new German theatre doesn't look a foolish venture.

I can't speak with any certainty on the drive of Germany's actors or the education of their audiences but the German playgoing public, from what I've read, tend to like more stuff I like than the A level set text and Wilde-Coward standards of most regional theatres.

Finally, I feel that Lessing deserves more than a passing footnote in modern theatre teaching (the same true of the next blog posting on William Archer) as he did start, perhaps unknowingly and to use Mary Luckhurst's phrase, a revolution in theatre.

Rough Bibliography
Edward Kemp - 'Lessing's Humanity'

Mary Luckhurst - Dramaturgy: A Revolution in Theatre

Cathy Turner and Synne K. Behrndt - Dramaturgy and Performance

* I will point out that Ollie Smith is hugely involved  in the making of The End as he may get offended if not mentioned and not watch the Snooker with me later or help with the washing-up. The domestic lives of theatre-makers.....

What is Dramaturgy? - an Introduction

This project began as a New Year's resolution in January 2012. Over the course of the year, and maybe longer, I plan to question what dramaturgy is based on what practitioners, including myself, do as dramaturgs working in the field. It seems rather grandiose but I don't mean it to be. This 'definition' I wrote about a year and a half ago to go some way toward defining what I could do as a dramaturg. As with most things dramaturgical* is exceptionally vague. In 2010 (I think) I wrote:

"A dramaturg is a person with a knowledge of the history, theory and practice of theatre, who helps a director, designer, playwright or actor realise their intentions in a production. This can be accomplished in a myriad of ways and the dramaturg's role often shifts according to context and is always fluid. A dramaturg is an artistic consultant and literary odd-job man."

I plan to reappraise this and will look at other practitioners, talk to academics and theatre-makers and assess as honestly as I can my role as a 'dramaturg' - if that is even what I am after purporting to be one.

IdeasTap have written this article which might serve as a useful starting point

Next, I plan to look at other definitions and the points of view of those working in the field via the Dramaturgs' Network.

Until next time - happy 'turging.

Gareth

*That is to say dramaturgical practice and roles as quantifiable ideas rather than the act of dramaturgy on a script or production.