History and historical events

History as a concept and as content, the possible ways of approaching and interpreting it as a phenomenon, and its relationship as Time to the Past and the Present, are issues that have long preoccupied research in this field. More recent views, regarding it as a sequence of events and their narration, regardless of the degree of truth or plausibility they include (Veyne 1971: 423), highlight the inherent duality that characterises it: as ‘historical reality’ on the one hand and as the ‘study of this reality’ on the other, whilst a third dimension emerges from these, concerning the very processes of narrating the former (Le Goff 1998: 148). In this way, traditional views of the sort that ‘History is the science of people in Time’ (Bloch 1974) give way to others that regard it as a concept that is ‘ambiguous, potentially event-oriented and potentially structural’ (Ricoeur 1961:226), while simultaneously promoting the study of History through models different from those used in the past.

The questions posed to the researcher who attempts to study the Past with objectivity and formulate judgements about it, by interpreting History and historical events, are as follows: Is there indeed a single History of objective reality, which is written independently of the human subject studying it, whilst at the same time encompassing the act of recording it by that subject; or is History merely a record of those events which have been deemed by the recording consciousness of the time to be objective and significant? And furthermore, is it possible for Reality and its History to become known and comprehended by the scholar, regardless of their perceptions, or is this always an inevitable convergence of objective conditions with the historian’s subjective perceptions? If such a thing exists, then by what means does this process take place (Liakos 2007)? In other words, if we accept that the perceptions of the recording subject at any given time influence the selection and manner of presenting the world, then to what extent and why does History differ from Literature, which at least candidly acknowledges the degree to which subjective views influence the way it renders or conceives reality (Gossman 1990, Charalambidou 1997: 249–273); But who is the so-called ‘historian’, and on what premises does he rely in order to recognize the Past, that is, a past event of which he/she was not an eyewitness? Consequently, since he/she possesses neither direct empirical nor indirect secondary knowledge of the events whose ‘truth’ he/she seeks, ‘what kind of knowledge does he/she possess? In other words, what must he/she do in order to know them?’ (Collingwood 1956: 282).

The questions raised and the issues requiring answers are many and varied, lending themselves to corresponding approaches, which sometimes complicate the matter rather than contribute to its substantive resolution.

By way of illustration, we might mention the following:

• What is the meaning of ‘History’ (if indeed such a thing exists) and what factors determine it?
• How is past time assessed within its present dimension, and how can subsequent consciousness assimilate earlier data, providing them with a causal interpretation compatible with both the ‘before’ and the ‘after’ of the historical time to which they belong?
• How can a ‘synchronic’ approach to ‘realia’ be understood ‘diachronically’ and ‘historical experience’ be transformed into ‘historical memory’, with the aim of preserving ‘truth’?
• Does this ‘historical truth’, ‘objectivity’ and ‘reality’ – which such knowledge claims to possess – exist, and if so, what is it (in the final analysis), and how are these perceived by the consciousness of the later scholar?
• Is ‘History’, by extension, the sum of recorded, actual events, which are known to later generations through their consequences  upon them, or are there, alongside (and perhaps more so) these, other obvious or latent factors which contributed (willingly or unwillingly) to the creation of the ‘once-and-for-all’ historical event that took place ‘in a particular place and time’?
• Is it solely the contribution of certain ‘exceptional’ individuals that determined the ‘a posteriori’ measurable outcome of the historical event, or perhaps that of the faceless ‘masses’ who shaped it?
• Is it only the ‘History’ of the ‘Great’ and/or the ‘History’ of the ‘Small’ that a later historical consciousness is interested in studying?
• How, in the age of ‘late modernity’, in an era where (according to Derrida) ‘nothing exists outside the text’, in which reality itself does not exist ‘in itself’ but is represented and ‘simulated’ (Baudrillard), how is it possible for History to be approached and rendered using the same mechanisms and methods as in the past (Liakos, op. cit.)?

Historical and illusory reality

The answers to the questions posed, relate to the realm of actual history, of ‘in space and time’ that is, the actions and activities of certain individuals or groups who, in various ways through their presence, gave meaning to their era, shaped developments and contributed to the growth of human civilization. All of this, however, also appears in a secondary, transformed form within the realms of Art, Literature and Theatre, where it now constitutes the thematic focus of corresponding works (paintings, literary works, dramatic texts, theatrical performances).The actions of historical figures precede their fictionalized portrayal, which makes events that have already taken place in the past accessible to viewers or readers. However, whilst these events, in their objective form, are unique and have occurred ‘once and for all’, their textual representation contains the element of repetitive, indirect, mediating narration. The problem that arises here is the following: what is the exact ‘perspective’ from which the author approaches the historical data, because, certainly, this is not (nor can it be) one and only one, just as there was not one and only one in media res historical situation being discussed. For even if there is an intention to photographically depict reality, with an excessively naturalistic disposition, even then, the textual rendering of the historical event—that is, its transfer from the level of primary ‘writing’ (History) to that of its secondary ‘transcription’ (Theatre-Literature) cannot be achieved except in a subjective manner, in accordance with the choices (conscious or otherwise) of the author’s receptive and creative consciousness (White 1987). It is likely that the abandonment of the illusion of ‘a priori’ known historical reality and the treatment of literature as a ‘social practice that contributes to the shaping of historical experiences’ brings us (from another perspective) closer to the events of a bygone era (Apostolidou 1997: 124–125).

[…………….]

The scope of these explorations expands even further when everything is elevated and integrated into the realm of ‘Theatre’—that is, this complex cultural expression based on the illusory stage representation of reality, which, however it may be realized (mimetic, distanced), is nothing more than a recording of the ‘Historical’ transcribed onto the stage by the performers and ultimately re-inscribed in the memory of the spectator watching the theatrical performance from the auditorium. Consequently, whatever ‘History’ is perceived by the viewer and, through their memory, transcends the time that objectively produced it but also, equally objectively (?), transcribed it as a complex artistic spectacle, rising to the realm of ideology and cultural universality.

But even in this case, the concept under discussion ‘is called into question’, since it refers not only to events and situations that transcend the individual sphere and concern broader sets or groups of people, such as, for example, a military incident, or an incident from the multitude of events that took place during a conflict, revolution, uprising or social struggle. Equally, however, its scope cannot be limited to the actions and behavior of specific individuals and figures, such as ‘heroes’, who shaped events and, through their contribution, influenced the course of affairs. The breadth of the concept can also encompass any data that gives meaning to the social, political and cultural developments of an era; as part of the Past, these are not confined to a chronologically completed period, but participate in the Present and shape the Future. In this sense, History in Theatre constitutes a vast thematic source for plays, since, ‘as things stand’, more or less a large part of world drama clearly has historical content, and can therefore be considered a representative example of a specific approach to history as a theatrical spectacle. Consequently, our analysis may equally include Aeschylus’s The Persians and W. Shakespeare’s Richard III, as well as V. Hugo and Schiller’s The Robbers, Brecht’s The Jewish Wife and Camus’s Caligula, Voltaire’s Brutus and Corneille’s Le Cid.

By broadening our thinking and interpreting the concept of ‘History’ in this way, a large part of world drama can be admirably incorporated into it, since themes concerning social struggles and upheavals, ideological conflict and racial struggles, are common material in works of the world dramatic canon, from G. Büchner’s Woyzeck Büchner and J. Hašek’s The Good Soldier Švejk, to H. Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People, Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard, P. Weiss’s The Interrogation and H. Müller’s Mauser. By extension, by researching and studying the presence of History in World Theatre (initially in dramaturgy and subsequently in stagecraft), we ultimately study the very History of Civilization in  all its dimensions, as it is illusorily perceived by the audience, that is, both in the phase of its primary, complex production and formation as a human product, and in its secondary recording and memorization as the content of theatrical expression.

Based on the observations made regarding the scope and content of the term ‘History’, as well as the medium through which it is ultimately received by the audience in the theatre rather than by the reader through the process of reading, if we attempt to present the manner in which History is rendered theatrically, we may highlight the following.

At a first level concerning the textual theme—that is, the conditions within which the author is inspired and renders the historical event, the actions of the historical figure, and the consequences of what once took place in the Past, the differences between that and any other literary text are limited, owing to the distinctive nature of the dramatic work, which is intended for viewing rather than reading. This functionality consequently shapes its characteristics as a genre, prioritizing dramatic rather than narrative elements, which enhance immediacy and vividness and create the conditions for an experiential engagement of the audience with the performance, or a psycho-cognitive communication of an individual nature, through the imaginative engagement and transformation of the described images into subjective representations on the part of the reader. For the same reason, action and plot take precedence in drama, and conflictual situations are absolutely essential, since it is through these that the hero’s character is shaped and the entire theatrical spectacle acquires vitality and immediacy.

In essence, however, the playwright, like the novelist, approaches the historical figure or event in a different way and, through the text, he/she attempts—certainly not to reconstruct History objectively, since this is anything but part of his/her conscious aims. On the contrary, based on historical events, he/she seeks to evoke emotional and intellectual response in the audience (reader or viewer), conveying to them information and experiences that relate to the facts directly or indirectly and render them with a greater or lesser degree of fidelity. Yet, all these evoke emotional engagement and aesthetic pleasure in those who, through mere reading or viewing, engage with them. For, as it is evident, there is a different kind of structure and impact concerning the level of the Signifier (morphological analysis) and the Signified (semiotic/ideological immersion) for a social or historical drama (Ernani by Victor Hugo), or a Brechtian play (Days of the Commune) or an Elizabethan tragedy (Tamerlane by C. Marlowe), or a documentary theatre piece (Soldiers by R. Hohut) or a political satire and parody on the theme of  the First or  Second World War (The Good Soldier Švejk by J. Hašek, Švejk in the Second   World War by B. Brecht). The intentions are different and the differences much clearer in cases of works with the same theme and title from the world repertoire, such as Henry IV by W. Shakespeare and L. Pirandello, Cleopatra by V. Alfieri and V. Sardou, Dantès by Romain Rolland and Camil Petrescu, as well as The Death of Dantès by G. Büchner, Trotsky by   H.-M. Recuérda and Trotsky in Exile by P. Weiss.  Be that as it may, however, neither  literary nor dramatic texts can in any way replace archival sources or historical documents (which, in some extreme cases, may be adapted and staged as plays that, due to their distinctive nature, belong to the specific category of ‘documentary theatre’, such as The Interrogation of P. Weiss), since the aesthetic and artistic aim at least coexists with the didactic and ideological. Consequently, even in the extreme category of social and proletarian drama of the late^19th   and early 20^th century (Michel Louise’s Strike, or  Baron Henri’s Coal Miners’ Strike, Long Live We Are Alive, by Ernst Toller) or in Brechtian ‘didactic’ and ‘epic’ theatre (The Life of Galileo, Mother Courage and Her Children), History, whilst constituting the indisputable backdrop and the canvas upon which the plot of the play unfolds, in no way replaces reality, which it deals with in terms of Art rather than Science.

REFERENCES

Apostolidou, V. (1997). ‘Collective memory and the structure of perception in prose on the Civil War. From ‘Kangeloporta’ to ‘Katapakti’ in: Historical Reality and Modern Greek Prose (1945–1995), Proceedings of a Scientific Symposium, Society for Modern Greek Culture and General Education, Athens: Moraitis School, 113–128.

Bloch, M. (1974) [1941–1942]. Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien, Paris: Armand Colin.

Collingwood, R. G. (1956). The Idea of History, New York: Oxford University Press.

Gossman, L. (1990). Between History and Literature, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Le Goff, J. (1998). History and Memory (trans. G. Koubourlis), Athens: Nefeli.

Liakos, A. (2007). How the Past Becomes History, Athens: Polis.

Ricoeur, P. (1961). History of Philosophy and Historicity, in R. Aron (Ed.), History and its Interpretations. Conversations on Arnold Toynbee (pp. 214–227), Paris: Laltaye/Mouton.

Veyene, P. (1968). Comment on écrit l’Histoire, Paris, Suil: 1971.

Charalambidou, N. (1997). ‘The Discourse of History and the Discourse of Literature: Structures of Historical Representation in Thanasis Valtinos’s ‘Orthokosta’ and in Civil War Prose”, in Historical Reality and Modern Greek Prose (1945–1995), Proceedings of the Scientific Symposium, Athens: Society for Modern Greek Culture and General Education, Moraitis School, pp. 249–278.

White, H. (1987). ‘The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation’, Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pre-publication from the Introduction to the study by Theodoros Grammatas

HISTORY IN THE THEATRE.  FROM THE STAGE OF HISTORY TO THE STAGE OF THE THEATRE

(Athens, Papazisis, 2026)