Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN Les Littératures de L’Europe Unie - European Literatures - Letterature dell’Europa Unita Ciclo XXVIII Settore Concorsuale di afferenza: 10/L1 Lingue, letterature e culture inglese e anglo- americana Settore Scientifico disciplinare: L-LIN/10 Letteratura inglese The Circulation of Physiognomical Discourse in European Theatrical Culture, 1780-1830 Presentata da: Maria-Christina MUR Coordinatore Dottorato Relatore Prof.ssa Anna Paola Soncini Prof.ssa Lilla Maria Crisafulli Esame finale anno 2016 Dedicated to Luca Dich ahnte meine Seele lange, Bevor mein Auge dich gesehn, Und selig-süße Schauer bange Fühlt ich durch all mein Wesen gehn. Ich sog von unbekannten Blüten Den Duft, der mir entgegenquoll, Und nie erblickte Sterne glühten Zu Häupten mir geheimnisvoll. Doch immer sah ich deinen Schatten Nur trübe wie durch Nebelflor Dein Antlitz schien daraus in matten, Gebrochnen Zügen nur hervor. Und als der Schleier nun gesunken, Der dich vor mir verhüllt – vergib, Wenn lang ich sprachlos und wie trunken, Betäubt von all dem Glücke blieb! (Adolf Friedrich von Schack) 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgments 6 Foreword 7 INTRODUCTION 10 1. What is Physiognomy? 10 1.1. Dictionaries and encyclopedias 10 1.2. Ideas of scientists 14 2. Physiognomy and literature 33 2.1. Physiognomy and theatre 34 3. State of the art 41 4. Methodology 45 PART I. –The influence of Physiognomy on the theatrical performance 59 1. Setting the scene 60 2. Education or entertainment? 66 3. Theatrical space 70 4. The theory of the passions 78 5. The actor and the art of acting 90 5.1. Laying the foundations 94 5.2. Physiognomy and Lavater 108 5.3. The passions on stage 112 5.4. Movement of the muscles 116 5.5. The imitation 117 5.6. The actor and his appearance 121 5.7. Audience’s response 128 PART II. – The presence of Physiognomy in the plays 130 1. Introduction 130 1.1. New genres 130 1.2. The corpus 149 2. Text analysis 159 4 2.1. Subsidiarytext – peritext and epitext 160 2.1.1. The authors and Physiognomy 161 2.1.2. Introductions, prologues, dedications 190 2.1.3. The stage directions 200 2.2. Maintext 230 2.2.1. The face as text 230 2.2.2. Lavater and his “science” 267 2.2.3. Adaptations 295 3. Reception 310 3.1. Press reviews 312 3.2. Actors’ biographies 329 3.3. Excursus – artistic interpretation 336 CONCLUSION 348 BIBLIOGRAPHY 349 1. Primary sources 349 1.1. Treatises on Physiognomy 349 1.2. Works on passions, art of acting, theatre, drama and actors 350 1.3. Corpus 353 2. Secondary sources 355 2.1. Secondary literature 355 2.2. Newspapers and journals 371 2.3. Dictionaries and encyclopedias 372 2.4. Links 372 List of illustrations 374 INDEX 377 Quotes from primary sources were not corrected and are reproduced in the original spelling. The translations of the primary and secondary sources are, if not specified differently, made by the author of this dissertation. 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to take the opportunity to thank all the people whose help and support made this dissertation possible. I would like to express first and foremost my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Professor Lilla Maria Crisafulli for her continuous support and guidance. Without her precious feedback and critical reading of my work, I would not have been able to write this dissertation. Furthermore, I would like to thank Professor Anna Paola Soncini for directing and coordinating the PhD Program DESE and all the professors involved in this program. Their valuable advice was much important to the three years research within the topic science and fiction. I would like to thank Professor Sarah J. Paulson and Professor Paul Goring for welcoming me so warmly at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology – NTNU and the Department of Language and Literature. The time spent at NTNU was decisive for my research and I am very grateful for all the support and advice I received. The past years have been a very intensive journey I share with my wonderful PhD colleagues in Bologna and Trondheim: Eleonora, Fulvia, Gemma, Maura, Misha, Roberta, Anne Karine and Katrine. I’m deeply thankful for their ongoing encouragement and motivation. Furthermore, I would like to thank my friends who kept me grounded during the past years: Arno, Naomi, Gepa, Camille, Stella, Luca, Martina. None of my education would be possible without the immense support and love from my family: my mother Rita, my brothers Robert, Günther, Josef, my sister Renate, my sisters-in-law Leonie, Simone, Julia, my brother-in-law Günther and my nieces and nephews Yasmine, Maurice, Magdalena, Valentina, Emma, Johannes and Aurelia. Everything I ever wanted was to make them proud. No words will ever express how grateful I am for the support, love, encouragement and motivation given by my Luca. Nothing would be possible without him. 6 FOREWORD This dissertation with the title The Circulation of Physiognomical Discourse in European Theatrical Culture, 1780-1830 discusses the relation between a philosophic, scientific concept and a specific literary genre in approximately fifty years of cultural history. In this foreword the main elements of the title are described in order to create the basis for the further explanations. Physiognomy1 is composed of the words physis (φύσις) and gnomon (γνώμων), meaning form/nature and judge/interpretation. It is presented as art, science, knowledge or study of the physical form and its interpretation of the soul and the human character. The different interpretations of Physiognomy will be a focal point in the introduction of this dissertation. The presentation of these different interpretations will bring to light a vast understanding and critique of a concept and idea thousands of years old. The physiognomical discourse addressed in the title refers to a multifaceted analysis of the human body in relation to its soul and character. By using the term discourse, the multitude of these analyses is evoked. This term is mainly used in the purest sense of its Latin origin: discurrere = to run different ways (Oxford Latin Dictionary). The movement implied in this definition is directly connected to the idea of circulation. Due to the “fashionability”2 of the expression discourse in the last decades, the reader of this dissertation might also think of a more literary theory approach. Wendell V. Harris gives ten different, though related, descriptions of discourse in the Dictionary of Concepts in Literary Criticism and Theory. Six out of the ten descriptions are basic ideas of the discourse definition, which underpin this dissertation: (1) Orderly, coherent thought. (2) The presentation of such thought. (7) In theory of narrative, the presentation or mode of telling of the story. (8) In a phrase like “discourse community”, a shared set of assumptions, procedures, and specifically defined terms. (9) The interaction between language and reality that 1 In order to avoid confusion with the term physiognomy for the general appearance and form of things without the scientific connotation, the science Physiognomy is written with the capital letter throughout the entire dissertation. 2 Jeremy Hawthorn. A Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory. London: Arnold Publishers, 2000 p.86. 7 produces experience or the world-as-understood. (10) A shared understanding of a significant area of social experience within a given culture at a given time in history.3 Discourse means focusing on all kinds of written text in order to create a multifaceted network of information and knowledge discussed by intellectuals, scholars, philosophers and writers. The relevance of the different voices in these written texts is emphazised and it is a theoretical way of forming and shaping humans as “subjects”4. The physiognomical discourse analysed in this dissertation, refers to a period in human history where an extensive transformation of science took place. At the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, science experienced a certain popularization. This dissertation refers more than once to the theory of public sphere by Jürgen Habermas and the fashionability of Physiognomy as scientific concept. The scientific discourse was held in many different institutions and could easily involve the public. New founded academies held, for example, public lectures; dictionaries and encyclopedias appeared on the book market and the periodical publications discussed new inventions and theories. This new approach of gaining and sharing knowledge also created a greater awareness of scientific topics and posed new questions. Physiognomy is one example of everyday use and application of scientific rules. This dissertation will question the scientific nature of Physiognomy and how the intellectuals and public referred to it. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, science also was often questioned. Older forms of pseudo- science, such as alchemy, found in chemistry a valid, much more reliable substitute. Physiognomical discourse brings together theories regarding the relation of the human body and human soul under different definitions. The theory of Pathognomy, fundamental in this dissertation, is included in the physiognomical discourse of the time and is therefore not explicitly mentioned in the title of this dissertation. This dissertation focuses on pointing out the relevance of the theatrical production influenced by the physiognomical discourse. The analysis of the literary corpus presented in this dissertation does not follow chronological, linguistic, or national orders, but tries to emphasize the circulation of the physiognomical idea all 3 Wendell V. Harris. “Discourse.” In: Dictionary of Concepts in Literary Criticism and Theory. New York, Westport, London: Greenwood Press, 1992, 66 p.66. 4 Paul A. Bové. “Discourse.” In: Critical Terms for Literary Study. Edited by Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin. University of Chicago Press, 1995, 50-65 p.58.