. -

" t f ; , f.• ;.. l '.' '" . ~ î t l , " , , 1 1.

1 ...

f , ! , .· .- , 1 • "

f. f " , ' . , t, ,1

àermà.o. Jesui't TheatJ:'e" BrêC,Jtt ~ , . '. and' th'e Concept,. of persuaaio ' l ,"''' _ ( , . . ,

'j " " , , " R~ber't .G ~ Sull i van , . " " " '.' . :~

"1 , ' ' , ! "

, ....,.

l' ' • . '

. ' , , - A thesis '·sub~'it'titd .. to' tbè . raè:!ulty ~f Graduate ' 'Studles 'anel. " Re.ea~ch 'in P-BJ'tial ~u.lfilDlent o.f ,t~e réquir~.nt. for the ,de.gree of Master of Arts. ,:',' ,;"," ." " ; "\ - '. " \ ...neparf'ÎDent' of Ger.man; MeGill tJn'ivers'i'tt,' , . Montr.al" Qu.bec, Canada . . ~, , , ' , .. ... ,~ " . ... ' " .., , ~~ober, 19~' èopyright ,c,R9~rt G. Sulliva~ , ,. 1 • , , , " , '. , , , ' . . , . ~. ~- .....-_____.-: ...... -----:-;..r .~ __.::.-~.;...... __ " ~ -.~.;;I._.~ ..... :--:____ y_,'--~~~ '.4\! il: , 1 _'", __ ' ..~. - "",1 " ,'- -._'---...,.-. '. 1, ~ , .. ',- y 1 , .. w " " - : _;..h. , " ~ . , . " , '. \, ,,' :. ~bstr.ac,t . ,-

( '~ , , .- ' l. : 'Ii

1. " , .,.. " .. " '. . { • ' J " ,. .. - ;, Th~"Germ~n· "-Jesui t dr.ama of the 17th centur3 *nd the , . i . .', '" '. , p~ayl!l Brecht may be contrasted and c·.ompared' . i . ~ .. t . . • 4 .. th'r~ugh an ;nvest-ïgation . of, their ~se- 'of rh,t~~ic~ 'J~S~~~

, , t, p' • . " dr.ama i s. a direct r-esult, of' the ,Jesuit school cu(r iculu~ whicn placed hea,,-y emph~sis,on" rnetoJ;i'c, especlally the"<~r&. ... -, , " disputîs'ndi: , ' . . ' • • 1"" - " Bertol t.. Brec·h:.t' s, rhètor~c, is' not as , , traditional a$ the jesuit dramatist-s!',' but Sim~,lâr i ~i~~'lJj~~ " ~he Je'surt dz::amatists and' Brecht JI'> .' dev,loped dramatic . theories ,wh'lch sho" that t."hey ·both . , \, conceived of their dramas'as'vehicles ,of ·persu~sion. They !' ~ i , è~6se their plots a~d:str'uctured their- plays so that.t~ef; . ,. . • wôuld have' the bes~ . p~ssible . effect., An '~nall'Si..JS'· of two"

. 'repr-~sentat i ve play~, Cenodoxus and .' (' ,.,. 1 ,. .. f ~ , . .'. . Bertolt . ',B'recht',s Life of G!lîleo, ',shows, that . stylistic' " ....,. .. [ .. r ~." .. .. '. . bon~iàera't~~ns we~è also determined bl' ~h~.to,dc. \ 1,

.~

: f • 1, • ' <' . , . , ., "

, ." ", " 1 , , 1

. ' ' ", , . , '/" ...... \ - .. " . ~.

, \

, ',. \: 1. "

.~ "(

l ',"). T'I-",~"'"...... _ ... _ ....._. A ..

, , " '".

" '''' '. , .. -Anal!yse' S~mma'i..t:~ ... , ''',

.' " .... " , " ':~',,' . _:' .~.,'1 il 1 est poss i ble de fa i re urt~\. compara i son. entre \~ le .. . -. - ~ - t, ' , th~a-tre des, Jé-!fu,it'es. dans les. ,pays de langues. a.1leman~des et pi·èces de' théâtre ,d" Brecht à. 't ravers uhe .' les Bë~tol.t '. ,f' recherche sur le,ur usage A 1" base du théâtre' des J.és:uites est le -programme- d'ét'udes ,de 1'éo01e ~ • "Of r" • , h ' jeisuite, qui aUra mi 5 - l 'accc~e~.t sur 'la- rhét:ori,que, ,surt9u't

1'!!! disputandi. ~. \ \ t.a de' Ber'tolt Brècht n'est C ,ni aussi, , Ji t formelle, ni aussi tradi t iont!lle que cene . des' dramaturgès' " 1 " "Jésùi tes, mais 'On peut· ,Y trouY&l" des ressemblance~. .Les " , , - '.' dramaturges Jésuites et 'Brecht ont déve~oppé, des thé~rieé ~ . ~ ,. ,( , dr~me"tigues qui 46m~:mtz::ent qU"iis avaient eus 'la conc,eption - . ., de' le'urs' drames éomme étant dea moyens- de persu~sion., tteùf 'choix"d,Jhistoires" ainsi gué la, structure de leurs pièc'es, dé :' , .

~ . théâtre, ~nt créé le meillèur _e~f~t possible., Une anal yse ' de deux' pièce. de théltre- r-eprésent'at; ve,s du, style Qe Brecht et des dramaturges' J,~sui te~, . Cenodoxus de Jacob Bidermann et . 1. . viè de Gâlilée de Bertol t Bre'cht, démontre q~e le ,style de .' -- '4 li~.. • ~es oeu.v~es était a~ssi déterminé par une préoè~upa~ion pouE'

,<

la 'rhét.or ique. ~', -.;;;, \ . " • 1

" " .

~. ,

. ' , ;~. " " . ' , -'" ,1 , a- '. 4'-' / J

.' " ; l ,1, ," , - .~ , " .~ l ~ .... ., ~n_ ... ~'. ~ ,...... '", '_ ~ r ,,, ' .. ~ • .J.' , ,

. " \' '( . ." ;.0 _"t :'~...... "" ;; \ , ": 'l, , ' ," - ~' .. ' , ", " .. .' . T~l~\t'of Content•

>, ( " " " .. ' " .. , ~.. , ,', . . , i : . '­ , ' , " ,t, " " In·troduction " ' The, M.~hodolo9Y of Li-terary' Comparison '," > "-1

·1 " Not.s ~; , 8 t, : ' ,,' Chapter' l l " Ù, , ' .' " " Rhetoric', the JèsUlt(5, ancl Brecht .' 9 , 1.1,Rhetor~c and'~itera~\ure ' ,'9 , 1-.2 Rhetoric and' the Je'suits ' 15 , ,1'.3 Rhetoric and Brecht , , 24 'Notes 30 , î l Chapter "2 ' , ,Th, Conc~pt,~nd practice of Per&uasio '., j5 -2 ... 1, The Conaept ôf Persuado, . 3~ 2.2 J,esùi t M Theory and Pract lce ' ' "- '2 2.3,:Bntchtt Theory and Prac:t~c.e 5. Notes ~5 ~.' ·Chapter.~ , Bïd,ermann' B 'Cenodoxuâ and Brecht" s Ga'lileo ,69 i 3.1 B'ider"nn ~na~ Brecht .' 69' , ,3.2 Cenod6xus ano"q81i1eo 75 . , Note~ 95 " ..: !, , Cbnc: lus i,on ... 96 ~,"~ .. " , . .4L i' 1 _ .... . Notes 100 " . . , t ": ' ~. ,J 1 ~ " "- 1 , , BibliolJ~apby !" lOI? ", , i " " " , , i , . . - " 'Î .•' 1 i

, \ ~ \ .' , t "" . ,'", . t ~

, 1,- f • 1 " 1 "" f , , .. ,t .' ,.' . ... f 'j l .t_. _ - -.j J ,. " ", ( ) " .;. l, [ :.' ; "

" " "

." . _t

" . 'r .: ..... _1,'.,._ ~? '" .. ~ ... f ,. " o . "'. ... ~ "~""""""""""""""----~------~------~------~--'-~'o----~------~------~--~------~--.--~------

,> ", ... .;:~ -1-.

:... ', " ; .. ,', '. ' " . " " t. ~ (' ( " "

1 ," 0 J . \ ' . .. J " '. '. .~ " ...... ' ,l, " .. -'-...../\

-, ~, . " • # '~ i r .' ,

" , A~l 't~~n.J.âtiOn. 'are".y ~wn 'U~'~"~'S" o~ber"i~.• indicatee!. t .. , , .'~ "", 1 • " ,

.' , ' • , p .. '. l' " " ." " " •• < .. .. " " " .', .- "

• 1

f, ,."" " .- . ," .\ , " .( .' " ',\ , ' , .. j

" , t

:' 1 -' ,] i il• \ ' ,~ .. ,J " , "

{ oQ " 'C " \ ,l ,1 ~', ''li Ac knov ledfjemen ~ s "

~ ( • v r i i . ( ..'" !, .' l should lilie to thank Professor Josef Schmid~1 who inspire~ an'd enc'ouraged me to do thi s' vork, Mr. Hans will t,er

Fr~s~hkopf, who gave me constànt assistance'and s~ppo~t, an6 ." last,,_ not l~ast, my fiancée, Marilyn BraYn.e vi thout whom none of this voul~ bave been possible.

\

' . . .

'~ , .. • , , '. . ,

"

-' "

1 .' \' r ' " ~' ~, " ,. , ' ï ", : " -~ ..:' , l, c " '," , , • , '" ' . ,

1 ,',

." ," .~ ; ,,: '\ \. ".

'.1 , « .1 \: l' , - " '. ,.... . , , " , " , .- . " ,(: . ,t .... " :. " " ~ . '. >, , , • J, ' .. ," , " , 1 , " ." '." 'r " " ,. ." . \- . ....,- :~t , .,. '--~-~--_.7-.';,..-- _:.'w ~._ .... 3 - ..... _J_ r , ft,. " " .,!, .\ \ i • " ..... ~. ," ,,' " '. .. " - "), : ,,~ 1 .' ~ ~ntroduction ,- , ~'. { ...- ii, ; - ~~,._ -.:::..: ',

The Metpod6logy of toi ter~.ry Comparfson ;;- 1'::,

"

A l,iterary èo~pari$on is ~n e~tended, simile. TvO .. . ' vorks, authors, ," gf'OUpS Of(' authors, or. even national r • literatures are likened or contrasted by mean$ of, 'somethi'ng.. . , ,common to both, the'tertiu,m comparat ionis.. The met'hod is = straightforward" yet often', errç::umbe.red vi th, ~angers 'an,d ,

dUQious ' presumptions. In the 19th cén~ur}i, 'for' example,' , .. l '\ _ • ... "

compa~ative' lite~atur~ studies'frequently, , , investigatèd'fhe influence of àn author Q.r' mod, f on di f terent 'wr i ters" wor,ks",' \ ' , , " .. '. '" \ ,. What ~t means ,fo~ a~ authp'r t'~' bè infl'uenced- is c,pJfunon.1y , ' .. h' \ _ .. : .. • , ~. ~ 1~ 1 , ," '" 'le~t l:In'e~plained. One is' co~fron~ed vith ~i5t~ ',dia'~y oi .. .. " .

'ent'r ies l '"'jo\:1rnals., - "or poet , , and'lett'e';~~ in.. .~.. "wh±ch:'- a: writ-è~' . .. , , , ,notes that he has rea.d 'such ~. W'ork' ~t ,il certain', tïme. The" , , '0 1 , . , .

.... , . author' s vork is' t~~n sear'ched for.' allus'ions -or 'borrowings,' -, , . or his treatment of ~ mo,ti'f is cd-nt~as~e~ , wïth anothe;'$: ,.' ", , ", " . \ ereat~~ity , ,1 S , present(!d in terl!ls reminis~ent" of -', ~ \- , benav ,ior lsm' Iii ~ st ill!ul1us 8tJd r~spons>e, si:he~"s.: ., , Pet'e'f Szondi,. .. a modern, '~er~n 1 ~ terary hi st'Qrian, -ls- , : .... harsh in his criticism of Ulis method: - . . " The simpl,e reference to supposed ,m~del-s • .'. is" of no , . ' v,orth.. It i5 to be rejected not 'because 'it se~~s, . , r~ , to dïminish the ori9ï'na~i.ty 'of the o.later poet,' but " . . -; . , l, becà'use it does not', f'u.rther kno"ledge'. It '. , " , " '. -. - ' .

....-; ....t ____- _____---:. _____~-~ ..~ .. _--:;..-__",...... -;----,---::--. ~ .... Ii q 1

r ; . .. ~. .~. . , ;r ., "t, .' .' " f, , misl the semblance of' an ident 1 ty or' ( anal~9Y hich' preven,ts ~n a~~rec iatio~~ of unique

. ~ . , .. and sPecif'c·qualiti~s •.{l.)" .. t "

.often~ éomparisons are u~ed. to prove ~hroPt)lOgiCal ,Qr ' . • , ontologie nypoth.e·ses. If a motiÎ'or a concept is common to " . , " ' !\ " differing cultures at· di fferent times, then 50 the \ argument runs -- they must be ln' . some vay innate. For

, .'. . ; e~ample, Waiter . ' ,Kaufma.;nn' s ~.' . Shakes~are 12 . , Existentialism éndeavors t'o show that existenti'alism is not '. me~ely ~ nev philo~~phy~ but a typically human .outlook which transcends' time an'd place .. c. .J. Jung' s warks on comparative religion, as a further example, strive to prove ~ the existence of â. universal collect)ve unconscious.nes,s by .'. demonst'ratin~ the ubj,qui ty of certa iÎ1 symbols. Szondi' s criticisms apply .equally well'to' this method of' comparison,

fo'r it frequently ov~r.lookS the par'ticular an~ the unique. , Furt~ermore, ,'since i t tènds to transcend, the histor.ical 1 coritext 'of ,a work, i t often falls victim to egre9io~s anach'ron i sms.' . This .thesis al:tempts tG. avoici the pi t,falls of such 'éomparisons by fpllôwing a ·t,h.i rd route. The tertium . . "... comparati"on'is iS.neither a motj.f or a symbol, nor a speci'fic li t,erary ,or phllosophical .idea, .but rather çlassical . ... rheto.ric. I· shall compare the use of rhetoric in the plays . " ~. . '~ , of Bertolt Brec~t vith ;its use in the drama of the l7th

" ' .'

. century German, tlesui ~s. . / : \1 My . pui"pos~ - ~ 5 threri o1d: fi,rst, to.. demonsJjrate. t~t '. ,. i" ',.; / . . f .. 1· ~-_ 'l .~/< f , ~ '.

J - ~ ----~------'-----.....-, _9.".a----.....,....--.------~::'···------~- .....------~.-- ,,,- ,~ ... :; . .\. ~. ',.' ..~ 1: f' l J i\ , .1 :- , , rhetoric' is a useful and pliable tool fo,r examining arid - ( explaining those works of art whieh, when eondérnned, are called propagandi stic, 'whe,n praised, li ttêrature, engagée. l'. Second, by using rhetoric as the' means of comparison, l

shall concentrate on the Jesuits' and Brecht' s methods. l , . " ' there~y hope to avoid the ideological traps whi-ch often '. await an analysis of controversial views. . Ideologies wil"l _

l' oot be compared and va,lued, but rather the aommunicative and persuasive str,ategies of two very different beliefs.

Third, l hope to make a modest contribution to research '" on Jesui t drama add Brecht ° Scholars regret the abscence of l studi es on the Jèsui ts' and Brecht' 5 us'e of rhetorié ~ Rolf \ . ~ . Tarot, for example 1 wrltes of the research on Jesui t Qralfla that: ."The grèatest shor'tcoming remaining , today is the invest ig4tion ~.: .of the rhetor ieal str~tegies which were used by the Jesuit dramatis~ to obtain 'their goal: the

persuasio of the spectator." (2) S imilar ly , .• one of the greatest Brecht scholars, Reinhold Grimm, has wri tten of the need for analyses of '. • , - Brecht' s rhetôric • (3) l cannot a im to fi 11 these -gaps, but

,.only to mak~" as l have said, a modest contribution. l -am awa're. that. a 'comparison of, the Jesui t dramatists ~ ; .r and Brécht""'5 use. af ,rhet~Qric .. lS f raug-ht with diffic'ulties , i1 l. ".' . " and problems. For exampl~, i s such- a comparison Qot" subject. ! . . ! -- t to the same reproach.which Szonçi made against'other works

o of, lièeratur,e, namely" it çompar~~ive "th~t i~\'a~istOrical:.? i r ~ . r ~.... ~ l, ( While. no· one, ~d.ou,t)ts \tat'." .>'pe. Jesui t -dra~atist~ made 'conscious,, use of rhe~oric in theit:-'plays; the same ean by no •. '. ' 3' "".

" , ~' , • means be said of Brec·ht. Nonetheless, elements of rhetoric

can be found in Brecht' 5 works just as the~ can be encountered in most modern adyertising. Furthermoré, 1 ~, shall attempt, to show that while c,erta-.in of Brecht' s

.. theor i es and methods of persuas i o,n ' ,do not -stem f rOIll

c lass i càl rhetoric, they!Te not nece'ssar i 1y incompa t ible

with it. B};' 'a rhet,orical ana1ysis of .Bre.cht's plays it may

0- perhaps be easier. to categorize Jüs' method,s and ~t the same

time demonstrate what modei~·rhetor~c can learn from them.

Thus, 1 shal~ n6t try' to prove,the,. influence of c1assica1

rhetor ic on Brecht, but ra~''her show tha t hi s methods are

. . , partly reminisce~t of and partly compatible vith c1assical .( , .. ~ rhetor i c ._

A second diffiçu1ty lies in 'the tertium comparationié_ ~ " . itself. There is no one system .of rhetoric, but rather a variety of rhetorics. Which ,i-s -to be used? Again in the . ' case of the Jesuits there should. be litt1e difficulty. l7th ..

cent ury German Jesuits possessed a· standard rhetoric~l ' textbook, Cyprianus Soarez' .De art~ ~hetoric~ (1560 ~n~ ~- -.,..-- . '" _,...... 1'568). 1 shall nonetheless ut-ilize ..classidal ,rhetorlc by , "

which 1 mean that system of rhetoric: which' is-a .synth'e·sls of , '.

Ar~stotle, the Ad HeJ'eAni um rheboricaj- cicero, -" and '" ... .' 9 Quintilian çnd which has been ptesented in an exemplary fashion in our time by Heinrich LausbeFg: Becauêe of its ~.' sometimes eclectic nature it i5 not a1ways consisten.t, yet. ;.. .\ -... -: ,., . it is historically appropriate for an analysis. of, Jesui t . w '. drama and, in my opinion, broad enougl'i for an·'il'lvestif18tioIl,.' of Brecht's drama.

l ) 4 ) • > • i 1 - !

, Another.. difÙculty in a rhetorieal comparisO'n, of 'the Jesui ts and Br~cht is 'th~· proced'ural method. Should one - eloeut ie ' or 'should conc;ent ra te on thel·r the analysis. , he- broader" and include a treatment cff their sources and . - dramatic structures? l haVE chosen to do the lattér beeause

sources and structures' se.èm" important- 'f or the i r resp~ct i ve

s,trategies of ~ersuasion. 1 s~all attempt to show the " , rhetor ics l cç>ntext o~' tlle Jesui t s', ~n'à Brecht.' s seJ.eç:tion of PlotS\for their plats and how thei( dramatic forms reflect their rhetorical 90a1s: Chapter l 'W i 11 begin w i th a .desc r 'i pt ion of .the a ims- of classical rh~tor ic and sketch its importance for Baroque.

literature. 1 shall' ,then pro,vi.de some justification for a study of the Jesuit dramatists' and' Breèbî's use of .. ' rhetoric. For the Jesui t Sr thi s invol ves the depict ion of the historical background to Jesuit dnima. The Jesui t ; ,

school programme empha~ized rhetoric, èspecially , in public

','spealdng and debating~ It will be shown that' the school " curricùlum led naturally to the development of a school

theatre. In the cas~ of Brecht, 1 shall demonstrate the validity of a rnetorieal analysis through textual'

~ Intérpretation. More weight will be given in this chapter

to ~,he Jesui ts than to Brecht for the following reasons. 'One 'ot" thé main tasks of a North "meriean Germanist is to be' a . mediator between German culture and North Ameriean culture. Jesuit drama is virtually unknown here and there

( . ,is almost no ,iiterature available on it in English. Ilf1pOr~ant 'studies cm Jesui t dr,ama exist in German, however, . 5 1 :1

._------~------~----~------, 1-

and 1. shall' drawr.t heavily from them and aIl

..quota't ions ,into Englï sh. 1 Bertol t Brecht' s· drama,. on the

other 'hanà, . i 5 _compçara t i vely well-known in the

English-sp~~king world and one has' recourse to some , exce+lent studi-es in English on his work. (4) Havi ng establ i shed _ the basi s for an" interpretat ion of

the Jèsu~ts' and Brecht1s us~ of rh~toric, l shall turn to

<> their theoretical writings in Chapter 2 and attempt to show the relevance .of theory to rhetorical' practice. Practical , . examples, which d~al mostly with inventi~, and dispositio, will then be given ta illustrate this relationship.. Since

both Jesuit drama and Brecht's plays- we~e , co~ceived as - - -14· persuasiye drama! l ~hall begin this chapter vi th Ci;eero' 5 categor,izati.on of ·rhetoric' s p,!rsuasive 'stratégies and with

the v iews of a modern commun icat ions sc ient i st on ~hat' i t

means to be ~rsuadèd. /

In Chapter 3 I.~hall give a detailed comparison -of the . - use of rhetoric in two exemplary p1:ays: Jacob Bidermann' s , < ~ • - Cenodoxus and Brecht' s Life 2! Gali,leo. The a~aly~is will

draw from the ba~kground ana theoretical information

suppl ied in the preceeding chapters.' 1 shall .espec~ally

emphasize elocutio. There are' I)wnerous similar~_ties between " . . Jesuit d~ama and ~recht's epic theatre, yet' as Othis chapter

will show they oft,n differ in their. persuasive ~trategies and' aims.

l shall conclude wi,th ... sh~rt· s\l1llll'Uiry of results. \ is my hope that a .comparison of Brecht' 5 and the' Jesui"t

~ , dramatists' rhetorié 'will show Hie u.seh~.lness of . rhetorical. -

, 1

"

(

.. " studie.' 'for literary criticism. ( " ,

. ."

r:

.i

..

" '"

~ .,1 . .,. t } . 'i l

'. \ . t-.,' \ .,,\. .... " t t ~ '~i., J t f ~ f ,1 1 1 t- l t , le , \ " ( \' \ ' , ' .,~ . i ( 7 • , "

...... ___ ..... ~ __r.., , ~ .. 1 , l . '""!.'!! .. . ,- ~ . . , , , - , , Notes'" (

, . 1; , , , -, • ,1 ,~- -, Ci ted in Gerhârd R. Kaisèr 1 EinfUhrung ~ lli ,vergleichende Li teraturwissensc'haft (Darmstadt: ~\ 1 ~~~Benàchaftliche B~e&ellsèhaft, 1980), p. 81. , ,r. , t 2 R~lf Tàrot, "Schul~rama und Jesui~endrama," in · ! 'Handbuch des. deutschen Dramas, ed. Walter Hink (bus'seldorf: · 1" ,-.- Bagel, 1980), p. 45. 3 , Reinhold Grimm,. Bertolt Brecht, 2nd. Edi tion

( , (Stl;lttgart: ,Metz1er, '1971) p. 112.

\ '4 See e.g. Martin Bsslin, Brecht. T~~!!!!!l!.ru! His , ~ (Garden City: Anchor, 1971~.

, . ,

• J . '1 "~. • 1

-. - 1 ' .. t " 1 1 ( r ; ) , , 1 • ~

.1

- / 8

. \/ t

t7 "

"

" .' 'Chapter ~ (

1 Rhetoric, the Jesuits, and Brecht

,

In this chapter, l shall, first,'provide a def·inition," - for classical rhetoric and then outline the infléence of~

classical rhetoric on Baroque -literature. Second, l shall relate how l7th century Jesuit drama was the natural outeome

of the Jesui ts' i nstruct ion of rhetoric. ~ast, l shall suggest the possibility of using some concepts "f rom -classical rhetoric to analyse the plays of Bertolt Brecht.-

1.1 Rhetoric and Literature

"

Heinrich Lausberg, in the Most' comprehensive modern

1 handbook on the subject, vrit.s tha-t' "Rhetoric is defined as .. the lars ben~ dicendi .... " Lest this be understood as \. meanlng--- that rhetoric is def'ined primarily in grammatical

terms4 he qui~kly adds: " ••• whereby ~ the virtue of succ-essful- persuasion, pecul iar·' to speech, is meant." He co'ntin'Ues,' "The common virtus of a sPeech can thus be . identified with the, apt\1lÔ which . is di rected toward , ' . • uc~essful persua~ion.~ (1)

To ûnàerltand ~u.berg's justifiéation for equating 1 ~ . ' ,1 •

9 .', , .. J , , ,-!_------, , '. . \ ' / " \ } . , . . " ,.. 'rbétot.ic or , "~pea,k.ing well" ( l , cortsider the source of' the unacltnowl.eôged guotat ion ,"a'rs , " ~, ' ... -' .. , , ., "b~ne' di'c,èndi,"' namely Quinti1i~nr,s' Institutio' oratoria which

" 1 Geor'g" kenne,dy has , called ,"the 'finest statement of ançien't . ' - , rhetorical th.eory.~. (2). In' t~e 's~,c,ond boo)s, .',Q\1'int~lîar1

1 ~- , ,!, p~'ses tl\e question.: , ".Whàt· 15' rhetoric7,n (3) His an$wé'r," . , ,"',, .. • \' pat'tly based on ' Plat9~ s Got:gias, is, a,s ,usual" system~~ic" '.) - . " - ~ .. a'nd, he, pr,sents a syntnetic com~,endi um' o'f Grt;.ek and Roman

views as we+l .. ,'-'The cçimmon definition of rheto~ic ..• ,~ he

, , , , writes; is "'the' power of pers\,ladihg (vis pérsuaâendi) .'~. (4) .. " " ., ' . ~et persuasion can be achieveq' by many âifferent means. - How

doe$ rhetorical' persuaSion ~if~er? .sorne, "who ,I?ride themsel ves' ~n,' thei r' greater, ex~ctnes$, of ~a,~gua'ge," have' '0 , restricted '~~e d~fi~itipn of 'rhetè>r,ic' t'ci "the power of", l , 1 • per:suasioD bl' .peakin:q (vis dic,end9' per$~aq~ndi),." __ (5) , . Ouintilian, however; 'find~ this: aefi~itiori' -1;0 be i,nadequate, 1 _ 1 _ _ 1 p , 0 ~

.. ' • - '" • • 1 • 1 l " "sinee -ethers besldes, ,ora,tors ,persuad~ by sp~akln,g or' lead 1 ~ ,~ _' others to ,t'he" c;oriè 1 usions 'd~s.i'reâ, ~s for ': ex~~ple 'bar lot~,

, ~ 1 .. 1 flatterers and , ·seducers." (6) '"PeE'suasic)"n '!. 'Î's 'indeed '''not , ~ , .,. ~ 1 1, " ' • " 1 \ .. 1 • 1 :: . the pr; vilege of 1 the orato'r 0)' Qurn.tilian, alon~:.," , . .

'maintain ,or : , however, . seeks to tather' ,. re-establish T the " - JO ' , "

stanBin,9 of the oratoi- and the idéal of ·rh~torïc. ,He' , " ,_P ~:- " ",th~refor,e 'introduees, two ,e9nc~Ns" by' no, m'ean$ : ~l",igi~~l ,~'o " , ' , " 1... " , - , ' , , 'him, according tp wh'ich the orat:or' s' speeè'h must. po~se~s ' ,'. ,- , stylè (elo~utio), and ,he

... r • , ~onu~) ,.' (~) , .:Oéspi te ' t,he fact that tl\é latter. ethi'cal'," , , .restriction hild' become a~ commonpl.ce ,in' th~' defence-- of \ ' , ' " rhet~ric, it ,sn~uld be taken ',se ri ousl.y..; , for accordihg ,to

<' - .' . , 10 .'

" . '

" ... ~"_~ __'_" _~'::.:-",,,",-,-r __ , _ ( . , rhetoric, the ethica~ eomponent is essential '0 the ideal of &loguenti~~ For this reaeon, Quintilian's concluding words J \ are neither tautological' nor vacupus:' "Eor if' rhetoric is t'he scienc-e of speaking well" its' end and highest 'aim' is to

" s.peak welt (nal:l si est ïpsa- i.e. rhetorice- bene dicendi

" sciep~'ia, finis ei,us et summum eJ~t 'J?e'ne dicere)." (9) The good (bonus) man speaks well (bene), that is to, saY-I ',. ,1 virtuously and with eloquence '(elocutio): . As . ' 'Gadamer once stl1ted:, '"Speaking -well (eu legein)' has always b~'en an" equivocal formula.' In addition to the art of speech, , the art of saying som.ething we,ll, i't means,.saying 'the prope-r ...", ,thing, i.e. the truth. " (9) To speak eloquèntly, an~ .. ' tr~th~ully is to spea~k ef.f.ective1y, a~d tO,speak e.ffeçtively " , ' . i s 'to' per ;;uade. "

1 'rh, id'es that persuasio~ i s' the chief end of rhetor lC

1 - , is cQmmon-):o all of' the .9r1tatest ancient rhetoricians. in , . , - p'lato'~/ dial~gut: G01'"9ia$, for e'xample, Gorgias say.s: ~"~ caU , , ~ . i t,' (rhetor,ic) the' ab'ility \0 persuade (pei~hein) vith

~pe'ech-~ ••• " (111 T'o be suié, Socr,ates di sagrees wi th ~his , . definÙion, none'the1ess, .his' Objection went unheeded by Ar:i,stot1e who states in. his seminal The Art of Rhetoric , . t~at: -"Rheto~ic then' may be defined'ù. th, .faèulty (dynamis) ot"discovering the' POsClib'1e' means ,of , ' , . , , , t' in J;'efe'renc~ to' any' subject, whatsoeyer.~\ (12) In the " Herenn,ius Rhetoric, false1y ascribed to Cicero,' ,thè' aut'hor' " , ~ .. ~ .. • rite.:. "The task.o'f the publi.c speaker (orato'ri~. 'officit&). ( , is to disc,uss' çapably those utters' which~" and cu.tom

.J ., l . 'L, .... ; ~-... - -~'~ ... _~ ..... l,1 .. , ", ". ' 1 '. 1 ~. 1\ t. ~ Mve f ixed for the use of, ci t izenshipi and to secure as far t .... t ( as possible the agreement of the hearers," i.e~ tq persuade -,l > them.' (13) Cicero himself is quite exp1icit on this point. .' 1, .. ) He 'writes' in De inyentione: "The function of e10quenëe seems' to be to speak in a manner suited to persuade (persuadëre)

~ $peech. Il' (14) In De ct>ratore, he states:' ".:. the dut y of 1 " ! , . ~., 1, ,the the èrato~ lS to sp~ak ln a style fltted to convince (ad r t persuadendum acc'omdate} •••• " (15)

Hist~rica11y, poetics or the theory.of literature was

i' to a great ·degree subordinate to rhet'or,ic 'unti1 the Romantic '- .period. Poetry was c,nsidered met'rica11y-bound speech and

the poet shared "wi,th- th.e ora~(fr the task of influenc ing the

li~teners and of achi~vi~g the intended effect by SÇylis~l~

means'. " ~16) Art and literature, 'therefore, wete not , aut6nomous. .

~ ,", . I;"'antiquity, poetry and rhetoric, went, hand in l\and at' ) -' least' 'since Ovide Furthermore, James M,urphy 'and Ernst Curtius hav'e shown conclusively the importance of rhetoric

, - in the ~iddle,Ages and its ,influence on literature. (17) In i \. t'he Renaissance', rhetoric and literature became almost , , indi stir;tg~i shab1e. (18) Intere.st in rhetorie 'was ren'ewed and ., . . revi talized ,thro,ugh the new. reeding of the ciassical texts , . .- / . on. rhe-torie such as 'the Herennius Rhetoric~ and the works of Ar'i s'totle and . Cicero. Cicero' s De oratore and Quint i Han' s " lnstitutio -- on1y fragments Qf thé latter were known in the 1 ~ , j , Middle Ages were rediscovered and avidly read., (19) Don , ~au1 'ADbott vri tes th,a,t "Rhetoric and 1iterature are, in the

~. Rena i ssance 1 often coter~inous, rhetor ica1- pr,ecept an.d

. '. 12

., ~ ___ ~-_-::-____~ ___...:I....:' ______-._~ ____ ~'t -,~-----_.' , 1

.' ------~-~------~~------

, " , " , '. , , , \ ' ... y , • r ~ - " , literary ptod~ction, are so intert~i~ed as to b~ vir'tua11y " . ~ t ( i-nseparablè.,. " ( 20) 'The' "rhe.tor ic;a1 --..precept SI" ,0 werè 'by no' . .. " . . . '" - r means confïned' to sty1istiç's, "for "Renaissanc~ rhetoricians" '. ( Q , " ~ . ' l differ 1 f,rom their medieva1 counterparts in an i.ncreased ,: stress.o,n persuasion ••.•• (21) The primary aim of poetry as ! f. :well as of the other arts ·was considered to be the arousing / , ! 1 / • ,(t ( o~ passions or affects. (22) 1 i

'i In the 1 i terature 'of the 1ate Renaissance or Baroque, \ '. \ as the period' is cal1ed by most Germanists, rhetor1c was

" , a1l-pervasive. It is' even considered by some to be "the

central cat~90ry" or '~he "fundameotal e1ement" of Baroque ' ..

l i ter~~\lre •. (23) Such statements, however,' can invi't;e - " . ' . , . certain ~isundérstand~ngs. One mi'ght equà té _ rbetor ic wi t~ J ... 1 .. ~ ,,~ ,_.1 the pompOsity often ascribe~ to the Baroque style;' and it ·is , , c~rtainly (rue' that ',Baroque' l i'tera'ture, espe~ i'a11y German ., , Bar'çque li te'l'at:ut:e, - often disp1ays an exaggera'tep and 'tur:9jd

'use of rhetor/ie. Curtius, for example, rejects ~he Baroque

styl~ as "manneristic": " " , i " ,r The mannerist, 'does ~ot· want 'to s~y thil19S J, J . no.rma1ly', but 'rather ~ ab~ormally. He pre~ers " ',' . ~.... 1 .arti fic iali ty and art if ice to ·nature...... , Whf le

the~e is ohly one way to say things . naturally, l,t, there are a' thousand unnatural ways. (24)

'Curtius, bowever, would be the last to confuse -

\ "artificia1lty" with rhetoric, yet 'the modèrn distrust.. of and dis.dain fçl' rhètor ie cer.tainly tends t,o thi s view. ( , , Wha't then does it meari when one says tha~ Baroq~e '/ j. 13 -~._-~- -_. -,-.------.-.....,..,.. .----~ . literature is rhetGrical? Baroque rhetoric seeks to affect.~ ( Therefore, Baroque literature is'always'direoted towards a listener or an audience. This includes even lyric poetry in which the lyrical should by no means be confused witW a subjective outpouring of ' the heart as later romantic theories of poetry assumed. Baroque lyric poetry is - anything but personal or subjective. Baroque draina, on the 1" other hand, was by the nature of dramatic 'art an obvious vehicule for rhetoric. Valentin, for instance writes of the period: "le théâtre est donc une partie -- et pour beaucoup la plus noble -- du champ ~hétorique.~ ,(25)

Wilfried Barner, for example, 'says of "the ent~re \,

literature of the l7th century" th~t "whether movere, " persuadere, flectere, docere, or delrctare (vith their German equivalents), the art of speaking is alvays def i·ned

as an ,intentional art. ft (26) By "intentional art" Barner • means tendentious art. If one follovs 'Cicero, however, I2!rsuadere is not one goal among many, but rather the

___ ~entral category and aime (27) Martin Opitz, the autbor of the first and mosb

influential German poetics, ~ ~ !2rr der deutschen' Poeterer (1624), offers a description of poetry vhich may be considered representative for the l7th cent ury GerlIlfn!l'

conception of li terature. In i t he supplements the classical definition of Horace -- "aut prodesse volunt aut delectare po~ae/aut simul et iucunda et idenea dicere \ vitae~ (28) "the most noble purpose of poetry" writes' ( l Opitz, is ,"the persuasion and instruction as weIl as the li \ 14 -....:" ~ ""- ~ / -li~.: ~ ------....<------...... ------:--.- -4...... - ~ -_ .... ft delight. of people. (29) To characterize Baroque literature .. as rhetorical, thereforé, is to say that it is literature wbich seeks to persuade. • The c?mbination of rhetoric and poet~cs continued aftér

the, Baroque era well 0 into the early 19th cent ury . The Rdtnantics, although possesS'ing their own rhetoric, were the. first to combat sueessfully the reign of formaI classical rhetoric ovet literature and rèplace it with the ideal"of ,. subjective and original genius. For the pre-Romantic period, however, one can well agree vith Curtius' words: ••• until the July Revolution, Europe was corivinced ( that it could not survive without a constantly renewed presentation of rhetorie which closely foilowed the modern' prod'uct ions of the beaux arts.'

(30 ).

;- f ~ :• f- t i 1.2 Rhetoric and the Jesuits ,. ! f , ~- " { ", ~ t f 1 German Jesuit drama of the I7~h century offers an l i excellent example of the importance of rhetoric for Baroque V

, 1 J, literature and of the ~ubtle mixture of rhetorica1 and , i , po'etical practice. A short. description of the backgrpund ; , ; and historieal setting of the Jesuit drama aids in the ... .. i ( un'derstanding of the Jesui ts' ..use of rhetor ic. When in 1539,' Ignatius Loyola and a small group of . 15 Il ( . : ,~ 1 4, .------\

foJlowers met in Rome to write the Rule of their n~~ Order, ( they presented~ summary of their rèsolutions for the

judgement c1f the Holy See." (31) The document contains a , succinct description of the aims of the new order: Whoever wishes to' be a soldier of God under the standard of the cross and serve the Lord alone and , His vicar on' earth i-n our Soc iety, which we desire to be designated by the nime of Jesus, should,

after a solemn vow of p~rpetual chastity, bepr in mind that he ls part of a community founded principally for.. the advancement,.. of sOtlls in Christian life ../ and doctrine and for the propagation of the faith by the ministry of the

word, by spiritual ~xercises, by works Of charity, and expressly by the instruction- - in. Chri:stianÏ\:y of children and the uneducated. (32)

, Propagati~ fidei and Juvare animas were~the central ~• . ~ aims of the Jesuits. Nonetheless, it would 'surely be a ~ ,- "- mi stake to denigrate the ,order by considering. i t to be ,. . , merely a papal weapon in the fight agai.ost the Reformation, .

to confuse the propagatio fidei with Çathol~c propaganda. -~ The Jesuits are justly famous for their drive, outward direction, and worldliness, yet rather than pointing to a

l~ck of spirituality these attributes delineate the contents of a nev spirituality, Many points of'which vere nonetheless 1 ( flrmly anchored in Christian tradition. (33) The Society of Jesus vas formally recognized in 1540 by t t 16 l -~--- - , : , . " , , .!

,'. 1 tb i~ • Pope Paul III in ,the Bull Regimini Mi1itantis E€clesiae~ , 1 . . ( J~suits -J., , The were a misS.Ï9'flary order in the, widest .sense o:f '.1 ," . the 'term. The Order was to invÏ'gorate Catholicitm i c,6h~~ived ., 1 \ as w.ell as to, convert the uflOrthodox and non-Christian. 't,".~;::_ .. \ Education obvioysly p1ayed an im~ortant role in this ;:• f process. ~t. Ignatius himse1f rea1ized after his conversion , r ... , t tha\: if he wished to continue preachlng he ne~ded a proper ! , theo1~gica1 training. -He enviSloned jesui t schoofs·· to l ! l, educàte the new members of Order. J th~ Despi~e' t~e ~ter . fâme of the JéS'ui-t: sc:tloois, - howevè.r, the young Order by"no u""'...;\ ll (" - means considered it,s mission to be prima~i1y pedagog,içal. " . Indeed, as Brodrick, ...in _. ,;'he' Ori9in 'of the JéSUl ts, has pointed 6ut, the .J~suits' vows ".to go at ~,.moment's notice . where ever the Pope might pirect them," would ev~n seem to '~~ ., exciude 'regular institutiona1 tea'ching. (34) In li. . draft

·signed on March 4, 1541, forma~ized teaching was considered ", outside the Order's mission: "No studios ni 1ectiones en la .. Compa,nia. ft (35) It was on1y th,rQugh 'the enthusïasm of ~

:~ Francis Borgia that Ignatiu~ was persuaded to establish a , ·school in Gandia which admitted 1ay pupils as wel1 as young Î, , members o"f the Order. Simi1arly" external events led to the

erection of a college for 1ay students in - 1548 in Messinà. . .,

The ~nitia1 hesitation overcome, the pedagogical zea1 qt~.the

," Jesuits soon led to the establishment of schools all over ,~ , . •;. ,Germany and the rest of Europe. In 1549~ three year.s· before' , , the founding of the Collegium Germanicum in Rome, Jesuits , , . 1 r't":.were teac~in9 ~in' .Ba~ari~ and i~ 1551 they established ,~,

~chool in Vienna. Col1eges were founded in 1556 in

\

r '

l. , . Ingolstadt, in 1559 in Munich, in 1563 in Dillingen. ( Schools were established in 1556 in Cologne, and in 1561 in Mainz and Trier. The Jesuitp were also active in prussia and Silesia, in . northern Germany. Jesuit gymnasia or high schools were opened in 1622 in Ne i sse, in 1626 in Glo'gau, in 1635 in Schweidnitz, and in 1638 in Breslau. Wilfred Barner

has stated that in the Catholic areas of Germany the ~esuits possesed a virtual monopoly over education. In 1631, for example, the Jesui t c01lege in Munich numbered 1464 students and in 1725 the Jesuits ran sorne 208 c01leges and academies in Germany. (36) The curriculum ln the Jesui t schools was gradually standardized and in 1599 it was codified in the Ratio Studiorum. As in other areas, the Society did not hesitate to appropriate material from outside the Order. The Jesuits' instruction was mostly based on the model of the humanist schools: the language of instruction was Latin and the pedagogical goal was tpe rhetorical ideal of eloguentia. , -' Yet, while the Jesuits imita~ed the humanist and Protestant schools and many of their methods, their imitation did not :;... '.. - ~ represent a capitulation, but rather the desire "to strike

the humanist oppo~ents with their own weapons." (37) Barner has called the real goals of Jesuit instruction: "Defense of the true faith, refutal of the heretics, reconquest of those

1 who had fallen away .... One was constantly reminded that everything was measured by 'quae sufficere ad infidelium et haeriticorum conversionem possit.'" (38) Instruction in the gymnasia was rigidly uniform and

18

------~------t'raditiona1. The progress of studies werit from grammatica to humanitas and culminated in rhetorica. Already at the

level of gra~atica, whose three to four years took up more

O thah haH of a gymnas i um ° student' s career, rhetor ic was taught. The standard grammar text was written by a Jesuit,

Emanuel Alverez, in 1572 and the stylistic goals which it

laid down were taken d~rectly from c~assical rhetoric: latinitas, puritas, and elegantia. (39) The students read classical Latin literature, especially Cicero, as exempla and their reading served as the object of imitatio.

The second level of the Gymn~siurn was devoted to humanitas or poesis and lasted one year. The last two years of education were devoted almost exçlusively to rhetoric. o Next to Cicero, Aristotle and the Rhetorica ad Herennium were considered models. Cyprianus Soarez' De arte rhetorica

libri tres ~ Aristotele, Cicerone et Quintiliano praecipue deprompti (1560 and 1568) seerns to have been the standard textbook and i t gradually achieved the "same ubiquity as Alverez' grammar text. Both authors' books were used in constantly revised versions until weIl into the '19th ~ cent ury. The t-radi t i onal approach to rhetor ic of Soarez' book, evident from its title, is manifest in its structure, which i s divided into sections devoted to inventio, dispositio, and e1ocutio. Special attention is given to the techniques of argumentation, and Cicero's speeches function again as the mode1. Soarez' De arte rhetorica differs '. little from Vossius' Rhetorices contractae (1606), which was written for Protestant 5choo1s. Barner has stated that:

19 -, "th~ fundamental precepts together with their system" are practically identical, which shows again how justified it is to speak dlf the c lass ical or class ic i st ic theory of rhetoric of the l7th century as a uniform sub-stratum." (40) This should not be surprising for as Valentin has remarked in his standard study on Jesuit drama: A une époque qui sera bientôt celle de conflits religi·eux aigus, la rhétorique deviendra incontestablement le terrain commun, neutre en t quelque sorte, sur lequel les rencontres seront possibles. Pour deux bons siècles en Occident, elle sera point de convergence, discours universel. (41)

The eloguentia ideal of the Jesuit Gymnasia was sustained through frequent public performances. Students began with the recitatio and declamatio at the lower levels. At the humanitas and rhetorica levels, students were required by the Ratio Studiorum to attend a praelectio every second Saturday at which a graeca lati.nave oratio or a carmen was presented. (42) . The Jesuit Constitutiones, furthermore, prescribed that: \ After dinner on sorne day each week, one of the

more advanced stud~nts should deliver a Latin or Greek.oration about some subject likely to edify those within and without the c011ege and to

encourage them to greater perfection, in our Lord. (Constitutiones, 196)

20 .[ An audience was required for both declamatory and " dialogue exercises. (43) Concertationes, in which either two students or pairs of students,would participate, consisted

of a question and answer dialogue and were already organiz~ at the grammatica level. The subject matter was usually the materia{ studied in class. • Thus, students engaged in rhetoric~ exercises on, among other things, rhetoric. Soarez' emphasis on argumentatio laid the basis< for the !.!:.! disputandi, which was, appropriately enough, exercised extensively by the Jesuits. (44) Public speaking, therefore, ranged from the simple recitatio, declamatio to the concertatio and disputatio and culminated in the actus, which might consist of a dialogue or even a scene from a play. On important feast days, such as Christmas, Easter or Pentecost, the doors of the school were opened to a larger public for the actus. The twofold pedagogical purpose is clea·r: students obtained practice performing before a large audience and at the same time vere encouraged by the audience's response. School theatre was, therefore, implicit in the Jesuits' rhetoric program. The Jesuits borrowed heavily from the humanists and the Protestants not only for their instruction of rhetoric but

also for their theatre p~oductions. They imitated and, at the same time, transformed the humanist drama and the Protestant school drama. Consider, for example, the words, which the great German humanist Conrad Celtis, delivered in his Ingolstadt speech of August 31, 1492: (

2l -f It i5 truly a great and almost divine thing in the , ( ancients' administration. of the. state that they strived to combine wisdom with eloquence. In. order to obtain this, they org~zed public plays in which they encouraged the audience through the fine art of persuasion and tbrough their own invention to strive for efficiency, reverence, steadfastness, and patience in aIl things. (45)

Cel~is' ideal, which is reminiscent of Quintilian's ideal of the orator, was slightly different from the Jesuits'. For example, Pontanus (1542-1626), the author of the most influential Jesuit poetics and a ,dramatist himsel f, summarized the philosophy of education contained in the Ratio Studiorum and applied it to the public performance of plays as follows: (the purpose of school drama consists in) 1. Encouragement for the support of poor students, 2. training in composure and gestures, 3. praise for the parents and for the school, 4. profit for the school through the memorization of so many Latin Verses. Finally, profit for experience and j udgement. (46)

It ie obvious that Pontanus has expanded the h~nists' ideal by adding many practical points concerning, among other things, the reputation of the school. Perhaps the , difference between the humanists' and the Jesuits' use of .-

22 -f· theatre may be elucidated by stating that the humanists ( visualized theatre as an integral part of their programme of

~returning "ad fontes." They be'gan wi th expurgated performances of Terence and Plautus and continued with their own imitations" of the Roman comedies. For the Jesuits, on the other hand, eloguentia and drama were means to an end and rhetoric was a tool. to be used for the salvation of men' s souls. Whereas the humanist emphasized classical .- purity, the Jesuit utilized every means available to him to persuade. , The first "Jesuit" play, Euripus, was written by' a

Du~ch Franciscan, Livinus arechtus, and first per~ormed in 1548 in the Franciscan College in Lowin. (47) The Jesuits used Brechtus' play for their first large theatre performance in ~he German-speaking lards in vienna in 155~_ • • Euripus revea1s the influence of classic Roman comedy and the humanists, but its author does not hesitate.. to attack the heathens' poetics. In fact, the play seems more indebted to the tradition- of medieval morality plays than a superficial perusal would suggest. Simi larly, the Jesui ts drew selectively from the Protestant school plays as well as from Shrovetide plays in the vernacular. The end result is, of course, synthetiç and eclect ic, but surely not wi thout ( its own purposes and direction. Euripus agwin provides a good example. As befits a school play it was wrrtten in Lat~n, yet it was considered so effective that it 'was translated into German in 1582 in

order to reach a larger

1 i 23 Ji ------~-~--

) ignored the original purpose of the humanist school p~ay, ( namely the ideal of Latin eloguentia. Yet the translation hardly impairs the rhetorical effects of the original Latin. It should seem that rhetoric was not considéred equivalent to Latin eloquence, but was a means in itself. An analysis , . of Jesuit drama, theref ore, cannot rélinquish a consid&ration of the influence, if not primary importance, of rhetoric. It has been shown that classical rhetoric was

understood as the art of persuasion. It was a most·welcome / instrument to the Jesui ts for their goal of the propagation of the fa i th and thei r desi re to save soul s.

1.3 Rhetoric and• Brecht

1 have tried to show how Jesuit drama was the natural outcome of the Jesuits' pedagogical programme, namely their instruction of rhetoric, and how rhetorical persuasion suited the aims of the Order. The question arises, however, whether the example of the Jesuits is ooly of historieal

interest or whet~r i t has some r"elevance for today. A consideration of t~~ plays of Bertolt Brecht indicates that

there ~re modern parallels. Few modern dramatists are so

essentia~ly. d~dactic and so .obviously con"cerned wi th persuading their audiences as was Bertolt Brecht. Brecht's theory and practice of theatre was conceived in conscious ( opposition to the Romantic and post-Romantic philosophy of i 24

1 ------__,__ .. _t __.______~------autonomous art or l'art pour l'art as it 'was later called. ( Brecht wrote of hi s theatre that i t speci f ically rejec'ted - "The cult'" of beauty which was pract iced with a / /-~ disinclination toward learning and wi th a contempt for

utility .••• " (48) It would be a faulty logic that would conclude that t'ecause Brecht rejected Romantic and post-Romantic aesthetics, he reaffirmed classical rhetoric,

especially in i ts Baroque forme Twentieth cent ury sensibilities should seem to exclude the reintroduction of classical rhetoric. "Consider, however, Reinhold Grimm's remarks on the influeQce of antiquity on Brecht. He writes

that the role of rhetoric in Brecht's work ha~,been almost entirely neglected. Yet "antique rhetoric, which is an illtentional aesthetics, has from the beginning much in common with the poet's (Brecht's) concept of art." (49) Grimm also mentions the influence of Brecht's theories on moqern research on rhetoric. In connection with this he cites Heinrich Lausberg's Elemente der Li terarischen Rhetor US. Laus8erg included in his chapter on the dispositio.... a sub-chapter on alienation (Slntfremdung). He' then gave the following definition: Alienation (to xenikon) is the intellectU8l/:effect which the unexpected (to xenon kai anthes), s an external phenomenon, exercises on man. This ,-. ,effect is a psychic ~ which i5 able to realize

i tself in di fferent forms and degrees. (50)

. )

25 , ~ .. - -~_. ------~~~---.,-..------~------_.- "'" As 'Grimm points out, the us~ of the word "choc" points , ( to B.,recht or at least to a Brechtian influehce. (51) A .. further instance of Brecht's influence i s Lausberg' s translation of "xenikon." The term comes from Aristotle and occurs in his discussion of style or elocutio. It is

translated by Freese hS "for.eign, '" though he notes that this l is inadequate for the context and that another possibi1ity might be "distinctive." (52) Aristotle says that one should give language a "foreign air" (dio dec poien xenen ton dialekton) because "men admire what is remote, and that which excites admiration t5 pleasant." (53) He warns, however, that "those who practice this artifice must conceal it and avoid the appearance of speaking artificially instead

of naturally .•.• ft (54) An acquaintance wi th Brecht'}- the ory of al ienation.. indicates that it has little to do with the Aristotelian xenikon. Brecht sometimes uses, the word "Verfremdung," sometimes "Entfremdung." Both terms might be translated as "estrangement" which would be similar to Ar i stot1e' s

c:oncept. Yet "Entfremdung" is a1so a key conce~t in the economic and social thought of Marx, the likely source of Brecht's theory, and there i t connotes the English

"alienation," i. e. the transfer of propert~ as ~ell as "estrangement." Furthermore, Brecht, as we shall see, did not expect his'. audience to be unaware of the "alienation-effects." He had little sympathy with the ( rhetorical dissimulatio artis; on the contrary, the audience vas to be made avare of theatrica1 methods in order to view

, 26

~~ -T J them critically. If Lausberg' s discussion i's indeed ... <. influenced by Brechtian theorles, as Grimm suggests, then it is. partially a misunderstanding of Brecht' s use of alienation. Nonetheless, it mey be possible to analyse Brecht's

alie~ation-effects rhetorically. Brecht '5 theory may not derive from classical rhetoric, but it is not necessarily

incompatible wi th i t. Furthermor_e, at least one Brecht 1 sChèlar, Ulla Lerg-Kill, has used classical rhetoric to analyse Brecht's works. (55) Lerg-Kill restricts herself to Brecht' s propagandistic poems and slogans because they are less equivocal then his dramas. (56) However, her summary of her results might apply equally weIl to Brecht's plays:

Brecht postulated social contents for lyrical statements. They were to be combined with the

author's 1 consciously communicative. position towards his recipient. Brecht considered the .lyrical statement t9 be communication and not a monologue. It is therefore justified to consider his lyrics from the vie" point of their funct ion •••• IV The political aims: criticism of pre-revo1utionary- society and the enlightenment of the socia1ly .... .r disadvantaged, advertising for the revolutionary goal, advancement of the idea of solidarity, which ( Brecht pursue~ vith his propagandistic poems and

27 -; l'i

" 1 -'.. ;:>1 ., songs - a11 these 'reflect the journalistic goals: ': ': .. 1 ( communication, information, organisation •••• 'f 1 t VI 1 1 Thel numerous poet ical forms and . rhetorical figures, which Brecht utilized in the formàtion of these works, are 'or the purpose of their intended effect. They give the statements plasticity and

are easily mémorized by the recipient ••.. (57) ~ ~

Lerg-Kill's method may be illustrated by applyin~ it to sorne lines from one of Brecht's plays, The Measure Taken. In the first scene a choir sings a song, "In PraiSe of the USSR." The figures and tropes which Brecht uses are indicated in parentheses: In Praise of the USSR

Already the vorld (metonymy) was talking about Our misfortune. But there was still sitting at our Barren table (metaphor )

The hope of aIl oppressed (Hct i 0 persqnae) . ("Aller UnterdrückteM Hoffnung"\J (anastrophe» It was satisfied with water (metonymy). And knovledge taught (fictio personae), Behind a door which was falling in, , With a'clear voice the guests (hyperbaton) •••• (58)

28 1 ------r An analy~S of Br'~cht '1 plays that' uses some concepts j - ( of classical rhetoric can include more than a designation of

his use of tropes and figures. - It'may be asked, how~ver,' • 0 whetner Brecht consciously used rhetoric to propa~ate his ;

mess~ge. There seems to be no concrete e~idence that he did.

Nonetheless, this should not prevent a rheto~ical ànalysis,

for in - his effort to persuade consciousl~ or unconsciously elements of classical rhetoric continually appear.

most literature written before the Roma~tic

period was influençed by clas~ical rhetoric, it should seem ~ 1 that an adequate understanding of it requires some knowledge

of rhetoric and its aims. As has been se~n, Jesuit drama, one pf the most important forms of German Baroque drama, was intimately bound to the study and practice of rhetoric, , especia,lly the ars disputandi. ~n interpretation of Jesuit drama, therefore, demands an analysis of its use of rhetoric. Although modern literature cannot be said to be rhetorical in the same sense as, for example, the Jesuits' drama, some parallels in the use of rhetoric may be drawn. Bertolt Brecht's plays are similar to the Jesuits' in that their purpose is to instruct and persuade. In the following / chapters l shall attempt to show this rhetorical similarity. .' .--- .. .. 29 .. i ' ~ " ,J t ~'

~~' 1. ; " Notes • {

1 Heinrich Lau~ber9, Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik, 4th ed. (Munich: Huèber, 1971), p. 20. ,1 2" George Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric'in the ~oman

,,- ~ Wor1d. 300BC ~ AD 300 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1972), p. 496. 3 Quintilian, --The Institutio, orat.o.ria, transe ,H. E. Butler (Cambridge: Harvard, 1980), l, p. 301.

" 4 Qu i n t i li an, l, P • 301.

5 Qu i nt i 1 i an, l , p. 305.

6 Qu i n t i li an, l, p. 305. ,

7 Quintilian, l, p. 305.

8 Qu i n t i li an, l, pp.307 and 315.

9 Quint ilian, l , p. 319. ~ 10 Hans-Georg Gadamer, wahrheit und Methode, 4th -ed. • (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul'Siebeck), 1975), p. 16. Il Plato, Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias, transe W. R. M.

o Lamb (Cambridge: Harvard, 1975), p. 279. 12 Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric, transe J. H. Freese (Cambridge: Harvard, 1982), p. 15. 13 (Cicero), Rhetorica ad Heredhium, transe Harry o ~ '- Cap1an _ (Cambr i dge: Harva rd, 1954), p ~ 5 , 14 Cicero, De Inventione: De Optimo Genere Oratorum;

-Topica, transe H. M. Hubbell (~~mbridge: Harvard, 1949)~ p. ( 15. 15 Cicero, De Oratore, transe E. W. Suttonl and H.

30

---_._------~------~------~------.'----- ",

"'Rackham, 2 vols. (Cambri9ge: Harvard), vo~. l, p. 97.

~ ( 16 Joachim Dyck, Ticht-Kunst. Deutsch.e Barockpoetik . ~ ~ rhetorische Tradition (Bad Homburg: Dr. Max Gehlen, 1966), p. 34.

& 17 James J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. ~ History.2t Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine 12 the Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California, 1974) and Ernst Robert Curtius, Europaische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter (Bern: Francke, 1948). .. 18 See e. g. Helmut Schanze, "Problems and Trends in the History of German Rhetoric to 1500," in Renaissance , Eloguence, ed. James J. Murphy (Berkeley: University of

Ca li for nia, 1983), pp. 1 05 -12 5 • 19 Paul Oskar Kr i stelIer, "Rl'1etoric in Medieval and

Renai ssance Cult uré," in Mur"phy, ed., p. 3.

( . 20 Don Paul Abbott, "The Renalssance," in The Present State of Scholar ship in HistoJ; ieal and Contemporary Rhetoric, ed. winifred Bryan Horner (Columbia: University of

M~ssouri, 1983), p. 84 •. See also o. B. Hardison, Jr., "The Orator and the Poet: .The Dilemma of Human i-st Li terature,"

\{, Journal of Medieval and Renaissance stuàles, Vol. l, No. l, L, ( 1971 ), pp. 3 ~ - 4 4 • 21 Br ian Vickers, "On the Practical i t ies of Renaissance Rhe.toric," in Rhetorit rRevalued, Papers from the International Soc iety for the History of Rhetor ic, ed. Brian

o Vickers (Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Early (. Renaissance Rhetoric, 1982), p. 135. 22 Vic kers, p. 135. See also Marc Fumarol i, L'âge de

/ 31

" 4!) ~éloguence (Geneva: Droz, 1980).

~ , ;; 23 See wilfried Barner, Barockrhetorik. Untersuchungen , zu ihren geschichtlichen Grundlagen (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 1 9 7 0 ), pp . 2 7 -3 3 . 24 Curtius, p. 284. 25 Jean-Marie Valentin, Le théâtre des Jésuits dans

les ~ de 1&ngue allemande (1554- 1680). Salut des âmes et ordre des cités, Publications Universitaires Européenes (Bern, Frankfurt, and Los Angeles: Peter Lang, 1978), vol.!,

p. 229.

2 6 Ba r ne r, p . 7 4 • 27 Cicero; Orator, trans. H. M. Hubbell (Cambridge:

Ha r va rd, 19 6 2 ), p • 3 5 7. P • 3 5 7 • 28 Horace, Satires, Epistles and Ars Poetica, trans.

H. Rushton F~irclough (Cambridge: Harvard, 1929), p. 478 . ,,," • 29 Martin Opitz, Buch von der Deutschen Poeterey. 1624, ed. Richard Alewyn after the edition of Wilhelm Braune (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 1963), p. 12. 11 ~o Curtius, p. 86.

31 James Brodrick, The Origin of the Jesuits, (Westport: Greenwood, 1971), p. 72. 32 John C. 01in, ed., The Autobiography of St. Ignatius of Loyola, trans. Joseph F. O'Callaghan (New York: 6 Harper and Row, 1974), pp. 106-107.

33 See ~.g. Heinrich Bacht, "Early Monastic Elements , in I~àtian Spirituality: Toward Clarifying Sorne Fundamental Concepts of the Exercises," in Ignatius of Loyola. tli! Personality and Spiritual Heritage, Trans. G. Richard Dimler

32

------et al. (St. Loui 5: The 1 nst i t ute of Jesui t Sources, 1977), pp • 2 0 0 - 2 3 6 •

34 Brod rie k, P . 1 94 .

35 Brodrie k, p. 192. See Gera Id St ra uss, Luther' s House of Learning: Indoctrination.Qi the Young iD. the German Reformation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1978) for a consideration of the ioovative combinat ion of ministry and education at the time of the Reformation.

36 Barner, pp. 324-325.

37 Barner, p. 327. Barner' s book provides the best description of the instruction of rhetoric in 17th e.

Germany. "

38 Barner, p. 332.

39 Barner, p. 334.

40 Barner, p. 338.

41 Valentin, l , p. 228.

42 Barner, p. 341.

43 Barner, p. 341.

44 Barner, p. 342.

45 Tarot, p. 36.

46 Tarot, pp. 43-44.

47 For text see Fidel RadIe, ed. and trans.,

Late in i sche Ordensdramen des XVI. Jahrhunderts (Berl in and

New YQrk: Walter de Gruyter, 1979), pp. 1-293.

48 Bertolt Brecht, "Kleines Organon für das Theater, " in his über Politik auf dem Theater, ed. Werner Hecht

(Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 19.71), p. 50.

49 Reinhold Grimm, p. 112.

33 l 50 Lausberg, p. 39. '1 / ( 51 Grimm, p. 112. 52 J. H. Freese, trans., The Art of Rhetoric; by Aristotle (Cambridge: Harvard, 1982), p. 351. 53 Aristot1e, p. 351. 54 Aristot1e, p. 353. 55 See Ulla C. Lerg-Ki11, Dichterwort und Parteiparole Propagandistische Gedichte und Lieder Bertolt Brechts (Bad Homburg: Gehlen, 1968). 56 Lerg-Kill, p. 218. 57 Lerg-Kil1, pp. 217-218. 58 Berto1t Brecht, Gesammelte Werke 2. Stücke 2

(

34

---- .. " Cl},apter 2

The Concept and Practice of Persuasio

This chapter 'Will present an analysis of some of the theoretical works which the Jesuits and Brecht wrote concerning their respective dramas. It is important to remember that both the Jesuits and Brecht were remarkably

pragmatic in their theatrical practice. Neither allo~ed

theoretical or abstract considerations to direct their practice entirely and both were open to new ideas and ( influences. In fact, tensions and contradictions frequently existed between Jesuit poetics and the dramatic works, which were written and performed, (1) and it is a commonplace in

the reséarch on Brecht that an investigation of the writer which too clearly separates his theoreticar remarks from his dramat ic pract i ce gravely mi s i nterprets hi s work. One can thi nk of instances, such as Futur i sm and Dada i sm, in which a theoretical manifesto ~receeded artistic production. In the ca se of the Jesui t s and Brecht, however, the reverse i s true: theory arose from practice and was generally subservient to it. This subordination of theory to practice \, ,may be explained by the dominant intentions of both the

Jesuits and Brecht, namely that their theatre vas a theatre

\ of persuasion. Neither shied from anything that might persuade however much it might contradict their theories.

This iB one of the reasons for their effectiveness and it 35 , ------also expllins their theatrical eclecticism. Therefore, l shall not confine myself to the dramatic theories of the Jesuits and Brecht, but shall supply some concrete examples from selected plays and l shall begin by a consideration of what persuasion is.

2.1 The Concept of Persuasio

In the first chapter it was shown that classical rhetoric was defined as the art of persuasion. But how did the classical rhetorician conceive of persuasion? Perhaps • the fu11est exp1anation may be found in Cicero's works. In De oratore Cicero writes: " ... for purposes of persuasion the art of speaking relies wholly upon these things: the pro~~ of our allegations, the winning of our hearers' favour, and the rousing of their feelings to whatever our case may require." (2) Cicero mentions the same"triad .in his Brutus, this t~me using the terms which were later to become classical: "Now there are three things in my opinion which the orator should affect: instruct (docere) his Ifsteners, give him pleasure (delectare), and stir (movere) his emotions." (3) In Orator, Cicero ranks the three modes of persua~ion, using slightly different terms, and assigns particular styles to each of thém:

36 To prove is the tirst necessity, to please is to charm (delectare suavitis), to .sway is victory; for it is the one thing of aIl that avails most in winning verdicts. For these three fumctions of the crator there are three'styles, the plain style for proof, the middle style for pleasure, the vigorous style for persuasion (vehemens in flectando); and in this last is summoned up the entire virtue of the orator. (4)

The three modes of persuasion are common to aIl classical rhetoricians 'and probably stem from Aristotle' s logos, ethos and pathos. (5) Docere is, as Lausberg states, the intellectual form of persuasion and.is characterized by a plain style (genus subtile). (6) Delectare and movere are affectional forms of persuasion, that is, they appeal to the will and the emotions. They are usually asSociated with the 1 middle style (genus medium) and the sublime or vigorous style (genus sublime) respectively. Each style employs,- of course, different methods to achieve the goal of persuasion. The genus subtile can either simply state a proposition or narrate a case, or it can make use of the rhetorical syllogism (enthymeme). The genus medium attempts to win the good will of the listener, while the genus sublime, which is usually the most ornate, tries to arouse tne listener's emotions. Classical rhetoric defined the means and forms of pe~suasion fairly clearly and unanimously. It did not, , 37 --ï however, provide an adequate answer to the question of ~hat ( i t mesns to be per suaded, for a sat i sfaetory answer to thi s ,/ quest ion hi nges on epi stemolog ieal and ethieal i ssues( To say that someone has been persuaded ean meao very different things to an Aristotelian and a Platonist or to a behaviourist and a rationaliste Furthermore, persuasion can be understood to mean to convince someone, or to manipulate, or eoeree him. One can imagine how a l7th eentury Jesuit would view Brecht' s use of persuasion and how Brecht would viewa Jesuit's. These are obviously questions which transcend the

boundaries of the present work. P shall therefore draw a few distinctions concerning my use of the word persuasion in the hope that certain misunderstandings will be avoided, but

1 sha11 not attempt to give elaborate philosophical o'r

psychologieal def im i t ions or explanat ions. 1 might echo the words of a communications scientist, Gerald R: Miller, who writes, " ... a lively debate has raged for centuries over the defining characteristics of the term 'persuasion,' and it wo&J..d be the height of naivete or arrogance to assume that this brief analysis will 1ay to rest all outstanding definitional controversies." (7) Miller's essay, "On Being Persuaded," provides some useful distinctions. He states that "the phrase 'being Persuaded' applies to situations where behaviour has been modified by symbo1ic transactions (messages) which are sometimes, but not always, linked with coercive force

(indirectly coercive) and which appeal to t~e reason and

38

~~-~~------l } L

emotions of the person(s) being persuaded."(B) ( The resemblance to classical rhetoric is evident in the last clause, namely that rhetorical persuasion appeals to both reason (docere) and the emotions (delectare and movere) • (9) Miller writes that: "People are seldom if ever, persuaded by 'pure' logic or 'pure' emotion; indeed •.. it is doubtful that .these 'pure' cases exist in humanity's workaday persuasive commerce." (10) Similarly,

L~nsford and Ede, two rhetoric scholars have written that Aristotle's " •.. Rhetoric ... acknowledges that we are moved to krisis not just by knowledge but by emotion as weIl •... "

(11) Further similarities exist, for although classical rhetoric emphasized verbal "symbolic transactions," it did nct ignore non-verbal communication, and its importance for our analysis of the use of rhetoric in drama will become

self-evident. We shall see, for example, ~hat the rhetoric of gestures can often be as important as the rhetcric of speech. Language, nonetheless, is, as Miller observes, "an integral aspect of the persuasive transaction, with non-verbal behavior coming into play as an instrument for enforcing the meaning and/or credibility of verbal 'messages." (12) It was hinted above that an explanation of persuasion hi nges on bel iefs and on ethical values; this is nowhere ft more evident than in a di scussion of coerc ion,. St. 1 gnati us, for example, often warns of the dangers of hell.

( An atheist will see this as ·an instance of the use of coe~cion or threat, which differ only in degree from 8

39 - ..

\

physical threat. On the other nand, a Christian who ( be1ieves in the rea1 existence of hel1 may view Ignatius' warnings as equiva1,ent to a medical doctor' s. If a doctor admonishes a smoker that his habit causes cancer, he can hardly be aé'cused of threatening him physically·, for the , threat exists i~dependently of the doctor. Likewise, for the Christian, the danger of hell exists independently and tgnatius' warning cannot be understood as a threat. As another example of the ambigui ty of the concept of

coerc i on, one may appea~ to anotJ1er' s mora l consc ience in order to induce a desired response. Since our standing in

society i~ often determined by others' perceptions of our moral values, it might be said, and Miller agrees, that a moral appeal conta i ns a soc ial threa t; to another person this explanation may seem to be pure sophistry and he may maintain that a moral appeal. cannot be a threat. Since an absolute definition of coercion which satisfies aIl cannot

be given, 1 shall refrain from the use of the concept. For

similar reasons 1 shall ignore t~e question of whether the Jesuits' or Brecht's persuasion strategies represent a --form of indoctrination. (13)

Returning to Miller, we note that he distinguish~s three types of response to persuasion. The fi rst he calls "being '"persuaded as a response-shaping process." (14) Again, he notes that- there are conceptual difficulties: "For instance, it would sound st range ta speak of children being persuaded to tie their shoes correctly; typically, we assert that they have learned ta tie their shoes." Therefore,

40 l .. " ••. the behaviors associated with ' being pers~ed' are 1 ( usually directIy linked with more abstract attitudes and

values •••• " (15 ) Persuasion which seeks to changf: an

/ attitude usually appeals to certain values which the pérson to be persuaded' already possesses.

~he second form is called "being persuaded as a

respoqse-reinforcing process." (16) M~ller writes that "Th~

response-reinforcing function underscores !he fact thàt 'being persuaded' is seldom, if ever, a one-message proposition; instead, people are constantly in the process of being persuaded." (17) He notes that this form bf persuasion is usually overlooked, although it is perhaps the most effective. He gives as one example the typical Sunday sermon. One notices the obvious parallel to Jesuit drama. More often-than not, the Jesuit plays seek to reinforce already existing attitudes and behaviors which in the context of the gymnasium were inculcated in many different ways. The last form of persuasion is the most commonly recognized: "being persuaded as a response-changing process." (lB) This form aims to change people's behavior from one standard to another. Miller concludes his discussion with some remarks on the controversy involving "the attitude-behavior prob1em." Ooes persuasion seek to change attitudes or behavior? The

two are not nece~sari1y linked for a new behavior does not

( necessarily, imp1y a changed attitude and modified attitudes do not always elicit new behavior. Suffice it to say that

41 the present work can shed little light on this problem. The ( audiences of Jesuit dramas and Brecht's plays cannot be reconstructed to determine how effectively they were persuaded. Moreover, an answer to the behavior-attitude problem presumes an adequate psychological theory of human actions, but as Noam Chomsky, among others, has pointed out: "At the moment, we have virtually no scientifié evidence and

not the germs of an inter~sting hypothesis as to how human behavior is determined." (19)

One .~iqht be jusitified in questioning much of Miller's terminology, such as "stimulus/response" and ."behavior , modification," nonetheless, some of his distinctions are plausible. J shall therefore have recourse to them in the l following analysis of Jesuit and Brechtian str~tegies of ~ persuasion.

2.2 Jesuit Theory and practice

As l mentioned above, there was often a considerable discrepancy between Jesuit poetics and Jesuit drama. Jesuit poetics was strongly influenced by the humanists, especially Scaliger, and like most Renaissance poetics it was a -normative aesthetics. We shall see, however, that Jesuit

dramatists often ignored the p~atively Aristotelian rules such as unit y of time and place. Moreover, unlike the ( humanist dramatists, such as Macropedius ,(20) the Jesuits • 42 did not seek a rejuvenation of classical Roman comedy and tragedy; Terence and Plautus were more often than not .' negat ive mode1s. The resu1 t was that theory often la,gged)-..-e> behind and was transformed according to practice... Much effort had to be expended, for example, to justify one particu1arly Jesuit dramatic form: the comico-tragedy.

Je~uit poetics thus became a sometimes st range mixture of classical and Christian precepts. For these reasons and because l am more concerned with the use of rhetoric in Jesuit drama, l shall not include the

greatest Jesuit poetics: the Ars Poetica sive Instituti~num

Artis Poeticae libri tres written. by the Italian Jesuit - , Alessandro Donatus 0584-1640 ) and published in Rome in .. 1631. This is not to say that Jesuit poetics were unimportant but that their inel uence was mediated by pragmatic considerations and that they are not the most faithfu1 guide to Jesuit dramatic practice. ,~ l' have there fore chosen ,Franc i scus Lang' s Di ssertat i 0 de Actione Scenica as a basis upon which to develop the rhetorical ana1ysis of several Jesui t dramas. Lang' s

Dissertatio was written in the final period of Je~it the~re (1727) and one must obviously be careful in applying

its concepts and precepts to drama~ which were written over 100 years before it. Three reasons, however, justify its use. First, although Jesuit drama spans a remarkably long period -- 1553 to 176B -- and although it remained open to foreign influences, a certain continuity of purpose may ( , nonetheless be detected. Music, gesture and elaborate stage

1. ..

..

r maehinery were introdueed to Jesuit drama over the years but J the basic intentions remàined the same, namely that drama ~ was a natural ancilliary 'to the instruction of rhetorie, and that ,theatre and spectacle were 'never' ends in themselves, but rather means of persuasion. It has been remarked that

Lan~'s book represents an important stage in the development

of a dramaturgy ind~pendent of rhetoric ;(21) but 'Ile shall ... see that rhetoric still plays the dominant role. Second, Franc iscus Lang (1645-1725) wrote his' Dissertatio near the end of an ac;tive career as a rhetprician. and dramatist. He wrote and direeted some 120 ~ plays and, as his book shows, he was intimately acquainted w ith the dramat ie wor'ks of hi s Order. lie i5 q\Jick to defend, for examp1e, the most prominent Jesuit dramatlst, Jacob Bidermann who had. died in 1639. Lang's know1edge of the tradition of Jesuit drama and his rieh experienee give his book a certain authority which a work written earlier

and by someone less e~erienced might not possesSe Third, , Lang' s work ié the fi rst praetical guide to

J'esui t drama. 1 n fact, i t is the fi rst guide to aet i ng and

drama written in Germany. (2~) 1 have already mentioned the gr'ab theorists Donatus and Pontanus; 1 might also have added Nicolas Caussin, Johannes Voe1hus, or Aloys Boleslas Balbinus. Lang draws from each of these theorists for his remarks, but h'is intentions are obviously different from theirs. Lang certainly does not hesitate to prescribe new praetice -- indeed parts of his book may be seen as an attempt to reform existing practice yet the greater part

44

- - ~-~~ -~--~---~------~:' ' "# ;h >1r)< of hi s work i s based on and i s a desc r iption of his persona!

exper ience. l t, thetefore, prôvides a more accurate

description of the minutiae of actual Jesuit ~ractice and in th i s i t i s un i que.

From Lang's biography and work it becomes • ~lear that the Jesuit dramatic practice was Inseparable from rhetoric and its instructio,. Lang was a prof essor of rhetoric and poetics from 1677 to 1698. Li ke aIl 'Jesui t prof essor s of • rhetoric, in addi t i on to teachi ng, i t was hi s dut Y to wr i te plays f or the spec ial occas ions of the school year. Lang's~ own sta tements under 1 ine the un i ty of rhetoric and drama. ~ -- Consider, for example, his. ..list of the different dramatic genres: "There are dialogues or, if one wishes to calI them

50, declamations, dramas, co~edies and tragedies." (23) In order to' train actors he recommends simple dialogues without action and adds: "For the same purpose, rhetorical exercises and declamations are held in the schools .... " (24) ~

Lang's concept of theatre affiè its purpose is a~o

J rhetorical. He writes that the stage serves above aIl "for '. the greater glory of God." (25) He adds, however, that teaders of hi s work will learn how to produce plays according to rules and ,that the plays should elicit pious and useful affects from the spectators. (26) How is this

1 accomplished~ Lang writes, that drama "possesses an almost ~ mi raculous power tOr move men 1 s spi ri ts (ad movendos humanos animos)." (27) This ability to move (movere) men's spirits i s, of course, thè goal of success f ul rhetorical speech. Lang is typically Baroque in his concern with arousing

45 "affects", yet one should not forget that the purpose is to persuade. , Lang's instructIons for the composition of plays are also interesting: he f ollows the scheme of classical ) rhetoric throughout. He begIns with the inventio, then proceeds to the dispositio, and concludes with the elocutio. Lang writes that "One should choose a plot WhlCh is poor in manyaspects, but which is rich in possibilities; nothing is required other than tha t i t should be sui table for instructIon and the engenderlng of affects." (28) The plot or fabula of a play should not corne from the dramatist's poetic inspiration, he warns, but should be chosen from other sources in order to provide the proper material for a comedy or tragedy. The dramatist must structure the events of the story "not 5imply in the manner in WhICh they occureù, but as they might have occured," (29) 50 that the outcome remains uncertain. He concludes: "The gain for the souls will be richer if they are encouraged to be moral.and to love .virtue. This must b.e the most noble task of a Christian author." It is also, of course, the task of the Christian rhetorician. Lang's instructions ,for the inventio are historically

accurate. The Jesuits made ff<> attempt to be origïnal in their plots, often their plays were even explicitely based on other dramas. The so-called Munich Theophilus of 1596, for example, drew on a rich dramatic tradition of

Theophilus- plays; ( 30) the original source, of course, is ( ~he Legenda aurea.

46

1 " - - Legends of the saints often served as sources for Jesui t drama. Bidermann's Cenodoxus is based on the the legend of St. Bruno, whi le Jacob Gretser's -Udo Archiepiscopus lS based on the anti-legend of Udo. (31) In his book Udo von Magdeburg, Herzog has shown that the early Jesuits' use of legends resulted from thelr modeling their dramas on the form of the sermon in whlch the legend was used as an edlfying or warnlng example. The Jesuits thus freed thems~ves from the burden of classical dramatlc rules and, followlng the medieval conception of drama, understood thelr dramas "as sermons ~lth other means." (32) The warnlng examp,fe moved the audlence to fnght, the' edifying example instructed them. Other sources for Jesui t drama were the medieval ~ morallty plays. The first "Jesuit" drama, Livinus Brechtus' Euripus, for instance, was partially based on the Everyman morality plays. (33) In addition to historical sources, Biblical sources, such as the story of Joseph, figured prominently. The overriding criterion was, as Lang prescribes, the possibility for the moral edification of the audi ence. Lang writes of the dispositio of the drama: The structure of the plot (distributio fabulae) is

the same as the one for a speech. A spee~ consists of exordi um, narratio, conf i rmat io (in which the confutatio is also contained) and

el2 ilog us • The plot of the play has almost the same parts, namely the epistasis, catastaéis, and

47 - ca tast rophe. (34)

Now, it woulè be mlstaken to ascribe this fusion of rhetoric and drama to Lang's originality; as was noteè above, poetics had been dependent on rhetoric at least since ./ Horace. It would be equally mistaken. however, to view Lang's descrlptlon as simply a useful comparlson. When Lang compares, for example, the structure of a play to the

~dispositia of a speech, the comparison lS no simple analogy; ln Jesult dramas the protasls is often not llke an exordium, lt Ilterally lS an exorèlum. Sometlmes lt takes the form of a prologue. Lausberg describes the exardlum: "The (short) introductary pJ'rt ... of the speech dlrects the attentlon, inclination and good will of the Juège to the case ta be

represented ln the speech •••. " (35) Compare Lausberg's

def in i t ion wi th Jacob Gretser' s Udo ~ 'Magderburg (1587). Udo beglns wlth the prologue which is appropriately ln the

midèle style (delectare)., In Gret ser' s prologue the j udge referred to as "father" 15 probably the Archbishop of Eichstâtt or Duke Wllliam the Fifth of Bavaria (36):

Prologue l · Greetings to all spectators, and, above all, to you illu5triou5 and m05t welcome father, who to our joy grace5 all our performances with his presence. Drama is especially inclined to form good morals and is very useful in furthering life

-f according to the precepts of virtuel for what man, who is deeply concerned with heavenly salvation, wlll leave the way of virtue when he sees how Udo, • who possessed the episcopal mltre, was punished

for hl s fa i 11 n 9 s. . .• l t i s a ter r i b l e cri me t 0 ignore God's goodness and to pay no heed to His calI. You will see a terrlble example (exemplum) of this ln thlS play. Come, grant this drama and the actors your good will, be silent and pay attention. (37)

Similarly, ln Jacobus Pontanus' Strocoles sive Bellum (1558?), the exordium, propositio, which is in the form of a

narratlo,' and the argumentatio are combined il'! the opening monologue of Stroce1es, a student of phi10sophy who, dlSlllusioned with hlS studies, decides to become a soldier. A short extract may be of interest since it a1so provides a good example of one student's view of the Jesuit curriculum which was described above: More than fifteen years have gone by since. my father commanded me te study. Although l have been learning since then, l know next to nothing •.•• Our Orbi1ius vas full of blovs: he often beat me to the bone. l often couldn't sit' because of all the lashes. That's the way one flays pupi1s. Al1 the wal1s echo the cries from the cane's blows. This is the pretty beginning of studies. And what follovs grammatica? Poetica.

49 .•• r also.. studied rhetoric for four long years . What did l learn? l can say it in one word:

nothing, nothing! l saw heaps of formulae for the .,;

exordium, an ever greater ~umber of epilogue

formulae .... (38)

Strocoles concludes by deciding to become a soldier:

"Therefore it seems best to me to renoun~e these studies and to join somewhere in a var." (39) Strocoles' teacher, Eubulus then appears. Eubul us' , ~ speeches provide the confutatio or refutatio to Strocoles' argumentatio. The ~ructure of Pontanus' pl is thus that of a rhetorical debate. The arguments of his teacher, for example, are full of and commonplaces from classical sources; Eubulus dra s liberally for his arguments from Erasmus' Dulce bellum inexpertis, Colloguium militis et carthusiani and Querala pacis. (40) One vould have to change very little in the first part of the play in order to transform it into'a transcription of a school debate. One might even imagine that Po~tanus bases his playon such a rhetorical exercise: One of Eubulus' arguments, for instance, against the life of a soldier is remarkably incongruous in the context of the play: (While you are away at war) " •.. your ~ife has married another man or has ~arned her income through prostitution, and the children live from the merçy of others." (41) An argumen: which would be appropriate in a school debate exercise on the question: should a scholar become a soldier, is out of

50 _._---- place here, for Strocoles is not married. As vith the other p

"1 have neither wife nor children. Therefore l have nothlng to fea.r in the meantime about what might hat=>pen at home." (42) Strocoles wins the debate in the first part of the

play; IItn the second part, howev~r, he meets some old acquaintances who are just returning from a war. Thelr arguments are less formaI, but their first-hand experience

~f war convinces Strocoles to renounce his declslon to become a soldier. One might ask how such a formally structured play, which seeks only to instruct, could succeed in persuading an audience. First, one must note that Pontanus' play is an example of what Miller called "persuas ion as a

response-reinforcing process," it does not s~ek to change its audiences' opinions but rather confirm it in what it already believes. Miller noted, however, that: "Research using cul t ural truisms ••. has ,demonstrated the low resistance to change which results when behaviors and attitudes rest on a

history of nearly 100 percent po~ i t ive reïnforcement; apparently, too much exclu.sively behavior-congruent information is not a good thing." (43) 1

It should seem that Pontanus anticipat~d this finding of modern social science: by using the form of a rhetorical debate, he was able to give negative arguments for studying

51 l ------.------• (Stroc~les) as well as the positive arguments of Eubulus. Second, as Radle notes, those "parts of the play which contain the actual dramatic-comic element are only to be found in the manuscripts" and not in the printed versions of the play. (44) RadIe gives one example in his edition. It is only speculation, but one may imagine that Pontanus expected a fair amount of improvisation to be added to his play in order to provide comic relief, to delight his audience, br to contrast and emphasize the serious scenes. 1 The example Radle provides certainly shows that Pontanus would not have been adverse to suèh a suggestion. The

episode involves one of the soldiers who has retu~ned from war. His wife refuses to greet him and literally beats him into submission. The use of such comic scenes was moreover common to almost all Jesuit plays. If we add, following the JestJit Caussjn, the homiletic

1 genre (Genus didascalicon) to the three genres of rhetorical speeches, then we can say that, in addition to providing material in the form of legends, the rhetorical sermon or

homily pro~ided another example to the Jesuit dramatists for r the structure for their plays. Many of the early Jesuit dramatists imitated the homily not only by considering their plays to be dramatic exempla, but by modifing the form of

the sermon to fit the stage. Herzog has ~hown how Gretser's adaptation of the Udo story follows this pattern (45): "The spectator is seized, moved and directed toward a conversio

with every sort of means." (46) 1 Returning to Lang, we note that he has little to $ay

52 - about the eloeut io of the ploay. One may assume that he (\ ignores the details of style sinee these might be found in a textbook on rhetorie. (47) He dedicates, however, at least two thirds of his book to what may perhaps be seen as the visual or dramatïe counterpart to literary or spoken eloeùtio, namely the gesture and what he calls symbolic pictures (imagines symbolicae). Lang develops a complex and detailed code of gestures and pictures, which is Partially based on Quintilian (for the gestures) and which seems

quintes~ ially Baroque (the plctures are based on emblems). (48) Unfortunately, these aspects of Jesuit drama cannot be dealt with since stage directions are extremely sparse and an analysis of the use of gesture and emblems would be a'lmost pure specula t ion. Suffice it to say that -- gesture and emblem could be used rhetorically by serving to emphasize the spoken word or to provide ,irony. Strocoles' poverty of experience, ,for example, might be accentuated by clumsy gestures, ?r Udo's gecadence might be contrasted by a vivid representation of virtue.

Rather than giving isolated instanc~s, l sha}l postpone

the description of the Jesuit's u~e of elocutio to the next chapter. Similarly, Lang's remarks on the dramatic genre of comico-tragedy will be related in connection with one of the

DlOSt faDlous examples: Bidermann' 5 Cenodoxus. ,

53 l''''------~------____;'C------

2.3 Brecht: Theory and Practice

In 1953 Berto1t Brecht wrote down the following dialogue in one of his notebooks: Conversation During the Rehearsal

P. : How is it that one 50 often reads descript ions of your theatre -- usually they are nega.tive judgements -- from which no one can conceive what your theatre really is? B.: My mistake. These descriptions and manyof • the judgements have nothing to do with the thea tre, which l c reate, but ra ther wi th the theatre, which cornes to my critics from their my tractates. l cannot refrain from my readers and spectators into my intentions, now l have to pay for it. At least as far as the theory is concerned, l sinned again§t the iron saying by the way, one

of my favourite saying~,~- that the proof of the pudding is in the eating (dass der pudding sich beim Essen beweist). (49)

Brecht goes on to apologize for the complexity of his ,. theories and recommends that well-wishing critics, fi rst, see his plays and, while analyz ing the e f f ec t s , "if they 'Should notice sorne novelties, then they could find them explained in my theoretical remarks." (50)

54 - A consideration of Brecht's dramatic theories is indeed , no simple taski one need on1y consider Brecht's many revisions and the enormous amount of secondary 1iterature which attempts to exp1ain Brecht's theatre. (51) If one Il nonethe1ess ignores Brecht's advice and reaches straight for his theories, one must give sorne justification. First, it is beyond the scope of this work to give an all-encompassing

interpretation of Brecht's theoretical wor~s. My aim is to see what insights the rhetorical ana1ysis of Brecht may achieve. Therefore, 1 shall attempt no neW~d radical interpretation of Brechtian theory but shall let my remarks be 1ed by the consensus on his work. (52) Second, the framework which l have choseft does not a110w me ta attempt ta give a historical "analysis of the evo1ution of Brecht's theory. l shall therefore draw main1y from one Brechtian tractate which was written 1ate in

Brecht's career and which may be considered to subs~me and to summarize his earlier writings. Brecht's ftShort Organon for the Theatreft was written in 1948 and first appeared in the East German bi-month1y Sinn

und Form. Beitrage ~ Literatur in 1949. It is a condensed version of the Messingkauf Dialogues. The Dialogues are certainly more detailed but their dialectical form produces

not a 1itt1e ambiguity. ftThe Short Organon,ft o~ the other

hand, is in the form of a Reformation tractate. It is

accordingly controversial; nonetheless, its point-form • allows easier conprehension. Brecht begins with a definition of theatre: "Theatre

55

~ - consists of the following: the living representation of human events, which were either handed down or composed, for the purpose of entertainment." (53) Brecht emphasizes ";:.t amusement (delectare) and seems consciously to atroid didactic considerations (docere) for at least two reasons., First, Brecht was deeply adverse to the German conception of theatre which demanded that serious drama be morally edi fying and which scorned comedy for i ts superf ic ia1 i ty. By emphasizing amusement, Brecht ls de1iberately being polemical. Second, Brecht cons i dered himsel f to be a materialist; he therefore attempted to deve10p a materialist theoryof, dr$la by appealing not to mora1ity or abstract knowledge but rather to human p1easure. He writes: , By no means would one raise it (theatre) to a higher 1evel, if one were to make it, for example, a market place of morality. Rather, one should have to be careful that it would not be lowered,

which would occu~ immediate1y if mqrality were not

made to be pleasurable~ namely pleasurable to the senses .... One should not even presume that theat re should teach or at least that it should teach anything more useful than how one moves pleasurably in respe,ct to the body or the mind. (54)

Brecht's theatre was nonetheless eminently didactic. Its didacticism, however, was justified in terms of historicsl materia1ism. l shall simplify the argument of

56 "- the "Short Organon" as follows. Each historical period ) possesses its own form of amusement. The present age, which "to a quite new extent is determined by the sciences," is an age of sc ience. (55) The purpose of the natural sciences is to increase productivity and to make man's life easier by regulating natural catastrophes. Whereas the natural sciences have been able tp tame nature, the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, has prevented the scientific reorganization of soc iety: 50 the new science, which deals with the essence of human society, and which was established only about a hundred years ago, was founded in the struggle of the ruled with the rulers. 5ince that time, there is something of a scientific spirit in the depths, in the new class of workers whose vital element is production= the great catastrophes are there seen as the rulers' enterprises. (56)

Brecht asits: Now if we wish to dedicate ourselves to the great passion of producing, what must our' representations of human coexistence look like? What is the productive attitude towards nature and society, which we children ..of a scientific age desire to assume in our theatre? .. It is the critical attitude. (57 )

" 1

57 1 In the "Short Organon," Brecht develops a method of producing this critical think1ing. He notes that the workers: .•• are entertained with the wisdom which cornes from the solution of problems, with the anger into which sympathy vith the oppressed can usefully be transformed, and with the respect for the respect of humanity, i.e. vith that which is friendly to man, in short, wi th every-thing that delights the

producers. (5~)

In order to solve the problems of society, one must first be able t.o viey one's socral environment historically. Society and attitudes are not God-given, but man-made; they can therefore be changed. The problem is how to make people avare of the historicity of society and the possibility of i ts improvement. Brecht's solution lies in making the a familiar unfamiliar, in alienating and estranging the spectator from hi s a t t i t ude s and surroundings: "An alienating representation is one which lets the object be recognized but simultaneously lets it appear foreign." (59) 'The "alienation effect" results from applying this ptinciple to theatre..

Th~ purpose of theatre, Brecht maintained, is 'to

entertain. Our age delights in the ability and ~ossibility to change things. A theatre which uses alienation effect presents society and human relations in a vay that the speetator sees that they can be changedi such a theatre is

58 --f therefore entertaining.

Brecht' s conception of '" entertainment i5.. obviously

inseparable from instruction. The ultimate purpose of Brecht' s drama is"to persuade the audi~nce that th~ world can and shoul,d be changed. Since Brecht appeals to exi stent

attitudes and values, such as 'the delight in production, in

order to fonn a new r,evolutionary attitude, his per.suasion

may be characterized as a response-shaping process. , . As an exarnple of Brecht' s ,desire to foster "the critical attitude". . towards society, consider his short Lehrstüc ke or didactic plays,' The Yes-Sayer _ and The

No-Sayer, writte~ in ~92,9/30. Brecht wrote tha t the two , plays should always be performed together. In the first,

The Yes-Sayer, a small town i 5 infect~d by a plague •. A

group is organized which i5 to undertake a dangerous o expedi t ion to a city beyond the mounta i ns where medical help f! , can be found. A yO\,mg boy;; who se mother i 5 's'ic k, a5ks to

.~ join the- expedition. Al though he 15 warned of the dang~rs t an.d ri5ks, he dec lares hi s readiness to go, but on the way , " through the mounta i ns he becomes exhausted and falls ill.

The leader of the °expedi'tion reminds him that he was warned

of the dangers and that the expedi t ion must cont i nue if the

town i s to be saved. 1 :rhe boy understands 1 and agrees to be

left behind. He asks however that he be thrown to his death

because. he i5 afraid of dying alone.

In the No-Sayer, a research expedition is organized to

undertake a dangerous journey across the mountains. A young , . boy. )oin5 i t although he is warned of the dangers. ~e

59 • becomes tired and sick in the mountains. The leader tells

him tha t custom ha 5 decreed tha t he be Id lled and le ft

behind -- the expedi t ion must cont inue. The boy éU"gues w 1 th

the group and c onv i ne es them tha t the c ustom 15 Ir ra t iOl1a 1.

The members of the expedition agree and the old custom 1S

abandoned.

The purpose of the plays 15 to show, as Jan Knopf

states, "that one must be able to thlnk anew ln each new

situation." (60) The plays, however, manlfest sorne of the

frequent cont radlc t 10ns between Brecht's theory and

practlce. Although Brecht was contemptuous of theatrlcal

moralizlng, hlS little plays are remlnlscent of a

5 i tua t ion -ethic 5 problem. Nonethe less, they do •represent an

attempt to foster crlt1cal thlnk1ng.

The Yes-Sàyer and The No-Sayer,'" llke aIl the

Lehrstucke, were not meant to be performed before an

audience. Their purpose was to make the actors reflect

c-ritically upon the characters' behavior and in thlS sense

they are slightly reminiscent of the Jesuit drama, whose'

original purpose was to educate the student actors. A

further similarity Iles in the fact that Brecht did not

consider 1!'he Lehrstücke or any of his plays to be finished • works of art. They were to be changed and transformed

according to practical necessity and usefulness. Brecht

encouraged his actors to suggest additions and deletions ln

order to enhance th~ play's effectiveness.

Despite t:hese similariti,es there are subtle differences

between Brecht and the Jesuit dramatists. They", can perhaps

60 be more c1early seen through a conslderatlon of what one may cal1- the Inventlo and dlSpositlO of the;. Ir plays. The dlSCUSSlon of Brecht' 5 ~Short Organon" showed that Brecht' 5 prlmary means of persuaSlor: and the f• undamer: ta l methodolog lcal of hlS theatre l S the allenatlon-effect. In the last chapter, : attempted te show that the allenatlon-effect should not be confused wlth the

Arlstotellan "xenon." In the followlng chapter, sha 11 argue that Brecht' s theory 15 not l n c ompa t 1 b l e w 1 th claSSlca~ rhetorlc. However, the over:-~dlng lmportance o~ • the prlclple of allenatlor: led Brecht te conslderatlOns of plot and structure WhlCh strong:y dIverge f rom those of the

Jesults.

Conslder, flrst, Brecht' 5 cholce of p~ots. At fl rst glance, 1 t seems t ha t he would have agreed w: th Lang' 5 pre sc r l-pt lon t ha t: ~One should c hoose a plot WhlCh IS poor +' . ln ma n y as pec t S , but WhlCh rlch ln pOsslbllltleS ...... '61

Brecht almost always drew hlS storles from other sources, rather than Inventlng them hlmsel f, and expanded or changed them conslderably. The Yes-Saye r and The No-Sayer, fl example, were ba sed on a Japenese No-play, Mother Courage, on a novel by Gr Imme1 shausen, The Three-penny Opera, on John

.Gay's The Beggar's Opera, etc. In an essay companng Brecht and Plscator wlth the early Je'sult drama, Manfred Brauneck draws the concluSlon that Brecht and the JeSUl ts have much ln common ln the reasons for WhlCh they select thelr plots.

By theH presenting borrowed materlal rather than Inv'enting new stor les, their "spectator lS thus re1eased from 'the

61 suspense wh1ch captures hlm emotlonally. At the same tlme, he 1S enabled to contemplate the pe r f ormance f rom a dlstance ...... 62) ThIS .s certalnly true of Brecht, less 50 of the Jesults. Brecht' s statement that the old drama

" l n cor po rat e d" an ev e n t a pp ~ les t 0 t ne Je SUl t d r a ma. As wa 5 seer. above / the Jes\..~ t 5 moàe~ed the: r plays on the sermor,.

The p:ot ~as therefcre a àramat.zed examp:e, whether a be f rom the B 1 b l e / : e ge n d 5 cft he sa ln t 5 / anclent or even moder""' h.story. The spectator o~ the Jesult àrama was moved by the<1 fate cf the exemp:"ary prctagon.st, not a:lenated.

B r e c h t c ha ra c ter l z e ci the ci '" f fer en ces \II e :: \II ne n ne w rot e t ha t the o:"der, sc-ca::ed Ar:stote:.ar. drama àramat.zeà l'vents,

.. " ... .. "" whereas hlS theatre, wn:cr-: he ca • ..lec ep~c, re:ated them .

( 63 Thus, a:though both the JeSl.!lts an"à Brecht ùt.llzed eXlst:ng materlal for tnelr p:"ots they dld 50 for opposlng reasons: the Jesults, to move the s~ctator by some famous example, Brecht, to allenate the spectatator by the transformatIon of the famll1ar.

Turnlng now to the structure of Brecht' 5 plays, we recal':', flrst, that the Jesu1t dramatlst!'s followed orderly structures, such as a speech, a debate, or classIcal drama.

Thelr structure vas balanced and steady. Brecht, on the othe r hand, wrote of h1s drama that the flow of events 1S .Je> not l1near, but "curved." (64) The plot, ln other vords, should be broken and should lac k a neces sary organ 1 C progreSSIon. The Mea~re Taken, another Lehrstùck, 1S a good example. The play conslsts of seven scenes WhlCh dep1ct the actlons of four communist agitators and w a young

62 comrade.~ The seven scenes are framed by a Judlclal Inqulry Investlgatlng the executlon of the young comrade. The purpose of the play as to show that revolutlonary work must be dlsclpllned, well-planned, and patIent. Overzealous revolutionary enthuslasm and emotlon, on the other hand, are shown te be Inadequate and even dangerous. In each of the sever. scenes, the young comrade exh:blts the ~atter "Vlces" and hlnders ~he progress of the revolutlOr.. One may deduce a development ln the act1on, for the mlstaKes of the young comrade lead to more and more dlsasterous results. In the thlrè scen~, he lS supposed to :nflltrate a group of coo~les, but hlS plty wlth them exposes hlS cover to the overseer. :n the forth scene, while dlstrlbut:ng pamphlets, he Insu:ts a pol1ceman and has to flee. ln the penult1mate scene, h1S enthuslasm falls v1ct1m to a treacherous plot and· an upr1S1ng lS aborted. The progressIon lS clear, yer each scene m1ght stIll stand on 1tS own and the young comrade's m1stakes could be averted and resolved at least untll the last scene. There 15 no character development, no catastrophe, and thus there are no trag1c elements. The tone lS dIstant and cool throughout. Wlth some r~servatlon, one mlght say the same of all of Brecht's plays; .they present i serIes of scenes deplcting dlsasterous mlstakes, faulty declslons, and missed chances. Each play lS thus a chaln of exempla unlted by a common theme. The Jesult drama was characterlzed as a dramat1c exemplum, but the actlon usually concentrated on one prlmary • example. The protagonist falls or rises; each scene 15 dependent on the

63 others and leads to the next. There is a1so a dIstinct

turnIng point or catastrophe. None of these can be found ln

Brecht's plays. The Jesult dramatlsts tended to Involve the

spectator ln the actlon and to make hlm' Identlfy vah or be

repelled by the ijfotagon l st. Brecht' s open struct ure creates a dIS tan cebe t v e en the d r a ma t l cac t l 0 n and the S pe c ta t 0 r .

H1S Intent, of_course, vas to allenate the spectator, to prevent any IdentIfIcatlon wlth the character.

Both the Jesults and Brecht deve10ped theorles of drama based on rhetoncal conslderatlons. In thelr cholce of plo t san d s truc t ure 5 , the Jesults vere lnf1uenced by rhetorlcal forms: the sermon, the speech, or the debate.

Thel( purpose vas ta move and thus persuade theIr audIence.

Brecht's purpose vas also rhetorlca1, namely to persuade hlS audlence and actors of the necesslty for and the posslblllty of revolutlonary change. To achleve thIS goal he chose famlllar plots and open structures ln order to allenate hlS spec1àtbrs from the dramtlc action and the characters and to enab.le the audience tO Vlew the events on the stage crltIcally. In the next,Jlchapter,he l sha1l conSlder the Jesuits' and Brecht's strategles as they are manlfested not only ln thelr Inventio and dispositIO, but also ln their elocut io. ..

64 Notes

1 See Ruprecht Wlmmer, Jesultentheater. Didaktlk und

E!.!!, Das Abendland - Neue Folge 13 (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1982).

2 Clcero, Oratore, l, p. 281. 3 Cicero, Brutus, trans. G. L. Hendnckson (Cambodge: Harvard, 1962), p. 157." 4 Clcero, Orator, 2. 357. 5 Andrea A. Lunsford and Llsa S. Ede, "On Dlstlnctlons between Classlcal and Modern Rhetorlc," ln Essays on ClaSSlcal RhetorlC and Modern Olscourse, ed.

Robert J. Connors, LIsa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford (Carbondale and Edwardsv111e: Southern 1ll1nols Universlty,

1 98 4 ), pp . 4 2 - 4 3 . 6 Lausberg, p. 34. 7 Gerald R. Mlller, "On Belng Persuaded. Some Basic Distinctions," ln Persuasion: New Directlons in Theory and Research, ed. Michael E. Roloff and Gerald R. Miller, Sage \., Annual Reviews of CommunIcation Research, vol. 8 (Beverly Hills and London: Sage, 1980), p. 11.

8 Mi 11er, p. 15.

9 Lunsford and Ede, p. 43. 10 Mi 11er, p. 15. 11 Lunsford and Ede, p. 43. 12 Mi 11er, p. 14. 13' For discussion see Noem Chomsky, ·Psychology and ~J r..

65 Ideology, .. in For Reasons of State (New York: Vintage, i, 1973 ) , pp. 318-369.

14 Mi 11er, p. 16. 15 Mi 11er, p. 17. 16 MIller, p. 19. 17 Mi 11er, p. 19.

18 Miller, p. 2l.

19 Chomsky, p. 322.

20 See Thomas W. Best, MacroQ!dl US (New York: Tvayne, 1972), and Yehudl Llndeman, trans., Macropedlus. Two ... Comedies (Nleuwkoop, Ho11and: De Graaf, 1984). 21 Alexander Rudln, ed. and trans., Dissertatio de

actione scenlca, by FranClScus Lang (Bern and Munlch:

Fra ne ke , 1 975 ), pp. 323 f f . 22 Rudln, p . 322. .4 23 FranclScus Lang, DIssertatlo, p. 67. 24 Lang, p. 7l.

25 Lang, p. 9. 26 Lang, p. 10.

2,yang, p. 1l. 28 Lang, p. 73. 29 Lang, p. 75. 30 Hans Ruppr ich, Das ausgehende Mitte1alter, Humanismus, -und Renaissance. Geschichte.- 'der deutschen Literatur, ed. Helmut De Boor and Richard Nevald, vol. 4,

part 1 (Munich: Beck, 1970), pp. 268-269. 31 See Urs Herzog, Jakob Gretsers ·Udo.!2fr Magdeburg.·

(1598) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1910), pp. 47-78.

66

_._------

\ 32 Herzog, p. 82.

- 33 See Wimmer, pp. 107-111.

34 Lang, p. 7. See also Robert G. Sullivan and Josef Schmldt, "Rhetorie and the (German) Jesuit Theatre of the

Seventeenth Century, ft Canadian Rhetoric Newsletter, No. 3.2

(l 984 ), pp. 1 6 - 20 •

35 Lausberg, p. 25. .. 36 RadIe, p. 569. Ràdle, p. 372. é RadIe, pp. 301-303. ) 39 RadIe, p. 305.

\ 40 RadIe, pp. 559ff. 41 RadIe, p. 318. 42 RadIe, p. 319.

43 Mlller, p. 21.

44 RadIe, p. 559. 45 See Herzog, pp. 79-112. 46 Herzog, p. 112.

47 See Dye k, p. 15. 48 For the use of emblems in German Baroque drama see Albrecht Schëne, Emblematik und Drama in Zeitalter des

Ba roc k ( Mun l ch: Bec k, 1968). 49 Bertolt Brecht, Schriften zum Theater, ed. Siegfried Unseld (Frankfurt: Suhrkanp, 1957), p. 285.

50 B[' ec h t, Sc h r i ft en, p. 286 •

51 Cf. Gr imm. 52 See the information given in Manfred Brauneck, "OBs frühbarocke Jesuitentheater und das politische

67

" - A9itationstheater von Bertolt Brecht und Erwin Pi scator, "

Der Deutschunterricht, 21, No. 1 (1969), p. 93. 53 Brecht, "Organon, " p • 51. 54 Brecht, "Organon, .. p • 52. 55 Brecht, "Organon, .. p. 55.

56 Brecht, "Organon, " pp. 57-58. 57 Brecht, "Organon, .. p. 58 . 58 Brecht, "Organon, " p . 60. 59 Brecht, "Organon, .. p. 66 "" 60 Cl ted in Rekha Kamath, Brechts Lehrstück-Modell (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1980), p. 24.

61 Lang, p. 73. 62 Brauneck, p. 97. 63 Bectolt Brecht, Ober e.xperimentelles Theater, ed.

Werner Hecht (Frankfurt: Suhrka~p, 1979), p. 81. , 64 Brecht, Experimentelles Theater, p. 81 .

•

68 1

, 1 -J Chapter 3

Bidermann' s Cenodoxus and Brecpt·' s Life of Galileo

ThlS chapter wlll present an analysis and comparison of the use of rhetoric in Jacob Bidermann's Cenodoxus and

Bertolt Brecht's Life of Galileo. l shall begin with a sketch of the authors and the hlstorical context of the two plays. More emphasis wlll be given to Bidermann because although he lS wldely considered to be the greatest Jesuit dramatist, his work and life are almost unknown ln the

English-speaking world. l shall then present a dlScussion of the two plays concentrating on thelr elocutio or style and conclude with some general comments on Bidermann's and Brecht's rhetorical strategies.

3.1 Bidermann and Brecht

Jacob Bidermann (1578-1639) is genera1ly acknowledged to be the most important and the best of the Jesuit drama t i sts. Although Bidermann vas exceptional in many ways, the course of his life can still shed light on the typical career of a 17th century German Jesuit rhetorician. (1) He vas born in 1578 in south@rn Germany in the small

69 ---#------f town of Ehingen. From 1584 to 1594 he was a pupil at the Jesuit college in Augsburg and studied under Jacob Pontanus, whose Strocoles was mentioned above, and u~er his later friend, the theologian Mattaeus Rader. Bidermann entered the Jesuit Order on February 23, 1594 and absolved his novlriate ln 1597 in Landsberg. In 1597 he was a student of philosophy at the Jesuit college ln Ingolstadt, and he began

teaching in Augsburg in 1600. At this ~ime Bldermann started wrlting, and his first play Cenodoxus was produced in 1602. He then returned to Ingolstadt in 1603 and studied the010gy for three years. In 1606 he was ca11ed to the famous Jesuit c011ege ln Munich and taught poetlcs and rhetoric. In Munich, which possessed an e1aborate and sumptuous theatre, Bldermann was very actlve as a playwrlght. In 1615 or early 1616, he went to Dllllngen where he was awarded a chair in phllosophy and theo10gy. Bidermann left Germany ln 1625 when he was called to Rome, where he became the official censor of the Society of Jesus. He died in Rome on August 20, 1639. In addition to hlS pIays,. Bidermann wrote verses, epigrams, a novel, Utopia, an eplc poem, Herodias, and a life of St. Ignatius. The stature and popularlty of Bldermann's plays may be seen, first, in the publication in 1635 of Joachim Melchel's translation of Cenodoxus into German and, second, in the publication ot his collected plays (Ludi Theatrales) in 1666, some 27 years after his death. Since most ,Jesuit plays were performed only once pr twice at some ~pecial ~- / occasion, it was unusual that they were PUbIifhed or / 70 ------::------~-- --

~. , translated,. especially so many years after the author's death. The performance history of Cenodoxus is comparatively detailed and further reveals Bidermann's popularity. The first performance took place unàer Bidermann's direction in

Augsburg on July 2, __~e. productIon was written for and performed by the e Jesult college at whlch Bidermann taught. A wa s staged by Bidermann for the court theatre ln Munic 1609, and the production was approprlately more ornate and fabulous than the simple school drama. According to the preface of Bidermann's collected plays, the Munich Cenodoxus was also

extraordinarily effective. l shall ret urn to this " descnption of the audience's reaction later. Further

performances took place in Lucerne in 1609, in Pruntrut ln 1615, ln Ingolstadt in 1617, ln Pans ln 1636, and in Hildesheim ln 1654. Cenodoxus, however, was obvious1y not a play to p1ease the dominant classic i sm of IBth century Germany, and with the dissolution of the Jesuit ,Order in 1773, any possible interest in the Jesu i t drama wa s suffocated: Bidermann sank into obscurity. Yet in the late 19th cent ury interest in German Baroque literature grew and

the importance of Cenodoxus was recognized. A new edition of Meiche1's translation was published in 1930 by wi11i Flemming, while at least four adaptations of Cenodoxus were written and performed in the 1930's. In 1963, the Ludi Theatrales were republished and edited by Rolf Tarot. The plot ofCenodoxus is based on the legend of St.

71 Bruno, the ·founder 'Of the Carthusial1 Order, as i t is related

in the anonymous Vita antiguior, written about 150 years

after St. Bruno's death. Accord-ing to the legend, St. Bruno

exper i enced a horr i fying miracle while he was -i n Paris in .;- . ) 1082. A doctor of law who was, famous for his virtùe and learning had died, and at the rê~.lJi em mass, his body rose r~ from the casket and called: .. l', have been accused before God's just tribun;." The funeral was postponed until the

next day, a t which time the body rose agaln and cried: "1

have been condemned before God's just tribune," and the

funeral was postponed another day. On the third day, the

corpse rose again and cried wlth a fearful voice: "1 have -. , been damned before God's Just tribune." Bruno, who

witnessed these events, was t~rribly shaken, renounced the wor ld, and w i th seven compan ions f lew to the .. desert" to .. found the Carthusian Order.

The legend was perfect"ly fit for an edi fying sermon on

the necessity of conversion; by placing the anonymous doctor

in the foreground, Bidermanp .;--.-.;transformed i t into a

horrifying exempl-um on va i n-glory. "Cenodoxus" or

"vain-glory" is mentioned by St. P~ul in his letters to the

Galatians (5:26) and the Philippians (2:3) where the

Jerusalem Bible transl~tes it as "conceit." It was considered to be one of the. eight deadly,sins by the early church fathers, but was later amalgamated wi th "pride" or

"superbia, " the source of a11 human sinfulness. In person i fyi ng the 5 i n of vain-glory Bidermann, might have

been inspired by the Munich Theophilus of 1596 where

72 - .. 'ri • 1

1 / Cenodo'x\ls appears as one of the allegorical ~haratters. Bidermann's geniU~ however, lies in his transformation,of an allegorical figure into a flesh and· blood human. / The theme of Bidermann's dra~atic sermon may be ,summari zed by guot i ng the wo-rds of Cenodoxophylax, the doctor's guardian angel: ." d' Your debt is pride:

Cast off your arrogance. You cann~t have A mind possessed by pride. if you would have YOllr God, or me, or even your own self. Abandon these your si ns; and mindf ul of Your present peril, keep future harm at bay.

( 2 )

with his characterization of Ceno?oxus, Bidermann warns ~iS audience of the dangers inherent in the Renaissance ideal of the independent inguiring spirit, and in this, as weIl as in the highly dramatic depiction of Cenodoxus' descent to hell, his play possesses a strong affinity to the contemporary legend of Faust. Bertolt Brecht's Life of Ga l.i leo dea l s with a contemporary of Bidermann, but his characterization of Galileo is almost completely opposite; to aidermann's Cenodoxus. Brecht was about fort y in 1938-39 when he finished the first version of Galileo, but he continued to

work on the play un~il 1955. In the 1939 version, the "new

times," of which Brecht~s protagonist speaks, contrast

sharp1y with Brecht's own o situation: he was in exile in

73 -r Denmark, and it had become clear that a new war was imminent. Brecht wrote later that he was lnsplred by the

experiments of Niels Bohr's assIstants whO J were attem~}ng to split the atom. The flrst performance of Gallleo took

L place ln Zurich In , September c:f 1943, but Brecht was not

involved in the productlon. In the meantlme, he had r~v15ed the flrst verSIon of Galileo, and with from the actor Charles Laughton, he translated the play Into

English.~recht wrote at the tlme: The 'atomic' age made ItS debut at HIroshIma ln the middle of our work. Overnight the biography of the founder of the new system of phyS1CS read differently. The infernal effect of the great i r bomb placed the conflict between Galileo and the

au th 0 rit i es 0 f h i S da yIn a ne w 5 ha r pe r 1 i 9 h t.

( 3 )

The second version was. first performed in Beverly Hills, .. California, in 1947. Galileo did not enjoy great sucess,

however, and when~Brecht left the United States in 1947, he had a1ready begun to transform the play and translate it

back into German. j In 1953, he enlisted the help of some German colleagues i,g,. the fina·l translation and he restored a few of the parts

from the 1938 version. This third and definitive version

was premiered in Cologne in 1955, the year Brecht died. The composition of Galileo thus lasted 17 years.

Because of the ~hanging po1itical circumstances in which

74 Brecht vrote Ga1l1eo, the theme of the play was adapted and modlfled. In 1938/39, Brecht accentuated tne vlrtues Gf SClence and reason agalnst the lrratlona11sm of the fasclst movements ln Europe and the Far East. The destructlve power of SClence Whlch was demonstrated at Hlroshlma, howeve r , forceci the playwrlght to mod:fy hlS optlmlstlc VleW of SClence anà emphas"ze the sClentlsts' socla: responslblllty. The result of thlS contradlctlon created a tenSlon and amblgulty ln the play, WhlCh dlmlnlshed, perhaps, lts persuaslve power, but WhlCh slmu1taneously hlghtened the dramatlc tenSlon and made Gallleo one of Brecht's greatest plays.

3.2 Cenodoxus and Llfe of Gallleo

A discussion of the inventlo of Cenodoxus and Life of Galileo need not detain us long. The remarks in Chapter 2 on the Jesuit~j and Brecht's inventio apply without much alteration. Cenodoxus lS based on a legend, while Galileo utilizes well-known historfcal materfal, namely Galileo's discoveries and the Church's opposition to them. The dispositio of Cenodoxus is more complex than that

~ of tne Jesuit dramas vhich vere mentioned above, yet the If) same general principles hold true. The structure of the pla~k' recalls Lang's remarks about the resemblance of the classical drama's structure to that of a speech. The first

75 - act lS slmultaneouslyan eplstas1s and an exordlum, etc.

Bldermann a~so utl~lzeS the sermon1C form, and parts of the play are ln the form of a debate, for example, Àct IV, Scene

v, where Panurgus, HypocrlslS, and Phllautla debate wlth Cenodoxophylax about thelr respectlve rlghts to Cenodoxus' soul. The flna: act, on the other hand, lS an excellent

examp~e of the genus ludlclale: the devlls and Cenodoxus' guardlan ange1 p1ead before Chrlst the ]udge. Cenodoxus

thus follows no one rhetorlcal form, but uses a comblnatlon

of rhetorlcal forms 50 tha't the spectator lS contlnua11y confronted wIth new arguments agalnst the fol1y of prlde. Brecht's Ga1Ileo lS a1so more complex ln structure than his Lehrstucke, WhICh were mentloned above, and agaln the same prInclp1es observed there may be applled wIth a few exceptIons. The scenes of Gali1eo are re1ated ta one another thematica11y rather than organica1ly, that lS, the actlon jumps somewhat unexpectedly from one place to another and developments of the plot, which one might expect from a traditional drama, never acc ur. The relationship of Galilea's daughter, Virginia, to Ludovico Marsili, for example, awakens expectations of a romantic sub-plot, yet it

,", progresses in fits and starts. The two are suddenly described as engaged in Scene 7, but eight years later, in

Scene 9, Virginia and Ludovici~ are still nat married. Ludovicio abruptly breaks off the engagement and then di sappears. This very unromantic sub-plot is typical of Brecht's structure: characters appear and disappear without

, ~ explanation and the spectator' s " expectations are constantly

76 -.. 1 l '- I-'------~------~~~~- ~~~-~-

frustrated ln ord~r to allenate hlm from the actIon. The spectator lS thus not confronted wlth any catastrophes, but only wlth mlstaken declslons and mIssed opportunltles WhlCh are crltlcally.. deplcted.

Bldermann's and Brecht's e locut 10 l S often extraordlnarlly complex and a few remarks should te made

before an analysls of .t lS undertaken. FIrst, as may be expected, Bldermann consClously follows most of the precepts of classIcal rhetorlC: Cenodoxus lS full of rhetorfcal tropes, fIgures, ,and proofs of WhICh lsolated examples wllll be cons l dered. Brecht's Gallleo, on the other hand, uses

far fewer'~hetorlcal fIgures, and the language of the. play

15 usually slmila"r ~o that of modern speech. Although Important speeches brIstle wIth metaphor, simile, wordplays etc., one would search ln vain for the carefully and traditionally constructed speeches which Cenodoxus contalns. Furthermore, whereas Cenodoxus is written in the six-foot iambic verse of Roman comedy, Brecht's play is ln prose except for the songs lo'hich precede each scene. Brecht's ~------J prose is reminiscent of the structure of the play: transitions are often sudden or sometimes even spasmodic; l, its purpose is to enable the spectator better to concentrate on what is being said, rather than holo' it is said. ln other

lo'ords, if the rhetorical brilli~nce of Cenodoxus is avo~ded, then it is done so for rhetorical reasons.

Since Bidermann's and Brecht's rhetoric differ 50 strongly, elocutio will be conceived in the broadest sense ( possible. 1 shall consider, first, style, then the speeches

77

L ------and exchang~s, and flnally, the use of summerles and songs. As a last pOlnt, lt shou1d be mentloned that the followlng dlScusslon of Cenodoxus and The Llfe of Gallleo '\ w 111 not be, and l ndeed cannot be, exhaustlve. l nstead, l shal1 restrlct myself to examples WhlCh 1 conslder to be representatlve of Brecht's and Bldermann's rhetorlcal strategles. Turnlng first to questlons of style, one notes that according to classlcal rhetoric, elocut l P must be distinguished by three m8ln vlrtues: purltas, persplcultas, and ornatus. Different qua1ltles of ornatus or style are also distlngulshed, such as the robust ornamentatlon (ornatus virilis), gratia, elegantla, the hilare dicendi qenus or the acutum dlcendi genus. (4) Whlle most Renalssance poetics stipulated that a drama should employ one style uniformly and consistently and that the members of different classes should speak ln dlstinctly dlfferent styles, Bidermann employed a mixture of styles. Cenodoxus begins with a comic scene in the hilare dicendi genus, while the second scene, which presents the devils plotting against Cenodoxus, is in the genus sublime; other scenes are in the genus medium (e.g. Act II, Sc. viii). Brecht also uses a mixture of styles, but his Galileo, does not 50 much alter comic scenes with didacticism or emotional appeal, as amalgamate different styles in each scene and even within the characters. In the fifth scene, for example, the plague breaks out in Florence, but Galileo's ceaseless experimentatiQn prevents him from fleeing. His

", 78 ,

----/l, _-;;-_~ __ ~ ______/ ( - presence convinces hIS housekeeper, Mrs. Sarti,· to r'emaln

wIth hlm despite the dan~ers of the plague. She is struck by the plague and dIsappears. Her son, Andrea, returns and confronts Gallleo wIth the report of hIS mother's Illness. The scene 1S tragIc, yet the somber tone and style, WhlCh

one 5 hou Ide x pe ct, l 5 br 0 le. e n b y Ga l 11 e 0 • 5 en t h u 5 i a 5 m wlt h

the dl scover l es he had made ln the m~ant 1me ?nd by the banter of the old woman who livesnacross from Gàllleo". 6 1 Slmilarly, Gailleo hlmse-lf COrl~t~ntly\?~;~hangeS style when he s'peaks. In the fjrst 'scene," for instance, Gal11eo (r.. . appeals ~,o ~ the procurator of the unIversIty ln ~dua for VI

\) more mori~y .if ·6 , " ,;J Sir, my branch of k.now ledge is still avid to know. (l(J 1 great~st p'roblems st i 11 fi us wlth noth,lng The ,,, cru but hypotheses to go on. Yet we keep asking ourselves for proofs. How am l to provide them If l can only maintain my home by having to take in any thickhead who can afford the money and din it

into him that para'!lel line~ meet at infinity.

(Brecht, p. 14)

Bidermann and Br'echt used a mixture of styles for .r'hetorical reasons and to underline their' respective themes. To the English-speaking reader, the alteration of comedy,

'- tragedy, and didacticism in Cenodoxus is reminiscent of the great Elizabethan dramatists such as Shakespeare. It is important to remember, however, that Shakespeare's frequent combinat ion of comedy and tragedy presented no difficulties

79

------, ~------~------for his audience because his plays were in the vernacular and partly relled on vernacular tradition. Bidermann' 5 Cenodoxus, on the other hand, vas vrltten in LatIn and ostensibly ln the humanist tradltion. Its mixed style, however, v i 0 lat est he r u les 0 f huma n i st d r a ma and wa 5 sharply crltlclzeù. As was me,tioned above, almost 100 years after Bidermann's death, Jesults still felt it necessary to defend hlm against the critici~m that he unknowingly violated the classical rules. Lang, for instance, quotes from the Preface to Bidermann's collected works, a wonderful example of the Jesuit dramatists' pragmat i sm: What should l say? Obviously Bidermann did not knov the secrets of the critics? Believe rather, my reader, that he vho di-d this (i.e. violated the rules), strived alone to accomodate himself to the spectators. Our author knev that he belonged to the religious poets for whom it lS proper tb do

everything not 50 much to please (the critics) as to be of use and, vith the sweet enticement of pious drama, to lead the spectators to virtue and the fear of God. (5)

In other vords, Bidermann Lgnored the rules of normative poetics in order to persuade better. By altering a comic scene\with a frightful or instructive one, Bidermann used every method possible (delectare, movere, and docere) to convince his spectators of the folly and danger of

BO

• vain-glory. The mixture of style also reveals Bidermann' s

Ignatian world V1ew, namely that man 15 ln the centre of the

battle between good and evil. The ac tian of Cenodox us

constantly changes from the mundane, to hell, and f 1na11y ta

heaven. The abruptness and the shock effect of the scen1C

changes, however, would have been less effect1ve wlthout

abrupt stylistlC changes.

ln Life of Galileo, Brecht utlllzes unexpeeteQ changes

in style wi thin scenes and even eharacters in ot"der to

alienate the spectatôr. For instance, in the plague scene

mentioned above, if the tone had remained tragic by the

elimination of the gat"rulous old woman, the spectator might

have been too emotionally moved to view the events eritically. The purpose is not to sympathize with Andrea,

who se mother has died as a result of'" her loyalty to Galileo,

but rather to understand and ct"iticize Galileo' s foolishness. To further alienate the spectator, Mrs. Sarti

reappears without explanation a few scenes later.

The figure of Galileo alternately speaks in a learned

manner or in slang and dialect for similar reasons. Brecht

recognized the dange~~ inherent in dramatizing a well-known

historieal figure, namely that the audience would either be

in awe of Galileo's genius, ot", as Brecht said, romanticize

him. To counteract this possibility, Brecht wrote:

l t' s important that you shouldn't idealize

Galileo: you know the kind of thing the

stargazer, the pa 11 id i ntëllectual i zed ( idealist ••• My Galileo is a powerful physicist with

81 J a tummy on him, a face like Socrates, a

voc i fer 0 us, full-blooded man with a sense of

humour, the new type of phYSIcist, earthly, a

great teacher. ( Brec h t, ' p. 11 9 ) . "

The purpose of Brecht's deplctlon of Gallleo as "a full-blooded II)an" was not only to allenate the spectator.

CertaIn aspects of GaUleo, "an earthly, great teacher," are exemplary, for example, hlS sensual joy ln knowledge. Brecht writes approvingly that "He insists on his physical pleasures because of his materialistic convictions. He wouldn' t, for i~stance, drink at his work; the point is that he works in.a sensual way." (Brecht, p. 120) The figure of

Galileo is thus' partly a role model for that attitude which

Brecht proclaimed to be characteristic of our age, namely the delight in critical thinking. A contradiction lies in the fact that if the scientiflc age' is really characterized by delight in critical thinking, then there is no need to persuade an audience to engage in it: another example of the gap between Brecht's theory and practice.

Rhetorical considerations determined not only

Bidermann's and Brecht's use of a mixture of style but also the construc t ion of the i r character s' speeches. Cons ider, for example, Bidermann' s characteri za t ion of' the allegor ical figures in Cenodoxus. In almost every case, when they appear on stage for the tiret tim~ they define themselves and their purpose by using a combinat ion of the loci, tropes, and figures. Hypocrisy delivers sud1- a speech in

82 the first act (1 cite in Latin first and list the rhetorical devices ln parentheses): Generata tetrae noctlS ln sinu Hypocrisls, , (qU1S?) Quae, quotquot Acheruns parturlt strophas, lues, (quld?, enumeratlo) Cladesque pernlciesque pestesque, unlca Triumpho cunctas. Nulla quo pervadere (ubi?) vis Stygia potuit, Hypocrisis ego potui. (polyptoton) Compendio, quae et quanta sim, dicam. Mihi Vel ipsa virtus addit incrementa; me (finitio, quibus auxiliis?) Nutrit suo alimento; evehit, fovet sinu. (metaphor) Recteque facta ego suadeo, doceo, approbo, (enumeratio) Invito, perpello, urgeo, traho, rapio Probitatis ad fastigium; ab quo ego.propius Adduco, tante abducere soleo longius. Peccare doceo, dum doceo, bene vivere. 1 (anadiplose, paradox)

Born of baneful night, Hypocrisy, l lead, sole general, in my triumph aIl ( The agues, plagues, disasters, stratagems

83 That Hell has given birth to. Where ono mlght Of Styx can penetrate, l flnd a way.

The nature of my powers 1S brlefly put: Virtue Itself increases them, It fattef'ls me On its own food, suckles me at Its breast.

l urge to rlghteous actIons, teach, encourage, Persuade, propel, spur on, draw, force A To heights of probitYi and make men fall

To baser depths, the hIgher l make them c1imb.

Teaching them virtue, l teach them how to sin.

(Bidermann, pp. 42-'43)

Bidermann uses rhetorical schemes not on1y ln the speeches in which his characters deflne themselves, but a1so in the exchanges ?etween characters. As shou1d be expected in a play depicting the battle of good versus ,evil, the figures ln Cenodoxus frequently engage in rhetorical \ exchanges and debates.., Their purpose is similar to the speeches with which the characters define themselves. First, the audience is de1ighted by the masterfu1 use of rhetoric. Second, the use of debate demands that the' spectator take sides. In the same way, Hypocrisis' speech, quoted above, leaves no room for doubt about her character and intentions: the spectator is forced to make judgements and decisions. Bidermann's characters constant1y argue with or attempt to persuade one another, but their arguments and _ pléas are not con fi ned to the stage: the audience' s salvation is a1so at stake.

84 Sometimes the exchanges are relatively simple as in Act

II, Scene il i. Cenodoxus reads the blbl ical texts which

Cenodoxophylax has left scattered in hlS room, while

Phllautia or Self-Love urges the doctor to 19nore them:

CENODOXUS: But what texts are these

l' m stumbling over?

Take no notIce of them.

CENODOXUS: Boy, plck them up.

SELF- LOVE: They' re not wor th your a t tent,i;on .

CENODOXUS ~ 'Wha t prof i t 5 our pr ide? '

SELF-LOVE: Throw it' away.

CENODOXUS: 'Thy ;prlde has reached my ears.'

SELF-LOVE: Get rid of it.

It's no use wasting time on trash lik'e that.

(Bidermann, p. 75)

(1 li t)' IJ Act IV, scene, however, depicts a l~v'ely"debate, betwee'l;! Cenodoxophy lax and the Gev i 15 ov/e r the soul !pf d~nedoxus. # The entire scene seems te confirm Quintilian's description of debates: " .•• the advocate,must speak at once and return l' the blow almo5t b~fpré i t ,;{::;'5 been, dea l t" by hi 5 opponen t • " , '1 (6) The two sides repe'ai," alter,,.pun on, and counter their " . " ( adversaries' poih'lts with great alacr'ity: /1

If CENODOXOPH~AX:GOod work wil.l profit nothing~ Cenodoxus

'w~thout humil~,ty. /' " - HYPOCRISY: ~5e s~,Quld be given

for suç.h virtue. 1 1) d l ,t 4", ., j 4- ,

SELF-LOVE: But virtue should be seen.

CENODOXOPHYLAX: Th i s vi r t ue shun s •

SELF-LOVE: And glory-must be sought etc.

(Bidermann, p. 145)

The debate culminates ln the appeals of Cenodoxophylax and

Hypocrlsis to Cenodoxous; notice the skillful use of

afIlplificatlo, reduplicatio, and synonymia:

CENODOXOPHYLAX : Gaze Cenodoxus at the stars

Wha t can you see more -noble than the radiance

of their great glory? This glory you should seek.

HYPOCEISY: Behold the earth, the great and

far-flung lands. Of this terrestrial globe. What rarer, fairer,

More glorious than to make aIl these resound With your great.. n~me ~nd fame? Be known by aIl? Be loved and cher i shed? And, when y/our body 1 s dust,

To live for aIl posterity, never withering Q>- From age to age? • (BÂdermann, p. 147)

The questions are anything but rhetorical; they demand

answers from the spectator. " . Brecht, aSi was al ready remarked,' doès not use and could • not be expected ( t1 use the ~ame fo.rmëj.l rhetoric as Bidermann. Hi s ctaractersl speeches may nonetheless be

86 J callecrrherorical in that tpeir aim is persuasion. rf the spectator ,i,s less delighted by their formality, he is still challenged and iflspired by their originality and skill. ,-' Gal i leo' s two grea t speeches in Scenes l an\'1 14 are full of effective metaphors, similes, puns, and unexpected turns of ,.- phrases. Li ke Bidermann, B,recht cons,tantly addresses the

audience. In Scene l, for example, Gali leo spea k s not only to Andrea, but to the contemporary spectator as well:

Walls and spheres and immobi li ty! For two

thousand years ~eople have believed that the sun and aIl the stars of heaven rotate around mankind. Pope, cardinals, princes, professors, captains, merchants, fi shwives and schoolkids thought they were sitting mot ionless inside "this crystal

". sphere. But now we are breaking out of i t, "1. Andrea, at full speed. Because the old days a-E--e-. over and this is a r1ew time ...•

Our ci t i es are c ramped and so are men' s minds. Superstition and the plague. But now the word i s 'tha t' show thi ngs are, but they won' t

st a y 1 i k e t ha t ' • Because everything i s in mot ion, 1. " my friend. (Brecht p. 6) • >",

Brecht sk i Ilfully uses the Ptoloma ic and the Copernican

world views as metaphors for man' s imprisonment and (

Gal i leo' s speeches are also full of short, \,

87 l / v easily remembered sententiae and aphorisms: "For where faith has been enthr~ned for a thousand years now doubt sits;"

"In my day \ astronomy emerged in the market place;" ~'If thine eye offend thee pluck it out.' Whoever wrote that knew more about comfort than me;" "The only truth that gets through will be whPt we force through;" "What you're seeing is the fact that there is no difference, between heaven and earth," etc. Galileo resembles Cenodoxus in the frequent use of debate and Brecht's purpose is similar to Bidermann's, namely to force the spectator to make decisions. In Scene 7 of Galileo, Brecht even parodies the exchange of Biblical quotations Brecht called it a "Zitatendue'll" an example of whic~ was seen in Act II, Scene iii of Cenodoxus.

Galileo is confronted by two cardina~s, Barberini and Bellarmin, who slyly threaten him. Bellarmin thén says:

••• We only disapprov~ of such doctrines as run

counter to the Scriptu~es. Ga1ileo: The, Scriptures ••• 'He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him.' Proverbs of s01'-on. Barberini: 'A prudent man concealeth knowledge.' Proverbs of Solomon. Galileo: 'Where no oxen are the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of oxen.' Barberini: 'He that ruleth his spirit is better

than he that t~keth, a city.' 1

1 88

------~t '1 '..t, Galileo: 'But a broken s"rit drieth the bones.' - . (Brecht, pp. 57-58)

The exchange is aIl the more ironie in German since the Cardinals and the loyal son of the Church cite Luther's

translation ~f the Bible. Brecht also parodies,the forms of a formaI debate in Scene 4. Gal i leo has invi ted a group of court scholars in order to show them his telescope, by means of which he hopes

to coavince ~hem of his theories. One of the scholars, a phi losopher, interrupts Galileo and says: "Mr. Gal i leo, before turning to your famous tube, 1 wonder if we might

have the pleasure of a disputation? Its subject, , to be: Can such planets exist?" The mathematic ian agre~: "A formaI

dispute." Gali leo va inly protests: "l, was thinking you could just look through the telescope and convince yoursel ves?" (Brecht, p. 38) The phi losopher, however,

insists on the disputation ~d begins in Latin, but Galileo demands he speak in the vernacular for the benef i t of his friend Federzoni.

The entire scene is full of irony and sa~casm for each time that the philosopher and the mathematician continue their dispute they are interrupted by Galileo who appeals to the evidence to be seen through his telescope. In this and the last mentioned scene, Brecht endeavors to show the vanity of formaI disputation based merely on theory and ... ( authority when compared to Galileo's scientific empiricism. Like Cenodozus, Life of Galileo i5 replete vith . '- 89 argument, but, as the Aboye" examples sug~est, Brecht disdains the formality in which Bidermann seems to delight.

Galileo consistently argues empirically and with c~~on sense, using household objects and gestures to make his arguments clear. By the use of minor figures, Sfh as the little Monk or Mrs. Sarti, Brecht also places Galileo in circumstances that force him to argue and to demonstrate simply and to show the relevance of his physics to the life of the common people. Brecht's purpose is to demonstrate vith dramatic means the ideas which he later vrote in the '''Short Organon," namely that the methods ahd success of, natural science must be transferred to human society. Galileo's 'appeals to common sense and his unornamented sPeeches are thus part of Brecht's technique of persuasion, for the forms of Galileo's speeches correspond to their content. Once again, Brecht's avoidance o~ 4liaborate and traditional rhetoric is dependent on his rhetorical strategy. One last device of which both Bidermann and Brecht make

use is scene s~ries, or as the Jesuits called them, "periochae." Before the performance of Jesuit plays, sheets printed vith the periochae in the vernacular were distributed to the audience. Ostensibly, their purpose vas to enable those spectators who had little or no Latin to follov the action. One may assume, moreover, that the use of gesture vas very prominent for the same reason. For those who could understan'â Latin, the periochae and gestures simultaneously reinforced the meaning of the play.

90 .1 , , " }I

,-

., Brecht also used scene 'summaries for ,Gali1eo, but 1 " rather than his distributing them in printed form to the .. \ audience, they vere re~d aloud by one of the actors before

each scene. They differ, however, from the periochae cf,~

Cenodoxus, which are straightf~rward su~ries of each . \ scene. Brecht's summaries are short, ironie commentarles , which are sometimes even connected as, for example, the { summaries for Scenes 5, 6, and 7: "Undeterred by the plague, Galileo carries on vith his research," "1616. The Vatican , research institute, the Collegium Romanum, confi rms

Galileo's fi~dings," "But the Inquisition puts Copernicus's teachings on the Index (March 5th, 1616)." Brecht used / these ironie, historical commentaries to rob Galileo of suspense, to remind the spectator that he is watching a 0 play, not rea1ity, and to force the audience to concentrate .". on the manner in vhich events occur and not on "hat occurs. Interestingly, Bidermann's periochae wou1d have exercised the same alienation-effect vith presumably the same result.

Both Bidermann and Brecht used mu~ic and 50ngs in their plays for entertainment and didactic purposes. The use" of music is qui te common in Jesui t dram. since theatrical'/ productions vere one of the few occasions for vhich music vas considered appropriate. In Cenodoxus, cho,irs sing at the end of the third and fourth acts" in order to break the action and 9ive the spectator a breathing sp8ce. The song8 are still integrated in the dramatic action: at the end of Act III, Panurgus and a "chorus musicu8 cacodaemonum" 8in9 ( to Cenodoxus "to sooth, vith laughter, 80ng and music" the

91 _.J1 1 . terrified doc~or. \(Bidermann, p. 125) Panurgus says: "1 1 11 endevourl To make the patient think hels bein9 refreshedl By heavenly music. Show him w..bat '-s.weet del ights/ Hell

holds for him, i f ~nly he III enjoy them." (Biderunn 1 P.• 125) Thus, the audience is entertained by the music, but ~~ simul taneously reminded of ,i ts da'ngers. SiDml1larly, the 1 •

"chorus mortualis," at the end of Act:IVT ,slngs "Sic transit > 1

gloria mundi." • 1 Brecht also recognized the entertainment value of' music

,and songs. For Galileo he had Hans Eisler, ,8 prom~nent composer, set his ver"ses to music.

occur at the beginning of each scene, and ,like the s~mmaries. .;4 . vhich vere announced.between' scenes, t~ey comment~' the dramatic action. At the beginning of Scene l" ,for instance, an actor singss (

~n the ye~r- sixteen hundred ~nd nine Seienee'. light began to shine: At Padua city in a modest house­ Galileo Galilei set to prove The sun ls still, the earth il on the .ove. (Brecht, p. 5)

, , . ~. At the ~ginning of the last seene of Galileo, the theme of' " 'the play il even made ezplieit ln'a songl , ( J 1 i

92 ----"!'------...------'"-..,---_., , -- .~".,.J The ',grHt book 0' er the border vent ( And, gOQd folk, 'that was the end. •

,. But we hope you' 11 keep i n m~nd.. He and 1 vere left behind. "

~y y~u nC?v guard sc.ience' 8 light Kindle it and use it right, Lest it be a flame to"'" fall Downward to consume us all. Yes us alla (Brecht, p. 110) »

\. Willett'. translation snould he compared with the original; in which the horrora of the atomic bomb and the scientiste' , social' res~onsibility are emphasizeda

~iebe,Leut, gedenkt des Endts -- Daa Wissen flüchtet\ übe. die Grenz. Wir, die wissensdurstig sind Er und ich, vi r blieben d.-hint t .' Hütet Nutzt Dass es nicht, ein Feuerfell

1. Binst'verzehre noch une aIl \) 'Je, uns all. (7) l' 1 / Brecht'8 80ngs," l.ite ~Ud.r_nn"~' at.e nOY'1 si.ply

entarteinment, they allo have • didac~ic and 'tructural / / function •. They often contain progr... tic state_nt., which .. / 93

~------~--,:~_.~,~--~----~------~/--~,~,--- " " f t'" >" ~, ~, ' ,\ because of their, easy ver,~ torm, can he easily remembered ... ,~ t '. j

~, (. by the aUdiènce; in a, sense, they :ma~ almost be comp'ared to ~ t l. • a dvertlslng j ingles. At the same time, Brecht' s songs , , interrupt the action of the play ,and make i t disjointed. ", l' ,. Their comments encourage the spectator, to view the action ~l. , critically. ,.

'1 f one may be allÇ)wed ' to make an artificial distinction, then one can say, in summary, that although Bidermann' sand· Brecht' s pÙsys have qui te different l ! . contents, their use of rhetorical forms is remarkahly similar. Both dramatists structure their plays aceording to

rhetorieal criteria: Bide~mann uses an amalgamation of

rhetorieal, speeches' as struèturing elements, while Brecht· structures his pla'y ln• • order1 to increase i ts ali!!)'K ion ,

effect. 8idermann's and Brecht's eloeutio i5 also similar • in form, if not in content. 80th playwrights employ a mixture of styles, and rhetorical àevices are carefully used

to persuade better. The' distinguishing ~haraeteristiç,· however, of both Cenodoxus and GaIlleo is their us.e of argumentation and debatewh1ch take ·place among the'actors, but simultaneously involve the audience.

~ $ ,1, ( "" i• ! 9'

, 1 '. " ' -. ,'--' ------...-----~------­.," " ,. Notes

1 / \ .

1 Jean-Mar ie Valent in, "Die Jesui tencUchter ,Bidermann un~ Avancint," in Deutsche ~ichter'd~s 17. Jahrhunderts. ,lh!

Leben ~!!r!, ed. HaraldoSteinhage~t and Benno von wiese (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1984), pp. 3~~-390.

2 Jacob Bidermann, Cenodozus, ~d. and trans.• D• G. .1 Dy-er and Cecily Longri,9g, Edinburgh Bilingual Library, 9' ~ (Austin: University of Texas, 1974), p. 111. P'urther· references to this edition will be cited in the texte • \ ' f 3 Bertolt ,Brecht, Li!e of Galileo, transe John Willett, ed. John Wi1lett and Ralph Manheim (London: E!re

Methuen, 1980~, p. 125. ~urthe~ references-to thi. edition ( will be cited ~n the te~t. 4 LaU.ber9, pp. 59-62. 5 Lang, p. 86. ( 1

6 Quintilian, II, p. 505. 7 Ber.to1t Brecht, Leben è! Galilei(Praltfurtc Suhrkamp, 1962), 122.

...

- , "

(

,t 95 l , ~ f __ ~_* ,~'."'j* ___~_""""_~_' __ -"" ____ --"I:'ç __ """'_''''' _ L""'1"" .'..,;~ o

" , Conclùsion

," "'

,A very unlikely patron of rhetoric, wilhelm Scherer, wrote in his Poetik, which was posthumously published in 1888, that: "Later rhetoric cultivated all the seeds plant'd by Aristotle into a very strict and systematic theory, which can partly , be a model for poetics, and which is partly of great benef i t to i t .. " (l,) Scherer i s known to contemporary Germanists as an extreme positivist who se works are of

interest"for the history of ideology, but otherwi~e very questionable. Yet his remarks, which are generally unknown, on the relation between rhetoric and poetics or literary criticism may still be read with profit. Scherer 'Ir i tes, for example: , ••• that a comprehens~e science 15 possible, which may be clear1y dema~çated .and which ~ould deal systematically with the !!! of speech. The complete art of speech is contained in the " traditional title: 'rhetoric poetics stylistics.' Yet this implies a collection of fields, which has ... as its basis the isolation of the di$ciplines. We , , maintain, on the other ruinâ, that 'there' is a demand for a ,comprehensive- investigation of the l' art ,of speech. (2)

..... 96 ______1 " ."

Gradually, literary, criticism has begunl to appreciate, l Scherer's ideas and more at~ention is b~in9 given ~ to the rhetorical aspects of literature. , . ' ln this thesis 1 hope to, have shown that classical rhetoric, can be a useful and fairly precise instrument for the analysis of li terary texts. Despite their very

di fferent _hi st~r ical bac kgrounds-and phi losophical premi ses, Jesuit drama and Bertolt Brecht's plays may be analyzed by using the concepts of classical rhetoric. In theii desire to persuade, the -Jesui ts and Brecht we·re moti vated by heterogeneous principIes: Jesuit drama was conceived as a sort of dramatic sermon aiming at conversion" while Brecht considered his "epi,c theatl!'e" to be an instrument of enlightenment . and change. In spite of their different

motivation they often used ~imilar means. Both the Jesuit dramatists and Brecht utilized already existing materiai for - their plots and structured theïr plays in ordér to persuade

• more effectiveIy. The results are, of course, often quit~ dissimilar, but parailels may be seen' especially in their

elocutio. Both used a mixture~f styles to confront the spectator wi th continually. nev arguments. Their plays contain entertainment, tragedy, and stronq didactic elements

> -- the delectare, movere; and docere of classical rhetoric. ' i Jesuit drama and Brecht's plays represent a sort of argumentative exemplum. Effective use vas made of speeches, exchanges, and debates vhich arê as much addressed to the audience as they are integral to'the dramas themaelves. ( , It has been noted that t~e Jesuit drama emerged from t !, 97i f - , .1. 1 ~ '\ , '" the Jesuit school curriculum and tbat rhetoric as a means of persuasion was a welcome tCfol to the Jesuit dramts. Brecht' s di sdain for autonomous drama did not lead' him tp use classical rhetoric, but either consciously or not he i , used techn igues similar to those of the Jesui t dramatists. , It is, of course, difficult to determine exactly whether his use of metaphor, for instance, was more inf:luenced by poetic

examples or rhetorical precepts. A clear d~marcation cannot be drawn between the two and further research could attempt to determine what factors influenced Brecht's rhetoric.

One may note,that although Brec~t's plays have spawned an enormous" amount of research and interest, they cannot be

said to have elicited a response simi~ar to the 1609 production of Cenodoxus in Munich. The followi,ng report', of which Brecht would have been envious, is based on the Preface' to Bidermann's collected plays. Although its accuracy has been recently doubted, (3) one may perhaps take' a:Jesuit view and say that if it 15 not historically true, it nonetheless captures\ the essence of Bidermann' s-

, ,~\ persuasi ve effect 1 and, therefore, may be considered a· faithful account: AR innumerable crowd streamed, out of "the Jesuit college in Munich in 1~09. One of" those marvelous> performances had Just, ended, whoSé elaborate produétion and realistfc descriptions constantly attracted the masses and occupied their.

thoughts "for "eek~. The Dector of Patis had ~en ~if. or.ed.· . The , . -- -, •, If pl.a1, vhich he students had acted in\ under thè ·1 -direct ion of tn ir teachers, the worthy fathers, , must.h.ve moved the spec~ator, immensly. Indeed,

• the impressions, w ich pe~ple received at the

performance of ~he play, can no longer be measu~d ~ ? ~Y us today. The chronicle reports of 14 membe~s ., . of the court- 'wh~ immediately following the end of the play, vere deeply disturbed and rushed to the \ Jesuits. There they condemned their former .. ,/ / actions and deeds vith gnashing of te~th and grea t ;

1 remorse • They flev to the comfort of the Order to . ,, , obtain their salvation. (4) ,

(

, 1

•

1j ·

. \

9 • ,;t , ., ,\ 1 l i 1 ":' •

" ;

NoteE! , , "

"

1 Wilhelm Scherer, Poetik; ed. Gunter Reiss'

1 (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 1977), p. 39. , , \ l , . 2 Scherer, p. 27.

o. 3 Günther Hess, "Spectator, ~ector, Actor.

Zum Publikum von Jacob Bidermanns 'Cenodoxus'" Inte.rnationales Archiv für Sozialgeschichte .. der deutschen Literatur, 1 (1976), pp. 34-48.

4 Cited in Hess, pp. 34-35.

"

1 - ;-

"\ --

, " ", ~ \ 1 ,~ , . " \ ' . \ -..• ·0 \, , 1 i r .. f- l' l ' !

" , 100 , f Bibl iography ....

1. Primary Sources

Aristotle. The Art of Rhetoric. Trans. J. H. Freese. Cambridge: Harvard, 1982. Bidermann, Jacob. Cenodoxus. Ed. and transe D. G. Dyer and Cecily Longrigg. Edinburgh Bilingual

Library, 9. ~ustin: University of Texas, 1974. ~ Cenodoxu~ The German Translation of Joachim Meichel (1635). Ed. Rolf Tarot. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1965. " Brecht, Berto1t. Gesamme1te Werke 2. Stücke 2. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1967. "K1eines Organon für das Theater." In über. Politik auf dem Theater. Ed. Werner Hecht. y ~~nkfurti Suhrkamp, 1971, pp. 50-82. Leben des Ga1ilei. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1962. Life of Gali1eo. Trans. John Wil1ett. --.-- - 7Ed. ,John wi 1let t and Ralph Manheim. London: Eyre Methuen, 1980.

------.~ Schriften zum Theater. Ed. Siegfried j, Unseld. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1957.

( .

101 ) über experimentelles Theater. Ed. Werner Hecht. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1979. über Realismus. Ed. Werner Hecht. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1971. Cicero. Brutus. Trans. G. L. Hendrickson. Orator.

Trans. H. +1. Hubbell. Cambridge: Harvard, 1962. De Inventione; De Optimo Genere Oratorumi Topica. Trans. H. M. Hubbel1. Cambridge: Harva rd, 1949.

------De Oratore. Trans. E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham. In 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard, 1942. (Cicero). Rhetorica ad Herennium. Trans. Harry Caplan. Cambridge: Harvard, 1954 • . Herzog, Urs. Jakob Gretsers "Upo von Magdeburg." (1598). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970. Horace. Satires, Epistles and Ars Poetica. Trans. H. Rushton Fairclough. Cambridge: Harvard, 1929. St.- Ignatius of Loyola. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. Based on Studies in the Language of the Autograph. Trans. Louis J. Puhi, s. J. Chicago: Loyola University, 1951.

The Constitution ~ the Society of Jesus. Trans. and intro. George E. Ganss. St. Louis: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1970. Lang, Franciscus. Dissertatio de actione scenica. Ed. and transe Alexander Rudin. Bern and Munich: Franc ke, 1975. (

102 \

\ _. ~-~---'l \ Lindeman, Yehudi, transe Macropedius. Two Comedies.

N~euwkoop, Ho1land: De Graaf, 1984.

1 Olin, .John C. 1 ed. 'l'he Autobiography of St. Ignatius of Loyola. Trans • .Joseph F. O'Ca1laghan. New York: Harper and Row , 1974. Op i tz , Ma r tin. -----(Buch von der Deutschen Poeterey. (1624) Ed. Richard Alewyn after the edition of Wilhelm

Braune. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 1963. Plato. Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias. Trans. W. R. M. Lamb. Cambridge: Harvard, 1975. Quintilian. The Institutio oratoria. 4 volumes. Trans. H. E. Butler. Cambridge: Harvard, 1980. Radle, Fidel, ed. and transe Lateiniscqe Ordensdramen --des --XVI. Jahrhundert s. Ber 1 in and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1979. Ratio studiorum superiorum. Rome, 1954.

2. Secondary Sources

Abbott, Don Paul. "The Renaissance." In The Present

State of Scholarship in Historiea1 ~ Contemporary Rhetorie. Ed. Winifred Bryan Horner. , Columbia: University of Missouri, 19B3, pp. 75-100. ( \ ~

103 .

------_._.. -...... ' ..... ------... ~... ~- .. ------~-- ... Barner, Wi1ffied. Barockrhetorik. Untersuchungen zu ihren geschicht1ichen Grund1agen. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 1970. Best, Thomas W. Jacob Bidermann. New York: Twayne, 1975. Macropedius. New York: Twayne, 1972.

Brauneck, Manfred. "Das frühbarocke Jesuitentheate~ und das politische Agitationstheater von Berto1t Brecht und Erwin Piscator." Der Deutschunterricbt, 21, No. 1 (1969), pp. 88-103. Brodrick, James. The Origin .2..!. the Jesuits. Westport: Greenwood, 1971. Chomsky, Noam. "Psychology and Ideo1ogy." In For Reasons of State. New York: Vintage, 1973, pp. 318-369.

Claas, Herbert. Die p01itische Asthetik Berto~t Brechts. Frankfurt: Suhr kamp, 1977. Connors, Robert J., Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford, eds. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and

Modern Discourse. Carbondale and Ed~ardsvi11e: Southern IllSnois University, 1984. Curtius, Ernst R(bert. Europaische Literatur und 1ateinisches Mittela1ter. Bern: Franke, 1948.

Diggs, B. J. "Persuasion and Ethics. ft Quarterly

Journal of Sp~ch, 50 (1964), pp. 359-373. Dyck, Joachim. Ticht-Kunst. Deutsche Barockpoetik und

( rhetorische Tradition. Bad Homb~rgl Dr. Max Gehlen, 1966.

104

... Esslin, Martin. Brecht. In! ~ !n2 His~. Garden l \ City: Anchor, 1971.

Fumaro1i, Marc. L'âge ~ ~éloguence. Geneva: Droz, 1980. • Frankhauser, Getrud. Verfremoung als Stilmittel vor und bei Brecht. Tubingen: Elly Huth, 1971. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Wahrheit und Methode. 4th ed. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1975. Grimm, Reinhold. Bertoft Brecht. 2nd. ed. Stuttgart:

Me t z 1 e r, 1971. Hardison, O. B., Jr. "The Orator and the Poet: The

Dile~a of Humanist Literature." Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Vol. 1, Np. 1 l (1971), pp. 33-U. Hecht, Werner, ed. Brechts "Leben des Galilei." Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1963. ------, ed. Materialien zu Brechts "Leben des Galilei." Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1963. Hess, Günther. "Spectator, Lec,tor, Actor. Zum Publikum von Jacob Bidermanns 'Cenodoxux'." Internationales Archiv für Sozialgeschichte der oeutschen Literatur, 1 (1976), pp. 30-106. Hilderbrandt-Günther, Renate... Antike Rhetorik und oeutsche literarische Theorie im 17. Jahrhundert~• Marburg: N. G. Elwert, -1966.

Janis, I~vin9 L. et al. Personality and Persuasibility. New Haven: Yale University Press, ~59. , 1

105

-----.....\ -" --_. -.- Kai ser, Gerhard R. Einführung i.!! die vergleichende Li terattn:w i ssenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissensc:na ftliche Buchgesellschaft:-, 1980 • • Kama th, Rekha. Brechts Leprstück-Mode11. Frankfurt: ) Peter Lang, 1983. Ka·ufmann, Walter Arnold. .E.!:.2!!! Shakespeare S2 Existentialism. Garden City: Anchor, 1960. Kennedy, George. The!!! of Rhetor ie in 1h! Roman World. 300!f:. AD '300. Princeton: Princeton Uni versity, 1972. KnÇ>pf, Jan. Bertolt Brecht. Ein kritischer Forschungsbericht. Frankfort: Athenaum, 1974. Lausberg, Heinrich. Elemente 2!r literarischen Rhetorik. 4th ed. Munich: Hueber, 1971. Lenhard, Pet~r-paul. Religiose Weltanschauung ~ .\ Didaktik im Jesuitendrama. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1976.

/, Lerg-Kill, Ulla C. Dichterwort!:!!!2 Pàrteiparo1e Propagandi st ische Gedichte und Lieder Ber;:tolt Brechts. Bad Homburg: Gehlen, 1968.

Murphy, James J., ed. Rena i ssance Eloquence. \ - Berkeley: University of California, 1983.

Murphy, James J. Rhetor ie il!. lli. Middle Ages. A History of Rhetorical Theory !!2! Saint Augustine ; -- p to the Renaissance. Berkeley: University of - --:;- California, 1974.

(

106

<

J_ -- - -< - <- ,------,------"------~ ----'.-.. , " Newa1d, Richard. -Die deutsehe Li teratur -VOII ,SpithumanisDlus !Y! Empfinasamkeit. Geschichte ~ deutschen Li tera"tu't'. vol. 5. Ed. Helmut De Boor t and Richard Newa1d. Munich: geck, 1963. " ~lett, Heinrich F." ed. Rhetorit. Munich: Fink, 1977 • .. Roloff, Michale" E.; and Gerald R. Miller, eds. o "- Persuasion: ~ew (Di~ré;t':ioJls in. "Theory an'd Research. Sage Annual Revie,ws of Communication Research, 1 ) vol. 8. Beverly:Hills and London: Sage, 1980. (. Rosnow, Ralph L.' and Edward J. Robinso'n, eds. Experiments in Persuasion. New York and Londont Academie Press, ·1967. ....

'ft \ Rupprich, Hans.· Das ausgehende.Mi ttela1 ter, Humanismus, ~~ Renaissanèe. Geschichte 2!! deutschen Literatur.' Velo 4, PBft 1. Ed. Helmut De Boor and Richard Newald. Munich: Beek, 1970

.' , ------• Des Zeitalter, ~ Renaissance., Geschichte der deutschen Li teratur. Vol. 4, part 2. Id '. Helmut De Boor and Richard Newald, Munich: Beek, 1973. Scherer, Wilhelm, Poetik. Ed. Gunter Reiss. Tubingen:. Max Niemeyer, 1977. Schone," Albrecht. Emblematik unci Drama i!! Zeitalter

des Barock. Munich: Beck, ~968. Steinweg, Reiner, ed'. Brechts Mode11 -dèr Lehr'stücke. Frankfurtt Suhrkamp, 1976. f ( t

107

J - -_ •.•,-_._-- ~._' ~ , ..... Ii i , if ~ . fJ r' , ~"

'Stein".g, Reiner. ~ Lehrstück. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1972. '/ , l. Strauss, Gerald. L~er's Houae of Learning: (

Indoctrination 2! ~ Young in the Ge~man Reformation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1978 Sulli van, Robert, and Josef Schmidt. "Rhetor ic and the

(~erman) Jesuit Theatre of the Sev,nteenth Century. " Canadian Rhetorie Newsletter, No. 3.2 i (1984), pp. 16-20. ., Szarota, Elida'. "Das Jesuitendrama als Vorliiufer der modernen Massenmedien." Daphnis, 4 (1975), pp., 129-143. Tarot, Rolf. "Sehuldrama und Jesui tendrama. " In Handbuch des deutschen Dramas. Edf W(llter Hink. Dusseldorf: Bagel, .1980, pp. 35-47.

Valent in', Jean-Marie. "Die Jesuitendicht'( Bid~rmann

und AV8neini." In Harald Steinh8gen and Benno von J Wiese, ed. Deutsche Dichter des 17. Jahrhunderts. t ...... -

Ihr Leben ~.~. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 198',

~ pp .. 38~~,414. . , ~ ------lte théAtre W "ésuites à.n.J -1u l2U.I .QI.

~angue allemand!, (1554,-1680) Salut dés!!!!!..! tl ordre des citées. 3 volumes. Publications - t Universitaires Européennes. Bern, Frankfurt, and (Los Angeles: Peter Lang, 1978., ~Viekers, ·Brian, ed. Rhetorie Revalued. Papers from "'.".l -the International Society for the History of ( ~ . Rhetorle. Binghartona Center for Medieval and

108

------,-_.. ~ .. ~.----- 1 J

- Early- Renai.sance Studi.s', 1982 .. { ( ,Wimmer, ~uprech~. Jeàuitentpeater. Didaktik und !!!S . .' "f Das Abendland - Heu. 'olge 13.. . Fra.nkfurt J f ;!. VittQr'io K1ostermann, 1982. l WUlf, Friedrich, ed. Ignatius 2! Loyola. His ,~ - l Personality ~ spiritual Heritage. Trans. G. f 1 Richard Dimler 'et "al. St. Louisl The,Institute of \,, t . tlesui t Sources, 1977. " l r ., \ '~,

1 t i" ) l i, '" i' f rt "

f .' i rt () Jo 109 \ . ~""""; ___~ __.....,;,_"'& 1II!'1_~_~ ____ ~~'1."""~""-"",.--r:r..,.:--~- ..... ------~,,---:~_•• -"'!!! ... -....& "'l'!.-!'tI!'j2)!l)"I" .... ·~if.~9J~,.,