https://shakespeare.edel.univ-poitiers.fr:443/shakespeare/index.php?id=157 Index des publications de auteurs Delphine Lemonnier-Texier fr 0 https://shakespeare.edel.univ-poitiers.fr:443/shakespeare/index.php?id=988 mar., 15 mars 2016 16:25:26 +0100 mar., 22 mars 2016 16:21:11 +0100 https://shakespeare.edel.univ-poitiers.fr:443/shakespeare/index.php?id=988 https://shakespeare.edel.univ-poitiers.fr:443/shakespeare/index.php?id=604 Le personnage de théâtre, catégorie dramaturgique quelque peu malmenée par la critique structuraliste et post-structuraliste, quelque trente années après l’ouvrage de Robert Abirached, La crise du personnage dans le théâtre moderne, semble revenir au premier plan des préoccupations critiques, que ce soit dans l’aire francophone, avec l’ouvrage collectif La fabrique du personnage, paru en 2007, sous la direction de F. Lavocat, C. Murciat et Régis Salado, ou dans l’aire anglophone et le domaine shakespearien, avec l’ouvrage collectif Shakespeare and Character, paru en 2009, sous la direction de Paul Yachnin et Jessica Slights. Fondement d’une société qui repose sur la primogéniture, la filiation est à la fois source d’angoisse dans l’univers dramatique et élément central de la poétique shakespearienne, simultanément figure de l’un et du multiple, selon que l’on se place du point de vue de la mimétique du personnage ou de sa théâtralité. Elle est au cœur de la représentation du système monarchique, indissociable de la question du pouvoir et de sa légitimité, et régie à la fois par le critère de vraisemblance et l’historicité (pour les pièces à substrat historiographique), et par les libertés poétiques propres à la dramaturgie : jeu avec la notion même de filiation à travers l’apparition de figures paternelles ou filiales de substitution (telles que Falstaff pour Hal, et Hotspur pour Henri IV) d’une part, multiplication des affiliations esthétiques et génériques du personnage, d’autre part. Ce sont ces aspects du personnage shakespearien que le présent projet propose de revisiter à la lumière des recherches sur la matérialité du rôle dans le théâtre de Shakespeare, qu’il s’agisse de l’ouvrage de Palfrey et Stern ou des expérimentations de Patrick Tucker et Christiane Ozanne et de l’Original Shakespeare Company, afin de mettre au jour certains aspects de l’impact des conditions matérielles de la représentation sur la genèse du personnage shakespearien. The dramatic category of character has made a spectacular comeback1 and is a fertile ground for research especially when analyzing such tropes as those of filiation and affiliation. A character’s filiation in the context of a history play is determined by the historical material that the play is derived from, but also by its materiality as character/part, enabling the playwright to develop a plurality of filiations (by adding substitute father-figures/son-figures to his historical material, a process which makes the issue of monarchical filiation an eminently theatrical tool) as well as a variety of generic and aesthetic affiliations. In the wake of Simon Palfrey and Tiffany Stern’s research on Shakespearean parts2 and of Patrick Tucker’s work with the Original Shakespeare Company3, the present study focuses on the impact of this definition of character in/as performance upon the notions of filiation and affiliation in 1 Henry IV. mar., 20 nov. 2012 16:28:40 +0100 lun., 10 déc. 2012 16:51:48 +0100 https://shakespeare.edel.univ-poitiers.fr:443/shakespeare/index.php?id=604 https://shakespeare.edel.univ-poitiers.fr:443/shakespeare/index.php?id=156 Madness, Mimesis and Theatricality The early modern perception of madness was influenced by social codes and medical, as well as religious, beliefs. The representations of madness on the early seventeenth-century stage reflected a number of these perceptions, but also provided the spectators with certain keys for deciphering the spectacles of madness which abounded, thanks, for instance, to Bedlam hospital and the performing of exorcism by Puritan preachers, as well as Catholic priests. Madness generated anxiety in a society whose strict social, religious and political codes were hardly compatible with the shifting status of the distracted subject. Similarly disturbing elements were sexual ambivalence and supposed manifestations of the supernatural. All these are linked with the metadramatic dimension of stage performance. The treatment of madness in King Lear includes the emergence of a dichotomy in dramatic space and the loss of mental bearings by Lear and Gloucester. Because of the dramatic irony in their presentation, their madness stands out as the symptom of their inability to appreciate the rules of theatricality. Just as sanity and madness are linked with dramatic space, the issue from the spectator’s point of view is one of distance and proximity, not quite in Weimann’s terms of stage geography, with a division between locus and platea, but rather in terms of dramatic illusion and dramatic awareness. The spatial dichotomy is paralleled by a dichotomy between the characters who master the art of theatrical illusion and those who fall victim to it. The former adopt disguises and keep their sanity, though they may feign madness; the latter go mad in exposing pseudo-miracles as theatrical frauds, so that belief is defined as interpretive madness, and the absolute power of theatrical performance on its spectators is demonstrated. jeu., 28 janv. 2010 15:41:55 +0100 jeu., 28 janv. 2010 15:41:55 +0100 https://shakespeare.edel.univ-poitiers.fr:443/shakespeare/index.php?id=156