You are on page 1of 8

134.

2 ]

criticism in translation

The Theatrical Illusion

otakar zich
Introduction
introduction and
OTAKAR ZICH (1879–1934) IS A STRIKING FIGURE IN MODERN CZECH translation by emil volek
and andrés pérez-simón
AESTHETICS AND ART THEORY. A GIFTED LIBRETTIST AND OPERA COM-
poser and a professor at Charles University in Prague, his place in the his-
tory of aesthetics is still controversial. His Aesthetics of Dramatic Art (Este-
tika dramatického umění [1931]) came out at a time of paradigmatic change
in the humanities (the emergence in the 1930s of functional structuralism
through the Prague linguistic circle).¹ Also, it was only in the 1930s that the
Czech theatrical avant-garde got into full swing. Zich’s work apparently “fell
short” both of the new scientific paradigm, imposed by the tandem of Ro-
man Jakobson (1896–1982) and Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975), and of the ex-
pectations of the students of theater coming from Mukařovský’s seminars,
some of them already distinguished avant-garde directors (Veltruský 67). EMIL VOLEK , professor of Latin Ameri-
Zich’s untimely death precluded the development of his project, as well as can culture at Arizona State University,
fruitful debate about it. Mukařovský, as Zich’s protégé, felt obliged to ad- Tempe, received the 2016 Commemo-
rative Centennial Medal “José Lezama
dress the work of his mentor, but his early semiotic reading was avowedly
Lima” from the Instituto Cubano del Li-
partial and tentative and barely concealed his puzzlement. This marginal
bro for the transmission of Slavic cultural
inclusion in the new paradigm without real assimilation left Zich’s complex theory to Spanish- speaking countries.
and comprehensive undertaking out in the cold. His publications include Latin America
Further, Zich’s antipositivistic (or romantic?) gesture of not referring to Writes Back: Postmodernity in the Periph-
his methodological framework, a gesture in vogue in some circles at that ery (Routledge, 2002) and La mujer que
time, led to his theoretical framework’s being misunderstood as a result, quiso ser amada por Dios: Sor Juana Inés
in particular, of the still apparently psychological Husserlian terminology en la cruz de la crítica (Verbum, 2016).

he used (from the original edition of Logical Investigations [1900]). Based ANDRÉS PÉREZ-SIMÓN, associate profes-
on these equivocal “keys,” the early readings, ingrained in time, miscast his sor of Spanish literature at the University
project as “late” psychologism, missed the underlying phenomenological of Cincinnati, is the author of Drama, li-
imprint, and reveled in apparent contradictions that did not fit the expected teratura, filosofía: Itinerarios del realismo
y el modernismo europeos (Editorial
traditional argument. Zich’s treatise became a gold mine (frequently plun-
Fundamentos, 2015) and the editor and
dered) of fine distinctions in and observations on theatrical art but was not
translator of Despistemes: La teoría lite-
recognized as a model of innovative methodology. raria y cultural de Emil Volek (antología de
Once the link to early phenomenology was established (through Zich’s textos) (Verbum, 2018). His book Baroque
work on music and through our new reading of Aesthetics, which resulted Lorca: An Archaist Playwright for the New
from the translation process), “contradictions” turned into phenomenological Stage is forthcoming from Routledge.

© 2019 Emil Volek and Andrés Pérez-Simón


PMLA 134.2 (2019), published by the Modern Language Association of America 351
352 The Theatrical Illusion [ PM L A

“circling” and layered analysis of his topic (Volek, the discussion any presence of emotional transcen-
criticism in translation

“Theatrology”).² Instead of remaining a work that dence in the actors’ work.


“fell short” or that perpetuated an exhausted tradi- In the early twentieth century, Konstantin
tion, Zich’s project emerged as a stand-alone and Stanislavsky theorized that authentic acting con-
unsurpassed phase of Czech aesthetics and as a verted emotional states into physical changes.
hitherto missing link in the early development of In chapter 3 of Aesthetics and, in more detail, in
the phenomenological movement. chapter 5,³ Zich questions Stanislavsky’s idea of the
“The Theatrical Illusion” (“Divadelní iluse”) body as a mechanism of natural signs that turns
is a section of Aesthetics of Dramatic Art (361–68, emotion into physical changes. The Czech scholar,
372) that condenses the analytic work done in recalling William James’s and Konrad Lange’s re-
Zich’s pioneer study. It is a surprising phenomeno- search in the field of psychology, argues that it is
logical analysis of the theatrical event as artistic external action, not internal feeling, that allows
representation and of the polysemy of the concept actors to alter their psychological states. Zich’s
of “reality.” Zich withdraws “theatrical illusion” description of acting “from outside in,” which
from the dichotomy of traditional logic (A/nonA) can explain multiple acting styles beyond the re-
and argues that artistic representation in theater alist one that was the basis for Stanislavsky’s sys-
(which may be expanded to all arts and fiction) tem, anticipates concepts only known to theater
should be seen not as some “unreality” (i.e., nonA) practitioners half a century later. It was not until
but rather as another reality (another “possible 1988, for example, that Richard Schechner chal-
world” if “our” reality is considered one of those lenged assumed notions about the effectiveness
possible worlds), a “theatrical reality” endowed of the Stanislavskian concept of emotional mem-
with dual logic. This “other” reality (R2) emerges ory, defending “mechanical acting” in the light of
as parallel and comparable to yet different from contemporary neurological research, while also
the “reality” out there, in “real” life (R1). The dif- claiming that the method “from outside in” existed
ference between these realities is not ontological in a long tradition of Eastern methods of acting,
but phenomenological, depending on and called particularly from India (301–15).
for by our “orientation” key, Husserl’s Einstellung In addition to discourses on acting, “The The-
(Husserl, Ideas 118–34). atrical Illusion” belongs to a second intellectual
In “The Theatrical Illusion,” Zich affirms that tradition—the philosophy of language. Zich theo-
one of the “greatest charms of the art of acting” is rized the issue of “truthfulness” in acting from a
“the opportunity to be somebody else without the phenomenological perspective that places him in
need to lie.” This section of Zich’s Aesthetics con- the company of some of the most distinguished
tains an original approach to acting, as well as to philosophers of language in the modern era. The
fictional worlds on the stage. It is possible to read originality of a text like “The Theatrical Illusion” re-
Zich’s statement on acting and lying as part of a sides in its ability to create a space for philosophi-
discussion on acting that has historically revolved cal inquiry that sees theater not as a practice that
around such terms as authenticity and truthfulness. lacks reference, as Gottlob Frege argued as early
A central text in this tradition of thought is Denis as 1892 (63–64), or that needs to be defined as a
Diderot’s “The Paradox of Acting” (1778). To re- nonperformative event, following the principles of
solve the tension between acting skills and feeling, the speech-act theorists. The value of Zich’s con-
Diderot concludes that the best actors are those tribution to the history of theatrical theory can be
who have no character of their own, so that they better understood vis-à-vis current theorists who
can “become” multiple fictional characters while have worked to bring together philosophy and
remaining emotionally detached from them. This theater studies. David Z. Saltz has recently used
“unfortunate conclusion” (Quinn 76) limits acting Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language to
to physical memory and skillfulness and bars from resolve one of the greatest quandaries of continen-
134.2 ] Otakar Zich 353

tal semiotics of theater. He invokes Wittgenstein’s

criticism in translation
WORKS CITED
“nondualistic understanding of representation” to
Diderot, Denis. “he Paradox of Acting.” Translated by
criticize the view that “a theatrical performance is Walter Herries Pollock. heatre/heory/heatre: he
a kind of text whose primary goal is to represent Major Critical Texts from Aristotle and Zeami to So­
an absent fictional world” and that “the audience yinka and Havel, edited by Daniel Gerould, Applause
looks past, or through, the real events to the fic- heatre and Cinema Books, 2000, pp. 198–201.
Frege, Gottlob. “On Sense and Reference.” Translated by
tion” (203).
Max Black. Translations from the Philosophical Writ­
In a surprising twist, Zich’s analysis of the the- ings of Gottlob Frege, edited by Peter Geach and Black,
atrical event and of its “dual” logic contests both Basil Blackwell, 1980, pp. 56–78.
the semioticians and the philosophers. In contrast Husserl, Edmund. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure
to our “factual approach” to everyday life, in which Phenomenology. Translated by W. R. Boyce Gibson,
George Allen / Macmillan, 1931.
one perception can only correspond to one repre-
———. he Shorter Logical Investigations. Translated by
sentation (a shadow in the woods can be a bush or J. N. Findlay, Routledge, 2001.
a real man, but not both, notes Zich), the “theatri- Quinn, Michael. “The Prague School Concept of the
cal approach” is one in which the viewer’s percep- Stage Figure.” he Semiotic Bridge: Trends from Cali­
fornia, edited by Irmengard Rauch and Gerald F.
tion is dual: what we perceive is simultaneously
Carr, Mouton de Gruyter, 1989, pp. 75–85.
an actor and a character. In Zich, duality is not Saltz, David Z. “Iniction and Outiction: he Role of Fic-
reduced and does not run out of theatrical fiction. tion in heatrical Performance.” Staging Philosophy:
Intersections of heater, Performance, and Philosophy,
edited by David Krasner and Saltz, U of Michigan P,
2006, pp. 203–20.
Schechner, Richard. “Magnitudes of Performance.” Perfor­
mance heory, rev. ed., Routledge, 1988, pp. 290–332.
NOTES Veltruský, Jiří. “heatre in the Corridor.” he Drama Re­
1. he Prague linguistic circle was an international view, vol. 23, no. 4, Dec. 1979, pp. 67–80.
group of scholars in linguistic, literary, and cultural stud- Volek, Emil. Introduction. Teoría teatral de la Escuela
ies that was active from 1926 to 1948, developing a multi- de Praga: De la fenomenología a la semiótica perfor­
faceted project of dynamic and functional structuralism mativa, edited and translated by Jarmila Jandová and
(focused on the semiotics and aesthetics of artifacts in Volek, Editorial Fundamentos / Resad / U Nacional
changing social contexts, in contradistinction to the later de Colombia, 2013, pp. 27–36.
French structuralism, which explored the static “deep” ———. “heatrology an Zich, and Beyond: Notes towards a
semantic structures underlying artifacts in the code). Metacritical Repositioning of heory, Semiotics, he-
2. For more on Zich’s early transition toward phe- atre, and Aesthetics.” Structuralist heatre heory, spe-
nomenology, see Volek, Introduction. cial issue of heatralia, vol. 15, no. 2, 2012, pp. 168–85.
3. Chapter 3 runs from pages 43 to 70, chapter 5 from Zich, Otakar. Estetika dramatického umění: Teoretická
pages 112 to 167. dramaturgie. 1931. Jal-Reprint, 1977.

The Theatrical Illusion


MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT OUR PAR-
ticular mental state when we witness a the- alize what the “real” reality is—that we are
atrical event. According to the most popular in a playhouse.1 It has also been argued that
view, it is a constant oscillation between the there are moments that reinforce the illu-
belief that what we see and hear is reality sion and others that suppress it; and there is
and the negation of this belief when we re- also a third approach, the idea of a conscious
354 The Theatrical Illusion [ PM L A

self-illusion.2 he illusion is supposedly rein- Aesthetics oten conceptualizes this diferent


criticism in translation

forced by everything that increases the simi- reality in terms of an “apparent reality.” his
larity between our perceptions of stage and concept, much discussed from a metaphysi-
of reality, and it is disrupted by things that cal point of view, has not been explained to
remind us that we are in the theater—such as our full satisfaction psychologically. Let’s ask
the stage itself, the proscenium, the audito- to what extent the “apparent” and the “real”
rium, our fellow spectators, and so on. realities are diferent for the perceiver. What
The psychological impropriety of these diferentiates my impressions when I witness
theories about the oscillation between con- somewhere, as a casual observer, a quarrel be-
sciousness of reality and of unreality is tween two persons from those when I watch
evident when we analyze without bias our be- the same thing happening onstage? Moreover,
havior during the spectacle, and even when we let’s assume that I have observed these two
recall how we feel during the theatrical event.3 persons only without being aware of the situ-
No matter how carried away we may ational frame of their interaction, or at least
feel, we have no awareness, belief, or faith at without capturing the whole frame of “theat-
all that what the actors are representing is rical” action. his hypothetical example helps
“reality.” Consequently, we cannot—indeed, us to truly understand the distinction in the
we do not—entertain the idea that it is not impression, because the perception is identical
reality. One thing is certain: the perceptions in both cases, but the impression is diferent.4
produced by the stage evoke in us, by means We could argue that the perception of
of similarity, mental representations that we the theater, one that we certainly had before
derive from previous experiences (and, there- the performance began, connects—through
fore, from “reality”), and we compare the two memory—with all the following percep-
of them. But we do so regarding their simi- tions coming from the stage, in spite of the
larity and not their reality—and that is the fact that, at this point, we do not pay atten-
difference. In the same way, the stage pres- tion to the frame of “theatrical” action any-
ence of a magical figure from a fairy tale, more. While this hypothesis would seem to
for example, may evoke the remembrance explain the diference between the two afore-
of a similar igure painted by an artist. If we mentioned impressions, the truth is that we
happen to think, in a case of striking resem- are not aware of such dichotomy, not at least
blance, that what we are seeing “is like real,” when the play truly captivates our attention.
this is only a theoretical relection of a com- Every now and then, during the performance,
pletely extra-artistic nature, one that tempo- certain details may remind us that we are in
rarily distracts our attention from the stage. the “theater”; yet precisely this reminder con-
Even those spectators who tend to make these irms that we are not aware of it all the time.
types of judgments prefer to leave them for Moreover, the mere association of “theater”
the intermissions. When carried away by the with the stage is insufficient to explain the
spectacle, we do not engage in these reflec- essence of the “apparent” reality. When, ater
tions—they only emerge once the emotion has the representation is inished, the playwright
diminished. he most perfect dramatic expe- and the actors enter the stage to receive the
rience is free of any thought on the reality of applause, this is not an apparent reality to
the stage, be it in positive or negative terms. us; the same thing happens when we attend
To us, what happens on the stage is not a pure ballet (and not a dramatized panto-
reality or unreality, but another reality, dif- mime) or a theatrical concert with an orches-
ferent from the one we live in; it is an artistic tra on the stage—even if we are aware that all
reality—in this speciic case, a theatrical one. this is taking place on the theatrical stage.
134.2 ] Otakar Zich 355

If the perceptions and the associations soon as our aesthetic perception ends and we

criticism in translation
are no different, then the difference has to “return to our everyday reality.”
be found in a diferent take on the same per- What is this sensation of external reality?
ception. In the irst case, we understand the Without doubt it exists in close connection
aforementioned quarrel as another fact of with the sensation of our own reality, more
life—that is, as something real: this is the exactly with the reality of our corporal self—
factual approach; in the second case, we see that is, the totality of all our corporal percep-
it as something represented, enacted: this is tions, because our corporal self belongs half
the theatrical approach.5 he latter is a spe- to the “external world” and half to the inter-
cial case of the iconic conception, one that nal one, and, therefore, being half object and
is present in the iconic arts and is only dif- half subject, it mediates between them.6
ferent from the factual or life attitude men- We have argued that the aesthetic state
tioned above, not contrary to it—that is, not is induced by beautiful objects. Yet this act is
“unreal.” he theatrical approach is a mental not as passive as this sentence might suggest.
state in which we neither think about reality It resembles what happens with our involun-
nor experience a special “sensation of real- tary and voluntary attention: if we so desire,
ity” (meaning external reality here), a state we can induce the aesthetic state in ourselves,
that accompanies us in the normal circum- although the beautiful object is normally the
stances of life and that only vanishes in some stimulus. his is how the aesthetic state origi-
abnormal situations, such as when we have nates in general terms. Depending on the ob-
certain illnesses or feel extremely tired. In jects that induce it, this aesthetic orientation7
these moments everything we perceive, and can be further specialized into artistic orienta-
especially what we see, seems to be passing tion; then into a more speciic, iconic orienta-
before us estranged and as if far away, “as in tion; and then, in the context of our ever more
a dream.” Dreams themselves are not, how- restricted ield, into theatrical orientation. We
ever, a good example; on the contrary, they will discuss the last two of these orientations.
frequently produce a strong sense of reality, he iconic orientation, as well as its spe-
to the point that many times we are relieved cial subset, the theatrical orientation, difers
when we wake up and realize that what we from the general aesthetic orientation in two
were dreaming “was fortunately not true.” aspects. First, when this orientation prevails,
On the other hand, there are mental our sensation of reality is completely sup-
states in which the sensation of (an exterior) pressed. Second, our interpretation of what
reality is weakened but not totally suppressed. we perceive is dual, because it contains not
he previous example of the state of fatigue only a technical representation but also an
will surely remind everybody of many times iconic one. hese two aspects are interrelated,
we experienced a similar sensation even when because in the aforementioned “factual ap-
fatigue was not a factor. These are certain proach” the dual interpretation maintained
states of daydreaming or contemplation that at the same time would be factually contra-
are triggered by objects we perceive and in dictory (one eliminates the other).
which we immerse ourselves, so to speak; ex- The fact that a certain perception X of
amples of this are a landscape, the interior of mine (i.e., a subjective perception) is “really” A
a temple, and so on. Evidently, this is an aes- means that I am convinced of the real objec-
thetic state induced by beautiful objects. he tive existence of A. he same thing applies if
sensation of reality is extremely feeble, but that same perception X is supposed to be “re-
not completely absent; it somehow remains ally” B. Given that a particular evidence can
in the background and then comes back as only be made of singular concepts, and that
356 The Theatrical Illusion [ PM L A

they are subordinated to the common idea of but not both things at the same time. One
criticism in translation

something that really exists, something that of the greatest charms of the art of acting is
automatically makes them exclude each other, precisely the opportunity to be somebody else
the relation between them can only be dis- without the need to lie.
junctive. I can see, for example, a dark shadow It would be perhaps more appropriate to
when I am in the forest ater sunset. My inter- say that the actor is a king “in appearance”—
pretation is dual: “it is a (real) bush” or else “it not in the negative sense of seeming to be
is a (real) homeless man.” Both things cannot what he is not in reality but rather in the sense
be at the same time. If I accept the irst one, I of a pure phenomenon without relation to real-
reject the second; if I happen to ind out later ity—because he really looks like a king to our
that the first one was true, then the second senses, in view of his (optical and acoustic) ap-
cannot be true and, consequently, it was my pearance. In this way, everything on the stage
delusion. he deception always maintains, in is “apparent,” but not “apparently real” or
consequence, a relation to reality. “false.” We can talk of false diamonds if they
On the contrary, if I see a statue, I be- are worn by a lady at a social event but not if
lieve that it is “a statue” and “some person,” they are worn by a dramatic character; for, like
because these notions do not pertain to the the dramatic character, the diamonds are only
same class of actually existing things (only apparent. heir authenticity, like the authen-
the statue is in this class), which means that ticity or falsehood of all objects on the stage,
they do not exclude each other. That “some is an issue of no importance, a simple practi-
person” pertains to the category of existing cal question.8 he restriction of the meaning
things only in an ideal form, in my mind. his of “appearance” also applies to such words as
is the only thing I express when declaring that “illusoriness” and “illusion,” into which we
“it is a statue that represents some person.” If frequently introduce a relation to reality.
mine is an aesthetic attitude, I do not think We can therefore infer from our reason-
in terms of reality or unreality at all. It would ing the following statement: the essence of the
be diferent if I considered the statue exclu- theatrical illusion resides in its theatrical ori-
sively in technical terms; but in this case I entation, one that, as a special manifestation of
would contemplate it, for example, as an arti- the iconic orientation, suppresses the sensation
icially formed column made of marble that, of reality while linking the perceptions to a dual
of course, does not represent anything. semantic representation: technical and iconic.
Consequently, I can also declare in re- Illusion does not mean here a deceptive
gard to dramatic art: he is actor A and, at the reality. This is nicely demonstrated by the
same time, King Lear, because this is simply fact that the same theatrical world that un-
an interpretation of the perception, while the folds before our eyes recognizes similar cases
actual existence (one that only the “actor” can of illusion and deception. I am referring to
have) is not the object of attention during the the well-known motifs of pretense and espe-
performance. One cannot talk about “decep- cially disguise. In Shakespeare’s Twelth Night,
tion,” because the interpretation is dual in the for example, an actress represents Viola, who
first place and never intends to be taken as puts on a man’s costume and pretends to pass
empirical truth—that is, an agreement with as a gentleman. Our perception of all this
reality. Moreover, this is the same reason we involves three forms of representation: one
cannot say that actor A is a false king. his technical and two iconic. It is evident that the
would only be the case of an impostor try- relations actress/ Viola and Viola/gentleman
ing to pass as a real king; and, in this case, we are not homogenous. Only the gentleman is
would believe he would be one or the other, “false” and only Viola’s action in disguise is a
134.2 ] Otakar Zich 357

“deception,” but this notion of falseness does theories discussed earlier affirm), because,

criticism in translation
not apply to Viola as ictional character nor on the contrary, they sustain it by keeping us
to the actress. he other dramatis personae within the theatrical orientation. Finally, in
take Viola for a gentleman, at least temporar- the same way that a change in clef from F to
ily, but we as spectators perceive her as Viola G leads the musician to abandon the interpre-
all the time. he dramatis personae have no tation in the key of F to return to G, certain
idea that Viola is really an actress (though the perceptions (curtain down, the noise of the
actors portraying them do), but we do know spectators leaving the playhouse, and so on)
about her all the time. tell the audience that it is time to abandon the
theatrical orientation and return to the nor-
mal, “factual” orientation.
Analysis of Theatrical Orientation
Formulated in this way, the distinction
We might explain the phenomenon of the between reality and theatrical illusion is a
theatrical orientation by analogy with the matter of differentiating between groups
function of the musical key: the same notes of representations linked to one of the two
on the staf will represent diferent tones de- conceptions. As noted before, the factual ap-
pending on the clef symbol that precedes proach does not require any particular psy-
them. The “key” for the theatrical orienta- chological predisposition or, in consequence,
tion is everything we perceive before the play any special group of semantic representations.
starts and, very oten, even ater it has begun: his attitude simply ties in with all the groups
the entrance to the theater, the playhouse full of representations we have acquired in our
of people, the stage frame with the curtain life (outside the theater). herefore, our single
down—one that goes up ater a certain signal. focus is the cluster of semantic representa-
According to this logic, the musician who has tions that deine our theatrical approach. he
been reading the notes in the key of G will matter is quite simple: we acquire this group
interpret the next notes diferently if they are of representations by means of our contact
preceded by the F clef, despite the similarities with the theatrical art or dramatic art. . . . We
between the sequences of the tones in both could say that this is a world of yet another
cases.9 his also applies to the theatrical per- reality—an artistic, speciically “theatrical”
ceptions, which are very similar to our many one. Although parallel and responding to the
perceptions of life. In the same way that the life reality, the “theatrical” reality is noetically
musician’s musical interpretations are sus- diferent from and heterologous to it.
tained by certain occasional signs (repetition
of the clef symbol at the beginning of each new
staf and other specialized signals), the theat-
rical spectator’s orientation is sustained by
intermittent observations (for example, aware-
TRANSLATORS’ NOTES
ness of the stage or the proscenium). hese sig- 1. Here Zich cites Hippolyte Taine’s discussion of “in-
cessant rectiication” in De l’intelligence (1870; On Intel-
nals only sustain, however, the orientations of ligence [441–43; 241–42]).
both musician and spectator, and the existence 2. Here Zich cites Konrad Lange (1855–1921), who
of these signals is not even necessary. considers conscious self- deceit (Selbsttäuschung) to be
Our explanation has shown why the ob- the essence of artistic enjoyment.
servations mentioned above (and many oth- 3. Readers should keep in mind that in Zich “psycho-
logical” in fact means “noetic” in the original Husserlian
ers that originate on the stage), which remind sense. Zich states in the preface to Aesthetics, “I have
us that we are in the theater, are not moments worked out the problem of the theatrical illusion on the
that “cancel the theatrical illusion” (as the psychological, actually noetic, basis, and from there I have
358 The Theatrical Illusion [ PM L A
criticism in translation

tackled other questions, especially the endless alternation and “what is at hand” may be used in need; however, dif-
between realism and idealism” (Estetika 10; our trans.). ferent theatrical styles may be built on certain types of
4. he “impression” is the meaning for us as observers. representations.
5. he Czech term we have translated as “approach” 9. Here we summarize a long passage of purely meta-
is pojetí (conception, approach, attitude), which Zich phoric value.
repeats throughout this passage. Pojetí is a synonym of
zaměření (orientation), a phenomenological concept that
Zich refers to later in the text.
6. We omit a brief discussion of internal corporal per-
WORKS CITED
ceptions. Lange, Konrad. Das Wesen der Kunst: Grundzüge einer
7. Note that Zich switches here from the psychologi- realistischen Kunstlehre. Grote, 1901.
cal term “state” to the phenomenological “orientation.” Taine, Hippolyte. De l’intelligence. Vol. 1, Hachette, 1870.
See note 5. ———. On Intelligence. L. Reeve, 1871.
8. Zich as a practitioner points to the fact that in the Zich, Otakar. Estetika dramatického umění: Teoretická
theater almost “anything” can represent “something” dramaturgie. 1931. Jal-Reprint, 1977.