many of these, on closer inspection, look unfair or rest on questionable
premises.
Further Reading
For Plato’s attack on the moral effects of theatre, seeThe Republic (and
relevant further reading from Chapter 2, above). Rousseau’sLetterstill packs
a powerful punch and addresses many of the better-known argumentsboth
for and against the moral efficacy of theatre; Barish (1981) includes a
chapter on Rousseau. Contemporary philosophical writing on art and
morality (or literature and morality) has tended to leave theatre behind;
but two collections–Levinson (2001) and Gardner & Bermúdez (2003)–
are nonetheless useful. Gardner (2003) offers a comprehensive analysis of
(unsuccessful) attempts to combine tragic drama with moral doctrine,
especially in the German philosophical tradition. As for acting: Diderot’s
The Paradox of Actingremains highly engaging; his other writings on theatre
are collected (in French) in Diderot (1936); Mason (1982) provides an
accessible introduction to various aspects of Diderot’s thought, including
his aesthetics. Generally, Benedetti (2005) is an accessible introduction
to various theoretical approaches to acting; and for a more challenging
collection of essays on acting, see Zarrilli (1995).
Notes
1 Diderot’s most important play,The Head of the Family (Le Père de Famille)would be performed
in 1761.
2 This chapter uses texts from Rousseau, Schiller, Diderot–among others–to think about thea-
tre and morals. The eighteenth century offers such a heated and richly rewarding set of debates
on the subject–which are of sufficiently general application–that I feel this focus is warranted.
But of course such debates neither began nor ended with theEncyclopedia–and Rousseau is
clearly responding to a long tradition; for more, see the further reading.
3D’Alembert (2004: 239).
4D’Alembert (2004: 244).
5D’Alembert (2004: 356–7).
6Aristotle’s view of pleasure is more complex than this would suggest: his remarks in Books VII and X
of hisNichomachean Ethicshave been taken by some to suggest not one but two‘theories’of pleasure.
7 Rousseau (2004: 262).
8 Rousseau (2004: 262).
9 Rousseau (2004: 293–4).
10 D’Alembert (2004: 354).
11 What matters to Rousseau is the connection (or lack of connection) between pleasure and
nature; he is less concerned with whether or not pleasure is a bodily sensation. Nor is Rousseau
being utilitarian: he doesn’t think that pleasure is a good in itself.
12 D’Alembert (2004: 361).
13 Poetics,48b.
14 E.g. animals do such a wide variety of things that no general rules emerge;‘humans a long time
ago’leaves open the tricky question ofwhichhumans and at which time; and what humans ideally
would do begins to look like a matter of dogma, rather than nature.124 From the Stage to the World