account of theatre may have within a complex philosophical account of
human culture.
Further Reading
Philosophical discussions of truth andfiction or truth and literature tend
to focus on novels or poems rather than plays (or to treat play texts as
independent works of dramatic literature). Walton (1990) and Lamarque and
Olsen (1994) are weighty and influential tomes, not for the faint-hearted; for a
helpful discussion of poetry and knowledge, see Geuss (2005: 184–219).
On theatre and illusion, see Hamilton (1982), who argues–contrary to
what I have suggested in this chapter–that theatrical‘illusions’are not
deceptive and are not really illusions at all. Nietzsche’sThe Birth of Tragedy,
for all its idiosyncrasies, remains important and interesting; Geuss (1999)
offers a helpful introduction to a difficult but rewarding text.
Notes
1 Artaud (2010: 3).
2 Artaud (2010: 54).
3 See Barish (1981: 1).
4 Fragment 23, quoted in Halliwell (1986: 13).
5 See Puchner (2010: 75). Puchner also speaks of modernist playwrights using theatre as a
‘laboratory of truth’(p. 119).
6I’m not suggesting that there is a firm, self-evident or watertight distinction between content and form;
the point is just to distinguish between two types of accusation concerning theatre and falsehood.
7 The notion of a‘lie’suggests not just making false claims, butknowinglymaking false claims in
order to deceive. This seems wrong, so I won’t pursue it further here: I take it that the untruths
uttered on stage are meant to be‘lies’because the playwright and actors know that what they
say is false, but they have to say it in order for the play to function. However, as we shall discuss
in the following, the actors do not expect to be believed, to‘get away with it’.‘Lying’, therefore,
seems inappropriate–I shall speak instead of‘untruth’.
8 Kierkegaard (1992: 49).
9 Quoted in Lamarque and Olsen (1994: 53). Russell had a general view concerning propositions
about non-existent entities (like Hamlet or the present King of France)–namely, that statements
about such entities werefalse, rather than, as Strawson argued, neither-true-nor-false. Russell’sis
not an undisputed view, but I shall not challenge it here.
10 Hamlet, 1.1.5. (Citations fromHamletrefer to the edition listed in the bibliography.) Elizabethan
productions typically began in the afternoon, so it’s unlikely to have been true for them either.
11 Beckett’sRockabymight be one contender. Francesco Cangiullo’sDetonation, which has no words
at all, is a clear case.
12 Such as Francesco Cangiullo’sDetonation.
13 This is a modest claim, with which most philosophers agree; there is disagreement about if and
how such statements are‘asserted’by the author or actor (see e.g. Beardsley [1981: 421] on
‘assertion in the fullest sense’). I do not mean to suggest that any of the truths described in the
following paragraphs are sincerely uttered by the author or actor. See Urmson (1976); Lamarque
and Olsen (1994), Chapter 3.
14 1.1.111–9; Plutarch’s‘Life of Julius Caesar’.
15 4.7.164.Truth and illusion 71