Copyright <O 1957, 1963, and 1964 by Suhrkamp Verlag,

Frankfurt am Main
This translation and notes @ 1964 by John Willett
Translation copyright renewed <0 1992. by John Willett

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 63-18479

Printed in the United States of America
First American edition published by Hill and Wang in 1 964

33 35 37 39 4o 38 36 34
 3 • Emphasis on Sport
\V,e pin our hopes to the sporting public.
Make no bones about it,, we ha¥e our eye on those huge concrete pans,
filled with 15,000 men and women of , every variety of class and physiog­
nomy, the fairest and shrewdest audience in the 'world. There you will find
15,000 persons paying high prices, and working things out on the basis of a
sensible weighing of supply and demand. You cannot expect to get fair con­
duct on a sinking ship. The demoralization of our theatre audiences springs
from the fact that neither theatre nor audi,ence has :any idea what is .sup­
posed to go on there. When people in sporting establishments buy their
tic�ets they know exactly what is going to take place; and that is ,exactly
what does take place once they are in their seats: viz. highly trained persons
developing their peculiar po,vers in the way most suited to them, with the
greatest sense of responsibility yet in such a way as to make one feel that
they are doing it primarily for their own fun. Aga,inst .that tke tra,ditional
theatre is nowadays quite lacking in character.
There seems to be nothing to stop the theatre having its own form of
'sport'. If only someone could take those buildings designed for theatrical
purposes which are no\v standing eating their heads off in interest, and treat
them as more or less empty spaces for the successful pursuit of 'sport', then
they would be used in a way that might mean something to a contemporary
6
 EMPHASIS ON SPORT
public that earns real contemporary money and eats real contemporary beef.
It may be objected that there is also a section of the public that wants to
see something other than 'sport' in the theatre. But we have never seen a
single piece of evidence to prove that the public at present filling the
theatres wants anything at all. The public's well-padded resistance to any
attempt to make it give up those two old stalls which it inherited from
grandpa should not be misinterpreted as a brand-new assertion of its will.
People are always telling us that we mustn't simply produce what the
public demands. But I believe that an artist, even if he sits in strictest seclu­
sion in the traditional garret working for future generations, is unlikely to
produce anything without some wind in his sails. And this wind has to be
the wind prevailing in his own period, and not some future wind. There is
nothing to say that this wind must be used for travel in any particular direc­
tion (once one has a wind one can naturally sail against it; the only impossi­
bility is to sail with no wind at all or with tomorrow's wind), and no doubt
an artist will fall far short of achieving his maximum effectiveness today if
he saiJs with today's wind. It would be quite wrong to judge a play's rele­
vance or lack of relevance by its current effectiveness. Theatres don't work
that way.
A theatre whi.ch ,nakes no ctJntact with the public is a nonsense. Our theatre
is accordingly a nonsense. The reason why the theatre has at present no
contact with the public is that it has no idea what is wanted of it. It can no
longer do what it once could, and if it could do it it would no longer wish to.
But it stubbornly goes on doing what it no longer can do and what is no
longer wanted. All those establishments with their excellent heating sys­
tems, their pretty lighting, their appetite for large sums of money , their
imposing exteriors, together with the entire business that goes on inside
them: all this doesn't contain five pennyworth of Jun. There is no theatre
today that could invite one or two of those persons who are alleged to find
fun jn writing plays to one of its performances and expect them to feel an
urge to write a play for it. They can see at a glance that there is no possible
way of getting any fun out of this. No wind will go into anyone's sails here.
There is no 'sport'.
Take the actors, for instance. I wouldn't like to say that we are worse off
for talent than other periods seem to have been, but I doubt if there has
ever been such an overworked, misused, panic-driven, artificially whipped­
up band of actors as ours. And nobody who fails to get fun out of his activities
can expect them tq be fun for anybody else.
The people at the top naturally blame the people at the bottom, and the
favourite scapegoat is the harmless garret. The people's wrath is directed
7
 BRECHT ON THEATRE: 1918- 1932
against the garret; the plays are no good. To that it must be said that so long
as they have been fun to write they are bound to be better than the theatre
that puts them on and the public that goes to see them. A play is simply un­
recognizable once it has passed through this sausage-machine. If we come
along and say that both we and the public had imagined things differently
- that we are in favour, for instance, of elegance, lightness, dryness, objec­
tivity - then the theatre replies innocently; Those passions which you have
singled out, my dear sir, do not beat beneath any dinner-jacket's manly
chest. As if even a play like Vatermord could not be performed in a simple,
elegant and, as it were, classicaJly rounded wayf
Behind a feigned intensity you are offered a naked struggle in lieu of real
competence. They no longer know how to stage anything remarkable, and
therefore worth seeing. In his obscure anxiety not to let the audience get
away the actor is immediately so steamed up that he makes it seem the most
natural thing in the world to insult one' s father. At the same time it can be
seen that acting takes a tremendous lot out of him. And a man who strains
himselfon the stage is bound, if he is any good, to strain all the people sitting in
the stalls.
I cannot agree with those who complain of no longer being in a position
to prevent the imminent decline of the west. I believe that there is such a
wealth of subjects worth seeing, characters worth admiring and lessons
worth learning that once a good sporting spirit sets in one would have to
build theatres if they did not already exist. The most hopeful element, how­
ever, in the present-day theatre is tl1e people who pour out of both ends of
the building after the performance. They are dissatisfied.

('Mehr guten Sport.' From Berliner Borsen-Courier,

6 February 1926]
NOTE: This article appeared eight days before the Berlin production of
Brecht's first play Baal, which he staged himself in collaboration with Oscar
Homolka. His friend Arnolt Bronnen's Vatermord, referred to in the article,
had been the object of his first attempt at production in 1922, but was taken over
by another producer because of the actors' resistance to Brecht's conception of the
play.
About the same time, Brecht was insisting.- on the need for what he called a
'smokers' theatre', where the audience would puff away at its cigars as if watching
a boxing match, and would develop a more detached and critical outlook than was
possible in the ordinary German theatre, where smoking was not allowed. 'I even
think,' says a fragment (Schriften zum Theater 1, p. 165),
that in a Shakespearean production one man in the stalls with a cigar could
bring about the downfall of Western art. He might as well light a bomb as
Jight his cigar. I would be delighted to see our public allowed to smoke
8
 EMPHASIS ON SPORT
during performances. And I'd be delighted mainly for the actors' sake. In
my view it is quite impossible for the actor to play unnatural, cramped and
old-fashioned theatre to a man smoking in the stalls.
A notebook entry of 10 February 1922 (Schriften zum Theater 2, p. 31) gives a
much earlier statement of the same idea:
I hope in Baal and Dickicht I've avoided one common artistic bloomer, that
of trying to carry people away. Instinctively, I've kept my distance and
ensured that the realization of my (poetica) and philosophical) effects
remains within bounds. The spectator's 'splendid isola.tion' is left intact;
it is not sua res quae agitur; he is not fobbed off with an invitation to feel
sympathetically, to fuse with the hero and seem significant and indestructible
as he watches himself in two simultane-0us versions. A higher type of interest
can be got from making comparisons, from whatever is different, amazing,
impossible to take in as a whole.
Such opinions must be set against the pretentious German classical stage of that
time. A brief essay, evidently dating from Brecht's first years in Berlin, and
entitled 'LessPlaster' ('Weniger Gipsf!!' Schriften zum Theater r, p. 84ff.), begins
thus:
We Germans are uncommonly good at putting up with boredom and are
thoroughly hardened to the unfunny. Naturally a specific instinct for
mediocrity suits the German theatre very well. A theatre is a business that
sells evening entertainment. But nobody here is really satisfied with that.
All kinds of things rank higher than entertainment. So far as our theatre
goes, the unpretentious entertainment supplied by it is thoroughly decent
and adequate; the middle grade is most in demand; but what we take really
seriously is entertainment in monumental form. Today in any town of more
than 50,000 inhabitants you can buy plenty of monumentalities for five marks.
The idea of'fun' (Spass) occurs again and again in Brecht'swritings.'ffBrecht
gets no fun out of what he has created,' wrote Elisabeth Hauptmann, his secretary
and lifelong collaborator, in, her diary a day after 'Emphasis on Sport> appeared in
print, 'heimmediately goes and changes it ... He says that Shakespeare was un­
doubtedly the best member of his own audience, and wrote things primarily that
he and his friends got fun out of.'
The theatre section of the Berliner Borsen-Courier was then under the direction
of Herbert Ihering, who had been responsible for awarding the Kleist Prize to
Brecht's Trommeln in der Nacht in 1922. Many of these early essays, answers to
questionnaires, etc. appeared there, and an apparently unpublished note (Brecht­
Archive 331/104) shows that Brecht already saw some danger of their being
interpreted as a kind of gospel:
Bertolt Brecht has written a small series of essays for the Berliner Borsen­
Courier which give a rough picture of his views about the present-day
theatre.These remarks ...are not intended to supply an aesthetic; they are
meant rather to give a portrait of this generation and show its attitude to
the stage. We will keep space for answers.

9
 20 • Theatre for Pleasure or Theatre for Instruction
A few years back, anybody talking about the modern theatre meant the
theatre in Moscow, New York and Berlin. He might have thrown in a men­
tion of one of Jouvet's productions in Paris or Cochran's in London, or
11,e Dybbuk as given by the Habima (which is to all intents and purposes
part of the Russian theatre, since Vakhtangov was its director). But broadly
Hpeaking there were only three capitals so far as modern theatre was
concerned.
Russian, American and German theatres differed widely from one
another, but were alike in being modern, that is to say in introducing tech­
nical and artistic innovations. In a sense they even achieved a certain
stylistic resembJance,. probably because technology is international (not
j, ust that part which is dire·ctly applied to the stage but also that which
influences it, the film for instance), and because large progressive cities. in
large industrial countries are involved. Among the older capitalist countries
it is the Berlin theatre that seemed of late to be in the lead. For a period
all that is common to the modern theatre received its strongest and (so far)
1naturest expression there.
69
 BRECHT ON THEATRE: 1938-1947 THEATRE FOR PLEASURE OR THEATRE FOR INSTRUCTION
The Berlin theatre's last phase was the so-called epic theatre, and i� only as seen from the central figure's pomt of view, and not as an inde­
showed the modern theatre's trend of development in its purest form. What­ pendent element. It was defined by the hero's reactions to it. It was seen as
ever was labelled 'Zeitstuck' or 'Piscatorbuhne' or 'Lehrstuck' belongs to the 11 storm can be seen when one sees the ships on a sheet of water unfolding
epic theatre. I heir sails, and the sails filling out. In the epic theatre it was to appear
Ntnnding on its own.
THE EPIC THEATRE The stage began to tell a story. The narrator was no longer missing, along
Many people imagine that the term 'epic theatre' is self-contradictory, as with the fourth wall. Not only did the background adopt an attitude to the
the epic and dramatic ways of narrating a story are held, following Aristotle, events on the stage - by big screens recalling other simultaneous events
to be basically distinct. The difference between the two forms was never elsewhere, by projecting documents which confirmed or contradicted what
thought simply to lie in the fact that the one is performed by living beings 1 he characters said, by concrete and intelligible figures to accompany ab­
while the other operates via the written word; epic works such as those of Htract conversations, by figures and sentences to support mimed transac­
Homer and the medieval singers were at the same ,time theatrical per­ tions whose sense was unclear - but the actors too refrained from going
formances, while dramas like Goethe's Faust and Byron's Manfred are over wholly into their role, remaining detached from the character they
agreed to have been more effective as books. Thus even by Aristotle's were playing and clearly inviting criticism of him.
definition the difference between the dramatic and epic forms was attributed The spectator was no longer in any way allowed to submit to an experi­
to their different methods of construction, whose laws were dealt with by ence uncritically (and without practical consequences) by means of simple
two different branches of aesthetics. The method of construction depended empathy with the characters in a play. The production took the subject­
on the different way of presenting the work to the public, sometimes via the matter and the incidents shown and put them through a process of aliena­
stage, sometimes through a book; and independently of that there was the tion: the alienation that is necessary to all understanding. When something
'dramatic element' in epic works and the 'epic element' in dramatic. The seems 'the most obvious thing in the world' it means that any attempt to
bourgeois novel in the last century developed much that was 'dramatic', by understand the world has been given up.
which was meant the strong centralization of the story, a momentum that What is 'natural' must have the force of what is startling. This is the
drew the separate parts into a common relationship. A particular passion only way to expose the laws of cause and effect. People's activity must
of utterance, a certain emphasis on the clash of forces are hallmarks of the simultaneously be so and be capable of being different.
'dramatic'. The epic writer Doblin provided an excellent criterion when he It was all a great change.
said that with an epic work, as opposed to a dramatic, one can as it were The dramatic theatre's spectator says: Yes, I have felt like that too -
take a pair of scissors and cut it into individual pieces, which remain fully Just like me - It's only natural - It'll never change -The sufferings of
capable of life. this man appal me, because they are inescapable - That's great art; it all
This is no place to explain how the opposition of epic and dramatic lost seems the most obvious thing in the world - I weep when they weep,
its rigidity after having long been held to be irreconcilable. Let us just point I laugh when they laugh.
out that the technical advances alone were enough to permit the stage to The epic theatre's spectator says: I'd never have thought it - That's
incorporate an element of narrative in its dramatic productions. The not the way-That's extraordinary, hardly believable - It's got to stop -
possibility of projections, the greater adaptability of the stage due to The sufferings of this man appal me, because they are unnecessary -
mechanization, the film, all completed the theatre's equipment, and did That's great art: nothing obvious in it - I "laugh when they weep, I weep
so at a point where the most important transactions between people could when they laugh.
no longer be shown simply by personifying the motive forces or subjecting
the characters to invisible metaphysical powers. THE INSTRUCTIVE THEATRE
To make these transactions intelligible the environment in which the The stage began to be instructive.
people lived had to be brought to bear in a big and 'significant' way. Oil, inflation, war, social struggles, the family, religion, wheat, the meat
This environment had of course been shown in the existing drama, but market, all became subjects for theatrical representation. Choruses en-
70 71
 BRECHT Olf THEATRE: 1988-1917 THEATRE J'OR PLEASURE OR THEATRE FOR IlfSTRtJCTIOlf
lightened the spectator about facts unknown to him. Films showed a differences apply to countries and peoples. Thus the pleasure of learning
montage of events from all over the world. Projections added statistical depends on all sorts of things; but none the less there is such a thing as
ma e�ial. And as the 'backg��u nd' cai_n e to the front of the stage so people's pleasurable learning, cheerful and militant learning.
� _ . If there were not such amusement to be had from learning the theatre's
act1v1ty was subjected to cnt1c1sm. Right and wrong courses of action were
s�own. People were shown who knew what they were doing, and others who whole structure would UQfit it for teaching.
d1� not. The thea re became an affair for philosophers, but only for such Theatre remains theatre even when it is instructive theatre, and in so far
� 118 it is good theatre it will amuse.
philosophers �s wished not just to explain the world but also to change it.
So we had philosophy, and we had instruction. And where was the amuse­
ment i � aJI that? Were they sending us back to school, teaching us to read 'l'HEATRE AND KNOWLEDGE
and write? Were we supposed to pass exams, work for diplomas? But what has knowledge got to do with art? We know that knowledge can
Generally there is felt to be a very sharp distinction between learning be amusing, but not everything that is amusing belongs in the theatre.
and amusing oneself. The first may be useful, but only the second is I have often been told, when pointing out the invaluable services that
� l �asan� . So w� have to defend the epic theatre against the suspicion that modern knowledge and science, if properly applied, can perform for art
it 1s a highly disagreeable, humourless, indeed strenuous affair. nnd specially for the theatre, that art and knowledge are two estimable but
W� ll: all that can b � said is that the contrast between learning and wholly distinct fields of human activity. This is a fearful truism, of course ,
_
amusmg oneself 1s not laid down by divine rule; it is not one that has always nnd it is as well to agree quickly that, like most truisms, it is perfectly true.
been and must continue to be. Art and science work in quite different ways: agreed. But, bad as it may
L'.� doubtedly there is much that is tedious about the kind of learning sound, I have to admit that I cannot get along as an artist without the use
fam1har to us from school, from our professional training, etc. But it must of one or two sciences. This may well arouse serious doubts as to my
be re'.11 embered under what conditions and to what end that takes place. nrtistic capacities. People are used to seeing poets as unique and slightly
� t 1s re� lly a commercial transaction. Knowledge is just a commodity. unnatural beings who reveal with a truly godlike assurance things that other
It 1s acquired in order to be resold. All those who have grown out of going people can only recognize after much sweat and toil. It is naturally dis­
to school ? ave to do their learning virtually in secret, for anyone who admits tasteful to have to admit that one does not belong to this select band. All
that he still has something to learn devalues himself as a man whose know­ the same, it must be admitted. It must at the same time be made clear that
l� d �e is inadequate. Moreover the usefulness of learning is very much the scientific occupations just confessed to are not pardonable side interests,
hm1ted by factors outside the learner's control. There is unemployment pursued on days off after a good week's work. We all know how Goethe was
f�r i stance, against which no knowledge can protect one. There is th; interested in natural history, Schiller in history: as a kind of hobby, it is
. ?
� 1v1s10� of labou� , which makes generalized knowledge unnecessary and charitable to assume. I have no wish promptly to accuse these two of
1mposs1ble. Learnmg is often among the concerns of those whom no amount having needed these sciences for their poetic activity; I am not trying to
of concern will get any forwarder. There is not much knowledge that leads shelter behind them; but I must say that I do need the sciences. I have to
to power, but plenty of knowledge to which only power can lead. admit, however, that I look askance at all sorts of people who I know
Learning has a very different function for different social strata. There do not operate on. the level of scientific understanding: that is to say, who
are s��ta who cannot imagine any improvement in conditions: they find the sing as the birds sing, or as people imagine the birds to sing. I don't mean
cond1� ons good enough for them. Whatever happens to oil they will benefit by that that I would reject a charming poem about the taste of fried fish or
from it. And: they feel the years beginning to tell. There can't be all that the delights of a boating party just because the writer had not studied
ma y years more. What is the point of learning a lot now? They have said gastronomy or navigation. But in my view the great and complicated things
?
their final word: a grunt. But there are also strata 'waiting their turn' who that go on in the world cannot be adequately recognized by people who do
are discontented with conditions, have a vast interest in the practical side of not use every possible aid to understanding.
learning, ':ant at all c�sts to find out where they stand, and know that they Let us suppose that great passions or great events have to be shown
are lost without learmng; these are the best and keenest learners. Similar which influence the fate of nations. The lust for power is nowadays held
72 73
 BRECHT ON THEATRE: 1983 - 1947 THEATRE FOR PLEASURE OR THEATRE FOR lNSTRUCTIOlf
to be such a passion. Given that a poet 'feels' this lust and wants to have institution. In making this demand it hardly occutred to Schiller that by
someone strive for power, how is he to show the exceedingly complicated moralizing from the stage he might drive the audience out of the theatre.
machinery within which the struggle for power nowadays takes place? If his Audiences had no objection to moralizing in his day. It was only later that
hero is a politician, how do politics work? If he is a business man, how does Friedrich Nietzsche attacked him for blowing a moral trumpet. To
business work? And yet there are writers who find business and politics Nietzsche any concern with morality was a depressing affair; to Schiller it
nothing like so passionately interesting as the individual's Just for power. seemed thoroughly enjoyable. He knew of nothing that could give greater
How are they to acquire the necessary knowledge? They are scarcely likely amusement and satisfaction than the propagation of ideas. The bourgeoisie
to learn_ enough by going round and keeping their eyes open, though even was setting about forming the ideas of the nation.
_
then 1t 1s more than they would get by just rolling their eyes in an exalted Putting one's house in order, patting oneself on the back, submitting
frenzy. The foundation of a paper like the Volkischer Beobachter or a busi­ one's account, is something highly agreeable. But describing the collapse
ness like Standard Oil is a pretty complicated affair, and such things cannot of one's house, having pains in the back, paying one's account, is indeed a
be conveyed just like that. One important field for the playwright is depressing affair, and that was how Friedrich Nietzsche saw things a cen­
psychology. It is taken for granted that a poet, if not an ordinary man, tury later. He was poorly disposed towards morality, and thus towards the
must be able without further instruction to discover the motives that lead a previous Friedrich too.
man to commit murder; he must be able to give a picture of a murderer's The epic theatre was likewise often objected to as moralizing too mu� h.
mental state 'from within himself '. It is taken for granted that one only has Yet in the epic theatre moral arguments only took second place. Its aim
to look inside oneself in such a case; and then there's always one's imagina­ was less to moralize than to observe. That is to say it observed, and then the
tion••.•There are various reasons why I can no longer surrender to this thick end of the wedge followed: the story's moral. Of course we cannot
agreeable hope of getting a result quite so simply. I can no longer find in pretend that we started our observations out of a pure passion for observing
myself all those motives which the press or scientific reports show to have and without any more practical motive, only to be completely staggered by
been observed in people. Like the average judge when pronouncing sen­
their results. Undoubtedly there were some painful discrepancies in our
tence, I cannot without further ado conjure up an adequate picture of a environment' circumstances that were barely tolerable, and this not
murderer's mental state. Modern psychology, from psychoanalysis to be­ . merely
.
on account of moral considerations. It is not only moral considerations
h� viourism, acquaints me with facts that lead me to judge the case quite
that make hunger, cold and oppression hard to bear. Similarly the_ object
differently, especially if I bear in mind the findings of sociology and do not of our inquiries was not just to arouse moral objections to such circum­
overlook economics and history. You will say: but that's getting compli­ stances (even though they could easily be felt - though not by all the
cated. I have to answer that it is complicated. Even if you let yourself be audience alike; such objections were seldom for instance felt by those wh_o
convinced, and agree with me that a large slice of literature is exceedingly profited by the circumstances in question) but to discover means for their
primitive, you may still ask with profound concern: won't an evening in elimination. We were not in fact speaking in the name of morality but in
such a theatre be a most alarming affair? The answer to that is: no.
that of the victims. These truly are two distinct matters, for the victims are
Whatever knowledge is embodied in a piece of poetic writing has to be often told that they ought to be contented with their lot, for moral reasons.
wholly transmuted into poetry. Its utilization fulfils the very pleasure that
Moralists of this sort see man as existing for morality, not morality for man.
the poetic element provokes. If it does not at the same time fulfil that
At least it should be possible to gather from the above to what degree and
which is fulfilled by the scientific element, none the less in an age of great
in what sense the epic theatre is a moral institution.
discoveries and inventions one must have a certain inclination to penetrate
deeper into things - a desire to make the world controllable - if one is to
to be sure of enjoying its poetry. CAN EPIC THEATRE BE PLAYED ANYWHERE?

Stylistically speaking, there is nothing all that new about the epic theatre.
IS THE EPIC THEATRE SOME KIND OF 1 MORAL INSTITUTION'?
Its expository character and its emphasis on virtuosity bring it close to the
According to Friedrich Schiller the theatre is supposed to be , m:__i old Asiatic theatre. Didactic tendencies are to be found in the medieval
_
74 75
 BRE CHT ON THEATR E : 1 988-.1 947
mystery plays and the classical Spanish theatre, and also in the theatre of
the Jesuits.
These theatrical forrns corresponded to particular trends of their time,
and vanished with them. Similarly the modern epic theatre is linked with
certain trends. It cannot by any means be practised unive.rsally. Most 0£
the great nations today are not disposed to use the theatre for ventilating
their problems. London, Paris, Tokyo and Rome maintain their theatres
for quite different purposes. Up to now favourable circumstances for an
epic and didactic theatre have only been found in a few places and for a
short period of time. In Berlin Fascism put a very definite stop to the
development of such a theatre.
It demands not only a certain technological level but a powerful move-­
ment in society which is interested to see vital questions freely aired with a
view to their solution, and can defend this interest against every contrary
trend.
The epic theatre is the broadest and most far-reaching attempt at large­
scale modern theatre, and it has all those immense difficulties to overcome
that always confront the vital forces in the sphere of politics, philosophy,
science and art.

['Vergniigungstheater oder Lehrtheater?', from

Schriften zum Theater, 1957]

NOTE; This essay was unpublished in Brecht's lifetime, and its exact date and
purpose are unknown. Dr Unseld, editing it for Schriften zum Theater, suggested
that it was written 'about 1936'. Brecht's bibliographer Mr Walter Nubel thinks
that notes or drafts may have existed earlier. Unlike the items that follow, it
bears no evidence of Brecht's visits to Moscow and New York during 1935, and
it is tempting to think of it as having been prepared for one of these, for instance
as a possible contribution to that conference of producers to which Piscator
invited Brecht in Moscow: what he called (in a letter of 27 January 1 935, in the
Brecht-Archiv) 'collecting a few good people for a constructive discussion>.
This was to take place in April, and there are fragments of a 'Brecht-Piscator
conversation' in the Brecht-Archiv (334/04-05) which evidently date from then.
In these Piscator is seen referring to productions by Okhlopkhov (Aristocrats and
Serafimovitch>s Iron Stream) and Meyerhold (La Dame aux Camelias and a pro,.
gramme of one-act plays by Tchekov), while Brecht mentions the plans for a
'Total-Theater' which Piscator had had drawn up by Walter Gropius before 1933.
So far as the present essay goes, however, all that can really be said is that some
of its arguments and actual words are also, to be found in the next piece ..
The term here translated as 'alienation is Entfremdung as used by Hegel and
Marx, and not the Verfremdung which Brecht himself was soon to coin and make
famous. The former also occurs in a short note ( Schriften zum Theater J, pp. 196-7)
76
 TII E A ! R E F O R P L E A S U R E O R T H E A T R E F O B I K S T' & U O T I 0 5
called 'Episches Theater, Entfremdung', which refers to the need for any
situation to be 'alienated' if it is to be seen socially. Alfred Doblin,, the friend
of Brecht's referred to early in the essay, wrote Die drei Sprunge des Wang-lun,
Berlin Alexanderplatz and other nove1s which critics of the time likened to Joyce
a.nd Dos Passos.. He too was interested in the theory of epic form. The Volkischer
Be·obachter was the chief Nazi daily paper.
 2 9 • The Street Scene
A Basic Model for an Ep ic T!teatre

l n the decade and a half that followed the World War a comparatively
new way of acting was tried out in a number of German theatres. Its
ttualities of clear description and reporting and its use of choruses and
projections as a means of commentary earned it the name of ' -e pic'. The
nctor used a somewhat complex technique to detach himself from the
character portrayed; he forced the spectator to look at the pfay's situations
from such an angle that they necessarily became subject to his criticism.
Supporters of this epic theatre argued that the new subject-matter, the
highly involved incidents of the class war in its acutest and most terrible
stage, would be mastered more easily by such a method , since it would
thereby become possible to portray social processes as seen in their causal
relationships. But the result of these experiments was that aesthetics found
itself up against a whole series of substantial difficulties.
It is comparatively easy to set up a basic model for epic theatre. For
practical experiments I usually picked as my example of completely simple,
'natural' epic theatre an incident such as can be seen at any street corner:
an eyewitness demonstrating to a colJection of people how a traffic accident
took place. The bystanders may not have observed what happened, or they
may simply not agree with him, may 'see things a different way'; the point is
that the demonstrator acts the behaviour of driver or victim or both in such
a way that the bystanders are able to form an opinion about the accident.
Such an example of the most primitive type of epic theatre seems easy to
understand. Yet experience has shown that it presents astounding difficul­
ties to the reader or listener as soon as he is asked to see the i mplications of
treating this kind of street corner demonstration as a basic form of major
theatre, theatre for a scientific age. What this means of course is that the
epic theatre may appear richer, more intricate and complex in every
particular, yet to be major theatre it need at bottom only contain the same
elements as a street-corner demonstration of this sort; nor could it any
longer be termed epic theatre if any of the main elements of the street­
corner demonstration were lacking. Until this is understood it is impossible
really to understand what follows. Until one understands the novelty, un­
familiarity and direct challenge to the critical faculties of the suggestion that
street-corner demonstration of this sort can serve as a satisfactory basic
model of major theatre one cannot really understand what follows.
Consider: the incident is clearly very far from what we mean by an
1 21
 BRE CHT ON THEA TRE : 1933 THE S T R E E T S C E N E
- 194?
artistic one. The demonstrator need not be an artist Th . .
• • • • e capac1t1e s hc The demonstrator's purpose determines how thoroughly he has to imi­
needs to ach i�ve h is aim are in effect universal. Suppose he cannot carr tate. Our demonstrator need not imitate every aspect of his characters'
ut so p�rt1cular �ovement as quickly as the victim he is imitating; aTi
� e n�e;�� behaviour, but only so much as gives a picture. Generally the theatre scene
is to explam that he moves three times as fast, and the demon­ will give much fuller pictures, corresponding to its more extensive range of
�trat1on neither suffers in essentials nor loses its point. On the contrary it is
interest. How do street scene and theatre scene link up here? To take a
im�or�ant that he should not be too perfect. His demonstration would be
point of detail, the victim's voice may have played no immediate part in the
spoilt if the bystanders' attention were drawn to his powers of
. t ransfiorma- llccident. Eye-witnesses may disagree as to whether a cry they heard
t'10n; He h as _to �voi• d presentm g himself in such a way that someone ca!Js {'Look out!') came from the victim or from someone else, and this may give
out What a hfehke portrayal of a chau eur! He mus not 'cast our demonstrator a motive for imitating the voice. The question can be
ff ' t
anyone. He sh?uld not transport people from normality to 'higha espell' ovc�
r reaI ms' • settled by demonstrating whether the voice was an old man's or a woman's,
He n_eed not_ dispose of any special powers of suggestion.
or merely whether it was high or low. Again, the answer may depend on
It ost important that one of the main features of the ordinary theatre whether it was that of an educated person or not. Loud or soft may play a
s h ou:� �e excluded from our street scene: the engendering of illusion great part, as the driver could be correspondingly more or less guilty. A
he s eet emonstrator's performance is essentially repetitive. The even; whole series of characteristics of the victim ask to be portrayed. Was he
[
as tafen p�ace; what you are seeing now is absent-minded? Was his attention distracted? If so, by what? What, on the
a repe If the scene in the
theatre rollows the street scene in this respect thenat.the theatre will sto evidence of his behaviour, could have made him liable to be distracted by
?r�ten mg not to ?e theatre, just as the street-corner demonstration admifs just that circumstance and no other? Etc., etc. It can be seen that our street­
it is a ! emonstrat1 0n (and does not pretend to be the actual event) The corner demonstration provides opportunities for a pretty rich and varied
el ent of r�hearsal in the acting and of learning by heart in the te�t the portrayal of human types. Yet a theatre which tries to restrict its essential
w:� ? e machmery and the whole process of preparation: it all bec;mes elements to those provided by our street scene will have to acknowledge
pl_amly ap�arent. _What room is left for experience? Is the reality portra ed certain limits to imitation. It must be able to justify any outlay in terms of
still expenenced m any sense? Y
its purpose.1
T e street scene deter?1ines what kind of experience is to be prepared The demonstration may for instance be dominated by the question of
fior tt e spectator. There is no question but that the street-corner demon-
compensation for the victim, etc. The driver risks being sacked from his
strator has been through an 'experience', but he is not out to make his job, losing his licence, going to prison; the victim risks a heavy hospital
demonstratio . serv as an 'exp
n e erience' for the audience bill, loss of job, permanent disfigurement, possibly unfitness for work.
• Even th expen-
e nce o f t h e d nver
• and �he victim is only partially communicatedeby him
and he by no mean_s t�1es to turn it into an enjoyable experience for th� 1 We often come across demonstrations of an everyday sort which arc more thorough

spectator, however ltfel1ke he may make his demonstrat imitations than our street-corner accident demands. Generally they arc comic ones. Our next•
. ifhe 1'on • The d emonstra-
door neighbour may decide to 'take off' the rapacious behaviour of our common landlord. Such
t'10� wouId b ecome no less vahd . did not reproduce the fear caused an imitation is often rich and full of variety. Qoser examination will show however that even so
accident; on the contrary it would lose validity if he did • . by the
apparently complex an imitation concentrates on one specific side of the landlord's behaviour.

in creatin_g pure. _emo�1• 0ns. I t i. s impo

. • He is not mterested The imitation is summary or selective, deliberately leaving out those occasio� where the landlord
rtant to understand that a theatre which strikes our neighbour as 'perfectly sensible', though such occasions of course occur. He is far
fol ws his le�d m this respect undergoes from giving a rounded picture; for that would have no comic impact at all. The street scene,
; a positive change of function perforce adopting a wider angle of vision, at this point lands in difficulties which must not be
n� essential ele�e?t of the street scene must also be present i� the
.
underestimated. It has to be just as successful in promoting criticism, but the incidents in ques­
t ea c I scene if �lus is to qualify as epic, name that the demo tion are far more complex. It must promote positive as well as negative criticism, and as part of a
ly nstration
s : ou�� � ave a socially practical significance. Whether our street demon­
single process. You have to understand what is involved in winning the audience's approval by
. means of a critical approach. Here again we have a precedent in our street scene, i.e. in any
str tor is out �o sho:,v th_at one attitude on the part of driver or pedestrian demonstration of an everyday sort. Next-door neighbour and street demonstrator can reproduce
ma�es an a_cc1de�t mev1 table where another would not, or whether he is their subject's 'sensible' or his 'senseless' behaviour alike, by submitting it for an opinion. When
it crops up in the course of events, however {when a man switches from being sensible to being
emonstra�mg with a v(ew to fixing the responsibility, his demonstration senseless, or the other way round), then they usually need some form of commentary in order
:as
a practical purpose, mtervenes socially. to change the angle of their portrayal. Hence, as already mentioned, certain difficulties for the
theatre scene. These cannot be dealt with here.

122 123
 BRECHT ON THEATR E : 1933-1947 THE STREET S CENE
This is the area within which the demonstrator builds up his characters, Before it can get as far as this, i.e. be able to suggest a point of view to
The victim may have had a companion; the driver may have had his gi�I 1he actor, the theatre needs to take a number of steps. By widening its
sitting alongside him. That would bring out the social element better anJ field of vision and showing the driver in other situations besides that of the
allow the characters to be more fully drawn. nccident the theatre in no way exceeds its model; it merely creates a further
Another essential element in the street scene is that the demonstrator situation on the same pattern. One can imagine a scene of the same kind as
should derive his characters entirely from their actions. He imitates their the street scene which provides a well-argued demonstration showing how
actions and so allows conclusions to be drawn about them. A theatre that such emotions as the driver's develop, or another which involves making
follows him in this will be largely breaking with the orthodox theatre'II comparisons between tones of voice. In order not to exceed the model scene
habit of basing the actions on the characters and having the former ex­ the theatre only has to develop a technique for submitting emotions to the
empted from criticism by presenting them as an unavoidable consequence spectator's criticism. Of course this does not mean that the spectator must
deriving by natural law from the characters who perform them. To the be barred on principle from sharing certain emotions that are put before
��
street demonstrator the character of the man being demonstrated remains A him; none the less to communicate emotions is only one particular form
quantity that need not be completely defined. Within certain limits he may (phase, consequence) of criticism. The theatre's demonstrator, the actor,
be like this or like that; it doesn't matter. What the demonstrator is must apply a technique which will let him reproduce the tone of the sub­
concerned with are his accident-prone and accident-proof qualities.1 The ject demonstrated with a certain reserve, with detachment (so that the
theatrical scene may show more fully-defined individuals. But it must then spectator can say: 'He's getting excited - in vain, too late, at last. . . .'
be in a position to treat their individuality as a special case and outline the etc.). In short, the actor must remain a demonstrator; he must present the
field within which, once more, its most socially relevant effects are pro­ person demonstrated as a stranger, he must not suppress the 'lie did that,
duced. Our street demonstrator's possibilities of demonstration are nar­ lie said that' element in his performance. He must not go so far as to be
rowly restricted (indeed, we chose this model so that the limits should bo wholly transformed into the person demonstrated.
as narrow as possible). If the essential elements of the theatrical scene arc One essential element of the street scene lies in the natural attitude
limited to those of the street scene then its greater richness must be an adopted by the demonstrator, which is two-fold; he is always taking two
enrichment only. The question of border-line cases becomes acute. situations into account. He behaves naturally as a demonstrator, and he lets
Let us take a specific detail. Can our street demonstrator, say, ever be­ the subject of the demonstration behave naturally too. He never forgets,
come entitled to use an excited tone of voice in repeating the driver's state­ nor does he allow it to be forgotten, that he is not the subject but the
ment that he has been exhausted by too long a spell of work? (In theory this demonstrator. That is to say, what the audience sees is not a fusion between
is no more possible than for a returning messenger to start telling his fellow­ demonstrator and subject, not some third, independent, uncontradictory
countrymen of his talk with the king with the words 'I saw the bearded entity with isolated features of (a) demonstrator and (b) subject, such as
king'.) It can only be possible, let alone unavoidable, if one imagines a the orthodox theatre puts before us in its productions. 1 The feelings and
street-corner situation where such excitement, specifically about this opinions of demonstrator and demonstrated are not merged into one.
aspect of the affair, plays a particular part. (In the instance above this would We now come to one of those elements that are peculiar to the epic
be so if the king had sworn never to cut his beard off until . . . etc.) We have theatre, the so-called A-effect (alienation effect). What is involved here is,
to find a point of view for our demonstrator that allows him to submit this briefly, a technique of taking the human social incidents to be portrayed and
excitement to criticism. Only if he adopts a quite definite point of view can labelling them as something striking, something that calls for explanation,
he be entitled to imitate the driver's excited voice; e.g. if he blames drivers is not to be taken for granted, not just natural. The object of this 'effect' is
as such for doing too little to reduce their hours of work. ('Look at him. to allow the spectator to criticize constructively from a social point of view.
Doesn't even belong to a union, but gets worked up soon enough when an Can we show that this A-effect is significant for our street demonstrator?
accident happens. "Ten hours I've been at the wheel." ') We can picture what happens if he fails to make use of it. The following
1 The same situation will be produced by all those people whose characters fulfil the conditions situation could occur. One of the spectators might say: 'But if the victim
laid down by him and show the features that he imitates. 1 Most clearly worked out by Stanislavsky.

124 1 25
 BRECHT ON T H E A TR E : 1933 1947 THE STREET S CE N E

stepped off the kerb with his right foot, as you showed him doing. . . .' '11110 follow-feeling; it cannot b e practised without all these and much else too.
demonstrator might interrupt saying: 'I showed him stepping off with Ilia It has got to be entertaini�g, it has got to be instructive. How then can art
left foot.' By arguing which foot he really stepped off with in his demon,. he developed out of the elements of the street scene, without adding any or
stration, and, even more, how the victim himself acted, the demonstration Jcnving any out? How does it evolve into the theatrical scene with its fabri­
can be so transformed that the A-effect occurs. The demonstrator achievca cated story, its trained actors, its lofty style of speaking, its make-up, its
it by paying exact attention this time to his movements, executing thorn team performance by a number of players? Do we need to add to our
carefully, probably in slow motion; in this way he alienates the little sub• clements in order to move on from the 'natural' demonstration to the
incident, emphasizes its importance, makes it worthy of notice. And so tho 'artificial'?
epic theatre's alienation effect proves to have its uses for our street demon• Is it not true that the additions which we must make to our model in
strator too; i n other words it is also to be found in this small everyday sceno order to arrive at epic theatre are of a fundamental kind? A brief examina­
of natural street-comer theatre, which has little to do with art. The direct tion will show that they are not. Take the story . There was nothing fabri­
changeover from representation to commentary that is so characteristic of cated about our street accident. Nor does the orthodox theatre deal only
the epic theatre is still more easily recognized as one element of any street in fabrications; think for instance of the historical play. None the less a
demonstration. Wherever he feels he can the demonstrator breaks off his story can be performed at the street corner too. Our demonstrator may at
imitation in order to give explanations. The epic theatre's choruses and any time be in a position to say: 'The driver was guilty, because it all
documentary projections, the direct addressing of the audience by its happened the way I showed you. He wouldn't be guilty if it had happened
actors, are at bottom just this. the way I 'm going to show you now.' And he can fabricate an incident and
It will have been observed, not without astonishment I hope, that I have demonstrate it. Or take the fact that the text is learnt by heart. As a witness
not named any strictly artistic elements as characterizing our street scene in a court case the demonstrator may have written down the subject's exact
and, with it, that of the epic theatre. The street demonstrator can carry out words, learnt them by heart and rehearsed them; in that case he too is per­
a successful demonstration with no greater abilities than, in effect, anybody forming a text he has learned. Or take a rehearsed programme by several
has. What about the epic theatre's value as art? players: it doesn't always have to be artistic purposes that bring about a
The epic theatre wants to establish its basic model at the street corner, demonstration of this sort; one need only think of the French police tech­
i.e. to return to the very simplest 'natural' theatre, a social enterprise whose nique of making the chief figures in any criminal case re-enact certain
origins, means and ends are practical and earthly. The model works without crucial situations before a police audience. Or take making-up. Minor
any need of programmatic theatrical phrases like 'the urge to self-expres­ changes in appearance - ruffling one's hair, for instance - can occur at
sion', 'making a part one's own', 'spiritual experience', 'the play instinct', any time within the framework of the non-artistic type of demonstration.
'the story-teller's art', etc. Does that mean that the epic theatre isn't con­ Nor is make-up itself used solely for theatrical purposes. In the street
cerned with art? scene the driver's moustache may be particularly significant. It may have
It might be as well to begin by putting the question differently, thus: influenced the testimony of the possible girl companion suggested earlier.
can we make use of artistic abilities for the purposes of our street scene? This can be represented by our demonstrator making the driver stroke an
Obviously yes. Even the street-corner demonstration includes artistic ele­ imaginary moustache when prompting his companion's evidence. In this
ments. Artistic abilities in some small degree are to be found in any man. way the demonstrator can do a good deal to discredit her as a witness.
It does no harm to remember this when one is confronted with great art. Moving on to the use of a real moustache in the theatre, however, is not an
Undoubtedly what we call artistic abilities can be exercised at any time entirely easy transition, and the same difficulty occurs with respect to
within the limits imposed by our street scene model. They will function as costume. Our demonstrator may under given circumstances put on the
artistic abilities even though they do not exceed these limits (for instance, driver's cap - for instance ifhe wants to show that he was drunk: (he had it
when there is meant to be no complete transformation of demonstrator into on crooked) - but he can only do so conditionally, under these circum­
subject). And true enough, the epic theatre is an extremely artistic affair, stances; (see what was said about borderline cases earlier). However, where
hardly thinkable without artists and vi_rtuosity, imagination, humour and there is a demonstration by several demonstrators of the kind referred to
1 26 127
 BRECHT Olf THEATR E : 1988 1947 THE S T R E E T S C ElfE
rs the following undated scheme
above we can have costume so that the various characters can be dis­ developed at length there, and it al_so occu in
tinguished. This again is only a limited use of costume. There must be no (Schriften zum Theater 4, PP· 5i-z).
question ofcreating an illusion that the demonstrators really are these char­
acters. (The epic theatre can counteract this illusion by especially exagger­ EXER CISE S FOR A�TI N_G sc1:o oLS · f s ectators.
(a) Conjuring tncks, including a�1 tude o li�en Same for men.
ated costume or by garments that are somehow marked out as objects for (b) For wom en: l
fo_ din g � nd putt }° 1:n��:�s. Sa� e for women.
display.) Moreover we can suggest another model as a substitute for ours (c) For men: varying att1tudes o s
on this point: the kind of street demonstration given by hawkers. To sell (d) Cat playing with a h � nk of thread.
their neckties these people will portray a badly-dressed and a well-dressed (e) Exercises !n �b�e1:7at1 on.
man; with a few props and technical tricks they can perform significant (f) Exercises in imitation. .
• tones of voice.
(g) How �o ta�e �otes: N�ting ;� gesr::: throwing dice for their life. One
little scenes where they submit essentially to the same restrictions as apply (h) Exercises in imagination. ree
to the demonstrator in our street scene: (they will pick up tie, hat, stick, loses. Then: they all lose:
e B'ble
gloves and give certain significant imitations of a man of the world, and the (i) Dramatizing an epic. Passages �rom_ th �uc;ion Essential to show one's
(k) For everybody: repeated exercises in pro •
whole time they will refer to him as 'he'I) With hawkers we also find verse
being used within the same framework as that of our basic model. They colleagues. . • . en calmly folding linen. They
(I) Exercises in temperament . �1 tua�o : twofitwom of their husbands; the husbands
use firm irregular rhythms to sell braces and newspapers alike. s t e enc
feign a wild and jealou quarrel or
Reflecting along these lines we see that our basic model will work. The are in the next room.
elements of natural and of artificial epic theatre are the same. Our street­ (m) They come to blo�s as they fold their linen in silence.
corner theatre is primitive; origins, aims and methods of its performance (n) Game (I) turns senou�. . n; .
are close to home. But there is no doubt that it is a meaningful phenomenon (o) Qyick-change �o�p�t1t1on: Behind a screed soopen that others can put i t mto
.
'b e
with a clear social function that dominates all its elements. The perform­ (p) Modifying an imitation, s 1 mpl y d escn
effect.
ance's origins lie in an incident that can be judged one way or another, that (q) Rhythmi�a\ (ver!e-) s��ak'in� 'th tap-dance e and fork.
may repeat itself in different forms and is not finished but is bound to have (r) Eating with_ outsize kn�e a� ;;rk Very smail knif
consequences, so that this judgment has some significance. The object of gue �p ded sente nces, free answers.
(s) Dialo with gram ?ne. recor
(t) Search for_ 'n�dal points •
the performance is to make it easier to give an opinion on the incident. Its
(u) Charactenzauon o� a !ellow-actor. .
means correspond to that. The epic theatre is a highly skilled theatre with through scenes in the style of a
(v) Improvisation of mc1 dents. Runmng
complex contents and far-reaching social objectives. In setting up the
report, no text. . .
street scene as a basic model for it we pass on the clear social function and (w) Th� s_treet acc 1 dent. L�y i n� downchen limits of justifiable song imitation.
. [A traditional
give the epic theatre criteria by which to decide whether an incident is (x) Variations: a d og went mto he kit )
g
(y) Memorizin first impression of s a part.
meaningful or not. The basic model has a practical significance. As pro­
ducer and actors work to build up a performance involving many difficult 1 47, may
Werner Hecht su�gests t h a t these exercises Finn like those cited on p.
ish theat re scho ol.
questions - technical problems, social ones - it allows them to check el at ;
relate to lessons given by He! enc W e i g
whether the social function of the whole apparatus is still clearly intact.

('Die Strassenszene, Grundmodell eines epischen

Theaters', from Versuche ro, 1950)

NOTE: Originally stated to have been written in 1940, but now ascribed by
Werner Hecht to June 1938. This is an elaboration of a poem 'Ober alltagliches
Theater' which is supposed to have been written in 1930 and is included as one of
the 'Gedichte aus dem Messingkauf' in Theaterarbeit, Vermche 14 and Gedichte 3.
The notion of the man at the street-corner miming an accident is already
1 29
1 28