Album: Unpublished Correspondence and Texts by Roland Barthes
And I must also tell you once again how much I admire you, because I have never felt such admiration for any musician.
I do not think there is any point in my coming on Friday, since the situation is clear to me and you had the goodness to let me be the judge of that.
Once again, let me express my feelings of gratitude and admiration.
R. Barthes
11, rue Servandoni, Paris VIe
5. Author of the Theater
The Théâtre populaire review was founded in 1953 by Robert Voisin (1918–2008) who was also the director of Éditions de l’Arche, created in 1949 with Roland Barthes, Morvan Lebesque, Guy Dumur, Jean Duvignaud.…48 Originally it had strong ties to Jean Vilar’s Théâtre National Populaire (TNP) before falling under the influence of Barthes and Bernard Dort in 1954 and becoming the mouthpiece for Brechtism.
Roland Barthes to Robert Voisin
[Groningen,] Sunday, July 19, 1953
Dear friend,
Here is the article, on time I hope and on target (of that I’m less sure).49 I’m sending a copy directly to Dumur to whom I addressed it, stipulating that he gives you his approval as quickly as possible.50 I’m including an extra copy with yours that you may want to send to Morvan Lebesque.51
I have concerns about the play you may have found for our second issue. I’m annoyed with myself for not speaking up enough before leaving, I have real doubts, a priori, I know, about Jules Roy, whose latest “Rizières” are very disturbing.52 I am very suspicious of a play about airplane engines, all that boy-scoutism of war that always ends in fascism.53 The time of Vauvenargues is over.54 But I’ll let you see if you have the same reactions as I do. No doubt you’ve already made a decision.
The atmosphere here is extraordinarily relaxing and slightly dull.55 But that was needed. I come back about August 15 and hope to find you completely rested from Normandy. Write or telephone if you need me long distance.
Warm regards to you,
R. Barthes
Teleph. Groningen 32.588
* * *
Tuesday morning, [July 1953]
Dear friend,
I have no objections to publishing the play by Adamov, which is very well done.56 Personally, I find Adamov’s drama fairly démodé already, because the ideas very quickly become myths, and the myth of the hunted or mad man (phenomenologically, it’s the same thing) already belongs to the past in literature. You said as much by citing Kafka, who is a great fellow who prophesied our times wonderfully; but that’s precisely why it’s our job to prophesy something else. Nevertheless, Adamov’s is certainly authentic drama, ideologically very sound, and consequently worthy of publication. So we have objective reasons for justifying this necessity. In the fall we can try to be less improvisational with our issues. Duvignaud wrote to me suggesting there were some very interesting submissions.57 At least according to him we will have a choice. The important thing is that these first two issues serve as a good springboard; better to rise than to fall, etc.!
Since Adamov is proposing it, I personally am completely behind taking his short preface, on the condition that he doesn’t rack his brains too much over the term “popular theater,” which none of us know the meaning of yet, that he doesn’t involve us in a local definition that will encumber us later on. But again that’s a useless qualm, because basically he has the right to say whatever he wants under his own name.
Thanks for submitting this text to me despite the rush.
Yours ever,
R. Barthes
* * *
Saturday, [July 1953]
Dear friend,
Actually I had anticipated the question of illustrations for my next article.58 And I’ve written to the Groupe Antique to send me photos.59 Naturally, they haven’t done so, probably on vacation.
I’m annoyed that I can only give you these instructions and not the completed work as I wanted to.
There are two ways of illustrating the article:
1) Contact the president of the Groupe Théâtral Antique de la Sorbonne, Daniel Bernet, Maison des lettres, 6, rue Férou.60
2) Track down the following reproductions at the Bibliothèque Nationale, which, moreover, has a photography department:
In Baumeister: Denkmäler des Klassischen Altertums (1885–1888), fig. 1637. Caption: “Tragic actor (feminine mask).”61
In Margarete Bieber: Denkmäler zum Theaterwesen in Altertum (1920), plate 53, subtitle “Andromeda in tragic costume.”62
3) Last resort: ask either at Bulloz, 26, rue Bonaparte, or at Documentation Photographique, 4 or 6, rue de Seine, for a good photo of the Epidaurus Theater, for example, with the caption “Epidaurus: theatrical site.”
Don’t think I release myself lightly from this task. I hadn’t anticipated that we would need the second issue by the end of July, and I counted on a response from the Groupe Antique.
Warm regards to you,
Barthes
* * *
Sunday, [March 1954]
Dear Voisin,
I’ve been busy with our issue 6, but with limited results:
Ghelderode: He should send his text to the review directly.63 As of Saturday, there was still nothing. Mme […]64 will provide the address and I think we must wire him.
Duvignaud: Columns and articles should be sent to you Monday.65 Duvignaud was doing his lectures until Saturday. But that’s a promise.
Laude: You have everything now.66 The article, a little scholarly in form, is, in its serious way, excellent, and there’s no reason to have any reservations about publishing it.
Adamov. His contributions are attached: Cruche cassée proofs.67 First page. Note on Adamov. Foreword on Kleist, and correction regarding the article by Duvignaud.
Barthes. Here’s my “Ruy Blas.”68 Impossible to do more with this Avignon speech to prepare.69 If this isn’t enough, I’ll throw something together next Wednesday. Then you’ll have it April 10, the deadline, I believe?
Miscellaneous items: To tell the truth, too overwhelmed with Avignon (Duvignaud with his lecture, Paris with his bad mood) to have found anything.70 I’ll help you Wednesday, I promise.
The editorial. Impossible to lay hands on the Paris text, left on the table in the small office at our last meeting. In my opinion, if we take it, we must 1) have him tone down the judgments on the French considerably, 2) not simply let pass what might seem like an attack against the USSR, which could objectively be unwarranted, given our present state of knowledge on the case.71
There’s another possibility: do another editorial. I was thinking of a subject with necessary candor: the ties between the Review and Vilar, a good opportunity to put an end to latent maneuvers. But that can wait for our meeting on Wednesday at 6 when we have to root out the Rouvet-Vilar evil.72 Not only on the ATP level but on the Review level.73 I will explain.74
I would much prefer if my trip to Avignon were taking place after our meeting because I’m leaving full of doubt. No matter, I will do my best.
I plan to return Tuesday evening.
Until Wednesday morning,
Yours,
R. Barthes
* * *
Avignon, Saturday, [July 1955]
My dear Voisin,
I just saw Zéraffa, who tells me that he left you worn out and that you worked all day July 14.75 I’m all the more ashamed of pampering myself in this lazy South. The trip went perfectly well. Nîmes was fairly interesting, however well paid!76 Last evening was Marie Tudor, which everyone was waiting for: remarkable production, Casarès impressive, the play totally stupid. People here who saw it wondered what Vilar was thinking, and what was the point of wasting so much talent on such stupid crap.
Tomorrow I’m going to Marseille for two days, staying with the Richards.77 I think I’ll be back Tuesday or Wednesday evening.
So, in haste and with best wishes,
R. Barthes
* * *
Hendaye, Sunday, [1956?]
My dear Voisin,
<
I hardly stopped in Paris this time. I’m here for three week, a month. If I work as I intend to, it’s possible that at the end of my stay I can do something fairly comprehensive on the theater; I need to do that for myself, get ideas a bit in order and clarify plans. I’m making you no promises, but I really feel it’s necessary for us to take stock.
Good summer to all and my best wishes always,
Barthes
Etchetoa79
Hendaye-Plage
* * *
Zurich, September 28, 1956
My dear Voisin,
I just saw a young fellow who is involved with the theater and who had spoken to me in Geneva last year. He’s proposing that we do a review of the play by Schehade that Barrault is going to present in Zurich in a couple weeks.80 I don’t know if it’s worthwhile, but we can give it a try. Could you send him by return post two lines on Revue letterhead (if you’re alright with this) to this effect: the Théâtre populaire review would be grateful to Monsieur l’Administrateur du Théâtre de Zurich for authorizing M … to attend the opening performance of … and thanks him for taking care of this matter.
Name of fellow: Philippe Deriaz, Trittligasse 5, Zurich
Thanks.
I’ll tell you about contacts here with the Russians; fairly meaningless of course, with fairly futile efforts, but I believe that in practical terms exchanges will be possible.81 They may possibly extend to Théâtre populaire (which we always speak of stipulating that its future will have to be analyzed). Duvignaud was here, but I haven’t seen him alone, and I regret that, because I would still like to come to some clarity about the situation going forward.82
Until soon and faithfully yours,
R. Barthes
* * *
Saturday, [April 1958]
My dear Voisin,
Yes, of course, for Ubu.83 I had not said anything to you about it because I find it a bit annoying that I’m always the one who does the reviews for the TNP, and since they are always unfavorable.… It’s true that I do not attend plays anywhere else! Only, I’m asking you to give me until April 22; but absolutely without fail (I do not want to give up on my plan, and one stage of it will be done April 20).84
My stay here is already settling into a routine: peaceful, weather very changeable but always very mild, work respectable (I’m making great progress on Racine—until that infamous April 20).85 I’m thinking of returning to Paris at the very beginning of May.
Faithfully yours, both of you,
R. Barthes
I just remembered: very important! Can you send me the issue of Théâtre populaire (or the page cut out from it) where I discussed Monnet’s Ubu (toward the end of 1955?)?86
* * *
Friday, [summer 1959]
My dear Voisin,
Thank you very much again for your second money order, invaluable.87 I enjoyed seeing Pic, he must have told you about it.88 I am not working furiously anymore; it seems I’m always a little depressed, but at least I’m still working on Mère Courage, a little each day, that is. Thanks to the two texts you sent me, I’m in the process, for the moment, of writing a very detailed commentary on the text itself, without yet approaching the photos really. It is decidedly a very rich text; I almost regret that we cannot bring together text, photos, and commentary in a kind of comprehensive edition. For the moment, my commentary has no editorial value, and I have no idea what will happen in the final version; I have no new ideas on this subject. The commentary on the text is going to take me some time still; then I’ll comment myself in the same way on the photos. Only after completing these two steps can I give you a specific proposal for organizing the whole thing. In short, my aim right now is to know the work by heart.
I am absolutely convinced of the necessity and the novelty of the work that we’re doing here. As I said to Pic, this will not be just an essay. We’re getting serious here and trying to move the photography of the theater beyond the realm of luxury, leisure, and mystification. I would like you to be pleased with me about this; we’re very much in agreement about the seriousness of our effort, its complexity, and its comprehensiveness (it’s not a matter of adding a preface, even a Brechtian one, to an album of beautiful photos).
Remind Pic that he must make me a contact sheet for all his film; that will be indispensible to us, he himself proposed it, and it really is his job. I’ll be here at least until October 3, the date of the sale.89 I’ll be in touch as soon as I get back or if I have to stay longer. It has been stormy here since yesterday, very beautiful.
Your friend,
R. Barthes
I skimmed the Willett very carefully.90 It is extremely valuable, a very good study in the manner of Robichez.91 I learned much specific information from it. This suggests three things to me: 1. A sort of quick, typed translation for Brechtians; 2. Printing the chapter on theory in the review; 3. Assembling a general Brechtian archive.
* * *
Hendaye, Tuesday, August 9, [1960]
Dear Voisin,
I was happy to hear your news and that everything is going well for all of you. Here are the proofs for Mère Courage. For the note on page 8, please add a reference to the specific issue of Théâtre populaire in which the article I mention by W. Benjamin appeared; it’s impossible for me to verify it from here.92 Please don’t forget.
As for my paper on La Mère, I am backing off a bit, formally, on my proposition that the subject of La Mère is not Marxism, etc. (I’ll do it in the proofs).93 Otherwise I’ll have the whole left wing of Théâtre populaire on my tail. Actually, I would like to make it clearer that the object of La Mère is Marxism, but the subject is motherhood. So much for business.
Otherwise? Well, just this morning I sat down to begin drafting this thing on Fashion.94 I panicked, especially facing that first blank page. I don’t know when I’ll be returning; that depends on work.
Send me your news from time to time, a note.
Faithfully yours,
R. Barthes
* * *
Urt, September 3, 1961
Dear Voisin,
Now that I’ve finished with Fashion,95 I’m getting back to thinking a bit about all that I let drop for the sake of this “formalist” initiation, and of course what comes first is Théâtre populaire. It was always agreed that I would do it, and I’m very grateful to you (without going on about it) for retaining your confidence in me during this lapse (at least until our last evening together?!).96 So, this is how I see things—first setting aside my own problem.
It seems to me there are three solutions: the first is dropping the effort, the action, the enterprise, but by saying so, that is, by taking stock—in the form of a general assessment—of the impasse our theater has reached (assuming we believe this) which would thus be the impasse our review has also reached, as well as our society. Or at least—because in History there are no impasses—the powerlessness of our thinking—creative or critical—to grasp the exact nature of our society in such a way as to offer or propose to it the progressive theater it needs—or more precisely, that it does not seem to need. To tell the truth, I’m only offering this solution for the record. Because first of all, the feeling that old explanatory patterns are no longer relevant to the world’s situation and we must understand this world in a new way may well be a mistaken feeling, too quickly accepted, lazy, etc.; and second, even if that feeling were justified, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we must abandon this instrument of thought and combat that a review like ours serves as. This solution—along with its alibi—has tempted me a bit, but now that I’ve written the Fashion thing, I’m rethinking it. For me, the full direction of things was precisely to write Fashion and not to lose Théâtre populaire, but for this dialectic not to be rigged, it was necessary, obviousl
The second solution (I am still talking as though there were a crisis) would be—and we have already discussed this—to expand the parameters of Théâtre populaire by making it a review for every kind of spectacle, I do not dare say popular, because that could include the weird or quaint but, let us say, unsophisticated. This, I believe, would be new and well justified; it would allow us to tie the theater to the whole economy of the spectacle in modern society. It would allow us to apply nonculturist, nonaestheticizing criticism to the cinema, and maybe there we could convey in an exciting way what Brecht has taught us. Let me add that, for us, this would be new and consequently fairly dynamic, and then there are all the other kinds of spectacles: music halls, sports. There is meaning to draw from all of that, no one draws it, we would be the first to do so. But this solution, I can see already, is also for the record. Because basically you believe the theater is autonomous and sufficient, and you love it; you will not willingly abandon that “popular aristocracy” that is the basis for Théâtre populaire and Arche, especially in favor of a profile that closely resembles that notion of mass culture you condemn. You’re afraid that expanding the project would not meet with approval in the world as is, and that enlarging the vision would entail a suspension of judgment, as I don’t know which English poet said, quoted by Vinaver.97
And that brings us to the third solution. This would be quite simply to continue, let’s say, with a simple reviving “jolt”: new papers, new contributors (?), or at least newly solicited, and maybe a new editorial committee—not for show, it doesn’t matter what appears on the cover, but so we can have regular meetings to share our thoughts a bit about the theater. We have said this often: we cannot continue in the same fashion. But really, that doesn’t mean we must not continue at all; only to continue with things arranged differently, and without forcing them, they will come around on their own. Because if there is a theatrical void right now, that’s not necessarily a reason to keep quiet. We can try to speak again of Vilar, Planchon, and others.