The Birth of Modern Theatre in Early Modern France (1630-1730)

该项目的目的是在1630年至1730年的“温柔剧院”框架内，详细阐述家庭喜剧和家庭悲剧两种启发式模式的生产力。本文以高乃依和莫丽唐的戏剧为基础，对家庭喜剧和家庭悲剧进行了典型的分析和概述。他们的生产力首先表现在文学和当前关于家庭、婚姻和家庭的历史研究的联系上，特别是关注这一时期“传统家庭”从封闭到开放的转变，包括家庭父亲的问题化和随后的重新定位。第二个感兴趣的领域是两种模式相互竞争的生产力，例如，1640年左右皮埃尔·高奈依和乔治·德·斯库德萨梅之间的家庭和婚姻悲剧的紧张关系，以及通过转型和/或内部分化对改变的社会文化条件作出反射性反应的机会，例如，家庭喜剧在经济管理和家庭政治问题上的分裂（Dancourt, Dufresny, Regnard； 1700年左右）。生产力的第三个方面是戏剧的国际性——在理论形成层面和戏剧实践层面——超越互文性的边界。这些参考都是在文化转移的范围内提出的，而文化转移（根据彼得·伯克的说法）构成了自己的文化模式的基础。第四，以家庭悲剧和家庭喜剧为基础，考察了自18世纪中期以来性话语化之前，性的部署对联盟部署的叠加作用，这方面的研究迄今为止只做了初步的研究。我们的假设是，温柔，“la tendresse”，形成了一个概念，允许在不超越“biens<s:1>”限制的情况下表演爱和性的问题，因为这个词的多义地位允许整合相反的概念，如性诱惑，神圣的爱或父爱。因此，这一概念的不同阶段能够重建历史上不同的温柔范式，即1640年左右温柔的父爱，两性之间温柔的友谊，凡尔赛总理的殷勤理想或1700年左右已婚夫妇之间的温柔之爱。

The aim of this project is to elaborate the productivity of the two heuristic models of house comedy and family tragedy within the framework of the 'theatre of tenderness' between 1630 and 1730. Both, house comedy and family tragedy, are exemplarily analysed and outlined on the basis of the dramas of Corneille and Molière. Their productivity is firstly characterized by the connection of literary and current historical research on family, marriage and household, especially focussing on the transformation of the 'traditional household' from closed to open during this period, including the problematisation and following repositioning of the housefather. A second area of interest is the productivity of the two models competing with others, e.g. the tense relationship of family and marriage tragedy between Pierre Corneille and Georges de Scudéry around 1640, but also the opportunity to react reflexively on altered sociocultural conditions by means of transformation and/or internal differentiation, e.g. split of the house comedy in problematisations of economical housekeeping and family politics (Dancourt, Dufresny, Regnard; around 1700). A third aspect of the productivity is the theater's international character - on a theory formation level as well as in theatre practice - beyond the borders of intertextuality. These references are made within the scope of cultural transfers which (according to Peter Burke) form the basis of the fabrication of own cultural models. Fourthly the superposition of the deployment of alliance by the deployment of sexuality before the discursivization of sexuality from the middle of the 18th century on is examined based on family tragedy and house comedy, where research has been done only rudimentarily so far. Our hypothesis is that tenderness, 'la tendresse', forms a concept that permits to act out questions of love and sexuality without transgressing the limits of the ‘bienséance’ due to the polysemantic status of the term which allows to integrate opposite concepts like sexual seduction, divine love or paternal love. Thus, the varying stagings of this concept enable to reconstruct the historically different paradigms of tenderness, i.e. tender paternal love around 1640, tender friendship between the sexes, ideal of gallantry of the Premier Versailles or tender love between the married couple around 1700.