Page 196

 
Brecht in Asia and Africa 
                                   NOTES 
1. Roland Barthes, "Les tfches de la critique brechtienne", Essais
critiques. Pads, 
    1980, p. 86. 
2. Bertolt Brecht, Gesammelte Werke. Frankfurt, 1967, XVI, 640. Subsequent
    references to GW 
3. Klaus-Detlef Muller, "Der Philosoph auf dem Theater", Brechts
Theorie des 
    Theaters, Frankfurt, 1986, p. 144. 
4. For an authoritative discussion of the question of the classical heritage
in the 
    GDR, see the essays under the rubric of "Die Klassik-Debatte",
in Wer war 
    Brecht? Wandlung und Entwicklung der Ansichten uber Brecht im Spiegel
von 
    Sinn und Form. Ed. Werner Mittenzwei. Berlin, 1977; for a critique of
this 
    essentially Lukdcsian position in the light of the ambivalent value of
the 
    Enlightenment in the historical context of Germany after Nazism, see
Heiner 
    Muller, "Brief', in the same volume. 
5. For a systematic account of Brecht's theoretical debt to Korsch and for
his 
    critique of the objectivist reflection theory of culture promulgated
by Lenin 
    from the point of view of a critical defence of eingreifendes Denken
(grounded 
    in the Theses on Feuerbach) see Heinz Br0ggemann, Literarische Technik
    und soziale Revolution. Rowohlt, 1973, esp. Chs. 5&6. Those who base
a 
    dismissal of Korsch's influence on Brecht on the basis of reading 
    Bruggemann, as does Jan Knopf in his essay on Verfremdung in the volume
    under discussion (pp. 99-101 and notes), might consult Brecht's comments
    on the subject (GW, 20) as well as his letters to Korsch (Alternative,
no. 105, 
    1975). 
6. For a historical analysis of this debate on the relative merits of radical
theatrical 
    innovation and traditional realist forms (which resurfaced very quickly
in the 
    GDR) in its late Weimar context, see Helga Gallas, Marxistische Literaturtheode.
    Darmstadt, 1971. 
7. See Werner Mittenzwei, "Der Realismus-Streit uber Brechr, in Wer
war Brecht?, 
    pp. 7-114. Significantly, Mittenzwei's chief contribution to Brechts
Theorie des 
    Theaters, "Die Spur der Lehrstucktheorie", opens by defending
Brecht's 
    Lehrstuck against the orthodox Marxist-Leninist dismissal, using Rainer
    Steinweg's seminal account of the Lehrstuck as a radical productive departure
    from the theory and practice of theatre for contemplation and consumption
    (which would include some of Brecht's earlier work such as the 
    Dreigroschenoper). What appears as an acknowledgement of the Lehrst0ck's
    actual value beyond the orthodox category of the classical heritage,
however, 
    turns into an attack that shifts the blame for Linksabweichung from Brecht
to 
    those West German critics - Steinweg, Hildegard Brenner and contributors
to 
    Alternative - who endorse the Lehrstuck as a militant separatist practice,
so as 
    to "save" activist material such as Die Mutter as works in
the repertoire of 
    exemplary showpieces and, by separating them from their activist context
- 
    theatre without spectators building active EinverstAndnis - to incorporate
the 
    theory as an endorsement of an aesthetics of essentially passive assent
to 
    these exemplars. 
 8. John Willetrs detailed account of Brecht's long and sometimes circuitous
march 
    in "The Changing Role of Politics," Brecht in Context. London,
1983, pp. 178- 
    201, provides a valuable corrective to Hecht's reading by stressing the
    contradictory character of Brechrs encounter with Marxism and Marxists
while 
    continuing rightly to insist that Brechrs work cannot be fully understood
    outside the context of his commitment. 
9. "Manifest der kommunistischen Partei", Marx, Engels: Werke (hereafter,
MEW). 
    Berlin, 1983, 462-93, esp. 463-68. 
 10. Karl Korsch, Marxism and Philosophy. Leipzig, 1928, p. 49. 
196