Book contents
- Brecht and Tragedy
- Classics After Antiquity
- Brecht and Tragedy
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgements
- A Note on Texts and Translations
- Introduction: Radicalism, Traditionalism, Eristics
- Part I Point of Contact 1948
- Part II Positionings
- Part III Comparatist Explorations
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2021
Book contents
- Brecht and Tragedy
- Classics After Antiquity
- Brecht and Tragedy
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgements
- A Note on Texts and Translations
- Introduction: Radicalism, Traditionalism, Eristics
- Part I Point of Contact 1948
- Part II Positionings
- Part III Comparatist Explorations
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Brecht and TragedyRadicalism, Traditionalism, Eristics, pp. 453 - 470Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Allana, A. 2018. ‘Released into the Future: (Re)Claiming Brecht in India’. The Brecht Yearbook 42: 120–35.Google Scholar
Augst, T. 2012. Tragic Effects: Ethics and Tragedy in the Age of Translation. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Bagordo, A. 1998. Die antiken Traktate über das Drama (mit einer Sammlung der Fragmente). Stuttgart/Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2018. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barker, E. 2009. Entering the Agon: Dissent and Authority in Homer, Historiography and Tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, D. 2013. ‘Brecht as Great Shakespearean: A Lifelong Connection’, in Great Shakespeareans, ed. by Morse, R., vol. 14 (Hugo, Pasternak, Brecht, Césaire), 113–54. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Barnett, D. 2015. A History of the Berliner Ensemble. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, D. 2016. ‘The Rise and Fall of Modelbooks, Notate and the Brechtian Method: Documentation and the Berliner Ensemble’s Changing Roles as a Theatre Company’. Theatre Research International 41: 106–21.Google Scholar
Barnett, D. 2019. ‘Brecht as Corrector: Directing Away from Conventional Theatre’, in The Great European Stage Directors, ed. by Barnett, D., vol. 2 (Meyherhold, Piscator, Brecht), 133–56. London:Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Bate, J. 2019. How the Classics Made Shakespeare. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baur, D. 1999. Der Chor im Theater des 20. Jahrhunderts. Typologie des theatralen Mittels Chor. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Beiser, F. 2005. Schiller as Philosopher: A Re-Examination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berendse, S., and Clements, P., eds. 2014. Brecht, Music and Culture: Hanns Eisler in Conversation with Hans Bunge. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Berman, A. 1992. The Experience of the Foreign: Culture and Translation in Romantic Germany. Albany: State University of New York Press (Translation of A. Berman, L’épreuve de l’etranger. Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1984).Google Scholar
Berman, A. 2012. ‘Translation and the Trials of the Foreign’, in The Translation Studies Reader, 3rd ed., ed. by Venuti, L, 240–52. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
BFA: Bertolt Brecht, Große kommentierte Berliner und Frankfurter Ausgabe, ed. by Hecht, W., Knopf, J., Mittenzwei, W. and Müller, K.-D., 30 vols. (+ index volume), 1988–2000. Berlin/Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Billings, J. 2014. Genealogy of the Tragic: Greek Tragedy and German Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Billings, J., Budelmann, F. and Macintosh, F., eds. 2013. Choruses Ancient and Modern. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Billings, J., and Leonard, M., eds. 2015. Tragedy and the Idea of Modernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bradley, L. 2006. Brecht and Political Theatre: The Mother on Stage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breloer, H., director, 2019. Brecht: Seine Produktion. Seine Lieben. Die Politik. Das ganze Leben. Performances by Tom Schilling, Burghart Klaussner and Adele Neuhauser. Das Erste. Bavaria Fiction: Munich.Google Scholar
Brockmann, S. ed. 2021. Bertolt Brecht in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brodersen, M. 2012. Klassenbild mit Walter Benjamin: eine Spurensuche. Munich: Siedler.Google Scholar
Brown, S. 2001. Theatricalities of Power: The Cultural Politics of Noh. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bunge, H. 1985. Brechts Lui-Ta. Erinnerungen und Notate von Ruth Berlau. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Luchterhand (English translation by G. Skelton, Living for Brecht: The Memoirs of Ruth Berlau. New York: Fromm, 1987).Google Scholar
Burkert, W. 1991. ‘Oedipus, Oracles, and Meaning. From Sophocles to Umberto Eco.’ Stubbs Lecture (University of Toronto). (Also in Burkert, W, Kleine Schriften vol. VII (Tragica et Historica), ed. by Rösler, W., 53–72. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2007.)Google Scholar
Cairns, D. 2017. ‘The Destruction of Thebes in Brecht’s Antigone (1948)’, in Aeschylus and War: Comparative Perspectives on Seven Against Thebes, ed. by Torrance, I., 186–201. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Calder, W., Flashar, H and Lindken, T eds. 1985. Wilamowitz nach 50 Jahren. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Carney, S. 2005. Brecht and Critical Theory. Dialectics and Contemporary Aesthetics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carson, A. 2012. Antigonick (Sophocles). Translated by Anne Carson, illustrated by Bianca Stone, design by Robert Currie. New York: New Directions.Google Scholar
Cartmell, D., and Whelehan, I., eds. 1999. Adaptations: From Text to Screen, Screen to Text. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Castellari, M. 2018. Hölderlin und das Theater. Produktion – Rezeption – Transformation. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collard, C., and Cropp, M. 2008. Euripides vol. VII, Fragments: Aegeus–Meleager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Constantine, D. 2003. ‘The Antigone of Sophocles’, in Brecht: Collected Plays vol. 8 (The Antigone of Sophocles, The Days of the Commune, Turandot or the Whitewashers’ Congress), ed. by Kuhn, T. and Constantine, D., 1–51. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Csapo, E. 2010. Actors and Icons of the Ancient Theater. Oxford/Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Csapo, E., and Slater, W. 1995. The Context of Ancient Drama. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Csapo, E., and Wilson, P. 2020–. A Social and Economic History of the Theatre to 300 BC. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curjel, H. 1961. ‘Brechts Antigone-Inszenierung in Chur 1948’, in Brechts Antigone des Sophokles, ed. by Hecht, W., 187–93. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988.Google Scholar
Curran, A. 2001. ‘Brecht’s Criticisms of Aristotle’s Aesthetics of Tragedy’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59: 167–84.Google Scholar
Deathridge, J. 2008. Wagner: Beyond Good and Evil. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Destrée, P., Heath, M. and Munteanu, D., eds. 2020. The Poetics in its Aristotelian Context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Doering, S. 2010/11. ‘Vom Mythos zum Modell: Brecht’s “Die Antigone des Sophockles. Nach der Hölderlinschen Übertragung für die Bühne bearbeitet”’. Hölderlin-Jahrbuch 37: 141–69.Google Scholar
Drozd, D., Kačer, T. and Sparlings, D., eds. 2016. Theatre Theory Reader. Prague School Writings. Prague: Charles University Karolinum Press.Google Scholar
Duarte, B. 2017. ‘Rhythm and Structure: Brecht’s Antigone in Performance’. Performance Philosophy 2 (online publication).Google Scholar
Eagleton, T. 2003. Sweet Violence: The Idea of the Tragic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Easterling, P., and Hall, E., eds. 2002. Greek and Roman Actors. Aspects of an Ancient Profession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erken, G. 1978. ‘Shakespearekritik und Rezeption Shakespeares in der Literatur: Deutschland’, in Shakespeare-Handbuch, ed. by Schabert, I., 717–35. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
Fahey, M. 2011. Metaphor and Shakespearean Drama. Unchaste Signification. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Felski, R., ed. 2008. Rethinking Tragedy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finglass, P. 2018. Sophocles: Oedipus the King. Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fish, S. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer-Lichte, E. 2017. Tragedy’s Endurance. Performances of Greek Tragedies and Cultural Identity in Germany since 1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer-Lichte, E. and Wihstutz, B., eds. 2018. Transformative Aesthetics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flashar, H. 1974. ‘Aristoteles und Brecht’. Poetica 6: 17–37 (also in Eidola: Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften, ed. by M. Kraus. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner, 1989, 179–99).Google Scholar
Flashar, H. 2009. Inszenierung der Antike. Das griechische Drama auf der Bühne. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Flügge, M. 1982. Verweigerung oder Neue Ordnung. Jean Anouilh’s ‘Antigone’ im politischen und ideologischen Kontext der Besatzungszeit 1940–1944, 2 vols. Rheinfelden: Schäuble.Google Scholar
Foley, H. 2008. ‘Generic Boundaries in Late Fifth-Century Athens’, in Performance, Reception, Iconography. Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin, ed. by Revermann, M and Wilson, P, 15–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, H. 2012. Reimagining Greek Tragedy on the American Stage. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ford, A. 2004. ‘Catharsis: The Power of Music in Aristotle’s Politics’, in Music and the Muses. The Culture of Mousike in the Classical Athenian City, ed. by Murray, P and Wilson, P, 309–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frick, W. 1998. Die mythische Methode. Komparatistische Studien zur Transformation der griechischen Tragödie im Drama der klassischen Moderne. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Friedrich, R. 1983. ‘Drama and Ritual’, in Drama and Religion (Themes in Drama vol. 5), ed. by Redmond, J., 159–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedrich, R. 1985. ‘Noh-Play, Lehrstück, and Ritual’, in Proceedings of the Xth Congress of the International Comparative Literature Association, New York 1982, vol. 2., ed. by Guillèn, C., 29–39. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Friedrich, R. 1990. ‘The Deconstructed Self in Artaud and Brecht: Negation of Subject and Antiauthoritarianism’. Forum for Modern Language Studies 26: 282–97.Google Scholar
Friedrich, R. 1999. ‘Brecht and Postmodernism’. Philosophy and Literature 23: 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuegi, J. 1994. Brecht and Company. Sex, Politics, and the Making of Modern Drama. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Gagné, R. 2019. ‘Introduction: Regimes of Comparatism’, in Regimes of Comparatism: Frameworks of Comparison in History, Religion and Anthropology, ed. by Gagné, R., Goldhill, S. and Lloyd, G.E.R., 1–17. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Gagné, R., and Govers Hopman, M., eds. 2013. Choral Mediations in Greek Tragedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geck, M. 2013. Richard Wagner: A Life in Music (English translation of Geck 2012). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gier, H., and Hillesheim, J., eds. 2014. Und dort im Lichte steht Bert Brecht: Rein. Sachlich. Böse. Die Schätze der Brechtsammlung der Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg. Augsburg: Wißner.Google Scholar
Giles, S. 2018. ‘Recycling Brecht: The Contemporary Reception of Aufstieg und Fall der Stadt Mahagonny’. The Brecht Yearbook 42: 34–48.Google Scholar
Giles, S., and Parker, S. 2016. ‘Introduction: Rethinking Brecht’. German Life and Letters 69: 143–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gildenhard, I., and Revermann, M., eds. 2010. Beyond the Fifth Century: Interactions with Greek Tragedy from the Fourth Century BCE to the Middle Ages. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gildenhard, I. and Ruehl, M., eds. 2003. Out of Arcadia. Classics and Politics in the Age of Burckhardt, Nietzsche and Wilamowitz. London: Institute of Classical Studies.Google Scholar
Goldhill, S. 2012. Sophocles and the Language of Tragedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Golz, A. and Golz, J. 1991. ‘“Ernst ist das Leben, heiter sey die Kunst”: Goethe als Redakteur des “Wallenstein”-Prologs’, in Im Vorfeld der Literatur. Vom Wert archivalischer Überlieferung für das Verständnis von Literatur und ihrer Geschichte, ed. by Hahn, K. H., 17–29. Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Gould, J. 1996. ‘Collectivity and Otherness – The Authority of the Tragic Chorus’, in Tragedy and the Tragic, ed. by Silk, M., 217–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grey, T. ed. 2008. The Cambridge Companion to Wagner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Griffith, M. 1995. ‘Brilliant Dynasts: Power and Politics in the “Oresteia”’. Classical Antiquity 14: 62–129.Google Scholar
Griffith, M. 2008. ‘Greek Middlebrow Drama (Something to do with Aphrodite?)’, in Performance, Reception, Iconography. Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin, ed. by Revermann, M and Wilson, P, 59–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Griffith, M. 2015. Greek Satyr Play: Five Studies. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Grimm, R. 1979. Brecht und Nietzsche oder Geständnisse eines Dichters. Fünf Essays und ein Bruchstück. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hahnemann, C. 2019. ‘Broken Sisterhood: The Relationship between Antigone and Ismene in Sophocles’ Antigone’. Scripta Classica Israelica 38: 1–16.Google Scholar
Hall, E. 2007. ‘Greek Tragedy 430–380 BCE’, in Debating the Athenian Cultural Revolution, ed. by Osborne, R., 264–287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, E. 2018. ‘Aristotle’s Theory of Katharsis in its Historical and Social Contexts’, in Transformative Aesthetics., ed. by Fischer-Lichte, E and Wihstutz, B. 2018: 25–47. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hall, E. and Macintosh, F 2005. Greek Tragedy and the British Theatre 1660–1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, E., Macintosh, F. and Wrigley, A., eds. 2004. Dionysus since 69. Greek Tragedy at the Dawn of the Third Millennium. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 1993. ‘The Function and Aesthetics of the Greek Tragic Mask’, in Intertextualität in der griechisch-römischen Komödie, ed. by Slater, N. and Zimmermann, B., 195–211. Stuttgart: M&P Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 1995. Aristotle Poetics (Loeb Classical Library vol. 199). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Halliwell, S. 2002. The Aesthetics of Mimesis. Ancient Texts and Modern Problems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hardwick, L. 2003. Reception Studies (Greece&Rome New Surveys in the Classics vol. 33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hartinger, C. 2001. ‘Lehrgedicht’, in Brecht Handbuch vol. 2 (Gedichte), ed. by Knopf, J., 397–404. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar
Hartl, A. 2018a. ‘Recycling Brecht in Britain: David Greig’s The Events as Post-Brechtian Lehrstück.’ The Brecht Yearbook 42: 152–69.Google Scholar
Hartl, A. 2018b. ‘Agreement and Disagreement: The Decision at Augsburg’s Brecht Festival 2017. Review of The Decision, by Bertolt Brecht, dir. Selçuk Cara. ecibs: Communications of the International Brecht Society 1 (2018).Google Scholar
Heath, M. 2009. ‘Should There Have Been a Polis in Aristotle’s Poetics?’. Classical Quarterly 59: 468–85.Google Scholar
Hecht, W., ed. 1966. Materialien zu Brechts ‘Der Kaukasische Kreidekreis’. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Heilmann, M. 2005. Leopold Jessner – Intendant der Republik. Der Weg eines deutsch-jüdischen Regisseurs aus Ostpreussen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hennenberg, F., and Knopf, J., eds. 2006. Brecht/Weill “Mahagonny”. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hillesheim, J. 2000. Augsburger Brecht-Lexikon: Personen, Institutionen, Schauplätze. Würzburg: Königshausen&Neumann.Google Scholar
Hillesheim, J. 2010. ‘Die engen Grenzen “Großer Produktion”. Unveröffentlichte Biefe Ruth Berlaus an Bertolt Becht aus den Jahren 1955–56.’ The Brecht Yearbook 35: 277–89.Google Scholar
Hillesheim, J. 2011. “Instinktiv lasse ich hier Abstände …” Bertolt Brechts vormarxistisches Episches Theater. Würzburg: Königshausen&Neumann.Google Scholar
Hillesheim, J. 2013. Bertolt Brechts Hauspostille. Einführung und Analysen sämtlicher Gedichte. Würzburg: Königshausen&Neumann.Google Scholar
Hillesheim, J. ed. 2018. Bertolt Brecht: Zwischen Tradition und Moderne. Würzburg: Königshausen&Neumann.Google Scholar
Hillesheim, J. 2019. Zwischen Affirmation und Verweigerung. Bertolt Brecht und die Revolution. Würzburg: Königshausen&Neumann.Google Scholar
Hinton, S. ed. 1990. Kurt Weill: The Threepenny Opera (Cambridge Opera Handbooks). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinton, S. 2012. Weill’s Musical Theatre. Stages of Reform. Berkeley/LA/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hinton, S. and Harsh, E., eds. 2000. Kurt Weill: Die Dreigroschenoper (The Kurt Weill Edition, series I, vol. 5). New York: Kurt Weill Foundation for Music.Google Scholar
Hippe, C., ed. 2011. Bild und Bildkünste bei Brecht [Brecht-Tage 2010]. Berlin: Matthes&Seitz.Google Scholar
Hölscher, U. 1965. Die Chance des Unbehagens. Drei Essais zur Situation der klassischen Studien. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Hof, G. 1981. ‘Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder’ von Bertolt Brecht: Eine Dokumentation der Aufführung des Berliner Ensembles 1978. Berlin: Brecht-Zentrum der DDR.Google Scholar
Hohenwallner, I. 2004. Antikenrezeption in den Gedichten Bertolt Brechts. Paderborn: Bibliopolis.Google Scholar
Hurley, D. 1990. ‘Alfred Gudeman, Atlanta, Georgia 1862 – Theresienstadt 1942’. Transactions of the American Philological Association 120: 355–81.Google Scholar
Jardine, S., and Silverthorne, M. 2000. Francis Bacon: The New Organum (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jestrovic, S. 2006. Theatre of Estrangement: Theatre, Practice, Ideology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Joost, J. 2003. ‘Antigonemodell 1948’, in Brecht Handbuch. Band 4 (Schriften, Journale, Briefe), ed. by Knopf, J, 330–42. Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar
Jovanovic, N. 2017. Brechtian Cinemas. Montage and Theatricality in Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, Peter Watkins, and Lars von Trier. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Kebir, S. 1997. Ich fragte nicht nach meinem Anteil. Elisabeth Hauptmanns Arbeit mit Bertolt Brecht. Berlin: Aufbau.Google Scholar
Kebir, S. 2006. Mein Herz liegt neben der Schreibmaschine. Ruth Berlaus Leben vor, mit und nach Bertolt Brecht. Algier: Editions Lalla Moulati.Google Scholar
Kebir, S. ed. 2008. “Ich wohne fast so hoch wie er”: Margarete Steffin und Bertolt Brecht. Berlin: Theater der Zeit.Google Scholar
Kebir, S. 2010. ‘Brecht und Berlau im historischen Wandel ethischer Normen’. The Brecht Yearbook 35: 89–110.Google Scholar
Kelly, E. 2014. Composing the Canon in the German Democratic Republic: Narratives of Nineteenth-Century Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kershaw, I. 2011. The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler’s Germany, 1944–45. New York: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Kirchmeier, C. 2019. ‘“ … und alle Fragen offen”: Über den Epilog des Guten Menschen von Sezuan und Bertolt Brechts Poetik der Unterbrechung’. The Brecht Yearbook 44: 84–100.Google Scholar
Knopf, J. 2003. Brecht Handbuch. Band 4 (Schriften, Journale, Briefe). Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar
Knopf, J. 2012. Bertolt Brecht. Lebenskunst in finsteren Zeiten: Biografie. Munich: Hanser.Google Scholar
Kölbel, M./Villwock, P. 2014. Bertolt Brecht: Notizbücher 4–8 (1920). Berlin: Suhrkamp (also available online under www.brecht-notizbuecher.de/reproduktionen/).Google Scholar
Konstan, D. 1995. Greek Comedy and Ideology. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koopmann, H., ed. 1999. Brechts Lyrik – neue Deutungen. Würzburg: Königshausen&Neumann.Google Scholar
Kotlińska-Toma, A. 2015. Hellenistic Tragedy: Texts, Translations and a Critical Survey. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kreuzer, J., ed. 2002. Hölderlin Handbuch: Leben-Werk-Wirkung. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar
Kröplin, E. 2006. ‘Aufhaltsame Ankunft und ahnungsvoller Abschied: der Ring in der DDR’. wagnerspectrum 1: 63–110.Google Scholar
Kruger, L. 2004. Post-Imperial Brecht: Politics and Performance, East and South. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 2006. “Was besagt eine Fotografie?’ Early Brechtian Perspectives on Photography”. The Brecht Yearbook 31: 276–94.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T., and Constantine, D. 2003. Brecht: Collected Plays vol. 8 (The Antigone of Sophocles, The Days of the Commune, Turandot or the Whitewashers’ Congress). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T., and Constantine, D. 2019. The Collected Poems of Bertolt Brecht. New York/London: Norton.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T., Giles, S. and Silberman, M., eds. 2015. Brecht on Performance. Messingkauf and Modelbooks. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. and Ryland, C., eds. 2019. Brecht and the Writer’s Workshop. Fatzer and Other Dramatic Projects. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kruger, L. 2007. Post-Imperial Brecht: Politics and Performance, East and South. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lada-Richards, I. 1993. ‘“Empathetic Understanding”: Emotion and Cognition in Classical Dramatic Audience Response’. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 39: 94–140.Google Scholar
Lada-Richards, I. 1996. ‘Emotion and Meaning on the Athenian Tragic Stage’, in Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond, ed. by Silk, M, 397–413. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lada-Richards, I. 1999. Initiating Dionysus. Ritual and Theatre in Aristophanes’ Frogs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lausberg, M. 1999. ‘Brechts Lyrik und die Antike’, in Brechts Lyrik – neue Deutungen, ed. by Koopmann, H, 163–98. Würzburg: Königshausen&Neumann.Google Scholar
Lecznar, A. 2020. Dionysus after Nietzsche: The Birth of Tragedy in Twentieth-Century Literature and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, H.-T. 1999. Postdramatisches Theater. Frankfurt: Verlag der Autoren (English translation Postdramatic Theatre, tr. by K. Jürs-Mund. London: Routledge, 2006).Google Scholar
Lehmann, H.-T. 2013. Tragödie und dramatisches Theater. Berlin: Alexander (English translation: Tragedy and Dramatic Theatre, tr. by Erik Butler. London: Routledge, 2016).Google Scholar
Lehmann, H.-T. 2018. ‘Brecht Translating/Translating Brecht’. The Brecht Yearbook 42: 1–18.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. 1985. ‘The Measure of Translation Effects’, in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. by Venuti, L, 220–39. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2012.Google Scholar
Liapis, V. 2021. ‘Adaptation and the Transtextual Palimpsest: Anne Carson’s Antigonick as a Textual/Visual Hybrid’, in Adapting Greek Tragedy: Contemporary Contexts for Ancient Texts, ed. by Liapis, V, 355–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. 2015. Analogical Investigations. Historical and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Human Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Jones, H., and Wilson, N. 1990. Sophoclis fabulae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Looser, T. 2008. Visioning Eternity: Aesthetics, Politics and History in Early Modern Noh Theatre. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lurje, M. 2004. Die Suche nach der Schuld. Sophokles’ Oedipus Rex, Aristoteles’ Poetik und das Tragödienverständnis der Neuzeit. Munich: Saur.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. 2007. Becoming Shakespeare. The Unlikely Afterlife that Turned a Provincial Playwright into the Bard. New York: Walker.Google Scholar
Macintosh, F. 2009. Sophocles: Oedipus Tyrannus (Plays in Production Series). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mann, T. 1945: 2009. ‘Brief nach Deutschland. Warum ich nicht nach Deutschland zurückgehe’, in Thomas Mann. Große Kommentierte Frankfurter Ausgabe, ed. by Lehnert, H., vol. 19.1: 72–82 [text] and 19.2: 64–96 [commentary]. Frankfurt: Fischer, 2009.Google Scholar
Martin, R., and Centola, S., eds. 1996. The Theatre Essays of Arthur Miller. 2nd revised and expanded edition. New York: Da Capo.Google Scholar
Marx, P. ed. 2017. A Cultural History of Theatre in the Age of Empire. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Mastronarde, D. 2010. The Art of Euripides. Dramatic Form and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, H. 1961: 1996. ‘Brecht und die Tradition’, in Mayer, H, Brecht, 97–241.Frankfurt: SuhrkampGoogle Scholar
Mayer, H. 1971: 1996. ‘Brecht in der Geschichte’, in Mayer, H, Brecht, 242–307. Frankfurt:SuhrkampGoogle Scholar
Meerzon, Y. 2005. The Path of a Character. Michael Chekhov’s Inspired Acting and Theatre Semiotics. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Meier, A. 2004. Friedrich Schiller. Sämtliche Werke in fünf Bänden. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
Melas, N. 2007. All the Difference in the World: Postcoloniality and the Ends of Comparison. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, G. 2005. ‘Berlau fotografiert bei Brecht – eine Zusammenarbeit (mehr oder weniger)’. The Brecht Yearbook 30: 183–201.Google Scholar
Meyer, R., and Schmalfuss, S., eds., 2009. Chink Okichi/Die Judith von Shimoda: Text, Materialien und Kommentar. Regensburg: Selbstverlag des Studententheaters.Google Scholar
Michael, N. 1987. ‘The Affinities of Adaptation: The Artistic Relationship between Brecht’s Coriolan and Shakespeare’s Coriolanus’. The Brecht Yearbook 13: 143–54.Google Scholar
Mittenzwei, W. 1986. Das Leben des Bertolt Brecht oder Der Umgang mit den Welträtseln. 2 vols. Berlin/Frankfurt: Aufbau/Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Most, G. 2000. ‘Generating Genres: The Idea of the Tragic’, in Matrices of Genres: Authors, Canons, and Society, ed. by Depew, M. and Obbink, D., 15–35. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, K. D. 1990. ‘Brechts Theatermodelle. Historische Begründung und Konzept’, in Bertolt Brecht. Actes de colloque franco-allemand tenu en Sorbonne (15–19 novembre 1988), ed. by Valentin, J.M., 315–32. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Müller-Schöll, N. 2018. ‘The Castrated Schoolmaster. Brecht, The Tutor, and Lenz’. The Brecht Yearbook 42: 67–84.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. 1995. ‘Brecht Studies Stanislavski: Just a Tactical Move?’ New Theatre Quarterly 43: 241–58.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. 2001. ‘Gestic Masks in Brecht’s Theatre: A Testimony to the Contradictions and Parameters of a Realist Aesthetic’. The Brecht Yearbook 26: 143–71.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. 2019. ‘Brecht’s Perspectives, Then and Now: Class, Gender and the Social Stakes of Performance’, in The Great European Stage Directors (vol. 2: Meyerhold, Piscator, Brecht), ed. by Barnett, D., 157–81. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Munday, J. 2016. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. R. 1980. Brecht and the Bible. A Study in Religious Nihilism and Human Weakness in Brecht’s Drama of Morality and the City. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Murray, P. and Wilson, P., eds. 2004. Music and the Muses. The Culture of Mousike in the Classical Athenian City. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neureuter, H. P. 2004. ‘Die kleinen Alten: ein Gedicht von Baudelaire im Gespräch zwischen Benjamin und Brecht.’ Saxa (Beiträge zur Translationswissenschaft) 1: 5–26.Google Scholar
Neureuter, H. P. ed. 2006. Bertolt Brecht: Die Judith von Shimoda. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Nünlist, R. 1996/7. ‘Der Theaterkarren des Thespis: eine poetologische Metapher’. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 21: 259–71.Google Scholar
O’Neill, P. 1958. Early Nô Drama: Its Background, Character and Development 1300–1450. London: Lund Humphries.Google Scholar
Oesmann, A. 2014. ‘Tragedy out of Joint: Bertolt Brecht’s and Heiner Müller’s Interaction with a Genre.’ The Brecht Yearbook 39: 169–84.Google Scholar
Oesmann, A. 2018. ‘Inherent Estrangement: Brecht’s Reading of Shakespeare’s Tragedies.’ The Brecht Yearbook 42: 20–32.Google Scholar
Olsson, J. 1981. Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Ossa-Richardson, A. 2019. A History of Ambiguity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
de Ponte, S. 2006 Caspar Neher, Bertolt Brecht: eine Bühne für das epische Theater. Leipzig: Henschel.Google Scholar
Parker, S. 2018. ‘“Erinnert ihr euch der peinlichen Schädel des Sokrates und Verlaine?” Bertolt Brechts Baal als Satyrspiel,’ in Bertolt Brecht: Zwischen Tradition und Moderne, ed. by Hillesheim, J, 111–28. Würzburg: Königshausen&Neumann.Google Scholar
Parker, S. and Philpotts, M., eds. 2009. Sinn und Form: The Anatomy of a Literary Journal. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Peters, J. 2012. Peter Hagendorf – Tagebuch eines Söldners aus dem Dreissigjährigen Krieg. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Pfister, M. 1988. Theory and Analysis of Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prateek, P. 2020. Brecht in India: The Poetics and Politics of Transcultural Theatre. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quinn, M. 1989. ‘The Prague School Concept of the Stage Figure’, in The Semiotic Bridge: Trends from California, ed. by Rauch, I. and Carr, G., 75–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quinn, M. 1990. ‘Celebrity and the Semiotics of Acting’. New Theatre Quarterly 22: 154–61.Google Scholar
Rapp, C. 2011. ‘Katharsis’, in Aristoteles-Handbuch. Leben – Werk – Wirkung, ed. by Rapp, C. and Corcilius, K., 251–5. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar
Reiber, H. 2008. Grüss den Brecht. Das Leben der Margarete Steffin. Berlin: Eulenspiegel.Google Scholar
Reich-Ranicki, M. 2001. The Author of Himself. The Life of Marcel Reich-Ranicki (tr. by E. Osers). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rexroth, T., ed. 1991. Walter Benjamin: Gesammelte Schriften, vol. IV 1. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2006a. Comic Business. Theatricality, Dramatic Technique and Performance Contexts of Aristophanic Comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2006b. ‘The Competence of Theatre Audiences in 5th- and 4th-Century Athens’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 126: 99–124.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2008a. ‘The Appeal of Dystopia: Latching onto Greek Drama in the Twentieth Century’. Arion 16: 97–117.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2008b. ‘Aeschylus’ Eumenides, Chronotopes, and the “Aetiological Mode”’, in Performance, Reception, Iconography. Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin, ed. by Revermann, M and Wilson, P, 237–61. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Revermann, M. 2008c. ‘Reception Studies of Greek Drama’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 128: 175–8.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2011. ‘Brecht’s Asia vs. Brecht’s Greece: Cultural Constructs and the Explanatory Power of a Binary’. The Brecht Yearbook 36: 277–90.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2013. ‘Brechtian Chorality’, in Choruses, Ancient&Modern, ed. by Billings, J., Budelmann, F. and Macintosh, F., 151–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. ed. 2014. The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2016. ‘Brecht and Greek Tragedy: Re-thinking the Dialectics of Utilizing the Tradition of Theatre’. German Life and Letters 69: 215–34.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2017a. ‘Interpretations: The Stage and Its Interpretive Communities’, in A Cultural History of Tragedy. Vol. 1: Antiquity, ed. by Revermann, M, 103–19. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2017b. ‘Institutional Frameworks: Enabling the Theatrical Event’, in A Cultural History of Tragedy. Vol. 1: Antiquity, ed. by Revermann, M, 17–33. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. ed. 2017c. A Cultural History of Tragedy. Vol. 1: Antiquity. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2018. ‘Bert’s Bard: (Re)Assessing Brecht’s Translation of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus’. The Brecht Yearbook 43: 210–29.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2019a. ‘Beckett and the Theatrical Sign: The Need for Semiotics’, in Semiotics in Action, ed. by Revermann, M, 9–22. Brno: Masaryk University Press.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. 2021. ‘Women as Strangers in Brecht’s Early Poetry/Frauen als Fremde in der frühen Dichtung Brechts’. The Brecht Yearbook 46: 164–81.Google Scholar
Revermann, M. and Wilson, P., eds. 2008. Performance, Reception, Iconography. Studies in Honour of Oliver Taplin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richlin, A. 2017. Slave Theater in the Roman Republic: Plautus and Popular Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Riley, J. 1997. Chinese Theatre and the Actor in Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. 1998. August Strindberg: Miss Julie and Other Plays (Oxford World’s Classics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rogowski, C. 2004. ‘Schattenboxen: Zum Warencharakter von Geschlecht und “Rasse” in Aufstieg und Fall der Stadt Mahagonny’. The Brecht Yearbook 29: 334–340.Google Scholar
Roselli, D. 2007. ‘Gender, Class and Ideology: The Social Function of Virgin Sacrifice in Euripides’ Children of Heracles’. Classical Antiquity 26: 81–169.Google Scholar
Roselli, D. 2011. Theater of the People. Spectators and Society in Ancient Athens. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Roselli, D. 2017. ‘The Theater of Euripides’, in A Companion to Euripides, ed. by McClure, Laura K., 390–411. Oxford/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rosen, R. 2014. ‘The Greek “Comic Hero”’, in The Cambridge Companion to Greek Comedy, ed. by Revermann, M, 222–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rülicke-Weiler, K. 1993. ‘Arbeit im Kollektiv. Anfänge des Berliner Ensembles’, in Peter Palitzsch, ed. by Mennicken, R., 57–61. Frankfurt: Fischer.Google Scholar
Rutherford, R. 2012. Greek Tragic Style: Form, Language, Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salz, J. ed. 2016. A History of Japanese Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sattler, D. 1988. Hölderlin: Sophokles (= vol. 16 of the ‘Frankfurt Edition’). Frankfurt: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
Savage, R. 2008. Hölderlin after the Catastrophe: Heidegger – Adorno – Brecht. Rochester, NY: Camden House.Google Scholar
Schadewaldt, W. 1957. ‘Hölderlins Übersetzung des Sophokles’, in Hellas und Hesperien. Zürich: Artemis, 1970, 275–332. Partial English translation: ‘Hölderlin’s Translations’, in Sophocles: The Classical Heritage, ed. by R. Dawe, 1996, 101–10. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. 1994. Hölderlin: Hyperion, Empedokles, Aufsätze, Übersetzungen. Frankfurt: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J. 2012. Kommentar zu Nietzsches Die Geburt der Tragödie. (= Historischer und kritischer Kommentar zu Friedrich Nietzsches Werken, Band 1/1). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmidt, C. 2010. Tragödie als Bühnenform: Einar Schleefs Chor-Theater. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
Schumacher, C., ed. 1996. Naturalism and Symbolism in European Theatre 1850–1918 (Theatre in Europe: A Documentary History). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silberman, M. 2012. ‘Bertolt Brecht, Politics, and Comedy’. Social Research 79: 169–88.Google Scholar
Silberman, M., Giles, S. and Kuhn, T., eds. 2015. Brecht on Theatre, 3rd ed. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Silk, M. ed. 1996. Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silk, M 2001. ‘Aristotle, Rapin, Brecht’, in Making Sense of Aristotle. Essays in Poetics, ed. by Andersen, Ø and Haarberg, J., 173–95. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Silk, M., and Stern, J. 1981. Nietzsche on Tragedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, R. 1999. ‘Zur poetischen Anthropologie der Komödie in Brechts Messingkauf’. The Brecht Yearbook 24: 276–90.Google Scholar
Smethurst, M. 1989. The Artistry of Aeschylus and Zeami: A Comparative Study of Greek Tragedy and Nô. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sommerstein, A., Fitzpatrick, D. and Talboy, T., eds. 2006. Sophocles: Selected Fragmentary Plays, vol. 1. Warminster: Aris&Phillips.Google Scholar
Speirs, R. 1977. ‘A Note on the First Published Version of Die Dreigroschenoper and its Relation to the Standard Text’. Forum for Language Studies 13: 25–32.Google Scholar
Steiner, G. 1975. After Babel. Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, G. 1996. ‘Tragedy, Pure and Simple’, in Tragedy and the Tragic: Greek Theatre and Beyond, ed. by Silk, M, 534–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steinweg, R. 1971. ‘Brechts Die Maßnahme – Übungstext, nicht Tragödie.’ Alternative 78/79: 133–43.Google Scholar
Steinweg, R. 1972. Brecht: Die Massnahme, Kritische Ausgabe mit einer Spielanleitung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Stern, T. 2009. Documents of Performance in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Šubik, C. 1982. Einverständnis, Verfremdung, Produktivität. Versuche über die Philosophie Bertolt Brechts. Vienna: Verlag des Verbandes der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs.Google Scholar
Suschke, S. 2020. Brecht probt Galilei (1955/56). Ein Mann, der keine Zeit mehr hat. Berlin: speak low.Google Scholar
Szondi, P. 1961. Versuch über das Tragische. Frankfurt: Insel (English translation An Essay on the Tragic, tr. by P. Fleming. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Taplin, O. 1972. ‘Aeschylean Silences and Silences in Aeschylus’. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 76: 57–98.Google Scholar
Taplin, O. 2010. ‘A Curtain Call?’, in The Pronomos Vase and Its Context, ed. by Taplin, O. and Wyles, R., 255–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tarán, L. and Gutas, D. 2012. Aristotle Poetics: Editio Maior of the Greek Text with Historical Introductions and Philological Commentaries. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Tatlow, A. 1977. The Mask of Evil. Brecht’s Response to the Poetry, Theatre and Thoughts of China and Japan. A Comparative Critical Evaluation. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tatlow, A. 2001. Shakespeare, Brecht, and the Intercultural Sign. Durham, N.C: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Tatlow, A. 2016. Bertolt Brecht’s Me-Ti. Books of Interventions in the Flow of Things. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Taxidou, O. 2008. ‘Machines and Models for Modern Tragedy: Brecht/ Berlau, Antigone-Model 1948”, in Rethinking Tragedy, ed. by Felski, R, 241–62. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Theaterarbeit: 6 Aufführungen des Berliner Ensembles. 1961. 2nd revised and enlarged edition, ed. by the Berliner Ensemble and Weigel, Helene. Berlin/Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. (1st edition published in 1952).Google Scholar
Thomson, P., ed. 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Brecht, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tretow, C. 2003. Caspar Neher – Graue Eminenz hinter der Brecht-Gardine und den Kulissen des modernen Musiktheaters. Eine Werkbiographie. Trier: WVT.Google Scholar
Tretow, C. and Gier, H, eds. 1997. Caspar Neher – Der größte Bühnenbauer unserer Zeit. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Valentin, J.-M. 2008. ‘Brecht et Aristote – mais quel Aristote?’. Études Germaniques 63: 185–203 (special volume Bertolt Brecht – la théorie en débat, ed. by M. Silhouette and J.-M. Valentin).Google Scholar
Valentin, J.-M. 2012. ‘Brecht et Aristote – mais quel Aristote?’, in Bertolt Brecht. La théorie dramatique, ed. by Silhouette, M. and Valentin, J.-M., 13–32. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
van Zyl Smit, B., ed. 2016. A Handbook to the Reception of Greek Drama. Oxford/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Venuti, L. 2008. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vinay, J. P. and Darbelnet, J. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais: méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier (English translation Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation, translated and edited by J. C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1995).Google Scholar
von Einem, G. and Melchinger, S, eds. 1966. Caspar Neher: Bühne und bildende Kunst im XX. Jahrhundert. Hannover: Friedrich Verlag.Google Scholar
Weisstein, U. 1973. ‘Imitation, Stylization, and Adaptation: The Language of Brecht’s Antigone and its Relation to Hölderlin’s Version of Sophocles.’ The German Quarterly 46: 581–604.Google Scholar
Wessendorf, M. 2016. ‘Brecht’s Materialist Ethics between Confucianism and Mohism’. Philosophy East&West 66: 122–45.Google Scholar
Wessendorf, M. 2019. ‘The Judith of Shimoda. Based on a play by Yamamoto Yūzō in collaboration with Hella Wuolijoki. Reconstruction of the play script by Hans Neureuter. Translated and introduced by Markus Wessendorf’, in Brecht and the Writer’s Workshop. Fatzer and Other Dramatic Projects, ed. by Kuhn, T and Ryland, C, 294–372. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
West, M., and Silberstein, M. 2005. ‘The Controversial Eloquence of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus – an Anti-Ciceronian Orator?’ Modern Philology 103: 307–31.Google Scholar
White, L. 2019. Theater des Exils: Bertolt Brechts ‘Der Messingkauf’. Berlin: Metzler.Google Scholar
Wihstutz, B. 2018. ‘Schiller’s Transformative Aesthetics’, in Transformative Aesthetics, ed. by Fischer-Lichte, E and Wihstutz, B, 109–28: London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wiles, D. 2007. Mask and Performance in Greek Tragedy. From Ancient Festival to Modern Experimentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willett, J. ed. 1964. Brecht on Theatre. The Development of an Aesthetic. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Willett, J. 1967. The Theatre of Bertolt Brecht. A Study from Eight Aspects. 3rd ed. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Willett, J., and Lyon, J., Mews, S. and Nørregaard, H. C. 1995. ‘A Brechtbuster Goes Bust: Scholarly Mistakes, Misquotes, and Malpractices in John Fuegi’s Brecht and Company’. The Brecht Yearbook 20: 269–367.Google Scholar
Williams, S. 1990. Shakespeare on the German Stage. Volume 1: 1586–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. 2000. The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia. The Chorus, the City and the Stage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Witzmann, P. 1965. Antike Tradition im Werk Bertolt Brechts. 2nd ed. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Wizisla, E. 2004. Walter Benjamin und Bertolt Brecht. Die Geschichte einer Freundschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp (English translation Walter Benjamin and Bertolt Brecht: The Story of a Friendship, tr. by C. Shuttleworth. London: Libris 2009).Google Scholar
Wizisla, E. ed. 1998. “ … und mein Werk ist der Abgesang des Jahrtausends” : 22 Versuche, eine Arbeit zu beschreiben (exhibition catalogue with commentary, Akademie der Künste Berlin, January 25 to March 29 1998). Berlin: Akademie der Künste.Google Scholar
Wizisla, E., Streidt, H. and Loeper, H., eds. 2007. Die Bibliothek Bertolt Brechts. Ein kommentiertes Verzeichnis. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Wright, M. 2016. The Lost Plays of Greek Tragedy, vol. 1: Neglected Authors. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Wohl, V. 2015. Euripides and the Politics of Form. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Worth, K. 2004. ‘Greek Notes in Samuel Beckett’s Theatre Art’, in Dionysus since 69. Greek Tragedy at the Dawn of the Third Millennium, ed. by Hall, E, Macintosh, F and Wrigley, A, 265–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wüthrich, W. 2015. Die Antigone des Bertolt Brecht. Eine experimentelle Theaterarbeit, Chur 1948. Zurich: Chronos.Google Scholar
Wyss, M., ed. 1977. Brecht in der Kritik. Rezensionen aller Brecht-Uraufführungen. Munich: Kindler.Google Scholar
Zeitlin, F. 1990. ‘Thebes: Theater of Self and Society in Athenian Drama’, in Winkler, J. and Zeitlin, F., eds. Nothing to Do with Dionysus? Athenian Drama in its Social Context, 130–67. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zeitlin, F. 2004. ‘Dionysus in 69’, in Dionysus since 69. Greek Tragedy at the Dawn of the Third Millennium, ed. by Hall, E, Macintosh, F and Wrigley, A, 49–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar