Reviewed by:

• The Nervous Stage: Nineteenth-Century Neuroscience and the Birth of Modern Theatre by Matthew Wilson Smith
• Macy Jones

In the introduction to The Nervous Stage: Nineteenth-Century Neuroscience and the Birth of Modern Theatre, Matthew Wilson Smith asks, “How did we come to think about ourselves not as souls but as nerves” (1). Smith’s monograph provides an answer by treating the brain as neural subject with a history that can be traced through both scientific discovery and artistic evolution. The book is an investigation into the invisible lines that link development of the theatre of sensation by way of modern dramaturgy and the growing scientific field of neuropsychology. Smith, a professor in the Department of German Studies and the Department of Theatre & Performance Studies at Stanford University, crafts a narrative of ideological exchange between the arts and sciences that created the unique style of modern drama.

Smith’s stated purpose is to move the needle back in the neuroscience timeline. While noting the explosion of neuroscience in the twentieth century and its influence on literary theory, he argues the earlier work in this field is essential to understanding the development of modern drama. Throughout the content chapters, Smith presents case studies of major theatre stage works paired with important shifts in neurology, which he characterizes as “a dialogue between theater artists and neurological scientists at a particular moment” (13). These dialogues are compelling to uncover, as Smith establishes direct personal connections between many of the scientists and dramatists in his research. Dramatist Joanne Baille’s work, for example, reflects the scientific theories of her brother Matthew Baille (who wrote the first study of pathology) and personal friend Charles Bell (medical writer and famed pathologist). Smith examines George Büchner’s Woyzeck and explains how Büchner’s dissertation (which posits the brain developed as part of the skull, which is itself an extension of the spinal [End Page 253] column) created Woyzeck’s involuntary gestures while still allowing for freewill. When addressing the unique medical spectacles of hysteria shows, Smith traces how the rise and fall of Jean-Martin Charcot led to Grand Guignol, the “bastard child of stage Naturalism and Gothic melodrama” (145). After Charcot’s hysteria experiments lost favor in the medical community, two of his former students, Alfred Binet and Joseph Babinski, wrote Théâtre Médical plays for Le Théâtre du Grand-Guignol to parody Charcot and his work. These personal connections provide Smith’s argument: science and theatre experience a symbiotic exchange as though connected to each like a nervous system.

Smith doesn’t limit his scope to melodrama. In one case study, he provides a close reading of Wagner’s Parsifal to argue music and sensation share a common thread. Smith focuses on the described effect of Wagner’s works. Smith uses both pro-Wagner and anti-Wagner analysis to prove the same point: the purpose of Wagner’s works was to hypnotize the audience into a pure sensation experience brought on by the neural effect of the works. This chapter is dense and singularly focused on Wagner’s use of libretto, score, and staging to create a neural link between the hypnotized audience and the hypnotic performance practice. Smith also visits the short story form, taking Charles Dickens’s real near-death experience during a train derailment and linking it to the discourse of rail travel, melodramatic adaptations of railroad anxiety, and Dickens’s attempt to process his lingering trauma through writing. He connects industrialization and representation as a “clarity of crisis in melodrama in an age of industrialized nervous sensation” (77). Smith utilizes issues of the Lancet dedicated to the new phenomena of chronic nervous shock. The shock, called “railroad spine,” is the result of both the physiological trauma of the body being constantly knocked about by the motion of the train and the psychological trauma of the constant threat of the train derailment. Smith examines this unseen villain in Charles Dicken’s “The Signal-Man.” This work, though not...

审核人：

• 神经阶段：十九世纪的神经科学与现代戏剧的诞生马修·威尔逊·史密斯（Matthew Wilson Smith）
• 梅西·琼斯（Macy Jones）

在《神经阶段：19世纪神经科学与现代戏剧的诞生》的引言中，马修·威尔逊·史密斯（Matthew Wilson Smith）提出：“我们如何将自己视为灵魂而不是灵魂”（1）。史密斯（Smith）的专着通过将大脑视为具有可通过科学发现和艺术演变来追溯的历史的神经主体来提供答案。这本书是对无形的线条的研究，这些无形的线条通过现代戏剧和日益增长的神经心理学领域将感觉剧场的发展联系起来。史密斯（Smith）是斯坦福大学德国研究系和戏剧与表演研究系的教授，他对艺术与科学之间的意识形态交流进行了叙述，从而创造了现代戏剧的独特风格。

Smith的既定目的是将针头移回神经科学时间轴。他注意到神经科学在20世纪的爆炸式增长及其对文学理论的影响，但他指出，该领域的早期工作对于理解现代戏剧的发展至关重要。在整个内容章节中，史密斯介绍了主要戏剧舞台作品的案例研究以及神经病学的重要变化，他将其描述为“戏剧艺术家与神经病学家在特定时刻之间的对话”（13）。这些对话令人难以忘怀，因为史密斯在他的研究中建立了许多科学家和戏剧家之间的直接人脉关系。例如，戏剧家乔安妮·贝耶（Joanne Baille）的作品，反映了她的兄弟Matthew Baille（他撰写了病理学的第一篇论文）和个人朋友Charles Bell（医学作家和著名的病理学家）的科学理论。史密斯检查乔治·布希纳（GeorgeBüchner）的Woyzeck并解释了Büchner的论文（将大脑发育为头骨的一部分，而头骨本身是脊柱[End Page 253]列的延伸）是如何创建Woyzeck的非自愿手势的，同时仍然允许自由意志。在谈到歇斯底里的独特医学眼镜时，史密斯追踪了让·马丁·夏科特的兴衰如何导致了大吉格诺尔（Grand Guignol），“阶段自然主义和哥特式情节剧的b子”（145）。在夏科特的歇斯底里实验在医学界失去青睐之后，他的两名前学生阿尔弗雷德·比内特（Alfred Binet）和约瑟夫·巴宾斯基（Joseph Babinski）为LeThéâtredu Grand-Guignol撰写了剧本模仿Charcot和他的作品。这些人际关系提供了史密斯的论据：科学和戏剧界经历了共生交流，就好像它们像神经系统一样相互联系。

史密斯不只限于情节剧。在一个案例研究中，他仔细阅读了瓦格纳（Wagner）的Parsifal争论音乐和感觉有一个共同的线索。史密斯专注于描述瓦格纳作品的效果。史密斯同时使用亲瓦格纳和反瓦格纳分析来证明同一点：瓦格纳的作品旨在将观众的催眠作用引入纯粹的感官体验，这些体验是作品的神经效应所带来的。本章密密麻麻地专门讨论了Wagner对libretto，乐谱和分期的使用，以在催眠的听众和催眠的表演练习之间建立神经联系。史密斯还访问了这则短篇小说，在火车出轨期间借鉴了查尔斯·狄更斯的真实死亡经验，并将其与铁路旅行的话语，铁路焦虑的戏剧化改编以及狄更斯通过写作来处理自己挥之不去的创伤的尝试联系起来。他将工业化和代表权联系起来，认为是“在工业化的神经感觉时代，情节剧的危机的明确性”（77）。史密斯利用了柳叶刀致力于慢性神经休克的新现象。这种震动被称为“铁路脊柱”，是由于火车运动不断敲打身体的生理创伤，以及不断出轨威胁火车的心理创伤所致。史密斯在查尔斯·狄更斯（Charles Dicken）的《信号人》（The Signal-Man）中研究了这个看不见的反派。这项工作，尽管不是...