Until the mid-1960s, the terms "theater studies" and "theater history" were largely synonymous, because the first and main concern of this new subject was the theatrical past. However, today theater history is certainly not the exclusive domain of teaching and research, historical study remains an important area of ​​work. My work thus far has led me to focus on understanding the most important research methods and designs employed by theater historians. I have attempted to identify the main sources often used by historians and the different types of information they provide. I also explored how we can divide theater history into periods. This focus on questions of theory and methodology meant that I was not interested in specific periods of theater history (the Greeks, the Elizabethan period, etc.) but rather in issues relating to its writing, which this is technically called historiography. no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay As an academic discipline, theater history has rarely had a high profile, perhaps because the demand for historians theater is in decline. That being said, there are still scholars around the world who actively engage in the study of theater history, which means that new approaches are still introduced from time to time. Theater historians like to date their discipline from Theatriké historia or King Juba II. It was a vast work entirely devoted to all matters related to the stage. We do not have access to this work and, like our knowledge of theater history itself, its existence relies on circumstantial evidence and speculation. Between these beginnings and the 16th century, theater history was rarely at the forefront of debate, this is not to say that scholarly work was not produced, but only a fraction of what might have existed found its way in history books. I am very aware of the long history of ancient Greek and Roman theater, but my work will take us several centuries ahead of these ancient periods. Fortunately, there are now many different ideas about how students and scholars should approach theater history, and it is these ideas that I now hope to summarize and ultimately use in my own work. The first book, Writing and Rewriting National Theater Histories, I found both intriguing. and enlightening. Aside, this book discusses approaches to writing theater history based on the changing factors within different countries. It was a good choice to start with as it introduced me to the basic principles of theater historiography from the beginning of the book, but it was presented clearly so as not to avoid causing confusion or contradiction given that I was just being introduced to the ideas for the first time. The first big question he asks is: what is the meaning of history and what is the purpose of its study? Essentially, it forced me to think at a rudimentary level to understand that it would be almost impossible to define the term "theatre history" if one failed to understand the fundamentals of history itself... “Is world history, then, a kind of theater? history, the philosophical study of which must inevitably lead to clarifying the infinite perfectibility of the human race? the purpose of studying it? However, this raises a number of difficulties. Howdefine the object of our study? In my case, that would be the definition of amateur theater. What is theater? This is a difficult question because theater in the broad sense is a collaborative art form using live performers. However, in the context of my research we are referring to a specific type of theater which integrates three disciplines of singing, dancing and acting where the plot is conveyed or assisted by singing. In the 21st century, there are so many new forms of contemporary theater developing that even the most credulous forms of activity could be classified as theater. It is therefore essential to make a precise distinction between what the term theater means in context. of my own work. The concept of theater is constantly expanding if we consider what it was during the avant-garde movements of the first decades of the 20th century. In the broadest sense, this could include any definition of performance, and the rediscovery of "ritual theater" in the 1960s and 1970s highlighted how obscure the term theater could become. Helmer Schramm said: “Wherever someone put themselves, someone else, or something on stage, consciously presenting a person or an object to the gaze of others, people spoke of theater.” This book also suggests that we cannot explore the history of theater. in a specific area, without first identifying and taking into account the historical events surrounding the events. For example: Did the terrorist acts of the 1950s and 1960s affect the way people in Northern Ireland chose to see or go to the theater out of fear? “Everyone must delimit the subject of their theatrical history according to their epistemological interests and their specific skills, select the events likely to be productive with regard to the questions they ask themselves and construct their history based on the examination related documents. to these events. Perhaps the best way to present a specific area of ​​theater history is to explore it in a refined environment, only taking into account, if necessary, other surrounding historical/political factors that may have influenced the subject refined at some point. given time. These are just some of the opening remarks. Later in the book, we discover a fairly systematic approach to refining our research. Wilmer suggests that when writing about the history of a particular nation, one should divide it into four categories. Wilmer suggests that where a country's borders have changed over time, a historian must determine whether to represent the nation with the borders of today or of previous decades. borders. It must also decide how much of the theatrical activity should be based on a nation's capital or regions. Many historians focus on theatrical activity within a main capital and neglect the outer regions. However, in my own area of ​​research, these are the smaller regions. which are almost more important than the capital. In Dublin for example, historians tend to bypass popular theaters like the Gaiety or the Olympia and look only at the National Concert Hall (National Theatre). Indeed, the national theater assumes the role of representative of national culture, even if the state was not independent. Thus, regardless of the level of production, whether professional or amateur, national theater best represents the appreciation of theater within a nation. Can we also limit theater staff within the borders? Christopher Fitzsimon's "Irish Theatre" references many well-known playwrights who pass.