Until the late 1960s the terms 'theatre studies' and 'theater history' were largely synonymous, because the first and main interest of the new subject was the past theatrical. However, today the history of theater is certainly not the exclusive field of teaching and research, historical study remains an important field of work. My work so far has led me to focus on understanding the most important research methods and models used by theater historians. I have attempted to identify the main sources often used by historians as well as 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 did not look at specific periods in the history of theater (the Greeks, the Elizabethan period, etc.), but rather at the problems involved in its writing, which is technically called historiography.Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay As an academic discipline, theater history has rarely had a high profile, perhaps because the demand for theater historians has been in decline. That said, there are still scholars around the world who actively engage in the study of theater history, which means that new approaches are introduced from time to time. Theater historians prefer to trace their discipline back to the Theatriké historia or King Juba II. It was a large-scale work, entirely dedicated to all matters related to the stage. We have no access to this work and, like our own knowledge of theater history, its existence is based on indirect evidence and speculation. Between these early times and the 16th century, theater history was rarely at the forefront of discussion, this is not to say that scholarly work was not being produced, however only a fraction of what might have existed managed to make its way through the history books. I am very aware of the vast history behind ancient Greek and Roman theatre, however my work will take us a few centuries ahead of these ancient periods. Thankfully there are now many different ideas about how students and scholars should approach theater history, and it is these ideas that I hope to summarize now and ultimately use through my work. The first book, Writing and Rewriting Histories of the National Theatre, I found both intriguing and enlightening. Outside of the culmination, this book discusses approaches to writing theater history based on the factors of change within different countries. It was a good choice to start with as it introduced me to the basic principles of theater historiography from the early stages of the book, however it was presented clearly so as not to avoid confusion or contradictions as I was just trying to understand introduced to the ideas for the first time. The first main question it asks is: what is the meaning of history and what is the purpose of studying it? Essentially here he forced me to think on a rudimentary level to understand that it would be almost impossible to define the term 'theater history' if we were not able to understand the fundamental principles of history itself… “The history of the world is therefore a kind of theater? history, the philosophical study of which must inevitably lead to enlightenment on the infinite perfectibility of the human race?” To write a history of theater we must surely be able to answer the question: What is the meaning of theater history and what is the purpose of studying it? This, however, entails a series of difficulties. How do we define the object of our study? In my case thisit would be the definition of amateur theater. What is theatre? This is a difficult question because theater in a 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 incorporates three disciplines of singing, dancing and acting together where the plot is conveyed or assisted through singing. So many new forms of contemporary theater are developing in the twenty-first century that even the most unsuspected forms of activity could be classified as theatre, so it is crucial to make a precise distinction of what the term theater means in the context of my work. The concept of theater is constantly expanding if we consider how it was during the avant-garde movements in the first decades of the twentieth century. In the broadest sense, it could incorporate any definition of performance and the rediscovery of “ritual theatre” in the 1960s/70s highlighted how obscure the term theater could become. Helmer Schramm said: “Wherever someone put him – or himself, someone else or something on display, consciously presenting a person or object to the gaze of others, people talked about theater.” This book also suggests that it is not possible to explore the history of theatre. in a specific context, without first identifying and taking into account the historical events that surround the events. For example: Did the terrorist acts of the 1950s/60s influence the way people in Northern Ireland chose to see and attend theater due to fear? “Everyone must delimit the scope of their theatrical history according to their specific interests and epistemological skills, select the events that can be productive with respect to the questions they ask themselves and build their own history starting from the examination of the documents relating to these events” . Perhaps the best way to present a specific area of ​​theater history is to explore it in a refined setting, taking into account only, where necessary, other surrounding historical/political factors that may have influenced the refined topic in the first place. given time. These are just some of the opening remarks. Later in the book we are presented with a fairly systematic approach to refining our research. Wilmer suggests that when writing about the history of a particular nation, it is necessary to 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 today's borders or those of decades prior borders. It must also decide how much of the theater activity should be based on a nation's capital or regions. Many historians focus on theatrical activity within a major capital city and ignore the regions outside, however in my field of research it is the smaller regions. which are almost more important than the capital. In Dublin, for example, historians tend to ignore popular theaters such as the Gaiety or the Olympia, and turn exclusively to the National Concert Hall. This is because the national theater takes on the role of representing national culture, even if the state was not independent. Thus, regardless of the standard of production, be it professional or amateur, national theater best represented the appreciation of theater within a nation. Can we also limit theater staff within the borders? Christopher Fitzsimon's "Irish Theatre" refers to many well-known playwrights who spend more time outside Ireland's current borders than within them. Theatrical events performed in the native language are given greater predominance in terms of national history.