In 2002, I published an article in Theatre Research International called ‘Heiner Müller as the End of Brechtian Dramaturgy: Müller on Brecht in Two Lesser-Known Fragments’. I had written my doctoral dissertation on Müller, and, in the course of my studies, had come across two shorter pieces that, to my knowledge, had not been discussed by scholars. The first was Philoktet 1979 (Philoctetes 1979), a short, parodic and grotesque treatment of the Philoctetes myth, something very different from Müller's more sombre adaptation of the same material, published in 1965. I had heard Müller read the comic piece at the Berliner Ensemble in March 1995 and located the source in a copy of the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit, printed in December 1978. The second piece was also parodic and also appeared in a newspaper. Nachleben Brechts Beischlaf Auferstehung in Berlin (Brecht's Afterlife Intercourse Resurrection in Berlin) featured in the Volkszeitung in July 1990.1 The title suggested that Müller was ironically quoting his own back catalogue, echoing his play Leben Gundlings Friedrich von Preußen Lessings Schlaf Traum Schrei (Gundling's Life Frederick of Prussia Lessings Sleep Dream Cry) (1977) and Germania Tod in Berlin (Germania Death in Berlin) (1978). Stylistically, it looked like a heightened version of the technique employed in Philoktet 1979, in that it drew on and collided more Brechtian intertexts, and referenced Müller's own work more extensively. My doctoral supervisor had found the short playlet in the Volkszeitung. It was one of five responses to Brecht from prominent German literary figures, including Peter Handke and Martin Walser, collected under the title ‘Brecht: Stimmen der Dichter’ (Brecht: The Writers Speak). In my article's fifth footnote, I observed that while Philoktet 1979 appeared in the only extant bibliography of the playwright at the time, Nachleben Brechts did not. It would be hard to conceal an amount of smugness in my observation. But such self-satisfaction is not a quality worth airing too publicly, as will become evident soon.

2002 年，我在Theatre Research International发表了一篇文章，题为“海纳·穆勒作为布莱希特戏剧的终结：穆勒在两个鲜为人知的片段中谈布莱希特”。我写了关于 Müller 的博士论文，在我的研究过程中，我遇到了两篇较短的文章，据我所知，这些文章还没有被学者们讨论过。第一个是Philoktet 1979 (Philoktetes 1979)，这是对 Philoktetes 神话的简短、滑稽和怪诞的处理，与 1965 年出版的 Müller 对相同材料的更阴沉的改编非常不同。我听说 Müller 在柏林人读过漫画作品1995 年 3 月合奏，并在德国周报Die Zeit的副本中找到了消息来源，印刷于 1978 年 12 月。第二幅也很滑稽，也出现在报纸上。Nachleben Brechts Beischlaf Auferstehung 在柏林（布莱希特在柏林的来世交往复活）于1990 年 7 月在Volkszeitung中出现。1标题暗示穆勒讽刺地引用了他自己的过往目录，以呼应他的戏剧Leben Gundlings Friedrich von Preußen Lessings Schlaf Traum Schrei（Gundling 的普鲁士的 Frederick Lessings Sleep Dream Cry) (1977) 和Germania Tod 在柏林(Germania Death in Berlin) (1978)。从风格上看，它看起来像是Philoktet 1979中采用的技术的升级版，因为它借鉴和碰撞了更多的布莱希特互​​文，并更广泛地引用了穆勒自己的作品。我的博士生导师在 Volkszeitung 找到了这部短剧。这是德国著名文学人物对布莱希特的五份回应之一，包括彼得汉德克和马丁沃尔瑟，以“布莱希特：Stimmen der Dichter”（布莱希特：作家说话）为标题收集。在我文章的第五个脚注中，我观察到虽然Philoktet 1979出现在当时唯一现存的剧作家书目中，但Nachleben Brechts却没有。在我的观察中，很难掩饰一定程度的沾沾自喜。但这种自我满足并不值得过于公开宣扬，这一点很快就会显现出来。