Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:23:41.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English Drama and Theatre 1660–1800: New Directions in Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Robert D. Hume
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Essay
Information
Theatre Survey , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , May 1982 , pp. 71 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © American Society for Theatre Research 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See particularly Langhans, Edward A., “Notes on the Reconstruction of the Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre,” TN, 10(1956), 112–114Google Scholar; “Wren's Restoration Playhouse,” TN, 18 (1964), 91–100Google Scholar; “The Dorset Garden Theatre in Pictures,” TS, 6 (1965), 134–146Google Scholar; “Pictorial Material on the Bridges Street and Drury Lane Theatres,” TS, 8 (1966), 80–100Google Scholar; “The Vere Street and Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatres in Pictures,” ETJ, 20 (1968), 171–185Google Scholar; “A Conjectural Reconstruction of the Dorset Garden Theatre,” TS, 13 (1972), 74–93Google Scholar. See also Mullin, Donald C., “The Theatre Royal, Bridges Street: A Conjectural Restoration,” ETJ, 19 (1967), 17–29Google Scholar, and Mullin, Donald and Koenig, Bruce, “Christopher Wren's Theatre Royal,” TN, 21 (1967), 180–187Google Scholar.

2 See, for example, recent controversy over Garden, Dorset between Spring, John R. and myself in Theatre Notebook — 31 (1977), 6–19; 33 (1979), 4–17; 34 (1980), 60–69; 36 (1982), forthcomingGoogle Scholar.

3 The contents of the Stone volume are as follows. Robert D. Hume, “The Multifarious Forms of Eighteenth-Century Comedy”; John Loftis, “Thomson's Tancred and Sigismunda, and the Demise of the Drama of Political Opposition”; Leo Hughes, “Afterpieces: Or, That's Entertainment”; Donald C. Mullin, “Theatre Structure and Its Effect on Production”; Ralph G. Allen, “Irrational Entertainment in the Age of Reason” [on scene design and spectacle]; George Winchester Stone, Jr., “The Prevalence of Theatrical Music in Garrick's Time”; Knapp, J. Merrill Jr., “English Theatrical Music in Garrick's Time: The Enchanter (1760) and May Day (1775)”Google Scholar; Phyllis T. Dircks, “Garrick's Fail-Safe Musical Venture, A Peep Behind the Curtain, and English Burletta”; Stoddard Lincoln, “Barthelemon's Setting of Garrick's Orpheus”; Charles H. Shattuck, “Drama as Promptbook”; Shirley Wynne, “Reviving the Gesture Sign: Bringing the Dance Back Alive”; Bernard Beckerman, “Schemes of Show: A Search for Critical Norms.”

For an earlier (and valuable) treatment of the theatricality of heroic plays, see Parsons, Philip, “Restoration Tragedy as Total Theatre,” in Restoration Literature: Critical Approaches, ed. Love, Harold (London: Methuen, 1972), pp. 27–68Google Scholar.

4 See the review by Langhans, Edward A., ECS, 14 (1980), 72–78Google Scholar.

5 See Milhous, Judith and Hume, Robert D., “Dating Play Premières from Publication Data, 1660–1700,” Harvard Library Bulletin, 22 (1974), 374–405Google Scholar. At least forty-five plays are significantly misdated in Part 1, to judge from statistical norms.

6 Many users are confused by the cross reference system. If an advertised cast for 15 April is the same as that advertised for 10 January the same season, The London Stage says merely “As 10 January” under 15 April. This means that the actors will not appear in the Schneider index under 15 April, even though we know that they performed on that date. Even more treacherous is the formula for variations in later ads. Thus “As 10 January but Lord Snuffwell omitted” means that the 15 April ad does not name a performer for Lord Snuffwell, not that the play was performed with that part omitted.

7 I should point out Kenny's, Shirley Strum pioneering essay, “Theatrical Warfare, 1695–1710,” Theatre Notebook, 27 (1973), 130–145Google Scholar — one of the first intelligent utilizations of The London Stage to appear in print.

8 For example, a performance of The Provok'd Wife in November 1701 is known from an indictment for profanity in the theatre, but was excluded from the calendar as a matter of editorial policy.

9 Edited by Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume (Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1982).

10 For detailed assessments of Vols. 1 and 2 see Hume, Robert D., ECS, 8 (1975), 510–517Google Scholar; Vols. 3 and 4, Milhous, Judith, ECCB, 2 (1976), 162–165Google Scholar; Vols. 5 and 6, Hume, , ECS. 14 (1980), 78–82Google Scholar.

11 Chapter 3 of The London Theatre World, 1660–1800, ed. Hume, Robert D. (Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1980)Google Scholar. The rest of the contents of this festschrift for Arthur H. Scouten are as follows: Judith Milhous, “Company Management”; Edward A. Langhans, “The Theatres”; Leo Hughes, “The Evidence from Promptbooks”; Philip H. Highfill, Jr., “Performers and Performing”; George Winchester Stone, Jr., “The Making of the Repertory”; Curtis A. Price, “Music as Drama”; Harry William Pedicord, “The Changing Audience”; John Loftis, “Political and Social Thought in the Drama”; Calhoun Winton, “Dramatic Censorship”; Shirley Strum Kenny, “The Publication of Plays”; Joseph Donohue, “The London Theatre at the End of the Eighteenth Century.”

12 See “The Penzance Promptbook of The Pilgrim,” Modern Philology, 73 (1975), 33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Congreve at Drury Lane: Two Eighteenth-Century Promptbooks,” ibid.b, 79 (1981), 146–156.

13 See, for example, Barlow, Graham, “Sir James Thornhill and the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, 1705,” in The Eighteenth-Century English Stage, ed. Richards, Kenneth and Thomson, Peter (London: Methuen, 1972), pp. 179–193Google Scholar.

14 For the present, Henshaw's, Nancy Wandalie “Graphic Sources for a Modern Approach to the Acting of Restoration Comedy,” unpub. diss. (Univ. of Pittsburgh, 1967) remains usefulGoogle Scholar.

15 The collection is available from Readex Microprint Corporation, 101 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003. The price as of April 1982 is $1500 for the whole collection, comprising some five thousand plays. The 1642–1700 unit costs $350; 1700–1750 costs $300; 1751–1800 costs $700; a selection of Larpent MS plays costs $200. The reader (also usable with microfiche) costs $415.

16 Herewith a brief summary on editions of major authors.

Dryden: Summers (1931–32) is gradually being supplanted by the “California” edition.

Shadwell: Summers (5 vols., 1927) is quite satisfactory.

Buckingham: an Oxford edition is planned, ed. Mark S. Auburn and Robert D. Hume.

Etherege: Brett-Smith (2 vols., 1927) will be supplanted by Shirley Strum Kenny's projected Oxford edition.

Wycherley, : Complete Works, ed. Summers, (4 vols., 1924)Google Scholar; Plays, ed. Weales (1966), Friedman (Oxford, 1979), Peter Holland (Cambridge, 1981 — modernized). All satisfactory.

Lee: Stroup and Cooke (2 vols., 1954–55) is adequate.

Southerne: no modern edition to date; the Harold Love/Robert Jordan edition should be available from Oxford in 1983.

Congreve: Summers (4 vols., 1923) has been textually supplanted for the plays by Herbert Davis (1 vol., 1967). An Oxford edition is planned, ed. Donald McKenzie.

Vanbrugh, : Works, ed. Dobrée, and Webb, (4 vols., 1927–1928)Google Scholar will be supplanted for the plays by an Oxford edition, ed. John Barnard.

Farquhar: Stonehill (2 vols., 1930) will be supplanted by the Kenny Oxford edition, in press.

Steele, : Plays, ed. Kenny, (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar.

Fielding: the Wesleyan edition, expected in the seventies, will reportedly be with us in the eighties.

Lillo: an Oxford edition is planned, ed. John Steffenson.

Garrick: 4 volumes of the Pedicord-Bergmann edition are now in print from Southern Illinois; the remaining 3 are in press.

Goldsmith, : Selected Works, ed. Friedman, Arthur (5 vols., Oxford, 1966); good text; deficient annotationGoogle Scholar.

Sheridan, : Plays, 2 vols., ed. Price, Cecil (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar.

17 The Garland series has three volumes with subject focuses (adaptations, the Licensing Act, and performers' vehicles), but concentrates on author-collections. The authors represented are Bickerstaff, Boaden, Carey, Centlivre, Cibber, Theophilus and Susanna Cibber, Colman (the elder), Colman (the younger), Cowley, Cumberland, Dennis, Foote, Garrick, Gildon, Haywood, Hill, Holcroft, Hoole, Home, Inchbald, Jephson, Samuel Johnson of Cheshire, Kelly, Lillo, Mallet, Moore, Murphy, O'Keefe, Pix and Trotter, Reynolds, Thompson, and Thomson.

18 I should note the G.K. Hall series of bibliographies now in progress. Some focus on single authors (e.g., Mann's, David D.Sir George Etherege: a reference guide, 1981)Google Scholar, others cover several lesser writers (e.g., J.M. Armistead's Four Restoration Playwrights: a reference guide, comprising Shadwell, Behn, Otway, and Lee). Eighteenth and nineteenth century references are included; coverage is meant to be exhaustive. These bibliographies should prove decidedly useful, though obviously they will vary considerably in accuracy and comprehensiveness from volume to volume.

19 For some discussion of the tangle of contradictions in current Wycherley criticism, see my “William Wycherley: Text, Life, Interpretation,” Modern Philology, 78 (1981), 399–415Google Scholar.

20 An example of this sort of criticism is Milhous, Judith and Hume, Robert D., “The Beaux' Stratagem: A Production Analysis,” Theatre Journal. 34 (1982), 77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar. We are at work on a book tentatively titled Producible Interpretation: Eight English Plays 1675–1707, to be published by Southern Illinois University Press in 1984Google Scholar.

21 For a vigorous argument that “no interpretation of … any … dramatist is valid unless it is proved workable in performance,” see Booth, Michael R., “Theatre History and the Literary Critic,” Yearbook of English Studies, 9 (1979), 15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 It has been usefully supplemented by the introductions to Parts 3, 4, and 5 of The London Stage, and by Hughes, Leo, The Drama's Patrons (Univ. of Texas Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

23 See Avery, Emmett L., “The Restoration Audience,” PQ, 45 (1966), 54–61Google Scholar; Love, Harold, “The Myth of the Restoration Audience,” Komos, 1 (1967), 49–56Google Scholar. Love has greatly extended and improved his study in his admirable essay, “Who were the Restoration Audience?” Yearbook of English Studies, 10 (1980), 21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 For some preliminary investigations of such questions, see Scouten, Arthur H. and Hume, Robert D., “ ‘Restoration Comedy’ and its Audiences, 1660–1776,” Yearbook of English Studies, 10 (1980), 45–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Schneider, Ben Ross Jr.The Ethos of Restoration Comedy (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1971) is hardly even a beginning on such a studyGoogle Scholar.

26 A start is Canfield's, J. Douglas “The Significance of the Rhymed Heroic Play,” ECS, 13 (1979), 49–62Google Scholar.

27 For a foretaste, see Wallace, John M., “John Dryden's Plays and the Conception of a Heroic Society,” in Culture and Politics From Puritanism to the Enlightenment, ed. Zagorin, Perez (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1980), pp. 113–134Google Scholar.

28 See Goldgar, Bertrand A., Walpole and the Wits (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1976), pp. 104–105Google Scholar.

29 For a detailed consideration of the possibilities and pitfalls of such studies, see my “Content and Meaning in the Drama,” Chapter 1 of The Rakish Stage, forthcoming from Southern Illinois University Press in 1983Google Scholar.

30 Serious reconsideration of the eighteenth century is much overdue. For some beginnings in the 1760–1780 period see my “Goldsmith and Sheridan and the Supposed Revolution of ‘Laughing’ against ‘Sentimental’ Comedy,” in Studies in Change and Revolution: Essays in English Intellectual History, 1640–1800, ed. Korshin, Paul J. (Scolar Press, 1972), pp. 237–276Google Scholar.

31 “The Life of Plutarch,” The Works of John Dryden, vol. XVII, ed. Monk, Samuel Holt et al. (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1971), pp. 271–272Google Scholar.

32 For example, volumes 2 and 3 of Nicoll; Ernest Bernbaum, The Drama of Sensibility (1915); Sherbo, Arthur, English Sentimental Drama (Michigan State Univ. Press, 1957)Google Scholar. Sherbo is much better than his predecessors, but remains trapped in old categories.

33 See Corman, Brian, “Toward a Generic Theory of Restoration Comedy: Some Preliminary Considerations,” Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture, 7 (1978), 423–432Google Scholar, and “What Is Restoration Drama?” University of Toronto Quarterly, 48 (1978), 53–66Google Scholar.

34 See “Shadwell, the Ladies, and the Change in Comedy,” Modern Philology, 46 (1948), 22–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The Gay Couple in Restoration Comedy (Harvard Univ. Press, 1948)Google Scholar.

35 See Novak, Maximillian E., “Margery Pinchwife's ‘London Disease’: Restoration Comedy and the Libertine Offensive of the 1670's,” Studies in the Literary Imagination, 10 (Spring, 1977), 1–23Google Scholar.

36 For some discussion of the problem see Loftis, John, “The Limits of Historical Veracity in Neoclassical Drama,” in England in the Restoration and Early Eighteenth Century, ed. Swedenberg, H.T. Jr. (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1972), pp. 27–50Google Scholar.

37 For preliminary accounts of these subjects see, for example, Jordan, Robert, “The Extravagant Rake in Restoration Comedy,” Restoration Literature, ed. Love, Harold (Methuen, 1972), 69–90Google Scholar; Hume, Robert D., “The Myth of the Rake in ‘Restoration’ Comedy,” Studies in the Literary Imagination, 10 (Spring, 1977), 25–55Google Scholar; Hume, , “Marital Discord in English Comedy from Dryden to Fielding,” Modern Philology, 74 (1977), 248–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moore, John Robert, “Political Allusion in Dryden's Later Plays,” PMLA, 73 (1958), 36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Susan Staves, Players' Sceptres.

38 For specific analysis of the function of music in the plays, 1660–1710, see Price's “Music as Drama” in The London Theatre World.

39 “Eccles and Congreve: Music and Drama on the Restoration Stage,” Theatre Notebook, 18 (1963), 7–18Google Scholar; “The First Setting of Congreve's Semele,” Music and Letters, 44 (1963), 103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 The “British Museum” catalogues of MS and printed music are quite helpful, though the best single source remains The British Union-Catalogue of Early Music [printed before 1801], ed. Schnapper, Edith B., 2 vols. (London: Butterworths, 1957)Google Scholar.

41 Five discs are now available in the L'Oiseau-Lyre Florilegium series: DSLO 504 (Abdelazer, Distressed Innocence, The Married Beau, The Gordian Knot Untied); 527 (Bonduca, Sir Anthony Love, Circe); 534 (Don Quixote); 550 (The Virtuous Wife, The Old Batchelour, Amphitryon); 561 (The Double-Dealer, The Richmond Heiress, The Rival Sisters, Henry the Second, Tyrannick Love).

42 For discussion, see Judith Milhous, “The Multi-Media Spectacular on the Restoration Stage,” forthcoming in British Theatre and the Other Arts, 1660–1800. ed. Shirley Strum Kenny.

43 The Garland collection of ballad operas comprises 171 “original texts of musical plays” 1728–1799.

44 The possibility of a meaningful reconstruction of theatre dancing has always seemed remote to the point of nonexistence. However the recent appearance of Hilton's, Wendy most impressive Dance of Court and Theater: The French Noble Style, 1690–1725 (n.p.: Princeton Book Company, 1981) leads me to wonder if the prospect is less hopeless than it has seemedGoogle Scholar.

45 “Studies in English Drama 1660–1800,” Philological Quarterly, 55 (1976), 451–487; 56 (1977), 438–469; 57 (1978), 437–472Google Scholar.