In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Theatre Journal 54.2 (2002) 333-334



[Access article in PDF]

Book Review

English Stage Comedy 1490-1990:
Five Centures of a Genre


English Stage Comedy 1490-1990: Five Centures of a Genre. By Alexander Leggatt. London: Routledge, 1998; pp. x + 160. $24.99 paper.

Today the favored approach to dramatic literature is to see the "text as product . . . of the culture of its time" (1). An earlier approach which views all writers of a genre as contemporaneous with one another is considered naïve. Yet in English Stage Comedy, Alexander Leggatt hopes to redress what he sees as a current trend in favor of historicizing by returning to the study of English comedy as a genre. Leggatt fears that some writers may misinterpret the influence on the playwright of stock roles and situations which have been handed down and maintained in the repertoire. Interpreting comedy by historical context alone neglects the "persistance of comedy's conventions" (15). Leggatt supports his remarks with examples spanning the years from the early Renaissance to the era of Tom Stoppard and Caryl Churchill; he includes the quite familiar (The Importance of Being Earnest) and the rather obscure (Henry Porter's The Two Angry Women of Abingdon) and emphasizes stylized social comedy. His inclusion of Victorian literature—less familiar to many readers—is especially useful.

The first chapter, "Getting Control," views comedy as a tragedy which misses the mark because it is controlled by grace and wit. Comic distancing strategies include reducing life issues to the level of material reality, trivializing harm and death, and accommodating—rather than resolving—social problems. In his second chapter, "Watching Society," Leggatt visualizes comic characters as reduced to a few game pieces in a stylized stratagem of social interaction. The correct style is enough to convey who is accepted or rejected by society. The phonies, or pretenders to class membership, instantly reveal themselves via a vulgar voice, a wrong article of clothing, an inept gesture, or tasteless room decor. The audience's recognition of these signals bonds them with the accepted society in the world of the play and convinces them that they belong to a superior, more enlightened world. An interesting inclusion here is Leggatt's discussion of the influence of patriotism on both the world of the play and that of the audience.

The one who rejects society is mocked and publicly humiliated, as Leggatt shows in his third chapter, "Loners." Fools have no social talents and give themselves away by their interpersonal ineptitude. The trickster may appear gregarious, but in order to manipulate the play's action, he needs to stand apart from the community and avoid lasting relationships. Thus neither Jonson's Volpone nor Wycherley's Horner ends up as a member of society's happy couples. The self-centeredness of the fop or dandy precludes his integration into society, despite the time he spends putting himself on social display. The misanthrope mocks the world through an outsider's perspective and is mocked in turn.

In his fourth chapter, "Other Places," Leggatt examines the convention of changing the locale to one of mystery or magic. These venues can represent a refuge of freedom from a repressive or unjust society. Aphra Behn's The Rover, and Shakespeare's As You Like It illustrate that Bunburying was a tradition long before Wilde identified it. The fifth chapter, "Parents and Children," surveys the generational conflict. As comedy supports the social order, a parent's will is a power to be reckoned with. In the most repressive examples, "children are traded as goods in the market" (97). Although Leggatt asserts that most conflicts in English comedies are between father and daughter, he gives equal space to those between father and son. Benevolent parents are also placed in contrast to blocking parents, as in the case of two fathers or a married couple who have contrasting views about how to raise children (She Stoops to Conquer). Blocking mothers, in contrast to mercenary fathers, are [End Page 333] possessive of their sons, refusing to let them grow up. The examples in this chapter...

pdf

Share