Languages of the Stage; Essays in the Semiology of Theatre (review)

280ROCKY MOUNTAIN REVIEW reducing him from master of his destiny to the pawn of these real enchanters. In the episode of the penitents at the end of Part I, there are no more fictional enchanters for the knight; his spirit as well as his body is broken. In Part II, the decline in chivalric force is at its maximum intensity, and Don Quijote becomes "a more profoundly human and sympathetic person but is a poor imitation of his once chivalric self" (p. 138). For the most part, he either perceives reality as it is or participates in metatheatrical adventures arranged by others. The entire second part sacrifices the chivalric code for a more transcendent motif, "a meaningful process of disillusionment and increasing self-knowledge" (p. 215). The most polemical aspect of Mancing's reading involves the relationship between Cervantes and Cide Hamete Benengeli (especially pages 192-209). The objectiveseems to be a delineation of the opposition between Cervantesaseditorand Cide Hamete as author, with the Arab as the butt of Cervantine humor and irony in Part II. Mancing makes the point that Cide Hamete is a better historian than psychologist: "his interpretation of . . . events or of the characters' motives or psychological states is frequently questionable" (p. 145). This observation overlooks several fundamental elements. Don Quijote brings into question the act of writing history, given that what is arguably the world's greatest novel is arguably the world's worst history. How does the historian deal with events that take place when he is not present, with events that occur simultaneously, with characters' thoughts, with an impossible chronology? Why are the direct quotations cited by the historian reliable and his commentaries unreliable? Equally significant is a failure to distinguish between the real and the fictionalized Cervantes, between the extratextual mastermind and the prologuist/"segundo autor" whose creation of the text provides a theoretical parallel to Don Quijote's creation of an identity. Mancing deserves praise for his closescrutiny ofa number of the majorepisodes and speeches, including Sancho's persuasive discourse in I, 20; the emulative and paradoxical penance of Don Quijote; and Maese Pedro's puppetshow. His plotting of an archetypal pattern ofadventure, applied to the episodes of both parts, isappealing and revealing, as are the presentations of chivalric language and the evolution of Don Quijote. The numerous charts and graphs, never unduly complex, are points of departure for analysis rather than ends in themselves. One could perhaps question the frequency of speech as a determinant of a character's importance and the dismissal of the Cueva de Montesinos episode as a dream. Similarly, Mancing may overstate the uniqueness of his vision of an evolving Don Quijote and understate the intervention and impact of Cide Hamete Benengeli in Part I. These minor reservations notwithstanding, Mancing's study is a model of sensitive reading and sensible writing, featuring well-defined and well-argued theses and a truly impressive grasp of the enormous Quijote bibliography. EDWARD H. FRIEDMAN Arizona State University Patrice Pavis. Languages of the Stage; Essays in the Semiology of Theatre. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1982. 206 p. There has been considerable recent interest in structural and semiological approaches to the theater. In addition to Pavis's extensive writings in French — some of which are here presented in English translation — one can refer to Keir Elam's The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama (Methuen, 1980); Richard Hornby's Book Reviews281 Script into Performance: A Structuralist View of Play Production (University of Texas Press, 1977); and the special issue of Poetics Today, Vol. II, No. 3 (1981). Languages ofthe Stage is a collection of eleven of Pavis's essaysdealing with the general issues of a semiological approach to the complex phenomena of the theatrical event, as well as with specific topics like mime, staging, and the nature of dramatic criticism. The major virtue of a theatrical semiology is a theoretical framework that postulates the integrative functioning of the various dramatic components, viewed either as potentialities in the script or performance book, or as concrete realizations in a particular production. Pavis's contribution is to maintain an essentially practical criticism in his discussions. He maintains the priority of the theatrical spectacle over...