Coleridge, Lamb, Hazlitt, and the Reader of Drama by Janet Ruth Heller (review)

Book Reviews97 too loosely argued to be convincing. Moreover, if Hagège selected the information in the book specifically to support the claims of his theory, the reasons for the selection and the connections to specific theoretical points are never made clear. Perhaps the logical structure of the book would have been improved by beginning with the chapters on theory rather than concluding with them. However, even in that case, Hagège's apparent passion for including information for its own sake would have obscured the main lines of argument. For example, we are informed that Egyptian scribes "chewed the ends ofreeds into fine brushes which they dipped in black ink" (53). While interesting, such a fact hardly advances his arguments about the social nature of language. In short, while The Dialogic Species contains much interesting and thoughtprovoking material often omitted from American linguistic texts, the information is presented in a way that even the most dedicated glossophile (language lover) would have trouble deciphering. MARY ELLEN RYDER Boise State University JANET RUTH HELLER. Coleridge, Lamb, Hazlitt, and the Reader of Drama. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1990. 224 p. lhis is a book well worth reading, either to gain new insights or to review information. Heller's study is a refreshing combination ofconciseness blended with a comprehensive overview of classical drama criticism which ultimately leads to the interpretation of nineteenth-century drama. Her central argument is that it was the influence of classical drama criticism, and not personal bias by the Romantics, which caused them to object to dramatic spectacles which were being presented during their time. As a result, Coleridge, Lamb, and Hazlitt in particular believed that drama should be read instead ofbeing seen. They realized that overemphasis on spectacle was causing audiences to be stirred by their emotions only, thus rendering a passive response rather than allowing them to transcend their senses and engage the creative imagination. Heller emphasizes that drama criticism through the ages, based on interpretations of Aristotle, Plato, and Horace, depicted the bias against spectacle. Later, she shows that the critical objection to Restoration drama which emphasized spectacle in order to attract lower- and middle-class audiences with "overuse of scenery, acrobatics, low comedy, and extraneous pageants" (2) influenced Romantic attitudes about drama. As a result, closet dramas or "poetic plays" were written solely for readers. Along with this, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century critics preferred a close reading of Shakespeare's plays instead of oversensational dramatic presentations. Thus, the Romantics were adhering to a well established critical tradition with Coleridge, Lamb, and Hazlitt concluding "that great literature helps people to transcend their senses because it engages the intellect by means of wellchosen images and significant unifying ideas" (3). Her in-depth study of the drama criticism of each author begins with Coleridge, who saw himself as an educator arguing for the development of 98Rocky Mountain Review abstract thought, not appeals to the senses through dramatic spectacle. He insisted that people respond and think, applying creative applications to basic principles. Both Coleridge and Hazlitt refer to Shakespeare's plays to "arouse the reader's enthusiasm and sympathetic imagination" which can better be gained by reading, not attending stage presentations. Lamb's argument that theatre overwhelms the senses with specific pictorial images obscuring the intellectual meaning oftragedies, anticipates twentieth-century film criticism which agrees "with the Romantics that the text should be at the core of any dramatic production" (165). Heller indicates that true interpretation ofHazlitt's criticism shows that he, as well as other Romantics, were all interested in the audience. Hazlitt believed that as the playwright "helps the reader to identify with the characters, the best literary criticism should arouse the reader's imagination" (99). Heller believes that "the experience of reading Hazlitt's criticism is unique because he establishes intimate bonds between the reader and dramatic characters, and between his own sensibility and that of the reader" (100). She emphasizes the significance of Coleridge, Lamb, and Hazlitt in her last chapter on twentieth-century views of drama, because the Romantics were "crusaders against the timeless problems of idolatry of actors, the tendency to compensate for bad scripts with spectacle, and the elevation of the...