The Contemporary Spanish Theater (1949–1972) by Marion P. Holt (review)

174 Comparative Drama dividual and society and through repetition of the cosmogonic act they afford a rebirth for the individual and for society. Cole, however, denies that theatre has any function apart from the presentation of imaginative truth (except, he says, almost parenthetically, insofar as such presen­ tation provides a sense of community) . "It is a symptom of something art cannot cure when a society begins looking to art for cures" (p.159). "Theatre has all it can do to make its own miracles; it cannot also make society's" (p. 1 60). There is, for Cole, something so mystical in the pro­ cess of making imaginative truth present that it is its own justification. This mysticism arises from Cole's analogy of the .actor to the shaman and the hungan. But these figures serve functions for the individual and for �ciety. And Cole states that his analogy illuminates but is not to constitute proof of identity. Had Cole begun his analysis of the acting process not with primitive religious events but with children's pretend play (a perpetual source of theatre in every culture which has been gen­ erally ignored) he might not have found it to be surrounded by such a mystical aura and might have been prompted to seek further for its functions. The over-all structure of the argument does not hold up. Cole claims too much for a too narrowly defined theatrical event. Still, the book con­ tains a number of important and provocative ideas. The evidence Cole finds of shamanistic descriptions of acting in our culture is interesting. The chapter on scenic means is sometimes exciting. The analysis of good dramatic writing as manifestation of consciousness is very good, although finally it is not convincing that manifestation of an illud tempus entails manifestation of various consciousnesses. All in all one must thank Cole for directing our attention to theatrical function, to the importance of dramatization as a means, and for providing many suggestive ideas. But the arrogance of the flawed logic is not vindicated by these. Natalie Crohn Schmitt University of Illinois-Chicago Circle Marion P. Holt. The Contemporary Spanish Theater (1949-1972). TWAS 336. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1975. Pp. 189. $8.50. The year 1949, according to the author, marks the renaissance of dramatic activity in Spain after the debacle of the war years. In this first history of the contemporary Spanish theater written in English, Professor Holt treats the 23-year period beginning with the estreno of Jose L6pez Rubio's Alberto and Antonio Buero Vallejo's Historia de una escalera. The book is divided into four principal chapters plus a brief conclu­ sion. An introductory chapter provides an excellent overview of the state of the modem Spanish theater. In addition to thumbnail sketches of the principal writers, including some not covered in subsequent chapters, there are sections on foreign plays in Spain, on the ubiquitous problem of censorship (an area studied elsewhere by Patricia O'Connor) , and on aspects of theatrical production. Reviews 175 The second chapter, the longest of the book, is devoted to the six leading dramatists of the prewar generation. In an apparently descending order of importance, Holt considers the contributions of Jose L6pez Rubio, Miguel Mihura, Joaquin Calvo Sotelo, Jose Marfa Peman, Juan Ignacio Luca de Tena, and Edgar Neville. (The preface explains the ex­ clusion of Enrique Jardiel Poncela and Alejandro Casona from this line­ up.) Most of these playwrights, who were born around the tum of the century and were well-established before the war, are often associated with humoristic comedies in the vein of "teatro de evasi6n." Without excusing their weaknesses, Holt considers their respective talents in handling dramatic technique and in dealing with serious themes. "New Writers of the Post-Civil War Theater," the third chapter, treats Victor Ruiz Iriarte, Antonio Buero Vallejo, Alfonso Sastre, and Alfonso Paso. This chronological arrangement makes for strange bed­ fellows, since esthetically we might expect to find Ruiz Iriarte and Paso in the previous chapter. Holt makes a convincing case, however, for see­ ing them as more than writers of facile, ephemeral plays. Buero receives the most attention in this chapter, commensurate with his talent and with...