Shakespeare in the Theatre by Richard David (review)

372 Comparative Drama of its dogged reappearance in anthologies of criticism—is not really a play about poetry at all, but uses poetry as a metaphor for politics. If I might venture one criticism, it is that, on occasion, the work is not pragmatic enough. Aristophanes, after all— as Flickinger was fond of pointing out—was competing for a prize; and there is a limit to the amount of unpalatable truth that a playwright can offer his public while still hoping for approbation. Although the philosophy of the cloud chorus is, by definition, nebulous, perhaps their final return to orthodoxy is due to nothing less mundane than self-serving obeisance to conventional mor­ ality—like the obligatory praise of the institution of marriage which customarily, and unconvincingly, rounds off Restoration comedy. And do we need any deeper explanation for the volte-face of Demos at the end of The Knights than the playwright’s reluctance to leave his audience contemplating the spectacle of their infinitely gullible corporate persona? PETER ARNOTT Tufts University Richard David. Shakespeare in the Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 1978. Pp. xvi + 263. $17.95. “This book derives from two assignments,” Richard David tells us: “the first to write, for Shakespeare Survey, an annual review of Shake­ spearean productions in British theatres during the years 1949 to 1956; the second to provide a similar . . . report on the season at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre . . . in the years 1971 to 1976.” From this wealth of theatre-going, David has developed certain principles and prescriptions that he sees as basic to Shakespearean drama. In the first chapter, he reminds us that plays are “multi-dimensional,” “live,” and “ephemeral.” He emphasizes the “human scale of the theatre,” the “immediacy and human warmth” of performance which uses a wide spectrum of verbal, physical, and visual effects. He wisely acknowledges that “a great actor will arouse very various [sic] responses among his audience and among the critics.” Although these reminders seem commonplace enough, David has decided not to avoid “restatements of the obvious, for experience suggests that the obvious is often ignored or taken too much for granted.” In the second introductory chapter, David argues that “all drama of necessity tends towards the condition that we know as ‘opera,’ and versedrama . . . is not very far removed from it.” In Shakespeare’s plays, “shape and pattern are organic and inseparable components” controlling the reactions of performers and audience to ensure “that the communi­ cation ultimately received is the one that [the playwright] intended.” David is concerned with “the sound and suggestion of the words, build­ ing up varied scenes and sequences of scenes,” with which “the dramatist, denied an orchestra or a conductor’s baton, can still direct the presenta­ tion of the play as he would have it played.” “Opera,” for David, appears to imply control of the audience by means of the medium. The problem with this idea is that it conflicts, at least in part, with a basic principle of Reviews 373 the first chapter—the variety of audience response. In the Preface, David remarks that “the most severely drilled performance may vary from night to night.” If performances and audience response vary, how can a drama­ tist be said to control actors and audience as a conductor controls an orchestra? Surely such control is extremely tenuous. In “New lamps for old,” the third chapter, David examines attempts at “translating” or changing Shakespeare’s plays so that they may be more readily understood by a modem audience. On the one hand, David concedes that “some ‘translation’ . . . is doubtless necessary for a modern audience,” while on the other he feels that these neat and shiny new lamps may “lack something of their magic power.” Throughout the book, David seems to be in two minds about the “translation” of a production. John Barton’s Much Ado About Nothing set in British India, David judges, succeeds well; the same director’s updated King John is a dismal failure. It seems that modernization is fine—if the playgoer happens to enjoy it. By way of conclusion, David suggests two axioms, four rules, and two dangers. The axioms are: (1) “there is no one true...