English Drama and Theatre, 1800–1900: A Guide to Information Sources by L. W. Conolly and J. P. Wearing

Abstract

side there is more to be said. The translator has respected the style of the original without making a fetish of it. The English reader has to be informed that, if some of these sentences seem long, rambling and dangling, that is not Shouldice’s fault. On the contrary, he has at times broken them down a bit and simplified, but without pushing them all the way into the sort of clarté française which is, it seems, no longer fashionable in French. His English occasionally shows signs of fatigue (different “brands” of criticism, oh how woolly) but on the whole has the serious tone and care for distinction that befits the originals. ja c k Wa r w ic k / York University L. W. Conolly and J. P. Wearing, English Drama and Theatre, 1800-1900: A Guide to Information Sources (Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1978). xix, 508. $22.00 As many critics have been emphasizing in recent years, the nineteenth cen­ tury was an era of great theatre — splendid acting, spectacular staging, melo­ dramatic excitement — and the fact that it was not one of great literary drama, and bequeathed very few plays to posterity, should not make us lose sight of its achievements. It is mainly from this point of view that the editors have assembled this invaluable addition to the Gale Information Guide Library. The Guide follows the clear format of previous volumes in the series, has a good index with cross-references where necessary, and includes helpful and informative annotations. In addition to chapters on both Contemporary and Modem History and Criticism, Individual Authors, Bibliographies and Ref­ erence Works, Anthologies of Plays, and Periodicals, the volume covers the theatrical dimension (not included in the companion volume issued earlier on English Drama 1900-1990) in chapters on The Theatres, Acting and Management, The Critics, and Stage Design, Scenic Art and Costume. As the Introduction points out, one would still have to refer to Arnott and Robinson’s English Theatrical Literature 1999-1900 for comprehensive the­ atrical listings and esoteric items, but Conolly and Wearing have certainly achieved their aim in these and all other chapters of providing “a conveni­ ent and reliable starting point for any project in the area ... covered” (p. xv). The user should note that each chapter has a short introduction defin­ ing its scope and suggesting other sources. Over half the volume — 275 pages — is devoted to the chapter on Indi­ vidual Authors. This would have been even longer had the editors not drawn careful lines to exclude playwrights “whose most important output lies in 122 the eighteenth or twentieth centuries” (p. xiv) — for example, George Colman the Younger at one end and George Bernard Shaw at the other. Fortu­ nately, the editors have not cut off their listings at 1900 for dramatists such as Pinero and Jones whose work continued into the twentieth century. The entries for each author have six possible sections: Collected Works, Acted Plays, Unacted Plays, Bibliographies, Biography, Critical Studies, and Jour­ nals and Newsletters. This chapter must have presented the most difficult editorial decisions and is, therefore, the most open to dispute because the editors do not attempt to duplicate Allardyce Nicoll’s hand-lists, either in including all authors or all plays, but have been selective, excluding some minor figures and including only “Principal Titles” of those listed. Some anomalies arise, partly out of the selection decisions, but more as a reflection of the bias of “Critical Studies” in favour of the literary figures, many of whom are only incidental dramatists. For example, Browning and Lord Byron, both with less than ten plays, are given twelve pages each, whereas Henry James Byron, who has well over a hundred titles in Nicoll, rates only two pages, as does the prolific J. R. Planche. Swinburne, with only one acted and four unacted plays listed, has as many pages of critical study (five) as are devoted in total to Tom Robertson (for whom twenty-three acted and two unacted plays are listed compared with Nicoll’s forty-five entries). The editors may be faulted for imbalance, but I cite these few comparisons more to draw attention to the enormous imbalance in...