Performing Commedia dell'Arte, 1570–1630 by Natalie Crohn Schmitt

Abstract

MLR, .,   included chapters on the four other purgatorial terraces as well, but this, of course, would have been a monumental undertaking, far beyond the scope of the book. Given Corbett’s claim in Chapters  and  to have uncovered Dante’s implicit confession of sloth and prodigality, a reader might have expected a more explicit acknowledgement of the methodological perils of wading into the murky waters of authorial intention (not to mention authorial biography) within the context of literary analysis, but this is a small quibble for a book which so limpidly and persuasively leads the reader through the complex ethical categories of Dante’s aerlife. Aer seven centuries of commentary and exegesis it can sometimes feel as if everything worth saying about the Commedia has already been said; Corbett’s book serves as a useful reminder that the work of historicizing Dante’s poem has, in some respects, only just begun. U  O L H Performing Commedia dell’Arte, –. By N C S. London and New York: Routledge. . viii+ pp. £.. ISBN ––– –. Natalie Crohn Schmitt’s book is a welcome addition to the Anglophone historical scholarship on Commedia dell’Arte, investigating its performance features from the perspective of the literary and rhetorical traditions that constituted one of its essential premisses. Each chapter addresses an aspect of Commedia performance : improvisation, acting styles, and the use of masks. Although supporting the contention that there is no direct continuity between the historical form and any contemporary theatre practice, a final chapter entitled ‘Coda’ briefly discusses renowned contemporary theatre groups that claim to be inspired by Commedia. As a form of theatre that traverses two hundred years of European history, Commedia dell’Arte poses a challenge to any scholarly attempt at being both concise and exhaustive. When striving to capture the essence of Commedia, early twentiethcentury prominent theatre reformers such as Meyerhold and Copeau used the emphasis on physical actions as a catalyst for a new theatre aesthetics that stood the test of time. In doing so, however, they contributed to obfuscation of the literary elements of Commedia performance, which were historically at least as important as its visual and physical manifestations. By applying rhetorical discourse to the analysis of Commedia performance techniques, Performing Commedia dell’Arte, – gives due attention to the oratorical skills of its practitioners, and places the devices of improvisation, gestural code, and masks in their proper historical and cultural context. Schmitt aptly reminds us that improvisation in early modern Commedia, far from being comparable to contemporary ‘improv-comedy’, was founded on memory (p. ), with actors deriving their compositional material from mnemonic access to an ample selection of sources, ranging from classical literary texts to commonplace books (p. ). For instance, documentary evidence shows that the  Reviews Commedia ‘diva’ Isabella Andreini integrated Petrarchan lyric poetry into her own impromptu performance (p. ). By referring to the scenarios by Flaminio Scala, which were published in , Schmitt follows in the steps of previous scholarship, demonstrating how Commedia characters, including the parti ridicole of the servants and old men, needed flexible and accomplished performers. e parallel with Charlie Chaplin is apt: while easily identifiable, the characters were employed in a variety of dramatic situations and roles. By way of example, the zanni Burattino could play a servant, innkeeper, beggar, peasant, or postman (p. ). It is regrettable that access by Anglophone scholarship to the wealth of Italian studies on Commedia remains very limited. is leads to some misconceptions. For instance, Schmitt’s focus on the practice of the prestigious troupes that operated in Italy and Europe between  and  necessarily restricts the field of investigation to a theatrical practice which was contiguous with but not identical to that of piazza performers. In fact, similarly to London companies of Shakespeare’s time, these troupes operated alternately under court patronage and in indoor spaces, where they played for a paying audience mostly composed of nobility and the middle class. is point is not clarified in the book, which leads to some confusion. For example, the assumption that the different dialects used by the parti ridicole rendered their utterances barely understandable (p. ) appears to contradict the emphasis on the rhetorical force of Commedia performance. While arguing...