Riotous Performances: The Struggle for Hegemony in the Irish Theater, 1712-1784 by Helen M. Burke (review)

Abstract

about colonialismwhile conducting itselfin a loose analogicalvein. The resultsare unsatisfactory. On the whole, IrishandPostcolonial Writing is an uneven collection. If this amounts to a criticism,figures like Glenn Hooper all too readily identify criticism of postcolonial approacheswith 'revisionism',and his account of the latter-a 'politically conservative'and 'prejudiceddiscipline'which is 'in severalinstances,pro-Unionist' -is none too subtle. ShakirMustafa'sessayalso attacksrevisionismfor its attempts 'to demolish much of the nation'sheroic past'. Mustafamakes the interestingargument that revisionistcritiquesof nationalisthistoriographyare 'mythophobic': they fail to appreciatethat myths are constitutiveof Irishhistoryand are not simplya series of flawedreflectionsupon thishistory.Mythscannot simplybe dismissedas mistakes -as the naive rationalistsof revisionismwould have us believe -because their pragmatic effects are concrete and real. This is all well and good, but it leaves Mustafa in difficultieswhen repudiating the 'myths' of revisionism -surely the latter can adopt for itself the same defence. As prosecutor, on the other hand, Mustafaseems to replicatethe rationalismhe condemns when he criticisesrevisionism for conflating 'the real and the imaginative'.Weaknessesof this kind affect the general quality of the book, but this should not downplay the fact that Irishand Postcolonial Writing is a helpful exploration of postcolonial theory and in its best instances -particularly in the work of Graham and Kirkland-it vindicates its utility as a criticalmethod in Irish Studies. QUEEN'SUNIVERSITY BELFAST DAVIDDWAN Riotous Performances: TheStruggle for Hegemony in theIrishTheater, 1712-I784.By HELEN M. BURKE.Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. 2003. x + 356 pp. $70 (pbk$35). ISBN:0-268-040I5-X(PBK 0-268-04016-8). Riotous Performances is the firstdetailed study of the politics of the eighteenth-century Dublin theatre to be written, and is essentialreading for anyone interestedin Irish theatrehistoryor Irishpolitical historyin general. In the course of some 300 pages, Burke places the theatre disruptionsand riots that occurred during the years 1712 through 1786within the context of eighteenth-centuryIrish national politics. While other historiansof the period will certainlydebate many of the underlying premisesof her argumentsand questionseveralof her conclusions,Burke'sthoughtprovoking analysis lays the foundations for what will undoubtedly be fruitful discussionof the subjectfor decades to come. In her uncharacteristicallyponderous introduction,Burkeproposes a scenario in which formerIrish theatre historianshave ignored, suppressed,or distorteddiscussion of the politics to avoid subversion of a colonialist agenda in Ireland. She saysher book is 'at one level a work of political and culturalexcavation, an attempt to uncover the embedded significance of behaviors and practices that have been dismissedas irrational,meaningless, and folkloricin standardtheatricalhistories'. According to Burke, the various rioters - the 'unauthorized actors'- were taking advantage of the public forum that the theatre provided to articulate'their antihegemonicdesiresthrough explosive acts like theater "riots",as well as through more processualcounter-culturalbehaviorssuch as stagingIrishplays,wearingIrish manufacture, singing Irish songs, or mounting oppositions against the Theatre about colonialismwhile conducting itselfin a loose analogicalvein. The resultsare unsatisfactory. On the whole, IrishandPostcolonial Writing is an uneven collection. If this amounts to a criticism,figures like Glenn Hooper all too readily identify criticism of postcolonial approacheswith 'revisionism',and his account of the latter-a 'politically conservative'and 'prejudiceddiscipline'which is 'in severalinstances,pro-Unionist' -is none too subtle. ShakirMustafa'sessayalso attacksrevisionismfor its attempts 'to demolish much of the nation'sheroic past'. Mustafamakes the interestingargument that revisionistcritiquesof nationalisthistoriographyare 'mythophobic': they fail to appreciatethat myths are constitutiveof Irishhistoryand are not simplya series of flawedreflectionsupon thishistory.Mythscannot simplybe dismissedas mistakes -as the naive rationalistsof revisionismwould have us believe -because their pragmatic effects are concrete and real. This is all well and good, but it leaves Mustafa in difficultieswhen repudiating the 'myths' of revisionism -surely the latter can adopt for itself the same defence. As prosecutor, on the other hand, Mustafaseems to replicatethe rationalismhe condemns when he criticisesrevisionism for conflating 'the real and the imaginative'.Weaknessesof this kind affect the general quality of the book, but this should not downplay the fact that Irishand Postcolonial Writing is a helpful exploration of postcolonial theory and in its best instances -particularly in the work of Graham and Kirkland-it vindicates its utility as a criticalmethod in Irish Studies. QUEEN'SUNIVERSITY BELFAST DAVIDDWAN Riotous Performances: TheStruggle for Hegemony in theIrishTheater, 1712-I784.By HELEN M. BURKE.Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. 2003. x + 356 pp. $70...