The Irish Stage: A Legal History by W. N. Osborough

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Irish Stage: A Legal History by W. N. Osborough Deirdre Oleary THE IRISH STAGE: A LEGAL HISTORY. By W. N. Osborough. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2015; pp. 352. As he opens his The Irish Stage: A Legal History, W. N. Osborough is quick to concede that the study of the history of the Irish theatre is itself a rich and varied genre, and the justification for another work on the subject might not be immediately obvious. But his ambitious and extensively detailed survey and analysis of the legal applications, patents, transfers of ownership, laws, and codicils surrounding Irish theatre from the seventeenth to the late twentieth century are distinctive in their focus. While other Irish theatre scholars, notably Christopher Morasch, John Harrington, and Eamonn Jordan, have examined Irish theatrical history primarily chronologically and through the lens of dramaturgical analysis, Osborough largely omits a consideration of dramatic literature from his study. Instead, he provides exhaustive documentation on changes in theatre patents, reviews of privy councils, newspaper accounts, political pamphlets, acts of Parliament, and so on to further contextualize the evolution of theatre in Ireland as inextricably tied to Irish law. While other Irish theatre texts may focus on the entertainments and dramatic offerings as reflecting the evolving Irish national character and cultural interests of the people, Osborough examines the legal maneuvers and political acts that exercised limitations on the types of performances allowed at various theatres, and considers how these limitations influenced the development of particular genres and entertainments. The book is largely geared to Irish theatre scholars and legal scholars and provides valuable contributions to the extensive body of Irish theatre scholarship. The Irish Stage is organized chronologically across fifteen chapters, beginning with the creation in 1638 of the office of the Master of the Revels in Ireland. The original Master of the Revels, James Ogilby, and his successors are the focus of much of chapter 1, as they individually navigate the nascent Irish theatre landscape (exclusively concentrated in Dublin) against the changing political climate of Britain. Osborough notes the changes in theatrical patents, the theatrical threat posed by an emboldened Sir William Davenant and Sir Thomas Killigrew in London in 1660, and the ever-changing occupiers and owners of Ireland's original theatre, Smock Alley. This chapter is followed by an examination of the theatrical regulation in Britain from the early eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth. Some theatre scholars might rightly contest the choice of relying heavily (as Osborough does) upon British theatre historical practice (which was far larger, catered to a more diverse audience, and had significant legal and organizational differences) to document the Irish theatre. To that point, Osborough argues that Ireland's patents, theatrical structure, and legal oversight are informed and shaped by British theatrical practice, and that the Irish law surrounding theatre is best understood with sufficient description of British theatrical precedent. Where there are differences—for example, the lack of a Lord Chamberlain for Ireland—they are extensively documented. The next three chapters focus on the Dublin Stage Regulation Act, first introduced in 1779 by Thomas Sheridan as a thinly veiled attempt to preserve his theatrical monopoly in Dublin, passed by Parliament in 1785, and vigorously challenged by the Dublin Corporation the same year. Osborough details the debates in the House of Commons and the petitions filed in opposition to the act, which focused on the discrepancy in fees for putting on a play in an unlicensed theatre (£300 in Ireland, compared with £100 in Britain). Chapters 6-7 consider performances in Britain that were regulated under the Act of 1737 and the often creative means by which producers and managers sought to skirt the definitions of what constituted a regulated performance, in accordance with the act. These include the various attempts by managers to have their performances categorized as other forms of entertainment, as well as oftentimes ingenious staging methods employed to escape classification as a "stage play." Osborough notes as example the court case of Day v. Simpson, about an 1865 production of Pepper's Ghost by James Day that was performed "from a chamber below the stage—a complicated pattern of lenses and mirrors being...