Reviewed by: Writing the History of the British Stage, 1660–1900 by Richard Schoch Edward Ziter WRITING THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH STAGE, 1660–1900. By Richard Schoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016; pp. 404. In past writings Richard Schoch has argued that the theatre was a central site for the development and dissemination of historical thought in nineteenth-century England. With Writing the History of the British Stage, 1660–1900 he shifts his attention from theatre as historiography to the historiography [End Page 441] of the theatre. This is clearly an understudied subject. While a few scholars have examined the texts that form the core of Schoch’s study, many have done so only to dismiss them, and no scholar has brought the rigor and sustained analysis displayed in this book. In short, Schoch really believes that the annotated copies of Langbaine’s An Account of the English Poets (1691), David Erskine Baker’s The Companion to the Playhouse (1764), and John Payne Collier’s History of English Dramatic Poetry (1831) are important and demand study, and he does a fine job of convincing his reader. He accomplishes this (daunting) task because he is principally concerned with these and other texts as poles in a dynamic field of historical imagining, rather than as markers in historicism’s progress. Schoch makes the case that debates about the nature of the past—debates that are now understood as a part of our emerging modernity—were on full display as British thinkers first began to construct the history of their national stage. Even more compellingly, he shows that theatre’s status as an embodied activity, as a selective occupation, and as a storehouse of texts shaped the contours of this debate. The historiography of the theatre differed from historiography more generally. How could it not, Schoch explains, when the theatre functions as an archive, a repertoire, a guild, and a space of convivial gathering. He shows how different forms of theatre historiography not only documented a body of plays, but also preserved myths of the transmission of acting choices and codes of professional behavior, while generating the idea of a communal group of play-goers and scholars connected through their shared knowledge of the art. The book foregrounds the work other scholars have done to expand our understanding of theatre as historiography, such as Diana Taylor’s examination of the tension between repertoire and archive and much of Joseph Roach’s work on performance genealogies in the same period. Schoch criticizes some scholars for their failure to recognize the significance of the texts that he analyzes. Key to this significance is his assertion that a range of Restoration and early eighteenth-century texts often read as limited primary materials can be productively read as theatre history when situated within contemporary conversations of the stage. Judith Milhous and Robert Hume asserted that nothing published before the 1708 Roscius Anglicanus could be described as a historical review of literature or drama; Schoch begins his analysis forty-eight years earlier. Jacky Bratton’s dismissal of the Biographia Dramatica (1782) and earlier playlists as being purely focused on play texts posits an anachronistic text-performance binary, according to Schoch. By contrast, reading playlists with para-texts reveals that writing on the theatre assumed an embrace between page and stage even in these early texts: “antipathies came much much later” (74). While Schoch does not tell a linear story, he does posit a beginning and an end. He sees a multitude of types of writing on theatre history emerging in the Restoration, writing that was prompted by the popularity of reading plays during the Interregnum (48) and by a wish to assert artistic continuity with the theatre before the Civil War (218). He ends his study with the nineteenth century, because there he sees the emergence and eventual dominance of “performance reconstructions as based on authoritative primary sources” (9). Theatre history in the interim comes in a variety of forms: “catalogue, calendar, chronicle, list, dictionary, dialogue, documentary, transcription, marginalia, biography, and narrative” (10). Such forms have been heretofore sidelined by a progressivist view of history that excludes documents that do not move us closer to narrative historiography...
Read full abstract