Reviewed by:

• Theatres of Feeling: Affect, Performance, and the Eighteenth-Century Stage by Jean I. Marsden
• Fiona Ritchie (bio)

In 1763, James Boswell recorded in his journal a visit to the theatre to see David Garrick act King Lear. He described his efforts to get into “a proper frame” of mind in order to “shed abundance of tears” (qtd 1). This is one of three epigraphs that Jean Marsden uses to open her fascinating and important study of emotion in the eighteenth-century British theatre, and it neatly encapsulates both the pervasiveness of sentiment at this time and the potential for such emotional expression to be somewhat calculated, calling into question its authenticity. While the eighteenth century has been readily accepted as an age of feeling, Marsden questions why studies of sensibility have focused almost exclusively on the novel (one notable exception is Paul Goring’s 2000 monograph The Rhetoric of Sensibility in Eighteenth-Century Culture which, although not cited here, does deal with the stage as well). Given that theatre is an art form particularly adept at evoking emotion because of its liveness, its use of embodiment, and the communal nature of the audience experience (particularly in the eighteenth century, when the illuminated auditorium allowed spectators to observe each other and facilitated the spread of emotions amongst playgoers), Marsden’s attempt to shift the focus of studies of sensibility from fiction to drama is a welcome one. The book explores the triangular relationship between playwright, actor, and audience, all of whom played a role in creating feeling in the theatre. Marsden analyses the interplay between play scripts, their embodiment by performers, and spectators’ responses to argue for eighteenth-century sentimental drama not as worthy of revival today but as a record of lived experience in the period.

Words abound for eighteenth-century emotion, including feeling, affect, pathos, sentiment, sensibility, and so on. Attempting to explicate all of these terms and to differentiate between them is a tricky business. Marsden distinguishes between sentimentality (as described by Lynn Festa as a device used to shape emotional response) and sensibility (the human capacity to feel) but in general sticks with “sympathy”. The opening chapter explores this concept as developed, often specifically in relation to the stage, by Scottish Enlightenment thinkers such as Henry Home, Lord Kames, David Hume, James Beattie, and, of course, Adam Smith, who theorised sympathy as an emotional and moral state. The book then examines how the late eighteenth-century theatre put the theory of sympathy into practice. Chapter 2 focuses on the supremely emotional performances of Sarah Siddons, whose acting was so powerful that it risked destabilizing the spectator. Here the darker side of sensibility is revealed, as critics expressed anxiety that such intense feeling must be properly directed to bring about personal and [End Page 353] communal moral reform. The next three chapters analyse how specific plays were performed in order to encourage such reform in relation to issues such as patriotism, slavery, colonialism, and anti-Semitism.

Accounts of Siddons’ famous performances as Isabella (in Thomas Southerne’s 1694 play The Fatal Marriage, adapted by Garrick in 1757 and renamed after the central character) demonstrate the pathos that she could create in roles that emphasised wifely and maternal duty. But female characters in sentimental drama took on political as well as domestic significance in works such as Arthur Murphy’s The Grecian Daughter (1772), in which Siddons also acted. Here Euphrasia places filial piety above her ties to her husband and her child, saving her father, Evander, from starvation by breastfeeding him in a famous episode of Roman charity (that takes place offstage). But she also rescues the nation by killing the tyrant who has usurped her father’s throne at the end of the play, a moment that was considered the highpoint of the drama. Murphy “links filial piety to proper governance” (91) by emphasising that men, not women, should imitate Euphrasia’s actions and makes filial piety “a patriotic rather than domestic act” (92).

In the...

审核人：

• 情感剧场：情感、表演和十八世纪舞台让·马斯登 (Jean I. Marsden)
• 菲奥娜·里奇 (bio)

1763 年，詹姆斯·博斯韦尔在他的日记中记录了一次去剧院看大卫·加里克扮演李尔王的经历。他描述了他努力进入“适当的心态”以“流下大量的眼泪”（qtd 1）。这是让·马斯登 (Jean Marsden) 用来开启她在 18 世纪英国剧院中对情感的迷人而重要的研究的三篇题词之一，它巧妙地概括了当时情绪的普遍性以及这种情感表达的可能性。 ，质疑其真实性。虽然 18 世纪已经很容易被接受为一个感觉的时代，但马斯登质疑为什么对情感的研究几乎完全集中在小说上（一个值得注意的例外是保罗·戈林 2000 年的专着十八世纪文化中的感性修辞虽然这里没有引用，但它也涉及到这个阶段）。鉴于剧院是一种特别擅长唤起情感的艺术形式，因为它的生动性、对体现的使用以及观众体验的公共性（特别是在十八世纪，当照明礼堂允许观众相互观察并促进观众之间的情绪传播），马斯登试图将情感研究的重点从小说转向戏剧，这是一个受欢迎的尝试。这本书探讨了剧作家、演员和观众之间的三角关系，他们都在创造戏剧感方面发挥了作用。马斯登分析了剧本之间的相互作用，表演者的体现，

18世纪的情感用词比比皆是，包括感觉、情感、悲怆、感悟、感性等等。试图解释所有这些术语并区分它们是一件棘手的事情。马斯登区分了多愁善感（Lynn Festa 将其描述为一种用于塑造情绪反应的工具）和感性（人类的感受能力），但总的来说还是坚持“同情”。开篇一章探讨了由苏格兰启蒙思想家如亨利·霍姆、凯姆斯勋爵、大卫·休谟、詹姆斯·比蒂，当然还有亚当·斯密，他将同情理论化为一种情感和道德状态。然后，本书考察了 18 世纪晚期的戏剧如何将同情理论付诸实践。第 2 章重点关注莎拉·西登斯极度情绪化的表演，她的表演如此强大，以至于有可能破坏观众的稳定。在这里，感性的阴暗面显露出来，批评家们担心这种强烈的感觉必须得到适当的引导才能带来个人和[完第 353 页]社区道德改革。接下来的三章分析了具体的戏剧是如何上演的，以鼓励这种与爱国主义、奴隶制、殖民主义和反犹太主义等问题相关的改革。

西登斯饰演伊莎贝拉的著名表演（在托马斯·索恩 1694 年的戏剧《致命婚姻》中，由加里克于 1757 年改编并以中心人物命名）展示了她在强调妻子和母亲责任的角色中可以创造的悲情。但情感剧中的女性角色在亚瑟墨菲的《希腊女儿》等作品中具有政治和家庭意义（1772 年），其中西登斯也出演。在这里，Euphrasia 将孝道置于她与丈夫和孩子的关系之上，在罗马慈善的著名情节（发生在舞台外）中，通过母乳喂养他的父亲 Evander 免于饥饿。但她也拯救了国家，在剧的结尾杀死了篡夺父亲王位的暴君，这一时刻被认为是该剧的高潮。墨菲“将孝道与适当的治理联系起来”（91），强调男人而不是女人应该效仿尤弗拉西亚的行为，并使孝道成为“一种爱国而不是家庭行为”（92）。

在里面...