"Introduction: The Rest is History”

Introduction, selection and editorial matter © Christopher Collins & Mary P. Caulfield 2014Individual chapters © Contributors 2014

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission.

No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6– 10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.

Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published 2014 byPALGRAVE MACMILLAN

Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.

Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.

Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world.

Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.

ISBN 978–1–137–36217–9

This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataIreland, memory and performing the historical imagination / [editors] Christopher Collins, Mary P. Caulfield.pages cmIncludes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978–1–137–36217–91. English drama—Irish authors—History and criticism. 2. Collective memory in literature. 3. History in literature. 4. Ireland—In literature. 5. Literature and history—Ireland. 6. Theater and society—Ireland. I. Collins, Christopher, 1984– editor. II. Caulfield, Mary P., 1978– editor. PR8795.C55I84 2014822'.0099415—dc23 2014025314

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India.

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–36217–9


vii

List of Illustrations ix

Acknowledgements x

Notes on Contributors xii

Introduction: the Rest is History 1Christopher Collins and Mary P. Caulfield

Part I Legacy and Heritage

1 Walking In and Out of Place: the Pedestrian Performances of Tim Robinson 19

Daniel Sack

2 A Theatre of the Unword: Censorship, Hegemony and Samuel Beckett 36

Nicholas Johnson

3 Re- considering Oscar Wilde’s Flamboyant Flop: Vera or The Nihilists 55

Aideen Kerr

4 Courtly Love and Heroic Death in W. B. Yeats’s Cuchulain Cycle of Plays 69

Paul Murphy

5 ‘… Whenever the Tale of ’98 is Told’: Constance Markievicz, the National Memory and ‘The Women of Ninety-Eight’ 87

Mary P. Caulfield

6 Theatre of Dissent: the Historical Imagination of the Irish Workers’ Dramatic Company 101

Lauren Arrington

7 Staging the Body in Post- Independence Ireland 118 Lionel Pilkington

Part II Recollection and Remembrance

8 Pampooties and Keening: Alternate Ways of Performing Memory in J. M. Synge’s Plays 139

Hélène Lecossois

Contents



viii Contents

9 ‘Why Do You Always Be Singin’ That Oul’ Song?’: the Subversion of Emigrant Ballads in John B. Keane’s Many Young Men of Twenty 155

Joseph Greenwood

10 Boxed Rituals: Eamon de Valera, Television and Talbot’s Box 171 Michael Jaros

11 Unblessed Amongst Women: Performing Patriarchy Without Men in Contemporary Irish Theatre 190

Cormac O’Brien

12 The Abuse of History/A History of Abuse: Theatre as Memory and the Abbey’s ‘Darkest Corner’ 207

Emilie Pine

13 Forgetting Follow 223 Christopher Collins

Index 239



1

If the past is a foreign country then it has been colonized. This is a book about lost histories and faded memories of Irish theatre and per-formance. Winners write history, no one remembers history’s so- called losers. Until now.

All of the essays in this book pluralize past events that are located in the gaps and the fissures of the architecture of Ireland’s historical conscious-ness. This methodology of pluralization is very much dependent upon confronting memory and history with its spectral double: forgetting. Memory and history may be opposed but this book seeks to find the fer-tile ground in- between. It is important to consider, then, how memory operates in relation to history. Memory is concerned with the present tense. It is not interested in being written into a narrative because those that remember valorize it, improvise on it and thus, shape it. History is concerned with the past tense; it situates memory in historical context. However, memory is not simply history’s Other. Performance in Ireland is marked by the performativity of memory and as such the reception of a collective memory becomes collective history. As Emilie Pine has sug-gested in her monograph The Politics of Irish Memory: ‘Irish culture pre-sents the past in ways that are accessible and salient to an audience with no direct or lived experience of the past which is being represented.’1 There is a relationship of productive exchange between memory and his-tory in Irish theatre and performance. Consequently, the essays in this book manipulate memory into being represented by history and they also manipulate forgotten history into being represented by memory. In highlighting memories and histories that resist the spotlight of homog-enous, progressive, historical narratives, the essays in this book pluralize the historical consciousness and thus contribute to the historical imagi-nation as reflected and shaped by theatre and performance in Ireland.

Introduction: the Rest is HistoryChristopher Collins and Mary P. Caulfield



2 Ireland, Memory and Performing the Historical Imagination

Writing in June 2012, Fintan O’Toole wondered why, ‘if Ireland has changed so much, why hasn’t theatre kept pace?’ O’Toole concluded that ‘Irish theatre is deeply conservative’.2 It could be argued that the history of Irish theatre and performance is equally conservative. Not because, as O’Toole points out, the style and the form of theatre and performance in Ireland isn’t keeping with the times – because it is – but rather as we seek to demonstrate here, the conservative nature of Irish theatre is due to its conservative historical narrative. In part this is a problem with pedagogical methodologies at secondary and tertiary level; students are spoon- fed hackneyed history that summons histori-cal iterability.3 But there is also something much more essential than this: the desire for human beings to buy consistently into the cultural industry of the historical imagination without pausing to consider how collective memory collides and colludes with the historical conscious-ness of Irish performance; as Richard Terdiman has suggested, ‘even memory has a history’ and it is ‘how a culture performs and sustains this recollection [that] is distinctive and diagnostic’.4 In finding the fertile ground between history and memory, all of the essays collected here seek to liberate the history of Irish performance from its con-servative historical consciousness. The liberation of Irish theatre and performance from conservative historical narratives is only possible by confronting its history with those memories that are particular to spaces, places and events that resist homogenization: from the archive to counter- hegemonic performance styles. Much of contemporary Irish theatre is currently engaged with citizenship and collective memory that confronts history with memory. For example, as O’Toole points out, a lot of the work of ANU Productions is set ‘in the continuous past – a history that is still playing itself out’.5 By considering histories and memories of and in Irish theatre practice across two centuries, this book collapses historical time into a tripartite structure where past, present and future are remembered. This is a liberal methodological structure that creates, to borrow O’Toole’s phrase, ‘a history that is still playing itself out’.6

Ireland’s enfranchisement under the logic of modernity is a con-tinual point of consideration in this book because, as Paul Connerton has argued, ‘modernity has a particular problem with forgetting’.7 Irish modernity has a ‘particular problem’ with amnesia; that is, a partial loss of memory or even worse, a total loss of memory. However, this postulation alone does not make the amnesia that characterizes Irish modernity particularly Irish. What is peculiar to Ireland’s relationship to modernity, memory and history is the pluralization of the historical



Christopher Collins and Mary P. Caulfield 3

consciousness under the logic of capitalism. The Great Famine ( 1845– 9) propelled Ireland into a modernity articulated by the institutional logic of capitalism. In doing so, the historical consciousness of Gaelic Ireland became collective memory. Irish theatre- makers directly responded to the historical disjuncture that arose from an abrupt political, social and cultural modernization articulated by capitalism’s material conditions by using performance to pluralize the historical consciousness. Memory became the consciousness of the collective that stood outside of historical time. In short, the memory of Gaelic, pre- Famine Ireland did not disap-pear because performance processes memorialized it. It can be argued, then, that the history of modern Irish theatre and performance is predi-cated on memory, rather than history. Pierre Nora’s discussion of lieux de mémoire, sites ‘in which a residual sense of continuity remains’, and milieux de mémoire, ‘settings in which memory is a real part of everyday experience’8 is one way of considering Ireland’s structural relationship with modernity as a condition of being haunted by the effects of amnesia. In its genesis modern Irish theatre can be understood as praxis of lieux/milieux de mémoire. Not only did certain playwrights represent residual cultural memories of Gaelic Ireland as praxis of premodern beliefs (for example, caoineadh [keening] in J. M. Synge’s Riders to the Sea [1904]), but these memories were given material presence through the restoration of behaviour in performance.9 At the dawn of moder-nity theatres in Ireland were lieux de mémoire (sites of memory) and performance represented milieux de mémoire (environments of memory) because memory negated the processes of forgetting that are concomitant with the amnesia summoned by capitalist modernity. However, the whole point of capitalist modernity is that its history is one of selec-tive remembrance because it is ruthlessly progressive. As Fintan Walsh has suggested, with respect to contemporary Irish theatre practices that frequently respond to the Celtic Tiger Economy and its subsequent fis-cal collapse: ‘one of the criticisms of Irish people often heard during the boom years was that we suffered from collective amnesia about the past, in the giddy rush to get ahead’.10 At this juncture, Irish theatre and performance at the dawn of capitalist modernity chose to expose modernity’s peculiar problem with forgetting by giving representation to those memories that were partially or totally lost to the historical consciousness. This salient trait of Irish theatre and performance is as much present now as it was then; this dialectic of memory and history is played out across Ireland’s capitalist transition from modernity to postmodernity and it is a point of continual return for the essays in this book. Our concern, then, is primarily temporal. How does theatre and




performance in Ireland engage with time? And why is it that ‘that old common arbitrator Time’ forgets certain performances?11

Once upon a time …

Memory and history are temporal phenomena but they interact with time in two very different ways. Since Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, it has become increasingly important to postulate multi-ple temporal schemas. Time is not absolute. Space- time can only be relatively measured in relation to the motion of the measurer and the motion of the measurable. From a historiographical perspective, the tem-porality of the past is unstable because the historian is always shifting in her/his perception. History is the memorialization of past time but memory, on the other hand, is perception of past time and it resists pro-cesses of memorialization. Irish performance has a difficult relationship with memory because it attempts to memorialize the past by means of performance. Performance, however, is ephemeral and the perception of it is continually shifting, just as the perception of memory is continually shifting. And so if the past is marked by time, it is never finished because it is always present. If the past is continually present as memory then it is equally important to identify those histories that have been forgotten by the homogeneity of progressive historicism. Walter Benjamin has argued that ‘history is the subject of a structure whose site is not homogeneous, empty time, but time filled by the presence of the now’.12 But rarely is this historical/cultural materialist understanding of history accepted by the hegemony of progressive historical time, particularly with respect to the history of Irish performance. According to Benjamin, progres-sive historicism is empty because it is a model of historical time that is essentially bottomless, since historical event after historical event can be stacked into it; this articulation of historical time is unaffected by the horror of history, accounting for progressive historicism’s homogeneity. It is the historian’s task to ‘brush history against the grain’13 leaving others to ‘be drained by the whore called “Once upon a time” in histori-cism’s bordello’.14 Therefore, it should not be forgotten that memory is just as highly selective and imaginative as historical narratives.

Forgotten history lies cheek- by- jowl with collective memory because they are the aporetics of historical time. Time is the essence of all things, but as Martin Heidegger has suggested, our being- in- time (Dasein) is relative to space- time. Just as a clock that is buried underground moves slower because it is closer to the earth’s gravitational pull, so too do those histories and memories that remain buried move in an alternative




temporality; it is increasingly important to postulate how and why memory/history anachronistically affect the present when they are restored as behaviour in performance. Forgotten histories are just as powerful as collective memories because they are anathema to the progressivism of historical time. It is true that all history is predicated upon the identification of the trace, but a forgotten history is an identi-fication of the trace that resists the homogeneity of time. This impetus to highlight forgotten history is a burgeoning area of enquiry in Irish theatre and performance studies. Recent interventions made by scholars such as Ian R. Walsh in his monograph, Experimental Irish Theatre, iden-tify numerous neglected performance histories. Walsh concludes that ‘by investigating the marginal and forgotten we are rewarded with the recovery of what has been lost, new areas for study and contemplation, as well as fresh perspectives on existing works’.15 It is not that the received history of Irish performance is unstable. But the received and perceived stability does reflect the commodification of time as a meas-ure of linear productivity that is just as imaginary in its authenticity as the narrative of fiction. It is time for an alternative temporality of Irish performance that is commensurate with the relativity of space’s relationship to time; it is time that the space and place of the archive is pluralized. As Joseph Roach has suggested, ‘one important strategy of performance research today is to juxtapose living memory as restored behavior against a historical archive or scripted records’.16 It is time for alternative endings in the fiction of Irish performance history to recre-ate memories of the future past.

Ireland, whose past has infamously been aligned with an imagined or, as Declan Kiberd suggests, ‘invented’ history, has seen the burden and the benefit of a theatrical and performance tradition which has helped to create this past whether it be cultural, literary or political. Michael Crang reminds us that ‘... the past is not an immutable or independent object. Rather it is endlessly revised from our present positions.’17 As such the lines between fact, fiction, memory and history are effectively blurred into the historical imagination. Resulting then is an infinite conversation between history, memory and the imagined. The creative possibilities in remembering the past remind us that it is not just a linear narrative but a living and regenerative discourse. In this sense then, his-tory and memory are both antonyms and interdependent. Theatre and performance histories suggest a more dynamic relationship between our individual memories and recollections, and our reconstruction of the past through a collective historical narrative. The ambition of this book is to locate those practices; the historically, and thus imaginatively




‘forgotten’ and discarded moments between individual reception and theatrical historical presentations.

The consideration of how memory operates in relation to the his-torical imagination requires an alternative understanding of time as a Möbius strip that links the past to the present, as Paul Ricoeur has argued:

the interweaving of history and fiction in the refiguration of time rests, in the final analysis, upon this reciprocal overlapping, the quasi- historical moment of fiction changing places with the quasi- fictive moment of history. In this interweaving, this reciprocal over-lapping, this exchange of places, originates what is commonly called human time, where the standing- for the past in history is united with the imaginative variations of fiction, against the background of the aporias of the phenomenology of time.18

If memory and history are always subject to the vagaries of imaginative time, then surely it is time that this temporal framework is applied to history of Irish theatre and performance? It is not that memory and history should be imagined out of thin air, but that memory and his-tory should be reimagined by means of performance. If this happens, then the received history of Irish theatre and performance will cease to be conservative because memory and history will productively inter-change so that the future of history can be remembered. If it doesn’t, then memory will continue to ghost the aporias of historical time and consequently, the rest is history.

Some of the essays presented here consider neglected histories and minority pasts. Others take memory and remembrance as their point of concern. As a collective whole, all of the essays are testimonies to the past as either history or memory and it is by means of performance that memory and history are able to productively interchange in order to facilitate the épistème of history in Ireland. In order to reflect the anach-ronisms that memory and history summon, the chapters in this book are not arranged strictly chronologically. Nevertheless, the chapters are bracketed by two major concerns: legacy and heritage and recollection and remembrance.

Legacy and heritage

The first seven essays in this book are thematically linked by their con-sideration of legacy and heritage in relation to performance in Ireland.




The history of Irish theatre and performance is conservative because it is a symbolic site of legacy and heritage. Daniel Sack’s chapter on Tim Robinson’s perambulations along the Irish coastline considers how the very act of walking is performative and conducive to the summoning of forgotten history. Sack challenges the ‘embodied use of the land’ and its cartographical representation. By juxtaposing Robinson’s engagement with the heritage of the landscape with the legacy that Robinson cre-ates, Sack considers Robinson’s performative methodologies of historio-graphy that are primarily concerned with the traces and residues of the walking event. What results is an extension of J. L. Austin’s Speech Act and de Certeau’s distinction of a fixed and fluid space. Sack demands that place occurs ‘between the space of the walking act’ and through the performative expression of walking, we create place and recreate land-scapes on both physical and metaphorical terrains.

Often where there is performativity of legacy and heritage there is a significant temporal disjuncture: nostalgia. Svetlana Boym consid-ers nostalgia to be the ‘ache of temporal distance and displacement’19 that can be restorative or reflective. Restorative nostalgia authorizes the memory of home (nóstos) whereas reflective nostalgia seeks to author-ize the processes of longing (àlgos), rather than the memory of home. Restorative nostalgia, then, ‘evokes national past and future’ whereas reflective nostalgia is ‘more about individual and cultural memory’.20 Nicholas Johnson’s chapter lies at the interface of restorative and reflective nostalgia in its analysis of the legacy of one of Ireland’s most celebrated playwrights: Samuel Beckett. Johnson considers the ways in which Beckett’s theatrical legacy in Ireland is marked (and arguably marred) by censorship. Johnson interrogates the politics of silence and censorship in numerous performances of Beckett’s texts in professional, amateur and educational contexts. While it holds true that Beckett had a complicated relationship with Ireland that was occasionally marked by reflective nostalgia, the commodification of Beckett by the Irish nation- state is indicative of restorative nostalgia. Johnson identifies the discrepancies between these different histories and reveals Beckett’s complex legacy in relation to the industry of culture.

The silencing of counter- normative figures does not begin with Beckett; nor, of course, will it end with him. Silence and censorship are themes that can also be applied to the life and work of Oscar Wilde. Aideen Kerr’s chapter explores the patriarchal gaze of historical nar-ratives in relation to one of Wilde’s very first, and considerably mar-ginalized, play: Vera or The Nihilists (1883). Kerr identifies the historical imagination concomitant with Wilde’s plays and how, in Vera or The




Nihilists, Wilde drew female characters that were recalcitrant to the stric-tures of patriarchy. Cathy Leeney’s Irish Women Playwrights, 1900– 1939: Gender and Violence on Stage suggests that issues of identification arise in ‘any patriarchal cultural context where the male gaze of the audience is confronted with women’s worlds’.21 Likewise, it is true that the history of Irish theatre and performance is marked by masculinity and this legacy has defined the heritage. Wilde positions his Vera somewhere between passive pawn and revolutionary architect. As Kerr suggests, Wilde’s Vera is a modern woman whose self- assertion brings forth ‘ controversial social issues to his audience’, hence, at the forefront of the male gaze and ultimately, onto ‘the world stage’.

It is widely lamented that from the first sparks of the imagining of Irish Nationhood, women have stood as the allegoric tablet on which Nationalists would etch out their representative vocabularies. In spite of this, Augusta Gregory and W. B. Yeats’s iconic Cathleen ní Houlihan (1902), primarily carries the burden of rendering women in Irish National rhetoric as almost indelibly symbolic. Paul Murphy’s chapter challenges the various manifestations of women as an object of fantasy in W. B. Yeats’s Cuchulain Cycle of plays including: At the Hawk’s Well (1916), The Green Helmet (1910), On Baile’s Strand (1904), The Only Jealousy of Emer (1922) and The Death of Cuchulain (1939). Murphy applies the Lacanian notions of ‘fantasy’, ‘Symbolic Order’ and the ‘Real’ in order to locate and analyse the relationship between the protagonist Cuchulain and Yeats’s female characters. The result is Murphy’s interpretive focus on the Cuchulain cycle, which shifts from a predominant concern with national identity and mythology, towards a critique of the gender hierarchies inherent to the plays and their cul-tural context of production.

With a similar trajectory, Mary Caulfield’s chapter unearths the subversive power in Constance Markievicz’s theatrical and journalistic renderings of her female protagonists. Caulfield analyses Markievicz’s 1915 contribution to the Irish Citizen – ‘The Women of ’98’– in tandem with her three plays, Blood Money (1925), The Invincible Mother (1925) and Broken Dreams (1927). Markievicz’s series uncovers the subterranean histories of female activism during the seminal Nationalist year of 1798 while demanding a contemporaneous need for women’s activism. As a result, Markievicz’s theatrical and rhetorical work serves as a vehicle for women’s narrative voice to remember and recollect Ireland’s nation- building process.

The unification and adoration of a free Ireland was the impetus of the Revival. However, in stark contrast to the main- stage of the Abbey




Theatre which hosted ‘mystical depictions of an uncorrupted West and representations of an imaginary peasantry’, the Irish Workers’ Dramatic Company (IWDC, an amateur company) was intent on ‘a drama of dis-ruption’.22 Appropriately, the IWDC was headquartered at Liberty Hall, the base camp for the Irish Transport and General Worker’s Union and simultaneously the unofficial ‘seat’ of the working class representative. Lauren Arrington divides the IWDC’s productions into two categories: anti- peasant- centric and those plays which present Revivalist rhetoric in attempt to subvert it. The IWDC supplied a theatrical alternative to the romantic nationalist preoccupations of the Abbey and looked to the present ‘to re- imagine the place of the individual in history and in the process to effect material change’.23 What resulted was a preliminary form of agitprop theatre and thus a reimagined history in response to the dominant ideology of the Irish Literary Revivalist- cum- Nationalist.

We continue our exploration of working- class realism with Lionel Pilkington’s chapter considering Sean O’Casey’s 1926 production of The Plough and the Stars. Pilkington’s thesis draws its inspiration from the photograph of Abbey Theatre actress Ria Mooney who played the part of the prostitute Rosie Redmond in this first production. Reading within the context of postcolonial Ireland, Pilkington links a positive portrayal of prostitution with the labouring body. Pilkington reconsiders W. B. Yeats’s and Ernest Blythe’s statements concerning the importance of theatrical acting to the value of the Abbey Theatre as a state- subsidized national institution and argues that Mooney as prostitute is not the ‘symptom’ and residue of ‘social injustice’ but rather is actor/labourer – an ideal model for the role of citizen within a burgeoning capitalist economy.

Recollection and remembrance

Memory is elusive. It is constantly renegotiated, reconstructed and in many ways it is not to be trusted. If such is true, misremembering is then an invalid judgment, as remembering is revisionist in its scope and at its core. Memory and performance are always fluid concepts, never fixed and never matched and therefore, when held up against the meta- consideration of an individual reaction, are subjected simultane-ously to a collective and cultural experience. Oona Frawley’s collection Memory and Ireland draws some of its inspiration from Paul Connerton’s How Societies Remember. Frawley outlines part of Connerton’s thesis, which asserts ‘that all memory is social, arguing that social memory is often enacted as performance, through ritual, gesture and com-memoration’.24 Further investigation into Connerton’s work finds




that in order to understand collective or the ‘social formation of mem-ory’ it is necessary to locate and analyse ‘those acts of transfer that make remembering in common possible’.25 If, of course, collective memory is ever possible. The next six chapters move from reminiscences of forgot-ten histories towards a performance history of memories.

Hélène Lecossois brings us back to one of Ireland’s formidable moments of analysing culture and the effects of Synge’s negotiation of premodern cultural practices. Lecossois’s chapter demonstrates how problematizing the spectators’ agency effectively renegotiates Ireland’s conservative thea-tre history. Lecossois identifies the emergence of memory in Synge’s plays as a formal device that demands the spectator to bear witness to cultural practices that were named but unknowable, thereby repositioning the spectator’s subjectivity and ultimately, their agency during the performa-tive event. This is perhaps most famously recognized in the disturbances that greeted Synge’s The Playboy of the Western World (1907). However, Lecossois turns to alternative memories from Synge’s other plays, particu-larly those of pampooties and keening in Riders to the Sea (1904) and pro-ceeds to argue that Synge’s dramaturgy is, in fact, a performative archive that contains those memories that are antithetical to history’s totalizing narrative of progress. In this way, Synge’s staging of forgotten memories is a testament to how ‘theatrical performance can transform and subvert the overall meaning of the narratives of the plays and allow for practices deemed archaic and moribund to live on’.

With spirit akin to Synge’s, the theatre of the early 1960s brought the subversion of the widely popular, yet historically imaginative emigrant ballad to the stage. Joseph Greenwood’s chapter locates a specific move-ment towards a revised social memory in John B. Keane’s controversial play Many Young Men of Twenty (1961). Greenwood charges that this play, which shares its title with an emigrant ballad, challenges the latter song form, which had helped mould the perception that emigration was simply part of Ireland’s lot. This tradition relied on the re- performance of such songs, which were predominantly born in the nineteenth century and perpetuated anachronistic attitudes towards emigration. Greenwood finds that Keane reimagines the emigrant ballad and intro-duces a then- modern perspective, locating a ‘political hypocrisy’ and exposing the underlying causes of social perception of emigration.

Michael Jaros’s chapter brings us ten years closer to the present and locates a moment of transfer between Eamon de Valera’s 1975 funeral and Thomas Kilroy’s 1977 play for the Dublin Theatre Festival, entitled Talbot’s Box (1977). Jaros identifies Kilroy’s ‘ best- known play’ as an indi-rect reaction to de Valera’s death as well as to several literary responses




to de Valera’s funeral. Kilroy’s use of ‘surrogation’ – Joseph Roach’s prescription for the switching of a beloved deceased figure for a suitable historical alternative – allowed ‘various cultural tensions within 1970s Irish culture’ to be explored through the figure of Matt Talbot, thus pre-serving the necessary idyllic memory of Eamon de Valera. Furthermore, Jaros explores the fraught relationship between live forms of memorial performance such as theatre and funerals and the way the televisual ‘box’ alters our perceptions of how collective events were remembered within the Republic of Ireland in the 1970s.

With Cormac O’Brien’s chapter we travel further forward into the twentieth century towards a more contemporary spectrum of the gen-der hierarchy. O’Brien turns his focus toward the manifestation of mas-culinity both in and on female bodies and interrogates the sociocultural effects and psychological affects of patriarchy on the lives of women when patriarchs are absent from the stage, or exist as nameless entities entrenched within Irish sociopolitical and cultural structures. In this sense images of women and likewise, the experiences of women, are weighed not as independent and with autonomous merit but rather as a reactor and reactive to and against the male gaze. O’Brien places empha-sis on the memories in process in the theatre of Dermot Bolger and Tom Murphy to analyse the performative necessity of masculine tendencies in order to privilege the plight and purpose of female characters, in an Irish theatre otherwise predominated by the figure of the absentee male.

In May of 2009 the Republic of Ireland witnessed the published culmination of nine years’ worth of research conducted by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. This commission, more com-monly known in Ireland as the Ryan Commission or Report, was organ-ized in an attempt to investigate 64 years’ worth of claims of abuse in Catholic- run institutions in Ireland. This catalogue amounted to five volumes including an executive summary containing 43 conclusions, one of which found that, ‘Some children lost their sense of identity and kinship, which was never recovered’.26 While the Ryan Report also concluded that the abuse occurred primarily in ‘boys’ institutions’,27 it dissolved the gender divide and determined a common denominator of victimhood. Emilie Pine’s chapter recognizes the need for a theatri-cal response to such clerical abuse and looks to three plays staged by the Abbey Theatre in a series entitled, ‘The Darkest Corner’. The plays analysed include The Evidence I Shall Give by Richard Johnson (1963), James X by Mannix Flynn (2003) and No Escape by Mary Raftery (2010). Pine advocates that for the victims of abuse ‘these repressions and manipulations represent an abuse of memory and history’, thus turning




the National Theatre into a ‘theatre of memory’ where those forgotten histories can operate as National testaments.

All of the chapters in this book return again and again to the phe-nomenon of forgetting. Christopher Collins’s chapter considers forget-ting as an alternative way of considering the memories of performance and the performance of memory because, as he argues, it is from the threat of forgetting that memory is rendered. Collins considers forget-ting in relation to WillFredd Theatre, Shane O’Reilly and Jack Cawley’s Follow (2011), a highly innovative documentary performance for deaf, hearing and hard-of-hearing spectators. Collins suggests that forgetting should not be seen as something negative but a positive phenomenon that necessitates the concomitance of the imagination in each act of remembrance. In doing so, Collins argues that forgetting in perfor-mance summons alternative temporalities, and where there are alter-native temporalities there are also alternative histories. Follow suggests that forgetting offers a radical philosophy of performance as historio-graphical research, where the phenomenology of forgetting orchestrates theatre practice and the practice of theatre history.

The performance of forgotten histories creates a peculiar problem; all of a sudden those irrational and forgotten logics are brought into thea-tres of national- popular sovereignty, where they interrogate and desta-bilize the imagined history of the people- nation. Each chapter included in this collection locates a theatrical narrative that exists in the ruptures and fissures of that problematic model of self- reflection. Each author asks and answers a specific subversive question that challenges how we perform and remember Ireland’s theatrical archive and that serves as an intervention into, or anticipation of, the future marginalization of alternative theatre practices. A comprehensive offering of the ‘theatre of forgetting’ is not what this collection aims to accomplish. But rather, in its scope it offers an interrogation into performative aspects of cultural memory. Re- remembering the archive of Irish theatre and performance is not an easy task; nor will it, or could it, ever be totalizing. This catalogue of subterranean dramaturgies aims to be imperfect. Its deficits stand in memorial to the infinite fissures that are yet to erupt in the ever- incomplete canon of Irish theatre and performance studies.

Notes

1. Emilie Pine, The Politics of Irish Memory: Performing Remembrance in Contemporary Irish Culture (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 3.

2. Fintan O’Toole, ‘If Ireland Has Changed So Much, Why Hasn’t Theatre Kept Pace?’, Irish Times, 30 June 2012.




3. For example, students are taught the audience rioted at J. M. Synge’s The Playboy of the Western World, but such logic is not commensurate with the archive. What greeted the premiere of The Playboy of the Western World were organized disturbances that, at the very best, incited the unorganized spectator to participate in a disturbance. Turning to the newspapers that documented The Playboy of the Western World’s opening week, journalists constantly refer to the ‘renewed disturbances last night at the Abbey Theatre during the performance of Mr. Synge’s comedy’. See, for example, ‘The Playboy of the West’, Irish Times, 2 February 1907.

4. Richard Terdiman, Present Past: Modernity and the Memory Crisis (New York: Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), 3.

5. Fintan O’Toole, ‘It’s Ireland’s Best Public Theatre, and it Needs Our Support’, Irish Times, 28 September 2013, 7.

6. Ibid. 7. Paul Connerton, How Modernity Forgets (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2009), 1. Emphasis in original. 8. Pierre Nora, Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, Vol. 1, Conflicts

and Divisions, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), 1.

9. For more on this see Richard Schechner, Performance Studies: an Introduction (London: Routledge, 2002), 22.

10. Fintan Walsh, ‘The Power of the Powerless: Theatre in Turbulent Times’, in Walsh (ed.), ‘That Was Us’: Contemporary Irish Theatre and Performance (London: Oberon Books, 2013), 12– 13. Ireland’s so- called Celtic Tiger econ-omy existed in circa 1994– 2008.

11. William Shakespeare, The Oxford Shakespeare: the Complete Works, eds John Jowett, William Montgomery, Gary Taylor and Stanley Wells (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005), 769.

12. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn, ed. Hannah Arendt (London: Pimlico, 1999), 252– 3.

13. Ibid., 248.14. Ibid., 254.15. Ian R. Walsh, Experimental Irish Theatre: After W. B. Yeats (Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 9.16. Joseph Roach, Cities of the Dead: Circum- Atlantic Performance (New York:

Columbia University Press, 1996), 11.17. Michael Crang, ‘Spacing Times, Telling Times and Narrating the Past’, Time

and Society 3 (1) (1994): 29–45.18. Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, Vol. 3, trans. Kathleen Blamey and David

Pellauer (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1988), 192.19. Svetlana Boym, The Future of Nostalgia (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 44.20. Ibid., 49.21. Cathy Leeney, Irish Women Playwrights, 1900– 1939: Gender and Violence on

Stage (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 7.22. For the unionizing impulse in ahistorical depictions of Ireland, see Joep

Leerssen, Remembrance and Imagination: Patterns in the Historical and Literary Representation of Ireland in the Nineteenth Century (Cork: Cork University Press, 1996), 170.

23. For an example of Yeats’s aesthetic, see ‘The Irish Literary Theatre’, (1899) in John P. Frayne (ed.), Uncollected Prose, Vol. 2 (London: Macmillan, 1975), 163.




24. Paul Connerton cited in Oona Frawley (ed.), Memory Ireland, Vol. 1, History and Modernity (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2011), 21.

25. Paul Connerton, How Societies Remember (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 39.

26. BBC News (website), ‘Abuse Report – At a Glance’, last modified 20 May 2009, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8059973.stm>, accessed 21 December 2013.

27. Ibid.

Bibliography

BBC News (website), ‘Abuse Report – At a Glance’, last modified 20 May 2009. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8059973.stm>, accessed 21 December 2013.

Benjamin, Walter, Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn and ed. Hannah Arendt (London: Pimlico, 1999).

Boym, Svetlana, The Future of Nostalgia (New York: Basic Books, 2001).Connerton, Paul, How Modernity Forgets (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2009).——, How Societies Remember (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).Crang, Michael, ‘Spacing Times, Telling Times and Narrating the Past’, Time and

Society 3 (1) (1994): 29– 45.Frawley, Oona (ed.), Memory Ireland, Vol. 1, History and Modernity (Syracuse: Syracuse

University Press, 2011).Leeney, Cathy, Irish Women Playwrights, 1900– 1939: Gender and Violence on Stage

(New York: Peter Lang, 2010).Leerssen, Joep, Remembrance and Imagination: Patterns in the Historical and Literary

Representation of Ireland in the Nineteenth Century (Cork: Cork University Press, 1996).

Nora, Pierre, Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, Vol. 1, Conflicts and Divisions, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).

O’Toole, Fintan, ‘If Ireland Has Changed So Much, Why Hasn’t Theatre Kept Pace?’, Irish Times, 30 June 2012.

——, ‘It’s Ireland’s Best Public Theatre, and It Needs Our Support’, Irish Times, 28 September 2013, 7.

Pine, Emilie, The Politics of Irish Memory: Performing Remembrance in Contemporary Irish Culture (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).

‘The Playboy of the West’, Irish Times, 2 February 1907.Ricoeur, Paul, Time and Narrative, Vol. 3, translated by Kathleen Blamey and

David Pellauer (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1988).Roach, Joseph, Cities of the Dead: Circum- Atlantic Performance (New York:

Columbia University Press, 1996).Schechner, Richard, Performance Studies: an Introduction (London: Routledge,

2002).Shakespeare, William, The Oxford Shakespeare: the Complete Works, eds John

Jowett, William Montgomery, Gary Taylor and Stanley Wells (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005).

Terdiman, Richard, Present Past: Modernity and the Memory Crisis (New York: Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993).




Walsh, Fintan, ‘The Power of the Powerless: Theatre in Turbulent Times’, in ‘That Was Us’: Contemporary Irish Theatre and Performance, ed. Fintan Walsh (London: Oberon Books, 2013).

Walsh, Ian R., Experimental Irish Theatre: After W. B. Yeats (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

Yeats, W. B., ‘The Irish Literary Theatre’ (1899) in Uncollected Prose, Vol. 2, ed. John P. Frayne (London: Macmillan, 1975), 163.



239

Abbey Theatre, 8–9, 11, 47–8, 101–3, 108, 110, 112–13, 119, 123–7, 129–30, 132, 143, 183, 207–20

Adelphi Theatre, 57Akalaitis, Joanne, 45Albery, Donald, 42, 44Althusser, Louis, 43amnesia, 2Anthelme, Paul, 142Antoine, André, 142ANU Productions, 2Arrington, Lauren, 125Artaud, Antonin, 150–1, 181Auslander, Philip, 172Austin, J. L., 7, 21–2Australia, 200

Bacci, Robert, 45Banes, Sally, 144Banville, John, 182–3 Baudelaire, Charles, 23Beckett, Samuel, 7, 31, 36–50, 123

the Estate, 37, 45, 47, 49–50Beeman, William O., 150Belfast, 102Benjamin, Walter, 4, 23, 38,

140, 150Benton, Sarah, 93–4, 97Bergson, Henri, 229Bhabha, Homi K., 180Birkenhead (England), 110Birthistle, Ivan, 215 Blythe, Ernest, 125–6, 130–1body, the 118–32, 201Bolger, Dermot, 11, 191–93Bollas, Christopher, 122Boucicault, Dion, 105Bourdet, Gildas, 45Bourke, Angela, 149Boyle, William, 110, 112–13Boym, Svetlana, 7Brecht, Bertolt, 36Brennan, Dennis, 156

Brennan, Rose, 159Bundoran Drama Festival, 156

Camus, Albert, 56Canada, 123Cannon Harris, Susan, 128Cantrell, Tom, 237capitalism, 3, 9, 106, 110, 120–2,

125, 181capitalist, see capitalismcartography, 19–32Carville, Justin, 144–5Cattle Raid of Cooley (Táin Bó

Cúailnge), 78Cawley, Jack, 12, 223, 226‘Celtic Tiger’ economy, 3Chekhov, Michael, 231Clarke, Austin, 43class, social, 63, 102, 104, 140,

141–3, 146Ascendancy, Anglo-Irish, 39, 72, 77,

82, 89Catholic bourgeoisie, 72, 77–8, 82working class, the 119, 179, 199, 218

Colebrook, Claire, 192Collins, Michael, 173Conor, Liz, 120Conrad, Kathryn, 198Connerton, Paul, 2, 9Connolly, James, 106Connolly, Nora, 95Coogan, Tim Pat, 173–4 copyright law, European, 50Corlett, Christiaan, 147Costello, Father Morgan, 183Crang, Michael, 5Cranitch, Lorcan, 215 Cromwell, Oliver, 161Crowe, Eileen, 130Cullingford, Elizabeth, 175Cumann na nGaedhael, 125Cummins, Alyson, 215 Cunningham, John, 163

Index



240 Index

Curling, Kitty, 132Daly, Nicholas, 144David Lewis Theatre, 110Davis, Tracy C., 120Dean Fitzpatrick, Joan, 42Debord, Guy, 23de Certeau, Michel, 7, 21–3, 27, 29–30Derrida, Jacques, 234de Valera, Eamon, 10, 78, 160, 171–86Dirrane, Tom, 145documentary theatre, 223–35Doherty, Vincent, 215 Donaghy, Eileen, 159Drever, Timothy, see Robinson, TimDruidSynge, 148Druid Theatre Company, 148Dublin Theatre Festival, 10, 48, 171Duke of York Theatre, 104Durkheim, Émile, 56

Eblana Theatre, 48Einstein, Albert, 4emigrants, 155–65Emmet, Robert, 174England, 123, 158–9, 161, 163Ervine, St. John, 102Etherton, Michael, 179European Economic Community, 172

Famine, The (The Great Famine; ghorta mhór), 3, 27, 162

Fanon, Frantz, 122–3Fay, Frank, 124, 126–7Felman, Shoshana, 30feminine, see femininity femininity, 7–8, 11, 60–5, 69–82, 87–97,

120, 191–93, 196, 198–202Fianna Fáil, 173Fitzgerald, Kathleen, 159Fitzpatrick, David, 144Flynn, (Gerard) Mannix, 11, 208,

212–13Focus Theatre, 48Folan, Tom, 145Foley-Cave, Susan M., 225Forbes, Michele, 215forgetting, 1–6, 10, 12, 94, 175, 219,

223–35, 227–9, 230–5Foster, Susan Leigh, 150

Frawley, Oona, 9Friel, Brian, 20Fulton, Hamish, 23

Gallagher, Bridie, 159, 162Garner, Stanton, 151Garston (England), 110Gate Theatre, 48, 55Geraghty, Donna, 215 Germany, 102Gibbons, Luke, 171Gogarty, Oliver St. John, 43Gonne, Maud, 75, 90Gramsci, Antonio, 44Gregory, Lady Augusta, 8, 75, 101,

104, 110–14, 124–7, 130, 141–4, 88

Grierson, Sir Herbert, 131–2

Haarlemse Toneelschuur, De, 45Habermas, Jürgen, 61, 64Halberstam, Jack, 190–1Harrington, J. P., 47Harris, Nancy, 200–1, 202Hayes, Joanne, 198Heidegger, Martin, 4hegemony, 4, 36–7, 43–4, 46–50,

60, 72, 97, 110, 190–92, 203, 229

hegemonic, see hegemonyHenderson, Lynda, 195Heraclitus, 38heritage, 6–8, 87, 93Higonnet, Margaret, 55Hirsch, Edward, 102history, 1–12, 19, 22, 23, 24 26–8, 30,

36–42, 44–8, 50, 54–6, 60–1, 65, 87–9, 91–5, 101–4, 106–10, 112–14, 116, 119–20, 123, 126, 150, 155–6, 159, 163–5, 172–6, 177–80, 182–6, 190–4, 196–7, 202–3, 207–20, 223, 226, 228–30, 233–5

historical, see historyhistorical imagination, see historyHogan, Robert, 156Holyhead (Wales), 157Horniman, Annie, 75Hugo, Victor, 104



Index 241

Hunt, Eamonn, 215 Hyde, Douglas, 88Hyman, Colette A., 104

Icres, Fernand, 142Ireland,

1798 Irish Rebellion, 87–100, 103, 105

1916 Proclamation, 78, 87Arts Council, the, 49Aran Islands, the, 19–20, 25–7,

139–41, 144–6Dun Aengus, 146–7Inis Mór, 145–6Oatquarter School, 146

Ballsbridge (Dublin), 147Irish National Exhibition,

the 147Bean na hÉireann, 88Burren, the, 19–20, 26Catholic Church, the 11, 40, 43–4,

113, 156–7, 164, 161, 173, 179, 182–3, 192–4, 196, 198, 207, 211–12, 214

Catholicism, see Catholic Church, theCatholics, see Catholic ChurchCensorship of Publications Act, the,

40, 42Census (2011), Republic of

Ireland, 225citizenship, 2, 39Connemara, 20, 26, 28copyright law, 50Cork, 155Dáil Éireann, 126, 226Deaf culture and society, 223–35Department of Education, 214,

217–18Drumcondra (Dublin), 193Dublin, 20, 42, 43–4, 48–49, 55,

102, 105, 109–110, 125, 141–2, 144, 148, 174–5, 179, 182, 184, 193, 199

Glasnevin Cemetery, 174Talbot Memorial Bridge, the,

184, 186Dun Laoghaire, 157Easter Rising, 82, 96, 127, 132, 171,

173, 179

emigration from, 10Famine, The Great (ghorta mhór), 3,

27, 162Free State, the, 40, 78, 125, 131,

156–7, 164, 177, 179Galway, 145Irish Citizen, The, 87, 93Irish Literary Revival, the,

101–2, 114Irish National Theatre, the,

123–4, 126Irish peasant, the, 124, 141, 145Irish Times, The, 121, 125, 130,

210–11Irish Transport and General

Workers’ Union, 101–3, 106–7, 110, 112

Irish Senate, the (Seanad Éireann), 125Irish Sign Language, 225–7, 232Irish Women’s Liberation

Movement, 192Irish Women Workers’ Union,

101, 106Irishness, 39, 89Labour Party, 126Land Wars, 104Liberty Hall, 101, 103, 110Lockout (Dublin), 101, 179Penal Codes, 91, 161post-Independence, 118–35, 143Raidió Éireann, 160Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ), 172Roscommon, 157Stacks Mountains, 156Straw Island, 28Tralee, 155Ulster, 81–2War of Independence, the, 78

Irish Workers’ Dramatic Company (IWDC), 9, 101–14

Irish Workers’ Dramatic Society, 110

Jarry, Alfred, 124Johnson, Richard, 11, 208–10Johnson, Thomas, 126–7Johnston, Anna, 88Jordan, Eamonn, 190, 195Jordan, Neil, 175, 178Joyce, James, 48, 173



242 Index

Kant, Immanuel, 228Keane, John B., 10, 155–65keen, keening, 139–51Kelly, Anne, 195Keogan, Paul, 215 Keogh, Dermot, 155Keogh’s Sack Factory, Dublin, 105Kiberd, Declan, 5Kilroy, Thomas, 10, 171–86King’s Hall Theatre, 110Knowlson, James, 39

Lacan, Jacques, 8, 69, 70, 72–4, 76–7, 79–80

Laqueur, Thomas, 80Larkin, Delia, 101–2, 105Larkin, Jim, 101–2, 184–5Leeney, Cathy, 8legacy, 6–8, 32, 36–9, 46, 48–50, 93–4,

103–4, 174, 194, 202Lemaître, Jules, 142Lemass, Seán, 172Levitas, Ben, 102LGBT identities, 201Liverpool (England), 110Llewellyn-Jones, Margaret, 196Lloyd, David, 142London (England) 19, 23, 42,

44, 57–8, 60, 104, 110, 141, 144, 148

Long, Richard, 23Lord Chamberlain, the 42, 44, 50Lourdes, 231Lovett, Ann, 198Luddy, Maria, 130

Macintyre, Tom, 173Madrid, University of, 42Malinowski, Bronislaw, 140Manchester (England), 110Markievicz, Constance, 8, 87–97Marx, Karl, 127, 130Marxism, Marxist, see Marx, Karlmasculinity, 11, 62, 69, 106, 190–205Mason, Patrick, 181Matthews, Patrick, 225Mayne, Rutherford, 103, 144McBrinn, Róisín, 215 McCarthy, Marie, 160

McCarthy, Thomas, 177–8McDonagh, Martin, 141McGreevy, Thomas, 40McKenna, Siobhán, 196McKinnel, Norman, 103McLaughlin, John, 162McLean, Stuart, 140McQuaid, Charles John, 44, 48melodrama, 104–5, 107memory, 1–12, 38, 47, 76, 79, 87,

94–5, 97 123, 156, 162, 171–2, 174–8, 183–4, 186, 201, 207–20

memorial performance, 171–86performing memory, 139–51,

223–35social memory, 155–65

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 229, 231Methven, Eleanor, 215 Milligan, Alice, 88 Mitchell, Katie, 45Mirbeau, Octave, 151modernity, 2, 109, 131, 140–50modernization, 171Molloy, John, 180, 182–3Mooney, Ria, 9, 119–21, 128–9Mother Ireland, 87, 190–1, 193–4,

196–7Motley, Sophie, see WillFredd TheatreMullins, Bridget, 145Murphy, Elaine, 199, 202Murphy, Tom, 11, 195–7Murray, Christopher, 48

New York, 23, 57–8, 65, 104Nietzsche, Friedrich, 72Nihilism, 57–9, 62, 64Noh theatre, 73Noonan, Arthur, 210–11Nora, Pierre, 3, 228, Northern Ireland, 172–3, 176

O’Brien, Siobhan, 157O’Casey, Sean, 9, 48, 50, 102, 106,

119–21, 124, 128, 130, 132Ó Duilearga, Séamus, 140 O’Faoláin, Seán, 42O’Flaherty, Liam, 131O’Kelly, Donal, 215 O’Kelly, Emer, 225



Index 243

O’Kelly, Seumas, 103, 108, 114Old Testament, the, 195, 225Olympia Theatre, Dublin, 155, 157O’Reilly, Shane, 12, 223, 225–6, 230–4O’Toole, Fintan, 2, 190–2Oxford (England), 110

Paris (France), 39–40, 104, 142Parnell, Charles Stewart, 174–5patriarchy, 7–8, 11, 60, 62–4, 72,

190–205Pavis, Patrice, 172Pearse, Patrick, 174–5Pembroke Laundry, Dublin, 105phenomenology, 6, 223–5, 227,

229–35Pike Theatre, 42, 47Pine, Emilie, 1postcolonialism, 9, 118–32postmodernity, 3Project Arts Centre, 48Proust, Marcel, 230Pullen, Kirsten, 120Purcell, Mary, 183

Queen Victoria, 89Quinn, Brian, 211

Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred, 140Raffigan, Margaret, 209–10Raftery, Mary, 11, 207–8, 214–16Rancière, Jacques, 234Rayner, Alice, 162Reading, University of, 36Reavey, George, 40recollection, 6, 9, 88, 90, 92, 94,

177, 231Redmond, Rosie, 9, 119–21, 127–9Reinelt, Janelle, 227–8, 233remembrance, 3, 6, 9, 27, 76, 171–86,

223–5, 228, 232–5Ricoeur, Paul, 6, 219, 223–4, 226,

230, 233Roach, Joseph, 5, 11, 172, 175Robinson, Lennox, 125, 130Robinson, Tim, 7, 19–32Rosset, Barney, 41–2Rothberg, Michael, 224–5, 227Royal Court Theatre, 102, 183

Rubenstein, Michael, 131Russia, 56–7, 59, 62, 64, 102

St. Petersburg, 57Moscow, 58, 62

Ryan, Fred, 102Ryan Report, 11, 207–20

St George’s Hall, Liverpool, 110Samuel French, 111Sartre, Jean-Paul, 228Schneider, Rebecca, 143, 150, 234Scolnicov, Hanna, 61Scotland, 71, 73Shackleton, Jane W., 145–7Shakespeare, William, 4, 64, 224Sheehy-Skeffington, Francis, 87, 93–4Sheehy-Skeffington, Hanna, 87 Shiels, Sarah Jane, see WillFredd

TheatreSiberia, 60Singleton, Brian, 191Sinn Féin, 90Sontag, Susan, 45, 119, 131Sorbonne, the, 139Spenser, Edmund, 161Stanislavski, Konstantin, 131Steele, Karen, 111Strand, Mark, 32Suleiman, Susan Rubin, 55Synge, John Millington, 3, 10, 96,

112, 123, 126, 139–51, 191

Tabori, George, 45Talbot, Matt, 11, 171–86Taylor, Diana, 140, 226, 234Tchernyshevsky, Nikolai, 57temporal, temporality, see timeTerdiman, Richard, 2time, 2–6, 19, 21, 24, 26–8, 30, 36–41,

45, 47–9, 58, 63, 65, 72, 80, 111, 119, 123–4, 127–9, 131, 149–150, 162, 223–4, 226–9, 230–5

Tone, Wolfe, 89Tory Party, the, 103trauma, 226Trinity College Dublin, 48

Samuel Beckett Theatre, 49Trotter, Mary, 113



244 Index

United States, the, 123, 159, 163University College Dublin, 48

Van Voris, Jacqueline, 95–6Victorians, 55–65Virilio, Paul, 32Virno, Paulo, 131

West Indies, the, 161Walsh, Fintan, 3, 226Walsh, Ian R., 5Walton, Martin, 160Ward, Margaret, 78Warde, Sheelagh, 159Warner, Deborah, 45Welch, Robert, 113Welsh, Robert, 147Whelan, Kevin, 89Whelan, Yvonne, 89White, Hayden, 28

White, Jonathan, 215Wilde, Lady Jane, 59–60Wilde, Oscar, 55–65WillFredd Theatre, 12, 223

Motley, Sophie, 226, 230, 233–4Shiels, Sarah Jane, 226–7

William Morris Hall, 110Williams, Sean, 162 Wilmer, S. E., 114Wilson, Andrew Patrick, 103, 114Wolfe Tones, The, 164Wright, Udolphus, 126–7

Yeats, William Butler, 8, 69–82, 96, 101–2, 104, 112–14, 124–6, 129, 131–2, 139, 142, 178

Zasulich, Vera, 57Žižek, Slavoj, 72–4, 76–7Zola, Émile, 141–2



"Introduction: The Rest is History”

Documents

Transcript of "Introduction: The Rest is History”