A classic book about the influential renaissance drama form, although sometimes strange in form: there are a lot of lists of characteristics and some verbatim quotes from dramas. Nevertheless, as an introduction to a hugely important part of the history of drama, this book is a valuable introduction.
I knew, vaguely, that Cd'A was linked to pantomime and to Punch & Judy but there are echoes of Cd'A in both Shakespeare (one given scenario seems to echo aspects of the Tempest, Falstaff echoes the Captain, Polonius and Gratiano echo the Doctor, sometimes called Doctor Graziano, Shylock is a type of Pantalone) and Moliere: “Moliere himself modelled his acting on the great Scaramouche and felt the lash of the French critics precisely because his stage technique was foreign. Moliere’s early plays were adaptations of Commedia plays.” (from the Introduction by Evert Sprinchorn) The plot of Don Juan also seems to have been developed by Cd'A.
The most interesting part of the book, for me, was the descriptions of the character traits. The biggest disappointment was the sketchy treatment of Scaramouche and the near invisibility of Columbine; both these characters seem to have been late inventions but I was expecting more about them. Nor did I learn why Bergamo seemed to be of such crucial importance: so many of the early characters appear to have originated there.
Despite its imperfections, it was an important and easy-to-read introduction to Harlequin and his colleagues.
I've always thought Commedia Dell'Arte was a fascinating form, so of course when I saw this book I had to get it. It certainly wasn't perfect--there were quite a few lists of the names of actors or the variations on the masks that, without context, were boring and skippable--however, there still were gems of information to be gleamed.
For instance, the author briefly mentions Carlo Goldini's (Italian playwright who moved the theater away from Commedia's more improvisatory style) encounter with a Commedia troupe on a ship. As well, he mentions some of the various interesting things that happened to some of the actors after they left the stage. For instance, I want to say it was Pope Benedict XIV, who much earlier in life had portrayed the archetype of The Doctor in these plays.
So all in all, it wasn't bad. There just wasn't much there. Skip the lists, read the rest, and you'll probably only have an hour or two of good, solid reading.