The concept of national identity and how it can be seen in drama has preoccupied a number of scholars in recent years. Both Cynthia Lowenthal's Performing Identities on the Restoration Stage (2003) and Bridget Orr's Empire on the English Stage, 1660–1714 (2001) examine this topic in relation to the English Restoration, and Jen Harvie's Staging the UK (2005) looks at more recent manifestations, to name just three examples. Louise H. Marshall's National Myth and Imperial Fantasy: Representations of Britishness on the Early Eighteenth-Century Stage contributes to this popular field, and she begins by clearly defining the scope of her intervention.

Focusing on British history plays produced and published between 1719 and 1745, Marshall aims to explore how drama presented the concept of British identity, seeking to uncover commonalities and to pinpoint who the singular and apparently fixed “Briton” so often addressed in prologues actually was. Although what is meant by the term “identity,” and specifically “national identity,” isn't discussed at length, the reader is frequently reminded that these are fluid concepts that lack any singular manifestations. Throughout her book, Marshall examines the ways in which a consensus is (or, more commonly, is not) reached between plays.

In each of her five chapters (there is also an Introduction and Conclusion), Marshall looks at plays grouped by subject or source material. Her first chapter, “Ancient Britons and Liberty,” focuses on texts that redeploy Britain's Celtic and Saxon history, and highlight the centrality of liberty to British national identity. Marshall argues that these plays show how “modern patriots are the direct descendants … of the nation's ancient fore-fathers and mothers and, therefore, the ideal protectors of a national liberty inherited by all Britons from their ancient ancestors” (47). Most of these plays concern the “loss and restoration of national liberty” (26) and portray the British as superior to some Other that threatens this liberty. Marshall also highlights that, in addition to different political parties, Britain was made up of different nationalities and religions. She notes that although some plays indulged in stereotypical presentations, the playwrights overlooked these regional (and religious) differences, subsuming Irish, Welsh, and/or Scottish figures into a broader conception of British identity in an attempt to present “national, political and cultural unification” (19).

Chapter 2 (“Kings, Ministers and Favourites: The National Myth in Peril”) discusses plays that focus on the fall of the corrupt favorite or that engage with this idea in some way. Marshall argues that although there were exceptions, the link between “favouritism and unpatriotic corruption” was typically seen as a central idea (76). In “Shakespeare, the National Scaffold,” her third chapter, Marshall examines ten adaptations of Shakespeare's history plays written and performed during this time frame, paying particular attention to the role of women. While she acknowledges that breeches roles became popular because “attractive female bodies sell tickets,” she argues that the engagement of “politically active women” in “public activities” was suggestive of more than this (91–2). With the female duty shifting from father to country, Marshall maintains that these plays collectively illustrate the idea that all British citizens (male and female) were responsible for protecting the nation.

The final two chapters (“Britain, Empire and Julius Caesar” and “Turks, Christians and Imperial Fantasy”) cover the appropriation of non-British history, and it is in these chapters that Marshall engages with the titular idea of “imperial fantasy.” She contends that “imperial power necessarily compromises liberty, encourages tyranny and positions the just treatment of citizens as of secondary importance,” and the features of British identity identified thus far (liberty and patriotism) do not sit comfortably with imperialism (109). Attempts to marry ideas of patriotism and imperialism could be seen in depictions of the Roman Empire, Marshall argues, and plays containing Julius Caesar provide examples of patriotic colonialism. Although Marshall notes that Julius Caesar is commonly depicted as a villain, she hones in on plays that form exceptions to this rule, arguing that they “participate in a pro-colonial discourse which takes ancient Rome as a model for British colonial endeavour” (109). In addressing plays using Turkish history to promote a British national identity, Marshall notes that “foreign soil is … exploited in order to showcase Britain's self-image of Protestant superiority” using what are, in fact, “often self-contradictory discourses” (142–3).

Marshall concludes that there is little agreement among these plays regarding the definition of British national identity in dramatic literature of this period. Given her identification of the fact that “factionalism, political placement, favouritism and ministerial self-interest … rendered ‘agreement’ within parties, let alone across party divides, practically impossible” (181), it should come as no surprise that there is no unified vision in the contemporary dramatic literature. All of these plays are loosely linked, Marshall posits, by their presentation of “patriotism, national identity and idealism,” and a “sense of divinely ordained superiority” (16). “Concord,” she argues, “was a repeatedly evoked fantasy” that simply could not be realized in any concrete manner (181).

Marshall's work is part of an expanding and interesting conversation, and although her contribution is apparent (largely due to the clear delimitation of her scope), she rarely makes explicit connections to the broader field. Engagements with other scholars who explore the relationship of theatre to identity are limited, and references to other texts are often consigned to endnotes or are not even listed in the bibliography (such as Anderson's Imagined Communities). This criticism aside, Marshall's National Myth and Imperial Fantasy offers scholars and students an in-depth discussion of the specific contributions of a number of history plays within her chosen period. The focus is not upon the performance of these plays, and questions regarding the playwrights, possible audiences, and the relative popularity of the plays are not addressed; but this book does make clear the contributions of dramatic literature to the discussion of theatre and national identity.