Shakespeare and the modern stage, with other essays

Preface

The eleven papers which are collected here were written between 1899 and 1905. With the exception of one, entitled ''Aspects of Shakespeare's Philosophy," which is now printed for the first time, all were pubhshed in periodicals in the course of those six years. The articles treat of varied aspects of Shakespearean drama, its influences and traditions, but I think that all may be credited with sufficient unity of intention to warrant their combination in a single volume. Their main endeavour is to survey Shakespearean drama in relation to modern Ufe, and to illustrate its living force in current affairs. Even in the papers which embody researches in sixteenth- or seventeenth-century dramatic history, I have sought to keep in view the bearings of the past on the present. A large portion of the book discusses, as its title indicates, methods of representing Shakespeare on the modem stage. The attempt is there made to define, in the light of experience, the conditions which are best calculated to conserve or increase Shakespeare's genuine vitahty in the theatre of our own day.

In revising the work for the press, I have deemed it advisable to submit the papers to a somewhat rigorous verbal revision. Errors have been corrected, viii PREFACE

chronological ambiguities due to lapse of time have been removed, passages have been excised in order to avoid repetition, and reference to ephemeral events which deserve no permanent chronicle have been omitted. But, substantially, the articles retain the shape in which they were originally penned. The point of view has undergone no modification. In the essays dealing with the theatres of our own time, I have purposely refrained from expanding or altering argument or illustration by citing Shakespearean performances or other theatrical enterprises which have come to birth since the papers were first written. In the last year or two there have been several Shakespearean revivals of notable interest, and some new histrionic triumphs have been won. Within the same period, too, at least half a dozen new plays of serious literary aim have gained the approval of contemporary critics. These features of current dramatic history are welcome to playgoers of literary tastes; but I have attempted no survey of them, because signs are lacking that any essential change has been wrought by them in the general theatrical situation. My aim is to deal with dominant principles which underlie the past and present situation, rather than with particular episodes or personaHties, the real value of which the future has yet to determine.

My best thanks are due to my friend Sir James Knowles, the proprietor and editor of The Nineteenth Century and After, for permission to reproduce the four articles, entitled respectively, ''Shakespeare and the Modem Stage,'' ''Shakespeare in Oral Tradition," "Shakespeare in France," and "The Commemoration of Shakespeare in London." To Messrs Smith,

PREFACE ix

Elder & Co., I am indebted for permission to print here the articles on ''Mr Benson and Shakespearean Drama," and ''Shakespeare and Patriotism," both of which originally appeared in The Cornhill Magazine. The paper on "Pepys and Shakespeare" was first printed in the Fortnightly Review; that on "Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Playgoer" in "An English Miscellany, presented to Dr Fumivall in honour of his seventy-fifth birthday" (1901); that on "The Municipal Theatre" in the New Liberal Review; and that on "A Peril of Shakespearean Research" in The Author. The proprietors of these pubHcations have courteously given me permission to include the articles in this volume. The essay on "Aspects of Shakespeare's Philosophy" was prepared for the purposes of a popular lecture, and has not been in type before.

In a note at the foot of the opening page of each essay, I mention the date when it was originally pubHshed. An analytical list of contents and an index will, I hope, increase any utility which may attach to the volume.

SIDNEY LEE.

Ui October, 1906.

Contents

PAGE

Preface vii

I. The Perils of the Spectacular Method of Production 1

II Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Playgoer

I. An Imaginary Discovery of Shakespeare's Journal . 25 II. Shakespeare in the Role of the Ghost on the First

Production of Hamlet in l602 . . . . 27

III. Shakespeare's Popularity in the Elizabethan Theatre 29

Xll

CONTENTS

Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Playgoer — continued

FAG£

IV. At Court in 1594 31

V. The Theatre an Innovation in Elizabethan England 36 VI. Elizabethan Methods of Production . . . . 38 VII. The Contrast between the Elizabethan and the Modern Methods 43

VIII. The Fitness of the Audience an Essential Element

in the Success of Shakespeare on the Stage . . 46

III

Shakespeare in Oral Tradition I. The Reception of the News of Shakespeare's Death 49 II. The Evolution in England of Formal Biography , 51 III. Oral Tradition concerning Shakespeare in Theatrical Circles 57

IV. The Testimonies of Seventeenth-century Actors . 6l V. Sir William D'Avenant's Devotion to Shakespeare's

Memory 69

VI. Early Oral Tradition at Stratford-on-Avon . . 73 VII. Shakespeare's Fame among Seventeenth-century

Scholars and Statesmen 78

VIII. Nicholas Rowe's Place among Shakespeare's Biographers. The Present State of Knowledge respecting Shakespeare's Life 79

IV Pepvs and Shakespeare I. Pepys the Microcosm of the Average Playgoer . 82 II. The London Theatres of Pepys 's Diary ... 85

III. Pepys's Enthusiasm for the Later Elizabethan

Drama 90

IV. Pepys's Criticism of Shakespeare. His Admiration

of Betterton in Shakespearean Roles ... 93 V. The Garbled Versions of Shakespeare on the Stage

of the Restoration 102

VI. The Saving Grace of the Restoration Theatre. Betterton's Masterly Interpretation of Shakespeare 109

CONTENTS xiii

PACK

I. A Return to the Ancient Ways Ill

II. The Advantages of a Constant Change of Programme. The Opportunities offered Actors by Shakespeare's Minor Characters. John of Gaunt 113 III. The Benefit of Performing the Play of Hamlet without Abbreviation Il6

IV. Mr Benson as a Trainer of Actors. The Succession

to Phelps 119

VI

I. The True Aim of the Municipal Theatre . . . 122 II. Private Theatrical Enterprise and Literary Drama. The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Actor- Manager System. The Control of the Capitalist . 123

III. Possibilities of the Artistic Improvement of Theat-

rical Organisation in England 127

IV. Indications of a Demand for a Municipal Theatre . 129 V. The Teaching of Foreign Experience. The Example of Vienna 134

VI. The Conditions of Success in England . , , 138

I. The Conflicting Attitudes of Bacon and Shakespeare .

to Formal Philosophy ' 142

II. Shakespeare's " Natural " Philosophy. Concealment

of his Personality in his Plays . . . . 14.8

III. His lofty Conception of Public Virtue. Frequency

of his Denunciation of Royal " Ceremony" . . 152

IV. The Duty of Obedience to Authority . . . . l6l V. The Moral Atmosphere of Shakespearean Drama . l6l< xiv CONTENTS

Aspects of Shakespeare's Philosophy — continued

PAGE

VI. Shakespeare's Insistence on the Freedom of the

Will 166

VII. His Humour and Optimism 168

I. The Natural Instinct of Patriotism. Dangers of

Excess and Defect 170

II. An Attempt to Co-ordinate Shakespeare's Detached Illustrations of the Working of Patriotic Sentiment. His Ridicule of Bellicose Ecstasy. Coriolanus illustrates the Danger of Disavowing Patriotism 172

III. Criticism of One's Fellow-countrymen Consistent

with Patriotism. Shakespeare on the Political History of England. The Country's Dependence on the Command of the Sea. The Respect due to a Nation's Traditions and Experience . . 179

IV. Shakespeare's Exposure of Social Foibles and Errors 184

V. Relevance of Shakespeare's Doctrine of Patriotism

to Current Affairs 187

IX

I. An Alleged Meeting of Peele, Ben Jonson, AUeyn,

and Shakespeare at " The Globe " in l600 . . 188

II. The Fabrication by George Steevens in 1763 of a

Letter signed " G. Peel " 190

III. Popular Acceptance of the Forgery. Its Unchallenged Circulation through the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Centuries . . . . 194^

CONTENTS XV

PAGE

I. Amicable Literary Relations between France and England from the Fourteenth to the Present

Century 198

II.- M. Jusserand on Shakespeare in France. French Knowledge of English Literature in Shake- • "speare's day. Shakespeare in Eighteenth-century France. Eulogies of Victor Hugo and

Dumas pere 201

III. French Misapprehensions of Shakespeare's Tragic

Conceptions. Causes of the Misunderstanding . 206 IV. Charles Nodier's Sympathetic Tribute. The Rarity

of his Pensees de Shakespeare, 1801 . . . 211

XI

The Commemoration of Shakespeare in London

I. Early Proposals for a National Memorial of Shakespeare in London 214

II. The Cenotaph in Westminster Abbey . . . 215

III. The Failure of the Nineteenth-century Schemes . 217

IV. The National Memorial at Stratford-on-Avon . . 219 V. Shakespeare's Association with London . . . 226

VI. The Value of a London Memorial as a Symbol of

his Universal Influence 228

VII. The Real Significance of Milton's Warning against

a Monumental Commemoration of Shakespeare . 230 VIII. The Undesirability of making the Memorial serve

Utilitarian Purposes 235

IX. The Present State of the Plastic Art. The Imperative Need of securing a Supreme Work of Sculpture 236

I

SHAKESPEARE AND THE MODERN STAGE i

I

Without 'Hhe living comment and interpretation of the theatre," Shakespeare's work is, for the rank and file of mankind, ''a deep well without a wheel or a windlass." It is true that the whole of the spiritual treasures which Shakespeare's dramas hoard will never be disclosed to the mere playgoer, but "a. large, a very large, proportion of that indefinite all" may be revealed to him on the stage, and, if he be no patient reader, will be revealed to him nowhere else. There are earnest students of Shakespeare who scorn the theatre and arrogate to themselves in the library, often with some justification, a greater capacity for apprehending and appreciating Shakespeare than is at the command of the ordinary playgoer or actor. But let Sir Oracle of the study, however full and deep be his knowledge, ''use all gently." Let him bear in mind that his vision also has its limitations, and that student, actor, and spectator

^ This paper was first printed in The Nineteenth Century, January, 1900.

of Shakespeare's plays are all alike exploring a measureless region of philosophy and poetry, ^' round which no comprehension has yet drawn the Une of circumspection, so as to say to itself '1 have seen the whole. ' " Actor and student may look at Shakespeare's text from different points of view ; but there is always as reasonable a chance that the efficient actor may disclose the full significance of some speech or scene which escapes the efficient student, as that the student may supply the actor's lack of insight.

It is, indeed, comparatively easy for a student of literature to support the proposition that Shakespeare can be, and ought to be, represented on the stage. But it is difficult to define the ways and means of securing practical observance of the precept. For some years there has been a widening divergence of view respecting methods of Shakespearean production. Those who defend in theory the adaptability of Shakespeare to the stage are at variance with the leading managers, who alone possess the power of conferring on the Shakespearean drama theatrical interpretation. In the most influential circles of the theatrical profession it has become a commonplace to assert that Shakespearean drama cannot be successfully produced, cannot be rendered tolerable to any substantial section of the playgoing public, without a plethora of scenic spectacle and gorgeous costume, much of which the student regards as superfluous and inappropriate. An accepted tradition of the modern stage ordains that every revival of a Shakespearean play at a leading theatre shall base some part of its claim to pubHc favour on its spectacular magnificence.

PERILS OF SPECTACLE 3

The dramatic interest of Shakespearean drama is, in fact, deemed by the manager to be inadequate to satisfy the necessary commercial purposes of the theatre. The average purveyor of pubUc entertainment reckons Shakespeare's plays among tasteless and colourless conmiodities, which only become marketable when they are reinforced by the independent arts of music and painting. Shakespeare's words must be spoken to musical accompaniments specially prepared for the occasion. Pictorial tableaux, even though they suggest topics without relevance to the development of the plot, have at times to be interpolated in order to keep the attention of the audience sufficiently ahve.

One deduction to be drawn from this position of affairs is irrefutable. Spectacular embellishments are so costly that, according to the system now in vogue, the performance of a play of Shakespeare involves heavy financial risks. It is equally plain that, unless the views of theatrical managers undergo revolution, these risks are Hkely to become greater rather than smaller. The natural result is that in London, the city which sets the example to most English-speaking communities, Shakespearean revivals are comparatively rare; they take place at uncertain intervals, and only those plays are viewed with favour by the London manager which lend themselves in his opinion to more or less ostentatious spectacle, and to the interpolation of music and dancing.

It is ungrateful to criticise adversely any work the production of which entails the expenditure of much thought and money. More especially is it distasteful when the immediate outcome is, as in the case of many Shakespearean revivals at the gr6at West-end theatres of London, the giving of pleasure to large sections of the community. That is in itself a worthy object. But it is open to doubt whether, from the sensible Hterary point of view, the managerial activity be well conceived or to the public advantage. It is hard to ignore a fundamental flaw in the manager's central position. The pleasure which recent Shakespearean revivals offer the spectator reaches him mainly through the eye. That is the manager's avowed intention. Yet no one would seriously deny that the Shakespearean drama appeals, both primarily and ultimately, to the head and to the heart. Whoever seeks, therefore, by the production of Shakespearean drama chiefly to please the spectator's eye shows scant respect both for the dramatist and for the spectator, however unwittingly he tends to misrepresent the one and to mislead the other in a particular of first-rate importance. Indeed, excess in scenic display does worse than restrict opportunities of witnessing Shakespeare's plays on the stage in London and other large cities of England and America. It is to be feared that such excess either weakens or distorts the just and proper influence of Shakespeare's work. If these imputations can be sustained, then it follows that the increased and increasing expense which is involved in the production of Shakespeare's plays ought on grounds of public poHcy to be diminished.

II

Every stage representation of a play requires sufficient scenery and costume to produce in the

THE PURPOSE OF SCENERY 5

audience that illusion of environment which the text invites. Without so much scenery or costume the words fail to get home to the audience. In comedies dealing with concrete conditions of modern society, the stage presentation necessarily relies to a very large extent for its success on the realism of the scenic appHances. In plays which, deahng with the universal and less familiar conditions of life, appeal to the highest faculties of thought and imagination, the pursuit of realism in the scenery tends to destroy the full significance of the illusion which it ought to enforce. In the case of plays straightforwardly treating of contemporary affairs, the en- \dronment which it is sought to reproduce is familiar and easy of imitation. In the case of drama, which involves larger spheres of fancy and feeling, the environment is unfamiliar and admits of no realistic imitation. The wall-paper and furniture of Mrs. So-and-so's drawing-room in Belgravia or Derbyshire can be transferred bodily to the stage. Prospero's deserted island does not admit of the like translation. Effective suggestion of the scene of The Tempest is all that can be reasonably attempted or desired. Plays which are wrought of purest imaginative texture call solely for a scenic setting which should convey effective suggestion. The machinery to be employed for the purpose of effective suggestion should be simple and unobtrusive. If it be complex and obtrusive, it defeats 'Hhe purpose of playing" by exaggerating for the spectator the inevitable interval between the visionary and indeterminate limits of the scene which the poet imagines and the cramped and narrow bounds which the stage renders practicable. That perilous interval can only be effectually bridged by scenic art, which is applied with an apt judgment and a Hght hand. Anything that aims at doing more than satisfy the condition essential to the effective suggestion of the scenic environment of Shakespearean drama is, from the literary and logical points of view, '' wasteful and ridiculous excess." ^

But it is not only a simplification of scenic appliances that is needed. Other external incidents of production require revision. Spectacular methods of production entail the employment of armies of silent supernumeraries to whom are allotted functions wholly ornamental and mostly impertinent. Here, too, reduction is desirable in the interest of the true significance of drama. No valid reason can be adduced why persons should appear on the stage who are not precisely indicated by the text of the play or by the authentic stage directions. When Caesar is buried, it is essential to produce in the audience the illusion that a crowd of Roman citizens is taking part in the ceremony. But quality comes here before quantity. The fewer the number of supernumeraries by whom the needful illusion is effected, the greater the merit of the performance, the more convincing the testimony borne to the skill of the stage-manager. Again, no processions of psalm-singing priests and monks contribute to the essential illusion in the historical plays. Nor does the text of The Merchant of Venice demand any

^ A minor practical objection^ from the dramatic point of view, to realistic scenery is the long pause its setting on the stage often renders inevitable between the scenes. Intervals of the kind, which always tend to blunt the dramatic point of the play, especially in the case of tragic masterpieces, should obviously be as brief as possible.

EFFECTS OF SIMPLIFICATION 7

assembly of Venetian townsfolk, however picturesquely attired, sporting or chaffering with one another on the Rialto, when Shylock enters to ponder Antonio's request for a loan. An interpolated tableau is indefensible, and 'Hhough it make the unskilful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve." In Antony and Cleopatra the pageant of Cleopatra's voyage up the river Cydnus to meet her lover Antony should have no existence outside the gorgeous description given of it by Enobarbus.

Ill

What would be the practical effects of a stern resolve on the part of theatrical managers to simplify the scenic appliances and to reduce the supernumerary staff when they are producing Shakespearean drama? The replies will be in various keys. One result of simplification is obvious. There would be so much more money in the manager's pocket after he had paid the expenses of production. If his outlay were smaller, the sum that he expended in the production of one play of Shakespeare on the current over-elaborate scale would cover the production of two or three pieces mounted with simpHcity and with a strict adherence to the requirements of the text. In such an event, the manager would be satisfied with a shorter run for each play.

On the other hand, supporters of the existing system allege that no public, which is worth the counting, would interest itself in Shakespeare's plays, if they were robbed of scenic upholstery and spectacular display. This estimate rests on insecure foundations. That section of the London public, which is genuinely interested in Shakespearean drama for its own sake, is prone to distrust the modern theatrical manager, and as things are, for the most part avoids the theatre altogether. The student stays at home to read Shakespeare at his fire-side.

It may be admitted that the public to which Shakespeare in his purity makes appeal is not very large. It is clearly not large enough to command continuous runs of plays for months, or even weeks. But therein lies no cause for depression. Long runs of a single play of Shakespeare bring more evil than good in their train. They develop in even the most efficient acting a soulless mechanism. The Hterary beauty of the text is obliterated by repetition from the actors' minds. Unostentatious mounting of the Shakespearean plays, however efficient be the acting with which it is associated, may always fail to ''please the million"; it may be ''caviare to the general." Nevertheless, the sagacious manager, who, by virtue of comparatively inexpensive settings and in alliance with a well-chosen company of efficient actors and actresses, is able at short intervals to produce a succession of Shakespeare's plays, may reasonably expect to attract a small but steady and sufficient support from the intelHgent section of London playgoers, and from the home-reading students of Shakespeare, who are not at present playgoers at all.

EXPERIENCE OF KEAN AND IRVING 9

IV

The practical manager, who naturally seeks pecuniary profit from his ventures, insists that these suggestions are counsels of perfection and these anticipations wild and fantastic dreams. His last word is that by spectacular method Shakespeare can alone be made to ''pay" in the theatre. But are we here on perfectly secure ground? Has the commercial success attending the spectacular production of Shakespeare been invariably so conspicuous as to put summarily out of court, on the purely commercial ground, the method of simplicity? The pecuniary results are public knowledge in the case of the two most strenuous and prolonged endeavours to give Shakespeare the splendours of spectacle which have yet been completed on the London stage. What is the message of these two efforts in mere pecuniary terms?

Charles Kean may be regarded as the founder of the modem spectacular system, though it had some precedents and has been developed since his day. Charles Kean, between 1851 and 1859, persistently endeavoured by prodigal and brilliant display to make the production of Shakespeare an enterprise of profit at the Princess's Theatre, London. The scheme proved pecuniarily disastrous.

Subsequently Kean's mantle was assumed by the late Sir Henry Irving, the greatest of recent actors and stage-managers, who in many regards conferred incalculable benefits on the theatre-going public and on the theatrical profession. Throughout the last quarter of the last century, Irving gave the spectacular and scenic system in the production of Shakespeare every advantage that it could derive from munificent expenditure and the cooperation of highly endowed artists. He could justly claim a finer artistic sentiment and a higher histrionic capacity than Charles Kean possessed. Yet Irving announced not long before his death that he lost on his Shakespearean productions a hundred thousand pounds. Sir Henry added:

The enormous cost of a Shakespearean production on the Hberal and elaborate scale which the public is now accustomed to expect makes it almost impossible for any manager — I don't care who it is — to pursue a continuous policy of Shakespeare for many years with any hope of profit in the long run.

In face of this authoritative pronouncement, it must be conceded that the spectacular system has been given, within recent memory, every chance of succeeding, and, as far as recorded testimony is available, has been, from the commercial point of view, a failure.

Meanwhile, during and since the period when Sir Henry Irving filled the supreme place among producers of Shakespeare on the stage, the simple method of Shakespearean production has been given no serious chance. The anticipation of its pecuniary failure has not been put in satisfactory conditions to any practical test. The last time that it was put to a sound practical test it did not fail. While Irving was a boy, Phelps at Sadler's Wells Theatre gave, in well-considered conditions, the simple method a trial. Phelps's playhouse was situated in the unfashionable neighbourhood of Islington. But the prophets of evil, who were no greater strangers to Phelps's generation than they are to our own, were themselves confuted by his experience.

PHELPS AT SADLER'S WELLS 11

V

On the 27th of May, 1844, Phelps, a most intelligent actor and a serious student of Shakespeare, opened the long-disused Sadler's Wells Theatre in partnership with Mrs. Warner, a capable actress, whose rendering of Imogen went near perfection. Their design was inspired by 'Hhe hope," they wrote in an unassuming address, '^of eventually rendering Sadler's Wells what a theatre ought to be, a place for justly representing the works of our great dramatic poets." This hope they went far to realise. The first play that they produced was Macbeth.

Phelps continued to control Sadler's Wells Theatre for more than eighteen years. During that period he produced, together with many other English plays of classical repute, no fewer than thirty-one of the thirty-seven great dramas which came from Shakespeare's pen. In his first season, besides Macbeth he set forth Hamlet, King John, Henry VIIL, The Merchant of Venice, Othello, and Richard III. To these he added in the course of his second season Julius Ccesar, King Lear, and The Winter's Tale. Henry IV., part I., Measure for Measure, Romeo and Juliet, and The Tempest followed in his third season ; As You Like It, Cymbeline, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Twelfth Night, in his fourth. Each succeeding season saw further additions to the Shakespearean repertory, until only six Shakespearean dramas were left unrepresented, viz. — Richard 11. , the three parts of Henry VI., Troilus and Cressida, and Titus Andronicus. Of these, one alone, Richard II., is really actable.

The leading principles, to which Phelps strictly adhered throughout his career of management, call for most careful consideration. He gathered round him a company of actors and actresses, whom he zealously trained to interpret Shakespeare's language. He accustomed his colleagues to act harmoniously together, and to sacrifice to the welfare of the whole enterprise pretensions to individual prominence. No long continuous run of any one piece was permitted by the rules of the playhouse. The programme was constantly changed. The scenic appliances were simple, adequate, and inexpensive. The supernumerary staff was restricted to the smallest practicable number. The general expenses were consequently kept within narrow limits. For every thousand pounds that Charles Kean laid out at the Princess's Theatre on scenery and other expenses of production, Phelps in his most ornate revivals spent less than a fourth of that sum. For the pounds spent by managers on more recent revivals, Phelps would have spent only as many shillings. In the result, Phelps reaped from the profits of his efforts a handsome unencumbered income. During the same period Charles Kean grew more and more deeply involved in oppressive debt, and at a later date Sir Henry Irving made over to the public a hundred thousand pounds above his receipts.