The end of a tradition: Charlecote’s deer and Nigel Playfair’s As You Like It

Fallow deer at Charlecote Park

Fallow deer at Charlecote Park

As You Like It was in the very first season of plays performed at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in April-May 1879. With its references to the Forest of Arden the gently romantic comedy was bound to please. The other Shakespeares in Barry Sullivan’s season were the sure-fire comedy Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet. But it was As You Like It, given just two performances, that created the biggest impression, and a couple of reports of the closing performance on 3 May still exist.

Mary Elizabeth Lucy, from Charlecote, was there: “we all went to the comedy of As You Like It, one of my favourite plays of Shakespeare. My dear grandchildren were wild with delight when in Act Two Scene One, the Forest of Arden, a Charlecote deer (which their papa, as requested, had shot for the occasion) appeared on stage, and Masters, the Charlecote keeper dressed up as a forester, led on two of the deer hounds. The effect was charming and the house rang with shouts of applause and encore. We all came home saying we had never enjoyed a play so much before’. This extract from Mary Elizabeth Lucy’s Memoirs was quoted in a post on the Charlecote Park blog.

The other account was written by Sarah Flower, the wife of Charles Edward Flower, the chairman of the theatre. “Some of the actors went to Charlecote and asked Mr Lucy if he would let them have a deer from his park – he readily assented, and it was brought on this evening – his keepers and some dogs also appearing on the stage.
It was put into the mouth of one of the keepers that he said boastingly “Lots of people come from all round the country and even from London to see me and my dogs”. The deer was afterwards stuffed and kept as a property slung up in the picture gallery to be used always in this play. ”

The foresters and deer in As You Like it, 1879

The foresters and deer in As You Like it, 1879

Reviewers commented on this scene, and special photographs were taken. As well as the deer, the dogs, and the Charlecote keeper, the sumptuously leafy designs by theatrical artist John O’Connor were seen for the first time. The Stratford-upon-Avon Herald commented “the scene was most picturesque”. O’Connor’s watercolour sketches for the forest sets and many other scenes for the Memorial Theatre still exist in a large volume now kept in the Theatre’s archives. The Saturday Musical Review approved: “In answer to the query What shall he have that killed the deer? the glee of that name was sung in a manner which would do credit to any choir in the kingdom”. Again as mentioned by the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald, “all the performers were Stratfordians”.

It’s easy to see how this scene came to be a cherished part of every production of As You Like It. But the Benson Company, taking over in 1886, didn’t produce the play at all until 1894, a gap of 9 years and the longest time this play has ever been absent from the Stratford theatres. It became a favourite, given one or two performances almost every year. The three Benson prompt books in the RSC’s archives show how the play was cut and scenes moved around. Each was marked up for different performance conditions (the Bensons toured widely), but all indicate a procession happening, rather oddly, in the scene where Celia tells Rosalind that Orlando is in the forest. The most elaborate prompt book mentions not just the deer but the dogs as well.

Illustration of Charlecote from Dixon Scott's book on Stratford-on-Avon, 1911

Illustration of Charlecote from Dixon Scott’s book on Stratford-on-Avon, 1911

Sarah Flower mentions that the deer was stuffed and hung up in the Theatre’s Picture Gallery, and photographs confirm this. But whoever invented the ritual, it wasn’t Benson, as the deer had been shot fifteen years before his first production. The deer (or maybe a replacement by then) made its last appearance in 1915.

In the first Festival after the end of the First World War it became clear that the deer had made its last appearance. As You Like It was one of the plays to be staged by Nigel Playfair’s company from Hammersmith. As J C Trewin wrote in his book Benson and the Bensonians, “in the quick spring of 1919, it was the hour for change”. The actors were under-rehearsed, and new to Shakespeare. And Playfair’s style was very different. He engaged the designer Claud Lovat Fraser, who, inspired by medieval illustrations, designed brightly-coloured, “daringly outrageous” costumes, and, worse, “not a single leaf in the show”. Trewin again: “It was new broom Shakespeare in a theatre nurtured on tradition”.

The story is now famous that the omission of the stuffed deer caused the outrage of locals. Robert Smallwood, in his book on the play in the Shakespeare at Stratford series calls it “one of the most notorious episodes in the performance history of As You Like It at Stratford (or anywhere else for that matter)”. Although the Morning Post (not a local paper) review suggested that the audience was “tickled rather than irritated” by the innovations, “it was unmistakeably in favour of what it was used to”. The Stratford-upon-Avon Herald pleaded “restore our scenery and our dresses”. Maybe too the audience weren’t used to watching the full text of the play, briskly performed.

Portrait of Frank Benson by Reginald Grenville Eves, 1924. National Portrait Gallery

Portrait of Frank Benson by Reginald Grenville Eves, 1924. National Portrait Gallery

Specific regrets at the passing of the Charlecote deer, though, are difficult to find. The Morning Post is one of the few papers to mention it: “one never quite grasped the point of featuring as fresh killed venison the stuffed deer that had for many years been one of the mustiest exhibits in the Memorial museum”. Reports in the local press, several pages long, concentrated on Frank Benson’s lecture on wartime experiences, “The Song of the Shrapnel” and the formal tributes made to him and Lady Benson, acknowledging their tireless work for Shakespeare and Stratford. The deer may have been a nostalgic symbol of the past, but in the outpouring of emotion that accompanied the end of the Benson era I doubt that many tears were really shed for it.

Share
Posted in Legacy, Shakespeare on Stage, Stratford-upon-Avon | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The end of a tradition: Charlecote’s deer and Nigel Playfair’s As You Like It

Fact or fiction: Shakespeare at Charlecote

E W Haslehust's painting of the gatehouse at Charlecote House

E W Haslehust’s painting of the gatehouse at Charlecote House

There are many legends about Shakespeare’s life, but none is more compelling than that linking him with Charlecote Park, near Stratford-upon-Avon. Local historian Dr Robert Bearman has just sent me details of a new publication that relates to it:
Anyone interested in Shakespeare’s life will have come across reference to
his alleged youthful deer-stealing activities at Charlecote Park, leading to
a life-long feud between him and the local lord, Sir Thomas Lucy. There have  always been problems with this story, not least that the Lucy family didn’t  seek official consent to create a park at Charlecote until 1615. Undeterred,  later purveyors of local folklore shifted the scene of the crime to  neighbouring Fulbrook where there *was* a park, or at least a run-down one,
during Shakespeare’s childhood. The problem here was the Lucys didn’t buy it
until after Shakespeare’s death! No doubt the story will prove more than a
match for these obstacles but those who prefer to deal in hard facts might
like to read about how the park at Fulbrook came into existence in the first
place. Leading social historian, Professor Chris Dyer, has recently
contributed an article on just that subject to the journal ‘Warwickshire
History’ (Vol. 15, no. 6, Winter 2013/14). With the aid of maps and diagrams
he demonstrates in great detail how, in the early 15th century, Fulbrook’s
lord, John Duke of Bedford (Henry V and Henry VI, Part 1!), built a grand
new house within the manor, at the same time transforming a traditional
landscape of open arable fields into extensive parkland. As for the village,
admittedly already in decline, it simply disappeared. Professor Dyer deals
only briefly with the later history of the park which became a royal
possession on the duke’s death and remained so almost until its purchase by
the Lucys, during which time the grand house was pulled down. He also steers
clear, perhaps wisely, of any reference to the deer-poaching story but the
article may still be of interest to those Shakespeareans wishing to sort
fact from fiction. To acquire a copy of the article, you can contact the
editor, Robert Bearman, via the Society’s email address:
info@warwickshirehistory.org.uk
 

The tradition is one of the earliest relating to Shakespeare’s life, as well as one of the most popular. In his book Shakespeare’s Lives, Samuel Schoenbaum considers its sources. It appeared in the first published biography of Shakespeare, written by Thomas Rowe to accompany his 1709 edition of the plays:
He had, by a misfortune common enough to young fellows, fallen into some ill company: and among them, some that made a frequent practice of deer-stealing, engaged him with them more than once in robbing a park that belonged to Sir Thomas Lucy, of Charlecote, near Stratford.  For this he was prosecuted by that gentleman, as he thought, somewhat too severely.

The avenue leading to one of Charlecote's gates

The avenue leading to one of Charlecote’s gates

The story continues that Shakespeare fled to London to avoid further trouble.  It’s made more convincing by the number of independent accounts that exist. One, a manuscript dating before 1709, notes that Shakespeare was “much given to all unluckiness in stealing venison and rabbits, particularly from Sir ____ Lucy, who had him oft whipped and sometime imprisoned and at last made him fly his native country.” Another, including a verse of a ballad said to have been written by Shakespeare and pinned to the gates of Charlecote House, was passed on by a man known to have died in 1703.

It surfaces in Shakespeare’s play The Merry Wives of Windsor where there are references to the three luces or louses (pike) on the Lucy coat of arms, and Justice Shallow has come to Windsor to make a Star Chamber matter of a poaching incident, blaming Falstaff for killing his deer. With so many doubts about the truth of the story, Samuel Schoenbaum wonders if locals, having heard or read about the story in Merry Wives, somehow invented the story of Shakespeare and the poaching episode.

Charlecote House

Charlecote House

The romantic appeal of the story has proved irresistible ever since. The American author Nathaniel Hawthorne visited the Stratford area in the 1850s, and admired the beauty of Charlecote where “among those refined  and venerable trees, I saw a large herd of deer, mostly reclining, but some standing in picturesque groups, while the stags threw their large antlers aloft, as if they had been taught to make themselves tributary to the scenic effect. …They have held a certain intercourse with man for immemorial years; and, most probably, the stag that Shakespeare killed was one of the progenitors of this very herd.”

The National Trust, not surprisingly, agrees with Nathaniel Hawthorne in approving the story of the deer poaching, and the website for Charlecote Park includes a page on the subject. And even today few commentators can totally resist it, suggesting there may be at least a germ of truth in the story.

In my next post I’ll be looking at links between Charlecote and the performance of Shakespeare’s As You Like It.

Share
Posted in Legacy, Shakespeare's World, Sources, Stratford-upon-Avon | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Christopher Marlowe, 450 years on

Portrait, perhaps Marlowe, found in Cambridge

Portrait, perhaps Marlowe, found in Cambridge

Earlier this week the 450th anniversary of Christopher Marlowe’s birth passed without a lot of media interest. Yet events to celebrate Shakespeare’s 450th are already getting a lot of attention. Although Marlowe is still highly-regarded, and his plays are performed and have been filmed, his reputation doesn’t come close to that of Shakespeare. But as Stanley Wells points out in his book Shakespeare & Co, “Though the dates and sequence of Shakespeare’s early plays are problematic, it seems certain that if Shakespeare had died when Marlowe did, we should now regard Marlowe as the greater writer”.

Marlowe was born in Canterbury, and baptised on 26 February 1564 two months before Shakespeare. Both came from similar backgrounds, Marlowe the son of a shoemaker, Shakespeare the son of a glover. Marlowe attended the King’s School in Canterbury, a school at which he won a scholarship to attend Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, where he was expected to be prepared for Holy Orders.

Most of what we know about Marlowe comes from his rather frequent brushes with authority. His spying activities are inferred when in 1587 the Privy Council wrote to the administrators of Cambridge University to explain his absences, saying he had “done her Majesty good service…in matters touching the benefit of his country”.

After leaving Cambridge he moved to London where in 1589 he was arrested for murder having been involved in a street fight, but was later found to have been acting in self-defence. In 1592 he was deported from the Netherlands on charges of counterfeiting coins. Later that year he allegedly assaulted two constables in Shoreditch, and in Canterbury he was accused of damaging property though the charge was dropped. In May 1593 a series of events culminated in Marlowe’s death in Deptford, a shady business for which the coroner’s report was found only in 1925.

In between all this, Marlowe wrote the plays and poems for which he is remembered, including Hero and Leander, Tamburlaine the Great (2 parts), Dr Faustus, Edward II and The Jew of Malta. Incidentally only one example of Marlowe’s writing exists: a signature on a will which he witnessed, spelled “Marley”.

Shakespeare refers to Marlowe in As You Like It, with the quotation from Hero and Leander “Who ever loved, that loved not at first sight”, and a mention of the “dead shepherd”. Among other examples, the Player’s speech in Hamlet seems to refer to Marlowe’s play Dido, Queen of Carthage. Some of Marlowe’s dramatic poetry is extremely striking and deservedly famous: here is the speech describing Helen in Dr Faustus:

Title page of a late quarto of Dr Faustus, 1663

Title page of a late quarto of Dr Faustus, 1663

Was this the face that launch’d a thousand ships,
And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?
Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.
Her lips suck forth my soul: see where it flies!
Come, Helen, come, give me my soul again.
Here will I dwell, for heaven is in these lips,
And all is dross that is not Helena.
I will be Paris, and for love of thee,
Instead of Troy, shall Wittenberg be sack’d;
And I will combat with weak Menelaus,
And wear thy colours on my plumed crest;
Yea, I will wound Achilles in the heel,
And then return to Helen for a kiss.
O, thou art fairer than the evening air
Clad in the beauty of a thousand stars;
Brighter art thou than flaming Jupiter
When he appear’d to hapless Semele;
More lovely than the monarch of the sky
In wanton Arethusa’s azur’d arms;
And none but thou shalt be my paramour!

Marlowe was writing for the Admiral’s Men, and their leading actor Edward Alleyn. His heroes are men of dangerous ambition: Tamburlaine the conqueror, Faustus who sells his soul to the devil in return for unlimited knowledge. The Jew of Malta is a play that seems to set out to offend everybody: Jews, Turks, and Christians (monks and nuns). The plays were spectacularly successful, full of horrors and seemingly unstageable events.

So how is Marlowe’s 450th being celebrated? The Marlowe Society at Cambridge University is one of the most distinguished student acting groups in the country, founded in 1907 and during the year all of his plays are to be acted in Cambridge.

Events are also taking place in London and Canterbury. The Marlowe Society’s website includes a great deal of information:
The Marlowe Society together with the Marlowe Theatre, Fourth Monkey Theatre Company, and University of Kent have organised a series of events in Canterbury to mark the anniversary. The Fourth Monkey Theatre Company is to present three of Marlowe’s plays in March, and a number of eminent speakers will each give a lecture associated with one of the productions at different historic venues in the city.

The Marlowe Memorial in Canterbury

The Marlowe Memorial in Canterbury

From 31 May-1 June there will be a special weekend held by the Alliance of Literary Societies to coincide with the anniversary of Marlowe’s death. It’s being held at the schoolroom of the King’s School, Canterbury, and will include wreath-laying at the Marlowe Memorial. I didn’t know until just now that there was a Marlowe Memorial. Dating from 1891 the statue shows the semi-naked figure of the muse of poetry. It’s a charming piece of work, but hardly seems to match up with the Marlowe we now remember for his homosexuality, violence and atheism.

Away from Canterbury itself there are a variety of events. On 13 March there’s a free lecture entitled Dire Goings-on in Deptford at the Guildhall Library in London, and on 18 March a one-day symposium at the University of Kent on the subject Marlowe in Performance: Then and Now. A fitting year of celebrations after all.

Share
Posted in Legacy, Shakespeare's World | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Christopher Marlowe, 450 years on

Shakespeare and the Georgians

The 1741 statue of Shakespeare in Poet's Corner

The 1741 statue of Shakespeare in Poet’s Corner

2014, it seems, is going to be the year of the Georgians, with several different exhibitions looking at different aspects of life in the period covering 1714 to 1837. At the British Library there is an exhibition Georgians Revealed: Life, Style and the Making of Modern Britain. To quote the exhibition website: 

From beautifully furnished homes to raucous gambling dens, Georgians Revealed explores the revolution in everyday life that took place between 1714 and 1830. Cities and towns were transformed. Taking tea, reading magazines, dancing, gardening and shopping for leisure were commonplace, and conspicuous consumption became the pastime of the emerging middle classes.

Popular culture as we know it began, and with it the unstoppable rise of fashion and celebrity. Art galleries, museums and charities were founded. In this time of incredible innovation, ideas were endlessly debated in the new coffee houses and spread via the information highway that was mass print.
This major exhibition is on until only 11 March, so you haven’t got long to catch it.

One of the costumes on display in Bath Costume Museum

One of the costumes on display in Bath Costume Museum

The conspicuous consumption talked about in the British Library is now on view in the Bath Fashion Museum where a whole series of stunning original costumes are on show. These include “gowns made of colourful and richly patterned woven silks, as well as embroidered coats and waistcoats worm by Georgian gentlemen of fashion”.. The exhibits, “a selection of the finest fashions worn by those attending Assemblies, and other glittering occasions of 18th century life”  also trace the changes in fashion over the period, including some of the most extreme and impractical of garments, the wide-skirted dresses worn at Court in the 1750s and 1760s. A review of the exhibition is here.

Another major exhibition has just closed in New York about the architect William Kent, a major influence in his day but less well-known nowadays. The exhibition William Kent: Designing Georgian Britain has been attempting to set this right with a great website about the exhibition, and a review from the New York Times. The good news for us in the UK is that the same exhibition will be running at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London from 22 March to 13 July 2014.

The  Temple of British Worthies at Stowe

The Temple of British Worthies at Stowe

William Kent played a major part in the popularising of Shakespeare in the eighteenth century. He was involved in the creation of the great gardens at Stowe, and designed the Temple of British Worthies in which a bust of Shakespeare featured alongside politicians and scientists.

More famously, William Kent designed the statue of Shakespeare that was executed by Peter Scheemakers and positioned in Westminster Abbey’s Poet’s Corner in 1741. His design, based on classical statuary, and placed within a classical setting, was immediately popular. It was also the first statue of Shakespeare in the capital.

The importance of this image of Shakespeare cannot be over-estimated, according to the book The Face and Figure of Shakespeare documenting an exhibition that took place in 2009, subtitled How Britain’s 18th century sculptors invented a National Hero. “In the 1740s and 50s Britain desperately needed a National Hero. The victories of Marlborough over France and Spain thirty years earlier had receded into the past. In the spring of 1745 the French beat the British, Dutch and Austrians decisively at the battle of Fontenoy. By December of the same year the Jacobites reached as far south as Derby. Only the indecision of his own generals and the effective Royal Navy blockade of French ports prevented Prince Charles Edward Stuart from being supported by an invasion army and regaining the Crown from the usurping Hanoverians”.

In this atmosphere, Shakespeare came to fill the vacant role of national hero, helped by the phenomenal success of the actor David Garrick. And by the end of the 1750s the French had been decisively overcome in a series of battles, to the extent that Garrick staged a pantomime poking fun at them.

While researching this post I came across something I can’t resist sharing with you. The site Locating London’s Past is making available Jean Rocque’s 1746 map of London geo-referenced so you can see the map overlaid with a modern version of the city. It’s fascinating stuff – do enjoy it.

 

 

Share
Posted in Legacy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shakespeare and the Georgians

Theatre, democracy and Shakespeare

The Theatre in Ephesus

The Theatre in Ephesus

Dr Michael Scott’s BBC4 series Ancient Greece: the Greatest Show on Earth, looking at theatre in the classical world, has reached the Roman period. This is only available to download until 27 February, though you will then have a few weeks to watch it.  I recommend you do so.

The series isn’t just about the history of Greek theatre. Instead Scott shows how theatre expresses the beliefs and values of the civilisation in which it occurs. In this episode he shows what happened to Mediterranean culture once the Romans began to dominate it. He does this through examining the buildings, the plays written for them and the actors who performed in them. His analysis can easily be extended to include the situation in Shakespeare’s England many centuries later.

With glorious shots of Greek theatres he made the point that these were spaces easy to access from all sides, built to have perfect acoustics, to be both inclusive and part of the landscape. Democracy and theatre evolved at the same time, and the two were intertwined. The huge auditoria were designed to hold large audiences attending festivals, and the plays written discussed important political issues on the relationship of the individual to the state, often criticising public figures.

tragedy maskMoving to the Roman period it was possible to see how the physical theatres indicated a change in ideas of government. Although they wanted the prestige and cultural achievements of the Greeks, the Romans began to control their audiences by the use of temporary theatres which could be easily closed. Acting, rather than being a high-status occupation, became low status. When Pompey built his theatre in Rome in 55BC it was the largest building in the city. Later theatres, such as the one built by the Emperor Augustus, were completely enclosed, with lots of entrances that could be controlled. High-status individuals were allocated the best seats while the lower classes sat furthest from the stage. Instead of discussing political ideas, new kinds of entertainments were devised built around mime, music and dance.

He pointed out, thought, that the Roman influence on theatre was not entirely negative. It was in the Library built by the Roman Emperor Hadrian that many of the plays of the Greek and Roman theatre were preserved. 2,500 years after some of them were written, the plays still have an emotional impact on us. We still celebrate the achievements of Greek and Roman culture, and appreciate how important theatre can be in promoting democracy.

How does this relate to Shakespeare’s theatre? A week or so ago Dr Andy Kesson from the University of Roehampton gave a lecture at the Shakespeare Institute. He is currently working on a project called “Before Shakespeare”, looking at theatres in London before 1576 when The Theatre, the first “permanent” theatre was built. He questioned this idea of permanence, since playhouses were poorly built, prone to fall down, and noted that several “permanent” theatres were only used for a short time. In London, unlike ancient Greece or Rome, playhouses were not officially sanctioned and had to be put up outside the city walls, though the companies themselves were invited to perform privately in a number of venues, even before royalty. Plays were potentially subversive and had to be approved before they could be performed: not much sign here of the freedom allowed in ancient Greece, but neither were the actors restricted to the bland propaganda that developed in Rome. Maybe the London authorities realised that theatre was a valuable safety valve where political issues could be discussed as long as they were not too obviously related to current events. Hence the need for Shakespeare’s plays to be set in either a historical period or a distant place.

In the last few days Laura Nicklin has reported on a lecture by Professor Jonathan Neelands from the University of Warwick on the new BSA Education Network blog. His subject was Shakespeare, Theatre and Democracy: Towards a Playful Future.

I’d encourage you to read the whole post. Neelands agreed with many of the points raised in Scott’s TV programme about the importance of theatre to democracy in its encouragement of engagement.  He took it further, though, suggesting that theatre can have an important role in education, as he had observed “children aged six years old and thirteen years old …engage in playing games and functioning as though they were a miniature society. This highlighted children’s ability through play to develop through their own imaginative creations democratic systems.”   And ” the ability of theatre to enable and develop these specific skills cannot be overlooked, nor should it in preparing and equipping children for their participation in a truly democratic future”.

Today theatre in the UK is seen as a peripheral activity, but all three of these presenters share the belief that in a democracy theatre can have an important role in promoting discussion and sharing political and social ideas.

Share
Posted in Legacy, Shakespeare's World, Sources | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Theatre, democracy and Shakespeare

Parodying Hamlet

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern 1967: John stride as Rosencrantz, Edward Petherbridge as Guildenstern

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern 1967: John stride as Rosencrantz, Edward Petherbridge as Guildenstern

The best-known play based on Shakespeare’s play Hamlet is Tom Stoppard’s brilliant 1966 play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. It follows the plot of Hamlet from the  point of view of the pair of hapless and confused courtiers, owing much to Samuel Becket’s Waiting for Godot and his characters Vladimir and Estragon. Dating from the exuberant 1960s it has its own existence independent of both the plays that inspired it. With the recurrent idea that every exit is an entrance somewhere else, Stoppard gives us the conversations between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern after they’ve first met Claudius and Hamlet, where they reveal themselves to be completely out of their depth. In Shakespeare’s play there’s little sympathy for the pair, but Stoppard’s characters are little people who have no control over the situation they find themselves in.

 

W S Gilbert

W S Gilbert

W S Gilbert’s spoof Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is a much frothier story containing many of the elements of Victorian comic romance with a hint of melodrama. It’s based much more loosely on Hamlet, without the murders. Ophelia, betrothed to Hamlet, meets Rosencrantz and the pair fall in love. In order to get Hamlet out of the way of their love, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Ophelia plan to trick him into performing a play written years before by Claudius which was so disastrous that even mentioning it is banned. Hamlet is held responsible for the performance, but execution is averted by the alternative suggestion that he should be exiled to “Engle-land” instead. At one stage, Hamlet tries to deliver the “To be or not to be” soliloquy, constantly interrupted by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Exasperated, he exclaims “Gentlemen,/ It must be patent to the merest dunce/ Three persons can’t soliloquize at once!” The play was written in 1874, staged in 1891, and has since received a number of performances.

Last Sunday’s event was a great opportunity to hear a rehearsed reading of this rarely-performed Hamlet spoof, but for me the most interesting of the offerings was a rehearsed reading of an even rarer play that had been performed only once before in Yasumi Prisoner of War Camp, Japan, on 3 June 1944. The play, entitled Shamlet, was written by David Piper, imprisoned in the PoW camp from 1942-1945. The play typescript, and Piper’s notebook, are both kept at the National Army Museum. PoW camps were usually grim places, but Piper records that the prisoners held monthly concerts. These are the notes Piper wrote after the performance:
 We put on “Shamlet” on Saturday, side-splitting success. Stage is 4 platforms in the open outside the hospital, and some curtains; costumes odds and ends, mostly odds. I was Laertes with a white D.J (off-white at least), a pair of Blue Nip trousers, bare feet and a huge sunflower as a buttonhole. Brian France who is a gaunt cadaverous man known as “Golgotha”, was Hamlet in a shirt and a pair of long woollen issue underpants. Ophelia in bathing trunks and bogus bosom etc. It’s good fun while it lasts, but afterwards it makes you so homesick, that everything bears strange associations, and turn where you may, all that you see makes you sick with nostalgia… 

The play has a chorus figure, the Commentator. This is part of his introduction:
We have chosen to present you – Hamlet. Not without some difficulty, of course – William takes 31/2 hours over it, deploying X characters (not including alarms and excursions) – 31/2 hours to disentangle the very simple case of our hero, who, however, complicates the whole thing by going all introspective (broody). So we had to change it a bit, & I hope you’ll agree it peps the whole thing up…

The Commentator is joined by the Little Man, who is ignorant of Shakespeare’s play. In the play Hamlet turns out to be a keen and robust golfer (Polonius is killed with a golf club). Piper himself played Laertes, a coward who faints at the sight of blood.

The home-sickness of the prisoners is apparent in the script, with its golfing terms, mentions of popular film stars such as Mae West and the longing for female company. In this play too Hamlet is constantly interrupted while trying to soliloquize, here the key line is “Frailty, thy name is woman”:
Hamlet: O woman, thy name is… thy name is…
Commentator: Mary Anne? Hypatia? Jane?
Hamlet: Shut up! You’ve got me all boxed up.. ah!
Woman, thy name is frailty.
Commentator: Nope. Haven’t met her.
Little Man: But what is woman?
Commentator: Well, well. Where’ve you been all these years? Woman? Well, now: it’s hard to explain..  Like you and me, but different (makes appropriate gesture). See?
Little Man. O yes. I remember now.. a long, long time ago.  Nice.

piperosweetmrshakespeareAfter being freed from the PoW camp David Piper went on to  have a distinguished career not as a playwright or actor, but as an art historian, who became in turn Director of the National Portrait Gallery, the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford and the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge.  In 1964 while at the NPG, he wrote O Sweet Mr Shakespeare! I’ll have his picture“, a highly-illustrated popular 40-page booklet about images of Shakespeare.  His play, though, remained unknown and unperformed until now.

Share
Posted in Legacy, Plays and Poems | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Shakespeare’s Italian context

The Merchant of Venice

The Merchant of Venice

At least a couple of events relating Shakespeare and Italy are due to happen this year, one imminently in the UK and one, over the summer, in Italy itself.

I’ve already written about the summer school due to take place in the Italian city of Urbino from 12-26 July 2014 , but full booking details have now been released including timetabling and accommodation details.

James Stredder has just written about it for the newly-revamped British Shakespeare Association Education Network blog. His post is entitled  A Summer school in Italy to inspire teachers, students and Shakespeare enthusiasts.

Here is part of the description of what’s happening during the course, which has an amazing line-up : it “will feature three leading Shakespearian directors and performers, Bill Alexander, Michael Pennington and Martin Best. The careers of each include many years of work with the Royal Shakespeare Company. Bill Alexander and Michael Pennington will lead work on ‘The Merchant of Venice’ and ‘Romeo and Juliet’, respectively, and Martin Best will perform his lecture-recital, ‘Shakespeare’s Music Hall’ – and teach a seminar on the Sonnets.”

Urbino

Urbino

The post itself explains what participants can expect to get from the school:
 The Summer School brings together practitioners whose working lives have been devoted to performance, especially to realisation of the works of Shakespeare, in the theatre and in the concert hall. Their teaching sessions will focus on lively and creative approaches to Shakespearean texts (with the option for students of participating actively or of observing the ways in which performance evolves), but they will also set out to discover what part Italy and ‘the Italian context’ play in the appreciation and understanding of Shakespeare.
It should be a very special fortnight.

James’s post contains the idea that Italy held, and still holds, a special place in the minds of people from England. As far as we know, like most of his audiences, Shakespeare never travelled to Italy, but used it as a glamorous location for plays containing danger, violence, treachery and romance. In Cymbeline the innocent British man Posthumus is persuaded by the cunning, lying Italian Iachimo that Imogen has been unfaithful to him. She suggests “That drug-damn’d Italy hath out-craftied him”.

Shelley's gravestone in Rome

Shelley’s gravestone in Rome

The country retained its risky reputation when in the early nineteenth century several young Romantic poets were attracted by the possibility of living more unconventionally than in England. Byron and Shelley spent several years in Italy and Keats travelled there in the hope of easing his tuberculosis.  He died in Rome, both he and Shelley being buried in the same graveyard. Inevitably they admired Shakespeare’s writings about the country: several lines from The Tempest are carved on Shelley’s gravestone.

After Shakespeare’s time wealthy Brits became great travellers to the continent and particularly to Italy on the Grand Tour, an essential part of their education. Their search was for the foundations of European art and culture and tourists commissioned works of art with which to impress their visitors back home. In his anthology of almost a hundred accounts The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Italies of British Travellers, M Pfister claims that these tourists, like Shakespeare, misrepresented the country:
The Italy perceived by the British travellers is – at the least – “half-created” by them. Or, to put it in less romantic and more fashionable terms: it is a construction, and “Italy made in England”. 

This idea is being investigated in the one-day interdisciplinary conference being held at the University of Warwick this Saturday 22 February Italy Made in England: Contemporary British Perspectives on Italian Culture. Sadly for anyone who hasn’t reserved their place booking is now closed, but places are still available for the free screening of the documentary Girlfriend in a Coma at 4pm on Friday.

Quoting from the website: “Our proposal is to bring together scholars and specialists from a wide range of disciplines to answer the following critical questions:…How it Italy perceived within global culture, and indeed, how many and what kinds of Italies circulate today? This will span from the Renaissance image of Italy as a pinnacle of culture to the modern-day “sick man of Europe”.

In his Shakespeare, Politics and Italy blog, based around his book of the same title, Michael J Redmond agrees that the English perception of Italy tells us almost more about us than them.

Just like most of his contemporaries… Shakespeare was a voracious consumer of Italian books and English books about Italy. In many ways, the importance of Italy in every aspect of early modern English culture reflects the provincialism of that island, watching the intellectual ferment of the Renaissance from afar.

Italy’s a country that retains its fascination for those of us in the cold, damp islands of Britain.

Share
Posted in Legacy, Shakespeare's World | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Sadness and the four humours in Shakespeare

Hamlet - the Gower Memorial

Hamlet – the Gower Memorial

The February 2014 meeting of the Stratford Shakespeare Club featured Dr Erin Sullivan, Lecturer and Fellow of the Shakespeare Institute, speaking on Beyond Melancholy – Sadness and Selfhood in Renaissance England. Even her title was a reminder of how much has changed in the description of health since Shakespeare’s time. The word “sad”, she told us, originally meant “gorged, full of food, replete”, and “selfhood” was probably not used at all.

Much of her talk was about the idea of melancholy as one of the four humours which were believed to determine the health of the human body. This theory, dating from ancient times, dominated  Western medicine until only about 200 years ago, yet it has been almost completely forgotten.

200px-Every_Man_in_his_Humour_title_page_1616The word “humour” was also used in Shakespeare’s period in relation to character (very obviously in Ben Jonson’s plays Every Man in his Humour and Every Man out of his Humour). Shakespeare uses the word many times: in sonnet 91 he writes “Every humour hath his adjunct pleasure,/ Wherein it finds a joy above the rest”. The word only developed its modern association with being funny in the late 17th century.

The four humours were blood, yellow bile, black bile (or melancholy) and phlegm. Each was linked with one of the four elements of earth, air, fire and water and two of the qualities hot, cold, wet and dry. A year or two ago the US National Library of Medicine created an exhibition on the subject, with an informative website.   This page in particular gives more explanation, and some lovely images from the Folger Shakespeare Library.

V0048018 The four elements, four qualities, four humours, four seasonThis diagram admirably shows these connections and more: humours were associated with both the seasons and phases of life. The element “air” is missing from the diagram but should be at the very top.  To be healthy the body had to be in balance, and illness was caused by having too much of one of the humours. Melancholy was linked with the element earth and the qualities of dryness and cold. It was also associated with autumn, and with old age. It was the most powerful of the humours, and could cause physical illnesses such as digestive problems, fits and lethargy. It’s easy for us today to think of melancholy as simply the mental illness known as depression, but the ancient theory of the humours is more sophisticated. The necessity of  treating the whole person rather than just the obvious symptoms of a reported illness is an idea that is becoming more dominant again.

I’ve been getting rather behind with the Shakespeare Institute’s MOOC on Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and  have only just tackled week 3 in which Erin Sullivan talks about Hamlet’s melancholy and madness. If you’re not enrolled on the course it’s still possible to read her online article Melancholy, medicine and the Arts which was published in The Lancet Vol 372 issue 9642, in 2008.

Hamlet is Shakespeare’s most famous melancholic, memorably coming face to face with the reality of mortality when holding Yorick’s skull. Earlier, he analyses his own mental state:
I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises: and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory…. What a piece of work is a man … and yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust?” 

Melancholy is also linked to introspection, thoughtfulness, and genius. No wonder it became so fashionable. Shakespeare’s characters Jaques in As You Like It and Don Armado in Love’s Labour’s Lost seem to affect it, rather than having it. Jaques doesn’t want to be thought of as having an ordinary kind of melancholy: “it is a melancholy of mine own”, he says, “in which my often rumination wraps me in a most humourless sadness”. Antonio in The Merchant of Venice, though, is a genuine sufferer, opening the play with the line “In sooth I know not why I am so sad”.

Erin Sullivan also mentioned that she had examined the casebooks of a number of doctors in Shakespeare’s period, including that of his son-in-law John Hall, and found that only about 5% of cases describe melancholy as opposed to grief or other kinds of sadness which had an obvious cause.

She also talked about the effect of the changes brought about by religion, in particular uncertainties of the time. Sadness could be caused by “godly sorrow”,  the result of sin, and the idea that we can never grieve or repent enough. Despair, an extreme form of sadness, could be a result of the Calvinist idea that only the elect will be saved.

Towards the end of her talk she suggested that maybe in Shakespeare’s period misery was the dominant human condition. Did people expect to their lives to be dominated by suffering?  Today we feel entitled to be happy. After all the Declaration of Independence in 1776 enshrined the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights more moderately states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person”.

Shakespeare’s audiences may have expected their own lives to be full of suffering but they wanted to see on stage characters experiencing the extremes of sadness and joy. A potentially happy marriage or two usually ends the comedies, but anyone believing in the theory of the humours would have expected the extreme emotions of Romeo and Juliet to end in disaster.

Share
Posted in Shakespeare's World | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sadness and the four humours in Shakespeare

Love’s Labour’s Won?

The first quarto of Love's Labour's Lost

The first quarto of Love’s Labour’s Lost

The Royal Shakespeare Company has just announced its plans for the season September 2014-March 2015. In the main Royal Shakespeare Theatre a beautifully put-together programme will contribute to the commemoration of the centenary of the First World War. There will be two Shakespeare plays, Love’s Labour’s Lost and Much Ado About Nothing, and a new play by Phil Porter, The Christmas Truce. This is based around the real events of Christmas Eve 1914 when soldiers on the Western Front, both German and British, left their trenches to celebrate Christmas together. And on Christmas Day itself they played football. It’s going to illustrate how Shakespeare can be used to relate to historical events centuries after his own lifetime.

Robert Portal as Dumaine, Jeremy Northam as Berowne, Guy Henry as Longaville, Owen Teale as Navarre, RSC programme image 1993

Robert Portal as Dumaine, Jeremy Northam as Berowne, Guy Henry as Longaville, Owen Teale as Navarre, RSC programme image 1993

Love’s Labour’s Lost is to be set in the summer of 1914, seen with hindsight as a golden time just before the beginning of “the war to end all wars”. This won’t be the first RSC production of the play to be set in this period. In 1993 Ian Judge directed what was often referred to as the “Brideshead Revisited” production.  The programme cover showing the four young men lounging in a punt was shot on the Avon, but was intended to suggest Oxford. At the end of the play the sky darkened and the sound of distant explosions was heard in the theatre, a premonition that the elegant, witty world of the play was about to come to an unbearably violent end.  Significantly, Christopher Luscombe, who is directing both the Shakespeares played Moth in this production.

Much Ado about Nothing is being set in 1920, as people are picking up their lives, broken by the war. The links between the plays are being emphasised by cross-casting so Edward Bennett plays both Berowne and Benedick and Michelle Terry plays both Rosaline and Beatrice. Booking for the public opens on 19 March, but members’ booking begins on 24 February. 

Much Ado About Nothing is being billed as Love’s Labour’s Won, a mysterious play first mentioned in  1598 as an example of Shakespeare’s best work. Nobody can be sure which of Shakespeare’s plays is meant by this, or indeed if it’s a play that was lost. But Greg Doran feels the two plays belong together. In the season brochure he writes

So strong is my sense, that I am sticking my neck out to say that we have come to the conclusion that “Much Ado About Nothing” may have also been known during Shakespeare’s lifetime as “Love’s Labour’s Won”. We know Shakespeare wrote a play under this name, and scholars have debated whether this is indeed a “lost” work, or an alternative title to an existing play, just as “What You Will” is the alternative title to “Twelfth Night”. This pairing, cross-cast and with a single director Christopher Luscombe, will test out this theory.

Palladis Tamia

Palladis Tamia

The reference to Love’s Labour’s Won came in a short section of a 700-page book by Francis Meres, Palladis Tamia: Wit’s Treasury. Being the second part of Wit’s Commonwealth.  Meres had studied at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities, and was a student of Divinity who later went on to work as a rector and schoolmaster in Rutland. It’s a book full of comparisons taken from history and the arts that would probably have sunk without trace were it not for the famous section naming Shakespeare. This is his “Comparative discourse of our English poets, with the Greek, Latin and Italian poets”, designed to show that the culture of Elizabethan England stood comparison with the classics.

Meres’ book was published in 1598, also the year in which Shakespeare’s name appeared on the title page of one of his printed plays. It’s as if, suddenly, Shakespeare has arrived as a recognised playwright. Meres has the distinction of being the first person to praise Shakespeare unreservedly, and he coined a number of famous phrases relating to him. He speaks about his “sugar’d sonnets among his private friends”, describes him as “mellifluous and honey-tongued”, and one of “the most passionate among us to bewail and bemoan the perplexities of love”.

This passage helps confirm the dates of composition and the relative popularity of some of Shakespeare’s plays:
As Plautus and Seneca are accounted the best for comedy and tragedy among the Latins, so Shakespeare among the English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage. For comedy, witness his Gentlemen of Verona, his Errors, his Love’s Labour’s Lost, his Love’s Labour’s Won, his Midsummer Night’s Dream, and his Merchant of Venice; for tragedy, his Richard the 2, Richard the 3, Henry the 4, King John, Titus Andronicus and his Romeo and Juliet.

With no other contemporary reference to Love’s Labour’s Won there have been several guesses as to which play it was. The Taming of the Shrew is one suggestion, All’s Well That Ends Well another, and Much Ado About Nothing. Much Ado is certainly a good fit: it’s very much a comedy, unlike All’s Well, and if anyone was to compile a list of Shakespeare’s best plays Much Ado would certainly be in there.

Is Greg Doran onto something? The only way to be sure is to see both plays, and the pairing is certain to get people talking. There’s a great opportunity to see Edward Bennett, the male lead in both plays, in action in Stratford this Sunday afternoon, 16 February, at the Shakespeare Institute. He and a number of other RSC actors past and present are doing rehearsed readings of several pieces including W S Gilbert’s Hamlet spoof Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as a charity benefit performance. If you’d like to find out more, look at the Gilbert benefit page.

Share
Posted in Legacy, Plays and Poems, Shakespeare's World, Stratford-upon-Avon | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Love’s Labour’s Won?

Judith Quiney, Shakespeare’s forgotten daughter

The corner showing Judith Quiney's house in Stratford

The corner showing Judith Quiney’s house in Stratford

On the 10th February 1616 Shakespeare’s younger daughter Judith married a local man, Thomas Quiney. At the start of 1616 her impending marriage must have been the cause of celebration in the family. Shakespeare first saw his lawyer to draft his will in January 1616. This is often taken to mean he was already ill, but with his daughters married or betrothed it was also a good time to ensure they would be provided for.

Things started to go wrong soon after that first session with the lawyer. In the first drafting of the will, he is mentioned specifically with a bequest “vnto my sonne in L[aw]”. The marriage occurred outside the usual period for marriages (as Shakespeare’s own had been). In Shakespeare’s case it’s generally thought this was because Anne Hathaway was already pregnant. This wasn’t the case with Judith, so why was there such a hurry? Shakespeare’s marriage had been arranged by license from Worcester, but in Judith’s case no license was granted. Marrying without going through the proper procedures was frowned on, and both Judith and Thomas were excommunicated. None of this sounds like respectable behaviour, but worse was to come. Thomas might well have been in a hurry to marry Judith, because after the marriage it soon came out that he had previously had a mistress, Margaret Wheeler, who was pregnant with his child. To make matters worse, both Margaret and her baby died. Thomas was tried by the church court and sentenced to stand in front of the congregation of Holy Trinity church clad in a white sheet, for three Sundays.

Shakespeare saw his lawyer again on 25 March. One of the significant changes is that the reference to Thomas Quiney was struck out and Judith’s name was inserted instead. Judith was to inherit £100, a cottage, and if she or her children were alive after three years a further £150 of which she should receive the interest, giving her and any children she might have an independent income. She also received Shakespeare’s “broad silver gilt bole”.

Part of Shakespeare's will in which he mentions Susanna and John Hall who inherited most of his estate

Part of Shakespeare’s will in which he mentions Susanna and John Hall who inherited most of his estate

Very little is known about Judith, but her life seems to have been full of disappointments. As far as we know she received no education, and lived in Stratford all her life. She and her twin brother Hamnet were born in 1585, but Hamnet died in August 1596. His death must have affected the whole family profoundly, not least Judith herself. This was the first of many sad events in her life, the next of which was the humiliation surrounding her marriage. She can not have been unaware of the comparison with her older sister Susanna who had already made a successful marriage to a highly-respected doctor and had a daughter. In Shakespeare’s will, it’s Susanna who inherits most of Shakespeare’s wealth including his house New Place.

Shakespeare himself died in April 1616, only a few weeks after Judith’s marriage and humiliation. In November Judith herself had a baby son, who was christened “Shakespeare”, after her father. The baby lived for only six months, dying in May 1617. Infant mortality was high, and several of Shakespeare’s own siblings had died as babies. Later, in 1618 and 1620, Judith had two more sons, Richard and Thomas. These two boys survived childhood but died within weeks of each other in 1639, aged 19 and 21, probably of plague. So Judith outlived all of her children, being buried on 9 February 1662 aged 77, while her husband died in 1662 or 1663. Thomas Quiney was by profession a vintner and tobacconist, and later became a leading member of the town’s governing council, holding its highest office, Chamberlain, in 1621 and 1622. But unlike her sister and brother-in-law who had graves in the chancel of the church, Judith and Thomas were buried in the churchyard, the site is now unknown.

Judith Quiney's house as it was in 1903

Judith Quiney’s house as it was in 1903

The house in which Judith and Thomas Quiney lived still stands, but unlike Susannah’s house Hall’s Croft Shakespeare’s Birthplace or the site of his grand house New Place it isn’t a museum. It used to be known as “The Cage”, and stands in the very centre of town at the junction of High Street and Bridge Street. In its time this building has been a prison, the “Shakespeare View Store”, the town’s Tourist Information Centre and now, a shop selling Crabtree and Evelyn toiletries.

In 1662 the newly-appointed vicar of Stratford, John Ward, noted in his diary his intention to visit Mrs Quiney. There’s some debate about this because it seems Judith had already died by the time he took up his post, but since Ward elsewhere noted his interest in Shakespeare it can be assumed that he had hoped to find out more about her father. This is without doubt one of the biggest lost opportunities in the history of Shakespeare biography. Judith was 31 when her father died and even at the great age of 77 would surely have had memories she could have shared. It’s just another of the factors that makes Judith Shakespeare’s story so intriguing.

Share
Posted in Shakespeare's World, Stratford-upon-Avon | Tagged , , | 4 Comments