Shakespeare in the Theatre Part 13

" Kalidasa's "Sakuntala" Botanical Gardens.

(Translated from the Sanscrit)

" "Richard II." Lecture Theatre, University of London.

1900. Moliere's "Don Juan" Lincoln's Inn Hall.

(Acted in English)

" "Hamlet" (First Quarto) Carpenters' Hall.

" Milton's "Samson Agonistes" Lecture Theatre, Victoria and Albert Museum.

" Schiller's "Wallenstein" Lecture Theatre, University of (Coleridge's translation) London.

" Scott's "Marmion" Lecture Theatre, University of London.

1901. Morality Play "Everyman" The Charterhouse, London.

" "Henry V." Lecture Theatre, University of London.

1902. Ben Jonson's "Alchemyst" Cambridge Summer Meeting.

1903. "Twelfth Night" Lecture Theatre, University of London.

" Marlowe's "Edward II." Oxford Summer Meeting.

1904. "Much Ado about Nothing" London School Board Evening Schools.

1905. "The First Franciscans" St. George's Hall.

" "Romeo and Juliet" Royalty Theatre, London.

1906. "The Good Natur'd Man" Cambridge Summer Meeting.

1907. "The Temptation of Agnes" Coronet Theatre, London.

" "The Merchant of Venice" Fulham Theatre.

1908. "Measure for Measure" Gaiety Theatre, Manchester.

" " " Stratford-on-Avon Festival.

" "The Bacchae of Euripides" Court Theatre, London.

(Gilbert Murray's translation)

" "Samson Agonistes" Lecture Theatre, Burlington Gardens.

(Milton Tercentenary Celebration)

" Ditto Owen's College, Manchester.

1909. "Macbeth" Fulham Theatre, London.

1910. "Two Gentlemen of Verona" His Majesty's Theatre.

" " " Gaiety Theatre, Manchester.

1911. "Jacob and Esau," and Little Theatre, London.

Scenes from "Edward III."

" Schiller's "Wallenstein" Oxford Summer Meeting.

" "The Alcestes of Euripides" Imperial Inst.i.tute.

(Francis Hubback's translation)

1912. Kalidasa's "Sakuntala" Cambridge Summer Meeting.

" "Troilus and Cressida" The King's Hall, Covent Garden.

1913. " " Stratford-on-Avon Festival.

SHAKESPEARE AT EARL'S COURT.[17]

The obsolete but picturesque phrase "Ye Olde" has perhaps something fascinating in it to the modern aesthetic temperament, but it would be just as well if those responsible for educating public opinion at Earl's Court about matters relating to the Elizabethan stage did not misapply the words. To the Elizabethan the Globe was a new building; there was nothing "olde" about it. What, then, the authorities mean is the Old Globe Playhouse, a definition that can mislead no one. There are some merits attached to the design, but also several errors, notably, on the stage, in the position of the traverse, in that of the staircases, and in the use made of the side boxes as approaches to the stage. These are details which are not of interest to the general public, and it is not necessary now to dwell upon them, though exception might be taken to the movement of the costumed figures who are supposed to impersonate the "groundlings."

The programme tells us that the vagaries of the groundlings are drawn from Dekker's "The Guls Horn-Booke," a satirical pamphlet published in Shakespeare's time, which can no more be seriously accepted as criticism than can a description in _Punch_ of a modern theatrical performance. The evidence of foreigners visiting London in the seventeenth century gives a very different impression to that which Dekker chose to admit; and we are told of the staid and decorous att.i.tude of those playgoers frequenting the Fortune, and of the stately dignity of the representations given at the Blackfriars. The handling of these incidents in the auditorium at Earl's Court have the appearance of being planned by one who is only superficially acquainted with the period and not in sympathy with the conditions of theatrical representation then in vogue--a circ.u.mstance to be regretted at an exhibition which was ostensibly organized to raise funds for a memorial to Shakespeare. Apparently it is forgotten that between 1590 and 1610 the finest dramatic literature which the world perhaps ever has known was being written in London, a coincidence which is inconceivable were the staging so crude and unintelligent as that which is shown us at Earl's Court. Everything there appears to have been done on the a.s.sumption that 300 years ago there was a less amount of brain power existing among dramatists, actors, and audience than there is found among them to-day, while the reverse argument is nearer to the truth, for a Shakespearian performance at the Globe on Bankside was then a far more stimulating and intellectual achievement than it is on the modern stage to-day.

To ill.u.s.trate this point it is only necessary to witness one of the "excerpts" presented at Earl's Court, the one called "The Tricking of Malvolio." Now, we may presume that attention is invited to the talents of the chief actor by the publicity given to his name, for on one small printed page it is "starred" five times in capital letters against the parts he impersonates. We can find no record of a similar keenness for publicity in any Elizabethan actor. But unfortunately this is the least remarkable ill.u.s.tration of modesty at Earl's Court, and it is impossible to suppose that so many mistakes could have been crammed into a single scene of "Twelfth Night" by anyone who had carefully read the play. Of Shakespeare's plays it was said, in his own day, that they erred from being too life-like, and that in consequence they lacked art; that is to say, there was nothing theatrical about them. The persons he put on the stage, in their speech, costume, and manner, so exactly resembled those the audience recognized in the town that it was difficult to believe that the characters had not been transferred from the street to the stage. Now, in "Twelfth Night" the central figure in the story, and the one round which all the other characters revolve, is Olivia, a young lady who is plunged in the deepest grief by the loss, first of her father, and then of her only brother, and we are told that because of this grief--

"The element itself, till seven years heat, Shall not behold her face at ample view; But, like a cloistress, she will veiled walk And water once a day her chamber round With eye-offending brine."

We may presume, therefore, that, as in the custom of Elizabethan times, Olivia is dressed in the deepest mourning, and wears a black veil to hide her sorrowing face. Next in social importance, in Olivia's house, comes her uncle, Sir Toby, who, as a blood relation--for Olivia's father may have been his brother--also wears black, and, being a knight, should wear velvet or silk, and a gold order. He is out of humour with his niece for the way she parades her grief and shuts herself away from all company. To relieve the monotony of his existence he brings a fellow-knight into the house, calls back the clown who had run away out of sheer boredom, and gives himself up to eating, drinking, and singing. Maria, who marries Sir Toby at the end of the play, is a lady by birth and breeding, attending on the Countess, and, therefore, as one of the household, is dressed in black, and so also are the servants, including Fabian and Malvolio. These latter would all wear black cloth liveries, and Malvolio, in addition, a braided steward's gown, not unlike that worn by a beadle, with a badge on his arm showing his mistress's coat of arms, and a plated neck-chain, as a symbol of his office. It will be seen at once what a shock it would be to Olivia's sense of propriety, in view of her recent bereavement, for her steward to turn up unexpectedly in coloured stockings, especially when she had reason to believe that he had more regard and compa.s.sion for her sorrow than anyone else in the house, because of his staid and solemn demeanour. It is not unlikely, besides, that Malvolio, in antic.i.p.ation of his certain promotion to the ranks of the aristocracy by his marriage with Olivia, had donned, in addition to yellow stockings, some rich costume, put on in imitation of those fas.h.i.+onable young n.o.blemen at court who wore silk scarves crossed above and below the knee, since without the costume his own cross-gartering would not have been in keeping. And indeed in antic.i.p.ation of his social advancement he alluded to this change of costume in his soliloquy, "sitting in my state ... in my branched _velvet_ gown." Here, then, was Malvolio appearing before the Countess in a "get up" that was not so much comic as audacious in its daring imitation of the only man suitable in rank to marry a rich countess--that is, an earl.

The environment, then, of the play is this: a house of mourning against which all its inmates are in rebellion with the exception of the Countess and Malvolio; the latter, who is a time-server, seizing his opportunity to ingratiate himself with his mistress by his pious and correct behaviour and the sternness with which he suppresses mirth within the house. All this information Shakespeare gives us in the text of the play, and yet how does the actor avail himself of this knowledge? Malvolio, the Countess's head flunkey, so to speak, appears not in the costume of a servant, but as if he were the best dressed person in the house. Had he been a peer of the realm and the Lord High Treasurer, his apparel, with one exception, could not have been more correct. Like Prince Hamlet, he is in black velvet, doublet, and trunks, and wears a magnificent black velvet gown reaching to his ankles, a gold chain and a gold order! Incongruous and impossible as this costume is for the character who has to wear it, an element of burlesque is added to it by the conical hat, a yard high, which never could have rested on any human head outside of a Drury Lane pantomime! Of course, when this initial error is made in the costume of the character impersonated by the leading actor, it is not surprising to find other mistakes made in regard to the costumes of those who appear on the scene.

Sir Toby is not in black, nor does he wear his order of knighthood, but appears in a leather jerkin and stuffed breeches, as if he were an innkeeper! Not only is Maria not in black, but she is not even attired as one who is by birth a lady, attending on the Countess, since she wears the dress of a kitchen-maid; nor yet is Fabian in black; while the Countess herself appears in a yellow dress, that being a colour Maria tells us "she abhors," and without a veil, her face beaming with smiles, as if she were the happiest creature in the comedy! What would any modern author say if such liberties were taken with his play? But equally unintelligent is the reading of the text. For Malvolio to say that when he is Olivia's husband he will ask for his kinsman "Toby," is to miss the humour of the situation. It is the pleasure of being able to call Sir Toby a "kinsman"

that is flattering to Malvolio's vanity; while in the same scene the one word in Olivia's letter (of Maria's composition) which is captivating and convincing to Malvolio's credulity is unnoticed by the actor. Malvolio's doubts as to whom the letter is written are entirely set at rest when he comes to the words, "let me see thee a _steward_ still." From the moment he gets sight of the word "steward," everything becomes as clear as daylight to him, so that when he appears in his velvet suit before Olivia, and cross-gartered--which does not mean the cross-gartering of the brigand in Italian Opera, as the impersonator imagines--his a.s.surance carries everything before him, and makes him turn every remark of the Countess to his own advantage, and this self-deception is kept up with unflagging animation, until he flings his final words at his tormentors: "Go, hang yourselves _all_! You are idle, _shallow_ things: _I_ am not of _your_ element; you shall know _more_ hereafter." But this rendering of the scene entirely misses fire at Earl's Court.

It would be ungracious and invidious, under the circ.u.mstances, to indulge in criticism of this kind without examining into the origin of the errors we have tried to point out. They are nearly all traditional. The actor is not the real culprit. If one appealed to him for an explanation, his answer would be, "What is good enough for Sir Herbert Tree is good enough for me," and Sir Herbert Tree might say, "What was good enough for Macready satisfies me." In the production of Shakespeare on the modern stage our actor-managers show originality and novelty. In the interpretation of Shakespeare's characters, and in the intelligent reading of his text, there seems to be no progress made and no individuality shown. In these matters we are still in the middle of the eighteenth century, the most artificial age in the history of Shakespearian drama. As a consequence, Shakespeare's plays are not taken seriously by actors of to-day. To them his characters are theatrical types which are not supposed to conform to the conditions that govern human beings in everyday life.

They do not recognize that Shakespeare's art and his characters were as true to the life of his day as is the art of Shaw or Galsworthy to our own. Yet because the construction of his play is unsuited to the modern stage, therefore it is contended that Shakespeare is a bad constructor of plays, and any liberties may be taken in the matter of reconstruction that are convenient to the producer. And because his plays are written in verse, a medium we do not now use in modern drama, therefore it may be spoken in a way no human being ever did or could speak his thoughts. So it comes that there is always an apology on the actor's lips for "Shakespeare's shortcomings" whenever the actor wants to take liberties with this author. It is Shakespeare who is always in the wrong, and never the actor. Ask the actress who impersonates Olivia why she is not wearing a black dress, and she replies without a moment's hesitation that black is not becoming to her, as if it were an impertinence on Shakespeare's part to expect her to wear black. The havoc that is made with the characterization and story is of no consequence. "Oh, hang Shakespeare!"

was what a popular Shakespearian actor once said to the present writer.

That is the normal feeling of many actors towards Shakespeare's plays, and one which will continue unless public opinion can be roused to a sense of its responsibilities and insists that a more reverent and loyal treatment shall be bestowed on the work of the world's greatest poet and dramatist.

Unpleasant and ungracious as these remarks may appear to those who look to the Earl's Court Exhibition as a means for raising money for a national theatre, they are not unnecessary. From all parts of the country visitors, comprising many teachers and their scholars, come to this exhibition expecting to receive a correct impression of Shakespeare's playhouse and of the Elizabethan method of staging plays. But what they see cannot inspire them with confidence or belief that dramatic art at that time, both in its composition and expression, was at its high-water mark. This is because the spirit and the intellect of Elizabethan times are wanting.

These qualities do not appear in modern actors nor in their productions.

There is nothing to be seen but the restlessness of our own stage-methods, which no more fit the Elizabethan stage than would the Elizabethan methods fit the modern stage. In another of the excerpts given at Earl's Court, which is ent.i.tled the "Enchantment of t.i.tania," the costumes, business, and action of the proscenium stage are wholly reproduced on the open platform. In Shakespeare's time the actors did not scamper all over the stage and in and out of the private boxes while they were saying their lines, nor was music played during their speeches. Then, again, the stage-management of the scenes from "The Merchant of Venice" in the poverty and meanness of their appointments and costumes is a libel on the old Globe representation. It is only necessary to consult the stage-directions in the first folio to recognize the fact. Ba.s.sanio then came on to the stage dressed like one of the Queen's n.o.blemen, with three or four servants. At Earl's Court he comes on unattended in a pair of patched leather boots and worn suit, looking more like a bandit than a n.o.bleman. There is no indication given of his superior rank to which so much importance was attached in Shakespeare's time. Indeed, those who are anxious to revive an interest in Elizabethan staging, and who urge its claim for recognition, are justified in making their protest against this travesty of Shakespearian drama.

A STUDENTS' THEATRE.[18]

1. _Miss Rosina Filippi's Project._