|
A Portrait of the
Playwright
from Center Stage, Baltimore
MD. Program notes (1991)
If Entertainment Tonight or
60 Minutes, People, or Time magazines had been
as much a part of Elizabethan culture as they are of our own, students and
admirers of Shakespeare could now reread or view old interviews with the
most celebrated playwright in the English language. We would know precisely what he looked
like and what he thought. Quite
likely we would know if his marriage was a success, if his children were
delinquent, and if he had any skeletons in his family closet.
Of course, in the 16th and early 17th
centuries, when William Shakespeare wrote, acted, and managed a theatrical
company, the members of the entertainment world, as we now call it, were
not the celebrities that they are today.
No one hastened to record their thoughts and activities for
posterity. It probably never
occurred to Shakespeare or his contemporaries that 400 years later millions
of people who have read his plays and seen them produced on stage, film,
and television in virtually every country in the world would be curious
about all the details of his life and work.
Shelves of books and articles have been created by researchers
seeking to satisfy that curiosity.
If the answers they provide arc sketchy, the questions that they
raise are fascinating.
Who was William Shakespeare and did he write
the plays published in his name?
Most of what we know about the man has been gleaned from legal
documents, such as the recording of the purchase and sale of land, and from
church records of significant familiar events, such as marriages and
baptisms. Happily for researchers
Shakespeare and his work are also mentioned in the writings of a number of
his contemporaries (Ben Jonson, Francis Meres, and Robert Greene, among
others).
On April 26, 1564, the parish register of
Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon, England, records the baptism of one
William, son of John Shakespeare, a glove maker and tanner of hides, and Mary
Arden, the daughter of a well-to-do landowner. Custom holds that the baby was born three
days before on April 23, the feast of St. George, England's patron, who
according to ancient legend, was a mighty warrior and slayer of
dragons. The idea of England's
greatest writer and perhaps her most famous historical figure being born on
so important a feast has a certain romantic appeal, but, alas, no absolute
proof of the coincidence exists.
Often with those who admire Shakespeare, the
wish, as Wordsworth says, is the father of the thought. No painting or likeness of Shakespeare
made during his lifetime exists.
However, in 1623, seven years after his death, Gheerart Janssen, a Dutch
immigrant, created a
bust of Shakespeare for his monument in Trinity Church. Since the monument was made during his
wife's lifetime and with the financial support of many of his friends, the
figure was agreeably an acceptable likeness. In the same year Martin Droeshout created
an
engraved portrait to appear in an edition of Shakespeare's plays. Although it is doubtful that Droeshout
ever saw Shakespeare, he performed his work on a commission from
Shakespeare's theatrical friends, so perhaps this is also in acceptable
likeness.
As years passed other artists painted the
Playwright who began mysteriously to appear better looking and more
heroic. In the famous Chandos portrait,
Shakespeare sports a gold earring and an elegant white linen collar which
stands out dramatically against his black tunic. Perhaps the artist felt that a genius of
the theatre should look the part.
Whatever he looked like, Shakespeare grew up in
the small but thriving market town of Stratford located on the shores of
the Avon River. One of eight
children, he probably attended the local grammar school, King’s, a school
of good reputation. Education was a
serious business at King's. Pupils
spent two four-hour sessions each day studying Latin literature, grammar,
and learning to do their sums. When
well grounded in Latin, the students moved on to Greek. Because there are no records, we have no
way of knowing how many years Shakespeare spent at school. His good friend, the playwright Ben
Jonson, says, perhaps in exaggeration, that Shakespeare had "little
Latin and less Greek."
Perhaps he was forced to leave school for
family reasons. His father, a
successful businessman and a prominent participant in community affairs,
suffered financial reverses when William was in his teens. Local records indicate that John
Shakespeare was unable to pay certain taxes and debts. Although he was forced to sell some of
his property, he retained the family residence and his business. in later
years William would restore the family to prosperity. But before that would occur, his family
obligations would expand rapidly.
Parish records indicate that, at only 18, William
married Anne Hathaway, the 26-year old daughter of a local farmer. In six months the couple became the
parents of Susanna. Two years later,
a set of twins, Judith and Hamnet, named for family friends, were
born. At not quite 21 years of age,
Shakespeare had three children and a wife to care for.
How did he manage? No one knows for sure because from the
birth of the twins in February 1585 to the first reference of William
Shakespeare, actor and playwright, in London in 1592, we have no records of
his life. Some scholars speculate
that he taught school; others that he joined a touring company of actors
who eventually took him to London.
However he got there, by 1592 he had become an important man in
London theatre. Records identify him
as the "ordinary" or company playwright for the most successful
theatre company in the city, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men (so called because
their patron was the Lord Chamberlain, an important official of the Queen’s
household and immediate superior to the Master of the Revels, the person
who arranged for and supervised all the entertainments presented at Court).
As the "ordinary" playwright,
Shakespeare would have been expected to provide two or more new plays per
year to the company and probably to help rewrite other plays which the
company wished to perform. During
his association with the group, Shakespeare wrote 37 plays and probably
collaborated on a number of others.
Equally at home writing comedies or tragedies, he created characters
so compelling that ambitious actors throughout the ages have wished to play
them. Shakespeare understood actors
as few playwrights have. Perhaps
because his plays are so brilliant and so popular, we tend to forget that
he was also an actor and a manager.
Although tradition suggests that Shakespeare played the Ghost in
Hamlet and perhaps other roles requiring dignity and gravity, we have
little definite information about his acting abilities or about the parts
which he played, but we do know that his name appeared on the list of the
company's principal actors.
The Lord Chamberlain's Company was owned and
run by its shareholders: the company playwright and principal actors. After expenses, such as the purchase of
plays from other playwrights and the salaries of the non-shareholders were
met, all profits were divided among the shareholders according to the size
of their share in the company.
Shakespeare held a profitable 10%
which, over the years, made him a wealthy man.
During his years in London, Shakespeare
continued to regard Stratford as his home, for there he made investments,
purchased property, and probably maintained his wife and children. Although we do not have absolute
evidence, Shakespeare probably did not bring his family to London to
live. Why he did not has been the
subject of much speculation. Many
people have hypothesized that Shakespeare and his wife did not get on well. Admittedly, a hurried marriage to a
pregnant older woman may not have been an ideal way to start married
life. However, if Shakespeare chose
to leave his family behind in Stratford, there are other possible
explanations.
London was neither the healthiest place to live
nor the best location to raise children.
Plague was so rampant in the city during the summer months that
theatres were generally closed to prevent the spread of contagion. In addition, the theatre buildings tended
to be located in dangerous and infamous neighborhoods where gambling,
prostitution, and drinking rivaled theatergoing as major pastimes.
Further speculation about the state of
Shakespeare's marriage has been fueled by the playwright's will. He left the bulk of his property to his
daughter Susanna, and her husband, a prominent physician. Among his many bequests, only one involved
his wife. To Anne he left "the second best bed"
and its linen. Was the bequest an
insult, a slight, an indication of no regard? Perhaps not. "The second best bed" may well
have had sentimental associations.
In addition, it may not have been necessary to state specifically
that his wife receive a major portion of his estate. The common legal custom in many English
jurisdictions automatically assigned one-third of the husband's estate to
the wife.
Whatever his feelings about his wife, when
Shakespeare retired, he returned to Stratford to live out his life. He and his wife took up residence in an
impressive home where he was widely regarded as one of the leading citizens
of the town. Although his son had
died at the age of 12, both of his daughters had survived and married, and
along with their husbands, resided nearby. Unfortunately, Shakespeare had
only a few years to enjoy his retirement, for on the 23rd of April 1616,
his putative 52nd birthday, he died.
Although we do not know the precise cause of this death, an
unconfirmed report some years later by a Stratford clergyman suggests that
Shakespeare and two writer friends had a
“merry meeting” where they celebrated a bit too freely, for Shakespeare
caught a fever and subsequently died.
Shakespeare was reported by friends to have been a man of good humor
and pleasant disposition, so perhaps people like to think of him bidding
farewell to life after a pleasant evening.
However he died, Shakespeare is buried in the
Trinity Church under an inscription whose authorship and content have
caused considerable debate:
Good friend, for
Jesus' sake forbear
To dig the dust
enclosed here!
Bless’d be the man
that spares these stones,
And curs’d be he that
moves my bones.
The author of these lines is unknown, but they
certainly lack the ring of Shakespeare's verse. Whether deterred by the threat or by
legal problems, no one has disturbed his final resting place. Seven years after his death a monument was
placed in the Church honoring his memory, but the most important monument
to his work was the
First Folio, a collection of his plays published by his friends and
fellow shareholders, Heminges and Condell.
No question was raised about the authenticity
of Shakespeare's authorship of these plays for over 150 years after the
publication of the First Folio.
Since then a number of people have argued strongly that a man of such
limited education and personal experience could not possibly have written
such masterpieces. As alternative
authors they have suggested Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, and even
Queen Elizabeth I. The theory for their authorship assumes that people of
distinguished social position would be ashamed to be identified as
playwrights in a period of history when plays were not considered
literature and when commercial playwrights were low on the social scale.
Although there are many gaps in the information
which we have about Shakespeare's life, serious scholars have no doubt that
William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was indeed the author of the
plays in the First Folio. Genius
knows no social class or educational level.
As Ben Jonson said of his friend, "He was not of an age, but
for all time."
Understanding Shakespeare’s Plays
Were Shakespeare to wake today and find himself
in an English class, he would be perplexed and probably highly frustrated
by the carefully and clearly defined rules of modern grammar and amazed by
the size of modern dictionaries and the frequency of their use, for he had
lived in a time of much greater freedom in the use of language. The first dictionary of the English
language did not appear until 1604, only 12 years before Shakespeare's
death and many years after he had become a famous playwright. Of course grammar existed, but it's rules
were much more flexible than they are today. Despite these differences, Shakespeare's
goal like any other writer's was always to convey ideas and emotions as
effectively and sincerely as possible.
When potential theatre goers of today fret that
they may not understand a Shakespearean play, they are responding to
changes in the use and meaning of language.
Change need not be such a frightening process if we realize that we
cope with linguistic changes every day of our life. We have only to listen to the lyrics of
current popular music and that of five years and ten years ago to see how
much slang and colloquial (informal) English change. Of course many changes have taken place
since the days of English Renaissance theatre, but the core of the language
is the same. By learning to
recognize a few techniques which characterize Shakespeare’s writing style,
potential audience members can increase both their understanding and their
enjoyment.
First of all, one must learn to listen for the
general meaning of the words. Often
when we hear or read a work which we do not immediately understand, we stop
and attempt to puzzle out its meaning.
Although this technique is feasible for a reader, it is disruptive
for a listener. When we shut down
our listening while we think about a single word, we miss much additional
spoken material which will probably clarify the meaning of the unknown word
and will certainly convey additional, necessary information about the
characters and events of the play.
In addition, other clues to the meaning of the dialogue come from
the movement and facial expressions of the actors, so understanding is
contingent on more than the comprehension of single words and phrases.
The study of rhetoric ("the art of using
words effectively . . . especially, the art of persuading"') was a
common component of all formal education in Shakespeare’s lifetime. Consequently, people tended to know and
appreciate the importance and the beauty of language. Shakespeare was a master rhetorician, a
wordsmith. If no word existed to
express the sound or the idea which he sought, he simply made one up. For example, when he wished to convey the
total repression of all gentleness, all compassion, all sympathy, he had
Lady Macbeth demand: “Come, you spirits / That tend on mortal thoughts,
unsex me here” The image produced by his original word “unsex” conveyed his
precise meaning with startling impact.
As he was concerned with both striking and
precise imagery, he was also concerned with sound, with the music of words,
sometimes soft and pleasant (“When to the sessions of sweet silent thought
/ I summon up remembrance of things past”), sometimes harsh and abrasive
(". . . thou lump of foul deformity"). Shakespeare’s words not only carry their
own sound effects, they also communicate signals about the performance to
the actors. The playwright's
selection of words determines the speed with which they can be said. For example, Macbeth's famous speech,
"Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow…”
cannot be spoken rapidly. The
words force the actor to speak slowly, thoughtfully, a pace which is
particularly appropriate to this moment of Macbeth's greatest despair. His wife has just died. He has sacrificed honor, decency, and
happiness to gain power and now that power is rapidly melting away.
Sometimes Shakespeare's hints to the actors
take even more specific form. His
dialogue often indicates an action or reaction on the character's
part. In All's Well
That Ends Well, for example, the Countess of
Rossillion tells Helena, a young girl who lives in her household, that she
would like to be a mother to her.
The Countess' lines indicate Helena's physical response: "When
I said 'a mother', / Methought you saw a serpent. What's in 'mother', / That you start at
it?"
As Shakespeare’s lines provide clues for
performance to the actors, they also provide clues for the imagination of
the audience. Recognizing the
physical limitations of staging, the playwright depended upon the audience
to "Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts." In this
quote from the prologue to Henry V the
character acknowledges to the audience the limitations of staging, but asks
that they conjure up with their imaginations the two great armies and the
battlefields which will be dramatized in the play.
Just as audiences are intimidated by
Shakespeare’s somewhat unfamiliar language, they are frightened by the
thought of seeing a play which is also poetry, assuming that poetry is by
definition strange and difficult to fathom.
Actually Shakespeare's plays are a subtle mixture of prose and
poetry. One scholar has estimated
that the average play (they vary widely) is comprised of roughly 75 %
poetry and 25 % prose. Of that 75 %, all but about ten percent is blank
verse, the poetry form which most closely resembles the natural human
speech pattern. Although blank
verse-unrhymed lines of five iambic feet, with iambic designating an
unstressed syllabic followed by a stressed syllable-is a structured form of
composition, the audience is rarely conscious of the structure. Only a small percentage of the dialogue
in plays calls attention in any self-conscious way (such as the use of end
rhyme) to its poetic form.
The switches among blank verse, rhymed verse,
and prose are important signals about the nature of the speakers and about
the events which are taking place.
In general, characters of lower socioeconomic status, such as
servants, soldiers, and country folk, speak prose, while members of the
aristocracy express themselves in poetry.
However, these distinctions are not universal. In moments of great stress characters may
switch from one format to the other to signal their emotional upheaval.
The mood of one play may be more suitable for
poetry and another for prose.
Shakespeare's tragedies are written largely in poetry; the comedies
make much greater use of prose than the plays of serious content. The prevailing principle with
Shakespeare's writing is that communication of the idea or the emotion is
more important than the form in which it is expressed. You can always recognize an amateur
Shakespearean actor by his concentration on the mechanics of the poetry
rather than the content.
If the intricacies of language constitute a
small but surmountable barrier between actors and the audience, other
aspects of Shakespeare’s dramatic technique remove barriers. Despite their size, Elizabethan theatres
were remarkably intimate because their thrust stages jutted out into an
audience which enclosed the actors on three sides. The audience's sense of involvement with
events on stage was heightened by the use of the soliloquy (the character
speaks his thoughts directly to the audience) and the aside (in
conversation with others, the character expresses thoughts and reactions
aloud to the audience which are accepted as being unheard by the other
characters). This sharing of
thoughts and information invites us to be a part of the theatrical event in
a very overt way Shakespeare was accustomed to an active, volatile audience
and he capitalized on their existence to put his play across. He would be amazed and disturbed to think
that audiences often view the prospect of attending his plays as some
highly formal occasion.
The Wild And Wonderful World of
Shakespeare’s Theatre
On the south bank of the Thames River in the
city of London, a construction crew is at work building the new Globe
Theatre on the same spot where the original was torn down in 1642. The reconstruction project is not as
simple as it may sound, for no one knows just what the first Globe really
looked like. Just as much information about Shakespeare's life has been
lost, so too the plans for the theatre in which his plays enjoyed their
earliest success no longer exist.
Nevertheless, we can and do make educated guesses about the nature
of this most famous of all theatre facilities.
We base our conceptions on a number of
historical documents. Perhaps the
best known of these are an early 17th-century engraving
of the city of London by Dutch engraver, Jan Visscher, and the building
contract for the
Fortune Theatre, a major competitor of the Globe. Some features of the Fortune were
supposedly patterned after the Globe, but in one major respect they
differed. The Globe was round or
octagonal in shape, and the Fortune, square.
Although we lack the exact dimensions of the Globe, we estimate that it
could hold roughly 2,000-2,500 people, a large theatre indeed even in the
1980s, but distinctly so in a city whose population is estimated to have
ranged between 150,000 and 200,000 in Shakespeare's day. Although the theatre would probably only
have been filled to capacity on holidays when shops were closed and people
off work, much of the audience would still have been in remarkably close
proximity both to the actors and to one another. First, the thrust stage which was
approximately 40 feet wide and 25 feet deep, reached well out into the
audience. Second, most of the
audience paid one penny, the least expensive entrance fee, which entitled
them only to standing room in the pit, the area around the stage
apron. The "groundlings:' as
the pit audience members were known, had to look up at the
performance. For additional pennies,
one could obtain seats in the three galleries built around the outside
walls.
The stage was partially covered by a roofed
structure called the huts. Actors
dressed behind the stage in an area called the tiring house. There may have been an inner room or space
at the back of the stage or perhaps only a curtain covering an opening, but
there was at least one balcony level above the stage which was used in
scenes such as the balcony scene from Romeo and
Juliet.
Theatres like the Globe (large, open air
theatres, with low admission charges) were called public theatres to
contrast them with so called private theatres (smaller, indoor, candlelit
theatres with higher admission fees).
In addition to the Globe, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men (later the
King's Men) owned the private theatre, the
Blackfriars. Many of
Shakespeare's plays were performed in both playhouses.
In contemporary theatre we possess a range of
technical skills and technology undreamed of in the theatre of 400 years
ago, yet audiences flocked to the theatre and, from all reports, were
delighted by what they experienced there.
The productions on the Elizabethan and Jacobean stages were simple
by our standards. Scenery, as we
understand it, was virtually non-existent.
Occasionally a tree or a trellis, a boulder or some easily portable
element might be placed on stage, but such items were few.
In general, the audience was expected to employ
its own imagination to create the backdrop for the stage action. Playwrights like Shakespeare created
scenery with words. Characters
described scenes and audiences took it from there. Approaching Macbeth's castle, King Duncan
tells us: "This castle hath a pleasant seat. The air / Nimbly and sweetly recommends
itself…." Of course, there is no castle on stage and the audience
cannot see the landscape that surrounds it, but we accept Duncan's
description. Through Duncan,
Shakespeare has created the setting for the action.
Not everything is left to the audience's
imagination. A helpful theatre
manager, Philip
Henslowe, left an inventory of the stage properties owned by his
company. By combining his list and
by reviewing plays for indications of the props which they required, we
have identified several common items.
For example, plays often called for heads since beheading was a
favorite execution technique in the plays of the day.
If props and scenery were held to a minimum,
costumes were a significant element in productions. Actors were usually expected to provide
their own costumes. Prominent
performers gloried in rich and attractive wearing apparel with which they
hoped to dazzle their audience.
Costumes were contemporary rather than historically accurate. Cleopatra would be dressed as a wealthy
and elegant Elizabethan lady rather than an Egyptian. Occasionally, some symbolic item of clothing,
such as a toga for Julius Caesar, would be worn.
Costuming takes on an added complexity when we
remember that boys played all female roles.
The first actress did not appear on an English stage until
1660. Boys were apprenticed to
experienced actors from whom they could learn their craft. For a brief period acting companies
consisting solely of boys were the rage in London. In fact, Blackfriars was the home of a
famous boys' company before it was purchased by the Lord Chamberlain’s
Men. This custom of all male acting
companies is still practiced in Japan by the Kabuki and Noh theatres.
If ladies were not welcome on the stage, they
were welcome in the audience. If
some people considered the theatre an inappropriate locale for women, it
was largely because the theatres were usually located in the more
questionable neighborhoods to which the proprietors of taverns, brothels,
and bear baiting arenas fled to avoid harassment by the city authorities.
The theatre audience was widely described as
lively, even rowdy. Sellers of
books, ale, fruit, roast chestnuts, and less respectable commodities
wandered about hawking their wares during the performance. Fights occasionally broke out,
particularly on festival days when the theatres were exceptionally
crowded. Yet despite the
disreputable behavior of some of the patrons, members of the highest
classes of society attended the theatre-ambassadors, members of the Court. The monarch had no need to go to the
theatre, for performances were brought directly to the royal
residence. Both Queen Elizabeth I
and her successor, James I, appreciated theatre. Shakespeare's company performed many
times before them and often in the private homes of members of the
aristocracy.
Was the audience the same for both public and
private theatres? We cannot be sure,
but the private theatre audiences were probably better behaved. The three pennies admission fee which
they paid guaranteed them a seat rather than the standing room at the
public theatres. The seats would
have made it more difficult for the orange sellers and the other food
venders to make their way about the theatre.
Performances in the public theatre usually
began at 2:00 p.m., after lunch but early enough to guarantee 2-2 ½ hours
of daylight, the average running time of the plays. With the possible exception of one five
to ten-minute intermission, performances ran without interruption, good
weather or bad. The theatrical
season began in late August or early September and ran until late January
or February depending upon how harsh the winter weather. The theatrical companies were unable to
take advantage of the warmer late spring and summer temperatures because
the civil authorities feared the spread of plague which commonly occurred
at this time of year. Plague was only one of many hazards which threatened
English theatre, in this its golden age.
Fire was an ever-present threat particularly in the private theatres
which were dependent on hundreds of candles for illumination. Ironically, it was not the indoor
Blackfriars which burned, but the Globe.
One afternoon during a performance of Shakespeare’s Henry VIII,
a spark ignited by a weapon fired on stage caught the thatched roof of the
theatre and the theatre burned to the ground. But the Globe was a profitable business
so it was rebuilt within the year.
Although the Globe survived this crisis, neither it nor the many
other public and private theatres could survive the political upheaval
which was approaching.
For years the Puritans had bitterly
opposed theatre. Their opposition
was grounded in their religious belief that the creation of characters and
their impersonation were a form of deceit.
Moreover, they believed that watching behavior on stage would lead
people to copy it in their private lives.
The arguments which they used against theatre were similar to
arguments which arc now lodged against rock Music and television.
As Puritanism spread, particularly among the
newly emerging middle class, the Puritans rose to important positions in
local government. In fact, even
during Shakespeare's years in London, the Puritans controlled the
government of the city because of their strong opposition to theatre, the
Globe and most other theatres were built across the Thames River outside
the legal confines of the city. The Puritans' opposition to things
theatrical was abetted by the low repute in which actors were commonly
held. Throughout the 16th century,
regulations were promulgated to prevent or curtail theatrical
performances. In a statute of 1572,
actors were classed with vagabonds, thieves, and ruffians. To gain legal access to any community,
they were required to carry a writ signed by two magistrates. A few years later, the requirements were
stiffened. In addition to the two
magistrates, a member of the nobility, a patron, must also vouch for the
performer.
Of course, local authorities had some grounds
for their reservation. Up until
1576, plays and entertainments were generally staged on portable stages,
usually set up in the yard of local inns.
The architecture of the inns made them an ideal performing
place. Two wings extended out from
the central segment of the inn forming a partially enclosed courtyard where
guests could tic up their horses.
Players would set up portable stages along one of the inn walls and
the audience could gather round in the yard or those guests staying in the
inn could look down on the action from the galleries which surrounded the
walls of the inn.
The inns were a natural gathering place for
travelers and locals interested in a drink and company. Naturally, the mix of alcohol, crowds,
and entertainment proved volatile.
The presence of crowds drew petty criminals and prostitutes looking
for opportunities for profit. They
usually found them. All of these
circumstances added to the headaches of authorities attempting to maintain
law and order. Even though the
actors might not be taking part in rowdy or criminal behavior, many people
identified them as the proximate cause of the trouble.
Of course, the problem was exacerbated by
frequent outbreaks of the plague which spread rapidly in congested
areas. Given all these factors the
Puritans could find nothing about the theatre to recommend it. Had political conditions remained static,
perhaps the uneasy coexistence of theatre (protected by the patronage of
the aristocracy) and Puritanism would have continued. But theatre was not to enjoy that good
fortune.
Shakespeare retired during the reign of James I, a
strong-minded monarch who did not take kindly to Puritans or anyone else
infringing on his authority When he was succeeded by his son, Charles 1,
who was determinedly opposed to Puritanism and to encroachments on his
prerogatives, England was on her way toward a civil war. When the Puritans were victorious, they
acted decisively against their old enemies.
In 1642 all theatres were closed, many, including the Globe, were
torn down. Not until the return of
the monarchy, in 1660 would theatre again be legitimate. Unfortunately, the English stage would
never recapture the glory it had known in the age of William Shakespeare.
|
