Tag: Analog exhibit

In a Shakespeare class I took last semester, I read a great article by Phyllis Rackin and Jean Howard that explained how Henry V shows the shift of masculinity at the time Shakespeare wrote the play. Before this play, masculinity was linked to nobility through blood, i.e. preservation of a bloodline, whereas Henry V is the first of his plays to show masculinity as a result of achievement or conquest in battle and in love. Lust was once a feminine, emasculating vice, because a woman could dilute the bloodline and thus remove your masculinity, so denying women sex was seen as an expression of dominance. In this play, lust belongs to men as a tool of power; successfully seducing someone shows that same male dominance.

Near the end of Henry V (spoilers ahead!), King Henry seduces the French princess Katherine and marries her, thus sealing his control over France and validating his authority as a man and as a leader. This scene is often seen as a sort of coercion or forced wedding; Katherine barely speaks any English (and barely speaks at all) while Henry does the wooing, marrying her with little preamble and little input from her. It is likely that at different times in history, this scene was more or less romantic and organic; nowadays, with the emphasis on female autonomy that has been growing, this sort of seduction becomes problematic and unromantic, at least as I see it.

In this picture, drawn by an unnamed reader, Katherine looks very young, swaddled and protected by a large hood. She looks almost sad, unmoved by the “conversation” taking place right next to her face. Maybe this reader thought the seduction was romantic and reciprocated; we can’t know just from looking at this image. But the way that Katherine is shown – her clothes, her face, her expression – all contribute to a narrative about what this seduction means to the seduced party. Going through the scene with this mental image is very different from the next image:

This Katherine, an image from the same copy of the play (by a different artist) shows a classic princess smiling sweetly in her pretty gown. Her royal status is emphasized by the crown and scepter and her romantic side comes through thanks to the flower and the sweet expression on her face, just as King Henry wanted if he is indeed partially using her to validate his authority. This Katherine fits the bill for what one might expect a willing contributor to a royal marriage to look like. If this Katherine comes on stage, the wedding is more likely to be a happy occasion than something done strictly for political gain, or unwillingly. 

This photo is, to me, the most interesting. Entitled “The Wooing of Henry V,” here we have Katherine sitting forlornly on a throne, accepting Henry’s grand physical expression of love and desire. This Katherine looks like an adult woman, sitting in a position that normally would be one of power. She is a very different Katherine from the first two I’ve shown you, but at least in this still frame, we still see nothing to suggest that she wants this marriage as much as he does. Even the title gives a sense that this is not a conversation; it is a directed seduction. Henry woos Katherine, an unmoving, possibly undesirous female. 

To me, this seduction style is a flaw in the personality of the manly, charming Henry V. But to some, this scene is utterly romantic, an expression of love at first sight and the strength of love even with a significant language barrier. These opposed understandings of the same scene and relationship could reflect shifting cultural values over time, or it could simply be a result of who I am and how I was raised. The beauty of costume, design, and acting is that these elements combined could make me see an entirely different interpretation of the scene; possibly, if a charming Henry wooed the girl in purple from the second photo, I would be more on board with the seduction, at least in that production. The creators of different productions have a lot of power over interpretation, and they have no choice but to use and thus impact my understanding of the play.

This week, in preparation for our exhibit, I’ve been thinking more about versions. More specifically, different versions of the same thing. So today, I’ll be talking about four different versions of The Tempest. I found some pretty cool stuff in the Honnold special collections, as well as in the collection at Denison Library (Scripps College). Not only did I see beautifully illustrated editions with the unaltered text, but I even found two operas.

In 1681, Nahum Tate published his The History of King Lear, an adapted and revised version of Shakespeare’s play. It became the standard performance edition of Lear in England for over one and a half centuries, and yet it is infamously a radically different play; Tate took a number of liberties with the plot and characters to make the play more suitable for stage, and critics since the mid-19th century have widely panned his version as a result.

Special Collections has an edition from 1689, which I’ve been fortunate enough to start working with. Some of the text is faded at the corners, but overall it’s in great condition and is a fascinating (if perhaps frustrating) read.

This edition begins with an “Epistle Dedicatory” from Tate. It begins with reverence and (perhaps disingenuous) apprehension: Tate had “the difficult Task of making the chiefest Persons speak something like their Character, on Matter whereof I had no Ground in my Author. Lear’s real and Edgar’s pretended Madness have so much of extravagant Nature…as cou’d never have started but from out Shakespeare’s Creating Fancy.”

While Tate dubs Lear and Edgar’s madnesses “extravagant” and praises their author’s singularity, he is in fact saying that he could have written their actions a bit better. He goes on: “‘Twas my good fortune to light on one Expedient to rectifie what was wanting int he Regularity and Probability of the Tale, which was to run through the whole, a Love betwixt Edgar and Cordelia.” Tate says this was necessary to render “Cordelia’s Indifference, and her Father’s Passion in the first Scene, probable.” Moreover, it would give “Countenance to Edgar’s Disguise, making that a generous Design that was before a poor Shift to save his Life.”

What Tate is really saying about the “extravagant Nature” of the character’s actions is that they were unrealistic or unreasonable. Edgar’s disguise is to be more understandable as a young man watching over his lover’s father; Lear’s rage is towards a stubborn daughter who won’t doesn’t wish to honor her house, through words or marriage. For Cordelia to show her father such disrespect (“Indifference”), he seems to imply, would require her to have a problem with being married off. The problem here, though, is that Cordelia isn’t actually indifferent; her original response is about modes and settings of expression, not substance; “Love, and be silent,” and “My hear’ts more richer than my tongue.” Tate strips these line from his edition, perhaps to make her indeed seem indifferent. But he has not solved the problem of her indifference through a love affair with Edgar. Rather, he attempts to create an indifference or bitterness towards Lear , changing her behavior entirely.

My personal favorite, the Fool, is missing from Tate’s version; part of my study of Tate will be to investigate how the Fool’s function of prophet and commentator is taken up by others in this version. The Irving Shakespeare indicates that directors found the Fool an unseemly character in the 1830s when the original was being revived. Perhaps Tate felt similarly, or perhaps he simply felt the Fool unnecessary.

Tate makes one most significant change: famously, Edgar and Cordelia are married instead of the bloodbath of the original play; Tate writes that he did not want to “incumber the State with dead Bodies, which Conduct makes many Tragedies conclude with unseasonable Fests.” For, he writes, “’tis more difficult to save than to Kill: The Dagger and Cup of Poison are always in Readiness; but the bring the Action to the last Extremity, and then by probably Means recover All, will require the Art and Judgement of the Writer, and cost him many a Pang in Performance.” As with Lear and Edgar’s madness, Tate invokes probability as an important guiding factor in his process. But again we should ask: is a happy ending the most “seasonable” or likely result, or truly the more “difficult” resolution to Shakespeare’s original text? Or is it more reasonable only with Tate’s alterations? Tate does seem to ignore that he has created something wholly new; what is probably or seasonable in his text says nothing about what is probable or seasonable in Shakespeare’s.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

I’ve been thinking and reading a lot about court masques
this week, specifically about the style Ben Jonson worked to form. For those of
you who don’t know, court masques were theatrical productions for British
nobles containing music, dance, songs, and poetry in varying degrees. In
addition to the dancing, performance, and revels, they included elaborate set
designs and special effects.

Now, I know Jonson isn’t Shakespeare, but they were
contemporaries, and in many ways, the masques were like plays of the time.
Though the two inhabited different spheres, private versus public, and dealt
with different notions of fiction and reality within the space of the
performance, both may be read as literature. By that, I mean that the play
remained isolated, whereas the masque could blur the line between fiction and
reality because many times, nobles themselves would act in the performances.
Other times, the masquers would dance with members of the audience, uniting the
actors and observers in an in-between space of active entertainment. Such an
amalgamation between fictional characters and real life persons sets the tone
for further combinations of different realities. 

Why, you ask, have I been looking at something that is
definitively not Shakespeare? Well,
it’s because I’ve been finding several items in the Special Collections that
fall into the category of masque using Shakespeare’s plots and/or characters. And
on the note of combining different realities, one in particular performs a sort
of literary mash-up or crossover, making characters from Macbeth and Henry IV
interact with Greek Gods, such as Apollo and Minerva, and even muses, like
Comedy and Tragedy.

Not only does this masque mix the different worlds of
Shakespeare’s plays, it also combines them with classical mythology. Not only
does this fall into the masque tradition of using Classical figures to augment
the performance, but it sets up Shakespeare as worthy of such comparison. In a
way, the masque suggests that Shakespeare’s characters are as powerful and
everlasting as the Greco-Roman gods.

The court masque, in a way, lives on through printed
editions of Shakespeare’s plays by drawing on the concepts of spectacle,
design, and illustration as accompaniments to the text of a performance. A few
examples show colorful scenes from The
Tempest and Macbeth.

Both place the characters in a fictional world, choosing
instead to make the scenes they depict works of literature rather than theatre.
Through these pieces (including the masques), we see a form of genre
manipulation taking place, showing the versatility of Shakespeare’s works. 

That’s just another reason to appreciate Shakespeare. And for further genre manipulation, watch The Lion King (a version of Hamlet), or even take a gander at a graphic novel based on the Bard and his characters (called Kill Shakespeare, and you can find it here through the library).

This week’s SpeCol (Special Collections) Scoop comes from the Philbrick Collection, which is a massive collection of drama-related media donated to the school by the Philbrick family. One of these boxes is a collection of sets for toy theaters, which were somewhat like dollhouses with removable backgrounds and paper dolls. From what I can tell, toy theater companies chose short plays, gave plot synopses, usually in one act, provided the backgrounds for each scene, and gave the characters in various necessary positions for the play.

I’m Alana, a rising Senior, English major, and Writing Fellow at Pomona College. Just two weeks ago, I returned home to sunny SoCal after 6 months in Cambridge, UK. Currently, I’m part-time (but that may change; we’ll see). Anyway, in addition to curating exhibits and working in CCEPs with Emma and Pieter, I’m also going to use this library time to get started on my thesis examining magical language in Shakespeare’s plays. 

When I’ve told people that I’ll be writing about Shakespeare (and will possibly be pursuing a Master’s in it as well), I’ve gotten two reactions. 1) That’s awesome! or 2) Ew, Shakespeare is no fun. Well, part of what my aim for this blog is to make the latter group see is that Shakespeare is fun. For example, take a look at this picture of an actor portraying Richard III.

Just look at his facial expression and body position and try to tell me that he’s boring. There’s so much sass. 

More that just this picture, though, I’ve come across a few cool illustrations while searching for a direction for my research. One (see below) is from The Tempest, one of the magic plays and one of Shakespeare’s last plays. In this one, Prospero commands certain natural forces and spirits of this abandoned island, and we can see the extent of his power in this image from a 1871 decorative edition of Shakespeare’s works.

 This same edition contains this image (see below), featuring the Bard himself (again, look at that body position and tell me this is serious). As the creator, Shakespeare sits with some of his characters, including the transformed Bottom (he’s the donkey) from A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The banner at the top asserts something we have seen come true: Shakespeare has endured for all time (so far).

There’s a whimsical feel to this picture and places Shakespeare in the same plane as his characters, possibly suggesting that they exist in the same world. Considering how writer had come to be “our immortal Shakespeare,” it is no surprise to see him placed in the same plane as his characters (from the Proem of F.G. Waldron’s The Virgin Queen: A Drama in 5 Acts; Attempted as a Sequel to Shakespeare’s Tempest. 1797).

 Along these lines, I found a masque called Shakespeare’s Jubilee (1769) which places characters from plays like Macbeth, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and The Tempest in one common setting, one which the bard eventually enters. Not only does this masque reflect trends of people imitating his works, it represents a fictionalization of the writer into an idea subject to creative manipulation rather than a static historical figure.

(The Bard, right there in the masque with characters he created.)

 I don’t know about you, but I think that’s pretty cool. If you do, too, please stick around for more posts to come. It’s nice to make your Internet acquaintance! 

Alana 

“The play [King Lear],” writes philosopher Stanley Cavell in his essay on the play, ‘The Avoidance of Love’, “can be said to be Christian–not because it shows us redemption–it does not; but because it throws our redemption into question, and leaves it up to us.” What is Cavell referring to, exactly? We see Lear take the Gods’ names in vain, to no avail; it is Lear, not the Gods, that is responsible for throwing his world into chaos through his cruelty to his subjects and the rejection of his daughter Cordelia, who ultimately is killed as a result. Placing ownership of wrongdoing in Lear’s hands, and giving Lear the opportunity, if he so chooses, to be redeemed from this, is what one might view as a Christian setup.

I said one might; but another might find the label Christian here quite problematic. If it was truly in Lear’s hands to choose, one way or the other, to redeem his kingdom or to perish, we must essentially ‘blame’ Lear for having chosen the former. Cavell asks: “And what room is there for blame? Is he to blame for being human?

For being subject to a cosmic anxiety and to fantasies which enclose him from prefect compassion? Certainly blame is inappropriate, for certainly I do not claim to know what else Lear might do.” Which is to say that it is rather difficult to look at this play, and its characterization of Lear’s suffering, and say that it was his ‘fault’ he acted in this way, or that audience members would have acted differently. (As Cavell notes, we are confident that we know what Lear should have done when Cordelia did not ‘heave her heart into her mouth.’ But that does not mean that we would have acted more prudently than he.)

“And yet,” Cavell writes, I cannot deny that my pain at Lear’s actions is not overcome by my knowledge of suffering.” The inability to hold Lear accountable coupled with the “pain at Lear’s actions” leads to what Cavell calls “unplaceable blame…like blaming heaven.”

What I would like to do is play around with this in theological terms. If we were to view Lear’s failure as a theological illustration (which Cavell believes it ultimately is not, despite the above discussion of redemption), what would we see? If we agree that it is difficult to really blame Lear for his actions in light of his suffering, but he nonetheless suffers for them greatly, we can view Lear’s suffering as parallel to an important theological concept of the time, the draconian determinism of Martin Luther’s writings. In 1525, Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will, in response to criticism from Desiderius Erasmus: “with regard to things pertaining to salvation and damnation, man has no free will, but is a captive, a bond-slave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.” I think here, too, our reaction might be a feeling of “unplaceable blame.” Erasmus asked in 1524: “What will be the origin of merits where there is perpetual necessity and where there never was free will?” And without a method for assessing ‘merit,’ how can God justly damn his subjects eternally? And in the same vein, how can we (or the universe) damn Lear for actions that seem beyond his power to avoid?

Cavell writes of this dilemma in Lear that the feeling of “unplaceable blame” is “not inappropriate as an experience of tragedy, of what it is for which tragedy provides catharsis.” I think we could say the same of the story Luther writes for mankind; God and demons damning or saving people, outside their own control, sounds indeed a bit like dramatic tragedy.

As noted in Cavell’s essay, some have conceived of Lear, when he is cast out from his daughter’s house and faces the storm, has arrived at “the naked human condition.” Cavell wants to say that he is something different–he is not “simply a man,” but is in fact a scapegoat for viewers. And as Lear tells us the world is a “stage of fools,” Cavell says Lear insists that it is routinely human to make scapegoats of one another, to throw around blame (as one might do to Lear). Perhaps it is precisely when we don’t do this, when blame is put aside, that we see tragedy–in Lear or in Luther’s vision of predestined salvation.

I was browsing special collections two days ago and I found Romeo and Juliet Travestie: or, The Cup of Cold Poison, an 1873 version of the play with a surprising adaptation; this version is a burlesque, in one act. There are books that tell the stories of Shakespeare’s plays in condensed form, with modern language, and I have heard of plays (particularly Nahum Tate’s King Lear) that replace the ends of the plays with happier versions, or more family-friendly words and ideas (Thomas Bowdler’s The Family Shakespeare). 

Even though this adaptation inspired disdain (in me), I think its existence is symptomatic of the fact that, at least as I see it, Shakespeare is no longer “just a playwright,” and hasn’t been “just a playwright” for a long time. The plays no longer mean the same thing they may have at the time of their creation; thinking about any of his works comes with the baggage of his name, what it means as a student or an actor to read/perform, any adaptations or even pop references one may have heard, and even the difficulty that can arise in trying to read such old English. His work is more of a jumping-off point than the end of the road. It inspires people, either to push harder with research, thought, or creative outpourings. Setting aside this burlesque, which still inspires in me a bit of hoity-toity attitude, I think this sort of movement is impossible to avoid, and, in many ways, is a really important piece of change and growth.