Art on the line

EXHIBITION REVIEW – Shakespeare in Art at the Dulwich Picture Gallery, London

Velma Bourgeois Richmond Holy Names College, Oakland, California, USA [email protected]

Exhibiting visual arts which illustrate literary tive individuals, but they do not indicate ties texts is not so common these days. to the theatre. Those came later. Shakespeare in Art at the Dulwich Picture Jane Martineau and Marcia Grazia Gallery thus provided new insights offering Messina were exhibition curators and there re-evaluations of Shakespeare's honoured is a well-illustrated catalogue (Merrell place in the canon of English literature, whilst Publishers). Martineau’s ‘Bardolatry’ and simultaneously challenging the modern dis- Jonathan Bate’s ‘The Shakespeare like of story painting. This exhibition demon- Phenomenon’ describe the circumstances of strated how informative it can be to move the exhibition’s conception. Enthusiasm for beyond the boundaries of strict academic Shakespeare gained momentum in the eigh- disciplines. A concentration upon eighteenth teenth century through the many efforts of and nineteenth-century art indicated how David Garrick as actor and promoter. aesthetic attitudes change and also served Fittingly, images of him dominate the early to immerse the viewer in other cultures dur- theatrical paintings. Benjamin Wilson’s David ing the period 1730–1860, when actors, Garrick as Romeo, George Anne Bellamy as painters, scene designers, and engravers Juliet in David Garrick’s adaptation of began the investigation and representation ‘Romeo and Juliet’ of 1748 (1757) is a of Shakespeare that continues to evolve. remarkable document of stage performance No better site for the exhibition could at this time; it shows not only the actors’ ges- have been chosen than the Dulwich Picture tures of surprise and greeting (Juliet is Gallery, which has a close affinity to awake and sitting up) and Garrick’s typical Shakespeare. This was manifest by the posi- stance with legs apart, but also how tioning of Dulwich College’s Elizabethan Shakespeare’s ‘inner stage’ survived in the paintings just beside the entrance to the spe- Capulet tomb, which is brightly lighted by a cial exhibition galleries. Thus one began with lamp, while the moon shines stage left, the Edward Alleyn, founder of Dulwich College right of the picture. Muted browns, repre- and principal actor of the rival companies of senting the textures of stone and wood, the Admiral’s Men and Lord Strange’s Men, along with the black of Garrick’s costume, along with Ben Jonson, rival playwright and heighten the effect of a night scene. Johann friend of Shakespeare, and William Slye and Zoffany’s David Garrick as Macbeth and Richard Burbage, two actors for the Lord Hannah Pritchard as Lady Macbeth (c 1768) Chamberlain’s Men, Shakespeare’s compa- makes a fascinating comparison. Here the ny. These compelling portraits show distinc- characters, again in modern costume, are in

ART ON THE LINE 2004/1 (4) 1 ART ON THE LINE

bright colours: a white satin gown, a blue Another homage is William Blake’s coat, heavily bordered in gold, a golden Imaginary Portrait of Shakespeare waistcoat, red breeches, white stockings. (1800–03); the head is based on the illustra- The two figures pull away from each other as tion in the First Folio, but surrounded by a Lady Macbeth urges her husband to return wreath and flanked by small scenes from the daggers. Garrick’s short stature is unde- Macbeth. niable, since Mrs Pritchard is almost a head Preferred plays are suggested by the taller, but the energy in his posture, with one number of paintings in the exhibition of knee bent, suggests a dynamic performer. Macbeth, Hamlet, King Lear, A Midsummer The setting is a Gothic castle, a common- Night’s Dream, and The Tempest. An early place at the time, but with armour and a example is William Hogarth’s A Scene from carved door; light streams from the slain The Tempest (c 1735) that brings together all Duncan’s chamber to illuminate the actors, the principal characters. Miranda is reminis- while the storm lights a large window behind cent of the Virgin Mary in both the colour of them. her costume and her pose (giving milk to a Although Hogarth’s painting of Garrick as Iamb from a shell that echoes the throne Richard III was not in the exhibition, there chair on which she sits), an elegant was Nathaniel Dance’s work of 1771, to Ferdinand bows to her with joined palms, show the actor in historical costume (as the while a monstrous Caliban glowers on the part was always played) with sword raised opposite side; at the centre the magician on the battlefield instead of in his tent before Prospero stands protectively. Similarly, battle. The exhibition provided other impres- Millais’ Ferdinand Lured by Ariel (1849–50) sions of this popular Shakespearean role: comes from the text rather than a perfor- Charles Robert Leslie’s George Frederick mance. One of his earliest works executed Cooke as Richard III (1813) and Samuel with Pre-Raphaelite principles, it is remark- Drummond’s Edmund Kean as Richard III (c able for the precision of details painted from 1814), both examples of the Romantic vision nature and for the imaginative treatment of a of Shakespeare that was also widespread in Europe. In France Eugène Delacroix, Gustave Moreau and Théodore Chaussériau expressed enthusiasm for Macbeth and Hamlet, also inspired by the vogue for Sir Walter Scott, whose novels were widely admired. The English literary tradition is also emphasised in Sir WaIter Scott at Shakespeare’s Tomb (1840–45), attributed to David Roberts. This memorable image of Shakespeare him- self marks Scott’s identifica- tion (including the same ini- tials) with the playwright, Figure 1 Henry Fuseli, The Weird Sisters, Macbeth, 1783, Royal Shakespeare Theatre seen in the famous bust.

2 ART ON THE LINE 2004/1 (4) SHAKESPEARE IN ART AT THE DULWICH PICTURE GALLERY: RICHMOND

green Ariel flying on the backs of blue-eyed, (1792–93, figure 2), chosen for the cata- gnome-faced bats, so that it is an arresting logue’s back cover. illustration for the catalogue cover. Daniel Much less familiar is his The Vision of Maclise’s Priscilla Horton as Ariel (1838–39) Queen Katharine (1781), a scene from is an alternative of an actual actress in short Henry VIII (Act IV, scene ii, 81–94) that is diaphanous costume. mystical rather than nightmarish. Fuseli was Henry Fuseli was, without doubt, the most the first to paint the scene, and the exhibition prolific and daring creator of images from shows how others treated this play, which and for Shakespeare; a strength of the exhi- became very popular. Blake’s watercolour of bition is that it includes several fine examples the same title (c 1790–93) is similar in tone. of his work. From Macbeth come The Three In contrast, George Henry Harlow provided a Weird Sisters (c 1783, figure 1), a disturbing remarkable record of performance in The and bold representation selected for the cat- Trial of Queen Katherine (1817) played by alogue frontispiece, and Lady Macbeth seiz- the Kemble family, featuring Sarah Siddons ing the Daggers (1812), a brilliant elabora- as the Queen, and recording Victorian enthu- tion on an earlier painting of Garrick and Mrs siasm for authentic period costume and Pritchard in the roles. Fuseli’s several evoca- spectacle. The capabilities of Covent Garden tions of A Midsummer Night’s Dream are rep- are well shown in Henry Andrews’ painting of resented by Titania embracing Bottom the trial scene (Act II, scene iv), perhaps from Kemble’s last season as manag- er in 1831. Andrews shows the boxes and pit as well as the full height and depth of the stage. The Grieve family designed the scenery. Eight designs for A Midsummer Night’s Dream show the elaborateness of their work and explain cuts in the text to accommo- date their complex grandeur – a con- flict still faced by directors and set designers. Zoffany, who is well represented in

Figure 2 Henry Fuseli, Titania embraces Bottom, 1792-93, Kunsthaus, Zurich

ART ON THE LINE 2004/1 (4) 3 ART ON THE LINE

the exhibition, did much to create the vogue from16 February to 15 June 2003 as well as for the theatrical conversation piece, engrav- those shown at Dulwich. It has eleven arti- ings of paintings, most fully realised in the cles (not previously mentioned are Shakespeare Galleries of John Boydell, Christopher Baugh on staging, John Warrack which opened in London in 1789, and James on music, Brian Alien on early illustrators, Woodmason in 1792 in Dublin. Boydell and Desmond Shawe-Taylor on theatrical paint- Woodmason commissioned pictures by ing, Marcia Grazia Messina on the Sublime many famous artists that were circulated and Romantic painting in Europe, John through engravings to a wider audience. Christian on Victorian art) as well as illustra- Essays by Robin Hamlyn and David tions of many important examples not exhib- Alexander explain how prints made ited. All of this indicates that ‘Shakespeare in Shakespeare available to wider audiences. Art’ is a topic worthy of additional exploration. Some critics perceived in the exhibition a lack of ‘great’ and ‘famous’ paintings, but many pictures gave this the lie, especially Shakespeare in Art was on show at the those of Henry Fuseli. The catalogue entries Dulwich Picture Gallery, London from 16 July include the works on exhibition in Ferrara to 19 October 2003

4 ART ON THE LINE 2004/1 (4)