University of Kentucky UKnowledge Dramatic Literature, Criticism, and Theory Theatre and Performance Studies 2-23-1995 The Re-Imagined Text: Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Eighteenth- Century Literary Theory Jean I. Marsden University of Connecticut Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Thanks to the University of Kentucky Libraries and the University Press of Kentucky, this book is freely available to current faculty, students, and staff at the University of Kentucky. Find other University of Kentucky Books at uknowledge.uky.edu/upk. For more information, please contact UKnowledge at [email protected]. Recommended Citation Marsden, Jean I., "The Re-Imagined Text: Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Eighteenth-Century Literary Theory" (1995). Dramatic Literature, Criticism, and Theory. 7. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_dramatic_literature/7 The Re-Imagined Text Shakespeare, Adaptation, & Eighteenth-Century Literary Theory Jean 1. Marsden THE UNIVERSITY PRESS OF KENTUCKY Copyright © 1995 by The University Press ofKentucky Scholarly publisher for the Commonwealth, serving Bellarmine College, Berea College, Centre College ofKentucky, Eastern Kentucky University, The Filson Club, Geor~etown College, Kentucky Historical Society, Kentucky State University, Morehead State University, Murray State University, Northern Kentucky University, Transylvania University, University ofKentucky, University ofLouisville, and Western Kentucky University. Editorial and Sales Offices: Lexington, Kentucky 40508-4008 Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Marsden, Jean I. The re-imagined text : Shakespeare, adaptation, and eighteenth­ century literary theory / Jean I. Marsden. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. 1. Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616-Criticism and interpretation­ History-18th century. 2. Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616­ Adaptations-History and criticism. 3. English drama-18th century-History and criticism-Theory, etc. 4. English drama­ Adaptations-History and criticism. 5. Criticism-Great Britain­ History-18th century. 6. Theater-Great Britain-History-18th century. 7. Literary fonn. I. Title. PR2968.M37 1995 822.3'3-dc20 94-3399 This book is printed on acid-free recycled paper meeting the requirements ofthe American National Standard for Pennanence ofPaper for Printed Library Materials. 6) For my MOTHER and in loving memory of my FATHER This page intentionally left blank Contents Acknowledgments IX Introduction 1 Part I: The Re-Imagined Text 1 Radical Adaptation 13 2 The Beginnings ofShakespeare Criticism 47 Part II: Refinedfrom the Dross 3 Adaptation in Decline 75 4 Criticism at Mid-Century 103 5 The Search for a Genuine Text 127 Conclusion 150 Appendix 155 Notes 157 Index 187 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 This page intentionally left blank 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Acknowledgments I would like to thank a variety of people and institutions who helped make this book possible. First, the research for this book was supported by a Danforth Award from the Harvard English Department and by grants from the University ofConnecticut Research Foundation and the American Philosophical Society. The project began under the guidance of Walter Jackson Bate and of Gywnne Blakemore Evans, for whose encouragement over the years I am deeply grateful. My readers for the University Press of Kentucky also deserve special recognition for their detailed and constructive comments on the manuscript. In particular, I would like to thank 111y editor, Nancy Grayson Holmes, for her friend­ ship and for her faith in this project. Fellow reception scholars Margreta de Grazia and Howard Felperin both read earlier versions of this book, as did Lennard Davis. Michael Dobson, who more than anyone else shares my enthusiasm for obscure bits ofShakespeariana, deserves a special note; over the course ofseveral years he has shared his work and assisted with mine.·I would also like to thank Noelle Arrangoiz, Anne Goldgar, and Susan Stacey for their in­ tellectual support and unfailing patience. At the University ofConnecti­ cut, I have been fortunate in the support of my colleagues; Raymond Anselment and Margaret Higonnet read the entire book and generously gave me advice and encouragement while John Abbott, Patrick Colm Hogan, and Thomas Recchio cheerfully read portions ofthe manuscript. In addition, I am grateful for the efforts ofmy research assistants Dennis Lazor, Patricia Pallis, Julie Pfeiffer, Monica Hatzberger, and Hilary Hodgkins. My greatest debt is and always will be to Lane Barrow, who has lived with this project since its inception and not only read every page (and commented rigorously upon it) but provided me with the moral support that in the end enabled me to finish. Portions of this book have appeared in earlier publications. Part of chap­ ter 1 appeared as "Rewritten Women: Shakespeare Heroines in the Res­ toration" in The Appropriation of Shakespeare: Post-Renaissance Recon- x The Re-Imagined Text structions of the Works and the Myth (Harvester Wheatshea£ 1991), and a segment ofchapter 5 appeared as "The Individual Reader and the Can­ onized Text: Shakespeare Criticism after Johnson" in Eighteenth-Century Life 17 (1993): 1. I am grateful to these publications for pennission to reprint this material. The Re-Imagined Text j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j This page intentionally left blank j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j Introduction The Restoration and eighteenth century produced one ofthe most sub­ versive acts in literary history-the rewriting and restructuring ofShake­ speare's plays. We have all heard ofNahum Tate's "audacious" adaptation ofKing Lear with its resoundingly happy ending, but Tate was only one ofa score ofplaywrights who adapted Shakespeare's plays. Between 1660 and 1777, more than fifty adaptations appeared in print and on the stage, works in which playwrights augmented, substantially cut, or completely rewrote the original plays. The plays were staged with new characters, new scenes, new endings, and, underlying all this novelty, new words. 1 Early playwrights and critics, it seemed, saw Shakespeare's plays as plastic material which could be remolded at will, but this attitude changed in the course ofthe eighteenth century. Fewer playwrights wrote or pro­ duced adaptations and the text itself changed less and less. 2 Adaptations which made substantial changes were not written after the 1780s, and by the end ofthe eighteenth century, only a few adaptations were still being performed: Tate's King Lear appeared until 1836, Garrick's Catherine and Petruchio until 1887, and elements ofhis Romeo and]uliet until 1884.3 Cibber's Richard III endured into the twentieth century, and its ghost still haunts us each time Olivier's Richard III cries, "Offwith his head. So much for Buckingham."4 Why did this happen? Were Restoration and eighteenth century au­ diences really deafto Shakespeare's genius and did true taste only appear with the romantic poets? Obviously not. But the adaptations are more than an embarrassing group ofobscure plays symbolizing the Enlighten­ ment's poetic bad taste. Not only are they the Shakespeare that most theater-goers in the Restoration and eighteenth century saw on the stage, more importantly, they are also a manifestation of the period's percep­ tion ofShakespeare, and as such they demonstrate an important evolu­ tion both in the definition of poetic language and of the idea of what constitutes a literary work. Today the idea ofchanging Shakespeare's words seems blasphemous; not only do we revere Shakespeare, with our reverence centering on his text, but twentieth-century theory in general has focused almost exclu- 2 The Re-Imagined Text sively on the printed word. Modem theorists have pronounced the death ofthe author, disclaiming the restrictions ofauthorial intention and leav­ ing us with only the text.5 The sanctity ofthe text has become so firmly established in our consciousness that we shudder at the thought ofalter­ ing a writer's words. Criticism under these assumptions has consisted of a series ofvarying interpretations ofan unchanging literary work. In con­ trast, the later seventeenth century, though it held Shakespeare in high regard, did not defer to his text. As Dryden wrote in the "Preface" to Fa­ bles, "words are not like landmarks, so sacred as never to be removed."6 Yet, although our performances of Shakespeare reflect our reverence for the written word, even without changing the text twentieth-century stagings alter Shakespeare as substantially as did the Restoration play­ wrights.7 What differentiates us from the Restoration is that while we feel free to alter Shakespeare's context, we do not change his text. Our sense oftextual sanctity and its antithesis as exemplified by the adaptations form the basis of this study. We clearly find genius within the words of Shakespeare's text, hence our horror at these attempts to rewrite or remove his words. Equally clearly, the playwrights and critics ofthe Restoration and eighteenth century, while they revered the poet, did not revere his language per see In the intervening two hundred and fifty years, attitudes toward Shakespeare and his text have been inverted. This shift is not simply an attempt to canonize an author, as argued by R.W. Babcock but an attempt to canonize words, a crucial distinction.8 Shakespeare as author also becomes Shakespeare as document.