The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

ISSN 1554-6985 VOLUME VII · (/current) NUMBER 1

SPRING/SUMMER 2012 (/previous)

EDITED BY (/about) Christy Desmet and Sujata (/archive) Iyengar

CONTENTS

Shakespeare, Humanity Indicators, and the Seven Deadly Sins Peter (/783091/show) (pdf) (/783091/pdf) Holland

Shakespeare in Stained Glass: The Shakespeare Memorials of Brian Southwark Cathedral and "Local" Bardolatry (/783058/show) Walsh (pdf) (/783058/pdf)

Regula Hamlet's Soliloquy: An Eighteenth-Century Genre Hohl (/783057/show) (pdf) (/783057/pdf) Trillini

Playing the Fool with Shakespeare: Festivity, Falsity, and Feste Giselle in Twelfth Night and King of the Masquerade (/783056/show) Rampaul (pdf) (/783056/pdf)

B OOK REVIEWS

Shakespeare and Contemporary Fiction: Theorizing Foundling Julie and Lyric Plots, by Barbara L. Estrin (/783054/show) (pdf) Sanders (/783054/pdf)

http://borrowers.uga.edu/7163/toc Page 1 of 2 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

The Reel Shakespeare: Alternative Cinema and Theory, edited Lisa by Lisa S. Starks and Courtney Lehmann (/783055/show) (pdf) Bolding (/783055/pdf)

C ONTRIBUTORS

Contributors (/783042/show) (pdf) (/783042/pdf) © Borrowers and Lenders 2005-2020

http://borrowers.uga.edu/7163/toc Page 2 of 2 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

Shakespeare, Humanity Indicators, and the Seven Deadly Sins

(/current) PETER HOLLAND, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME

ABSTRACT | I | II | III | IV | V | NOTES | REFERENCES (/previous)

(/about) ABSTRACT Given the current obsession in universities with "Humanities Indicators," this article proposes a new (/archive) measure for Shakespeare studies: "humanity indicators." It traces the possibilities for such measurement of using different senses of "humanity" derived from the OED by examining three different versions of Shakespeare in popular and elite culture: an episode of Doctor Who in which the Doctor meets Shakespeare (The Shakespeare Code, 2007); an opera in which a version of Macbeth is sung by baboons (The Okavango Macbeth, 2009); and the graphic novel by Conor McCreery and Anthony Del Col, Kill Shakespeare (2010-11). Finally, it turns to the implications for Shakespeare studies of the brutal and racist state law in Arizona that has led to the closure of Mexican-American Studies in schools across the state.

In the last while, the obsession among universities in the U.S., in a mood reminiscent of the "decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed" (Luke 2.1), is that anything and everything must be counted.1 Humanities indicators are particularly odd since, though scientists and social scientists know exactly how to count output, dissemination, and publication, no one has had much idea how to count what is done in the narrowly-defined humanities and even less idea how to count paintings, lighting designs, or concerts in disciplines in the arts that may or may not be part of the humanities. As Stefan Collini commented presciently in 1989, "Not everything that counts can be counted" (Collini 2012, 20). As early as 1998, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences set up its "Initiative for Humanities and Culture" because "the Academy recognized that the humanities are the only disciplines that lack reliable, comprehensive, and consistently updated statistical data necessary to chart trends and draw conclusions" (Humanities Resource Center Online, 2009). Rather than considering that there may be good reasons, inherent in the nature of the humanities, why these disciplines are not amenable to statistical data collection, the Academy has worked with assorted other bodies, like the American Council of Learned Societies and the National Endowment for the http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 1 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

Humanities, "to develop an infrastructure for the compilation, analysis and publication of comprehensive trend data about the humanities"; and in case anyone is wondering what the basis for this urgent need to spend millions of dollars developing such an infrastructure might be, the AAAS explains that "the Humanities Indicators . . . is [sic] modeled after the Science and Engineering Indicators published biennially by the National Science Board." We may not be the sciences and engineering, but we can try. Too many of us have suffered under such modeling.

One of the aspects of this work that I find continually startling is the deafness, the sheer inability to hear the implications of the language and acronyms into which this project slips. So the massive 2002 report of the AAAS's initiative was called Making the Humanities Count: The Importance of Data (Solow et al. 2002), with no one apparently alert to whether the coercive tone of "making" was to be enforced on a society unaware that the humanities mattered or on the humanities themselves, now to be compelled to spend thousands of hours counting anything and everything. Did no one find it odd that the acronym for the Humanities Indicators Prototype used pervasively in the Project's own reports is HIP? As if there is anything hip, let alone cool about it. As if. One segment of the HIP, part five of the reports on the data gathered in, for instance, its survey of 1400 humanities departments, after segments on "undergraduate and graduate education in the humanities" and "humanities funding and research," is called "The Humanities in American Life," known as HAL — and producing phrases like this from Julie Ellison in her account of "This American Life: How are the Humanities Public?": "encountering the HAL portion of the HIP is like selecting the 'hybrid' view in Google Maps" (Ellison 2009, 1). HAL might suggest to us a certain prince whose journey to rule we follow attentively and anxiously — I leave it to you, when you are bored with this article, to work out what the acronyms HARRY and HENRY might stand for, or, for the really ambitious, FALSTAFF. But HAL might also suggest the rogue computer of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), whose dedication to the mission's success and increasing recognition of the malign influence of human error on that mission leads to its breaking the first of Asimov's three laws of robotics and seeking to eliminate the humans on the spaceship. The HAL part of HIP might then be seen as unintentionally imagining an American life in which the humanities would exist without the inconvenience of humans.

My purpose is not to play easy games with factors in our academic activities that, in the middle of the night and through most of our waking hours too, send most of us into unremitting panic. Instead, I want to try an indirection by which we might find directions out. I propose instead that a more reasonable focus would be on how to count humanity, rather than the humanities, how to understand humanity indicators. And, being endlessly intrigued by the stranger manifestations of Shakespeare in our popular and not so popular cultures, I use four examples of him and what he might represent in such cultures as test cases.

I humanity, n. II. Sense relating to human adj. 3. a. The condition, quality, or fact of being human; human faculties, attributes, or characteristics collectively; human nature. (OED)

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 2 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

Shakespeare's army of biographers has unaccountably ignored an extraordinary first-hand account of the opening night of Love's Labour's Lost, provided by a doctor who attended it. At the end of the performance, it appears, Shakespeare was called out of the tiring-house, where he had been watching the performance, by repeated cries of "Author, author" from the capacity crowd at the recently- opened Globe in 1599. The evidence puts the conventional dating of the play in question, making it significantly later than has usually been argued and making one wonder why it didn't appear in James Shapiro's micro-biography (Shapiro 2006). And my comment on "opening night" was not a slip for "afternoon" — the performance does indeed appear to have taken place at night. It also adds fuel to the argument about the conceptualization of authorship in the period, the extent to which an author-function was crucial to reception, especially as this would appear to be the first time that playgoers called for the playwright at a premiere by calling "Author" — Jeffrey Masten and Jeffrey Knapp might be particularly interested in this. But what is most remarkable of all is the doctor's description of Shakespeare and his humanity. Since even more surprising than the existence of the account is the existence of film of the event, I should allow you to hear what the Doctor has to say.

0:00 / 1:52 1x

This is from The Shakespeare Code, an episode of Doctor Who, written by Gareth Roberts and first broadcast in 2007. Roberts was advised on the project by the scholar of early modern theater Martin Wiggins, thereby explaining the presence of a character called Wiggins in the cast, as well as the remarkable awareness of current scholarly debate mockingly present in this and other sequences. Shakespeare as celebrity, with a hint of rock-star, makes his very self-satisfied entrance as mocking abuser of his fans — and they love it. Martha's wry comment may stand for that desire to know and fear of knowing, the gap between the character the culture creates and the individual who cannot

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 3 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

possibly adequately be that myth, a sense here of the limits that reality always imposes. Witty and deliciously self-aware, The Shakespeare Code plays on and plays off the Shakespeare we might desire. But the Doctor's face when the words this most human of humans speaks only show the limitations of Shakespeare's humanity — humanity but not humility, human but not particularly humane.

II humanity, n. I. Sense relating to humane adj. 1 a. The quality of being humane (humane adj. 1a); (now) spec. kindness, benevolence. 1 b. An act of kindness or (formerly) courtesy. (OED)

The OED tries to police a boundary that, of course, early modern English finds impossible to maintain as a secure border — this is a border crossing between human and humane and, given the forms of early modern orthography, there is very often no means of knowing which word is which (we assume two word-forms, they only one), and so always a blur, always potentially a semantic doubleness, always a choice in our modernized texts that risks misrepresenting something that is less an ambiguity than an adjacency, the human and humane modulating into each other, so that to be human ought to be, might be to be humane. Does Prospero speak of Sycorax's "sorceries terrible / To enter human hearing" or "humane hearing" (The Tempest, 1.2.265-66)?2 F's spelling, with a terminal e, cannot determine — nor could its spelling have done so if it lacked that e. Is Caliban "not honoured with / A human [or humane] shape" (1.2.284-85), or did Prospero use him "with human/humane care" (1.2.348)? Would Ariel's "affections . . . become tender . . . were I humane" (5.1.20)? Each usage, each as it happens with terminal e, invites us to consider — and editors usually fail to consider — the openness of the nature of this humanity, for, since, say, F4 or Rowe, they have placed the word firmly and unequivocally on one side of OED's divide, losing the doubleness that Shakespeare's audience may have heard and that we cannot.

This moment in The Shakespeare Code is one where we see this Shakespeare's smug consciousness of his own celebrity, a soaking up of the applause and admiration that might be or would be characteristic of Timon of Athens at his first banquet, functioning as a sign of a further identity of being human — and, of Shakespeare's (and his collaborators') eleven uses of the word humanity, three are in Timon, one of which is probably Middleton's. Humanity as human-ness includes that which diminishes humanity as humaneness; inhumanity is not that which denies humanity but is an aspect of it, not the non-human but the inhumane, as in Shakespeare's one use of the word in the extraordinary ending to Hand D's speech for Sir Thomas More as he defines the mob's actions towards the city's aliens: "This is the strangers' case, / And this your mountainish inhumanity" (Add.II.d, 154-55), that adjective suggesting not only how immense is this act that is not humane, but also that it is the kind of thing that mountain-dwellers were likely to do — and in early modern culture the mountain is, of course, a space that is not civil, courteous, kind, humane.

But there is also in the Doctor's comment about Shakespeare something that outblooms Harold Bloom — and I take it that the screenplay writer is well aware of his own Blooming in the Shakespeare he invents: this Shakespeare is not simply the inventor of the human but is himself the http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 4 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

"most human human," the self that creates now containing the vast range of that creativity's construction of the human. The ultimate Romantic myth of the nature of this superhuman creativity — as in Dumas père's awed comment, "After God Shakespeare has created most" — is to make the human being multiply the container, the embodiment of that which s/he creates.

The Shakespeare Code beautifully and brilliantly develops its Shakespeare — it is, I think, the most subtle exploration of Shakespeare as creator on screen — from the boorish opening to the penetrating intelligence he slowly reveals, even as it plants playful hints of future writing, with Dr. Who feeding him lines he will use and Martha coming to stand for the potential Dark Lady of the Sonnets. At the end of the episode, as the Doctor tries to save the world from the Carrionites (no, don't ask for a plot summary) and prevent the earth from becoming what one of the Carrionites' advance party of three women (proleptically the witches of Macbeth) calls a "blasted heath," it is to Shakespeare, no longer the celeb, that the Doctor turns for salvation, for what is needed to close up the portal in space that will let in the exterminating race of Carrionites is language, just as the "witches" have inserted the necessary language code that opened the portal into the last speeches of Love's Labour's Won, making a spellbound Shakespeare mechanically and involuntarily write in what they need to have spoken aloud in the scientific instrument that is the fourteen-sided Globe. And Shakespeare's language here fails. The "new, beautiful, brilliant words" that he "always chooses" won't complete the counter-spell.

0:00 / 2:13 1x

So it is not Shakespeare who saves the world but J. K. Rowling and, given that Shakespeare is rhyming and more of the viewers of Doctor Who have read Harry Potter than Shakespeare, the

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 5 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

natural filler for the tongue-tied genius' lacuna is "expelliarmus," the disarming charm that will, among other uses, reflect Voldemort's killing curse in the final battle. In this wonderful convergence of the two writers who stand for an immensely broad demographic of consumption, humanity, in many senses, is being saved. It is no accident that Doctor Who and the Harry Potter narrative continually engage with limits of the human: Dr. Who is himself not human but a Time Lord (see Hartley 2009); the wizards at Hogwarts are not Muggles. The modern and the classic prove to harmonize, and the text that represents the contemporary excitement of publication proves to complete, complement, and re-energize the early modern excitement of performance. As exemplar of a particular form of convergence culture, this moment magnificently and delightfully redefines the humanity of creativity.

I have spent so much space on The Shakespeare Code not least because I enjoy it and because delight is a crucial part of the humanities and something that has always seemed to me to be a quality which has led to a broad governmental-political disapproval: we shouldn't enjoy what we do quite as much as we manage to, and we certainly shouldn't enjoy the materials of our work — after all, in what other field would one's film and theater tickets be tax-deductible? But I want to glance briefly now at two other Shakespeare phenomena, apparently and superficially from opposite extremes of high-low culture.

III humanity, n. II. 4. Human beings collectively; the human race. (OED)

Iago has no doubt about the borders of what it means to be human, even if we may choose to find, as Othello suggests at the play's end, that he may be literally diabolic, as, after twenty occurrences in the play of the word "devil," its last appearance metamorphoses or bisects into "demi-devil" (Othello, 5.2.307), that figure of whom much will be demanded, but nothing answered: "Demand me nothing" (5.2.309). What lies beyond humanity for Iago is to be a monkey: "Ere I would say I would drown myself for the love of a guinea-hen, I would change my humanity with a baboon" (1.3.314- 16), this in a play that will move location to Cyprus, home of "Goats and monkeys" (4.1.265) — and, if I were going to pursue this, it is Cassio's use of the term "monkey" to describe Bianca (4.1.126) that speaks of his construction of the limits of humanity. My concern here is not with the old idea about monkeys and typewriters and the works of Shakespeare, but with monkeys performing a Shakespeare opera.

The Okavango Macbeth was first performed just outside Gaberone in Botswana in 2009, and the converted garage that served as the venue was called the No. 1 Ladies Opera House because it was bought up and refurbished by Alexander McCall Smith, author of the No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series. Smith also wrote the libretto for the opera, composed by Tom Cunningham. It was subsequently performed in Edinburgh in 2011, and that production was released on CD.3 The singing roles are primarily baboons, and the narrative concerns the efforts of a female baboon, identified as Lady Macbeth, to avoid having to marry Duncan, the leader of the troop, by convincing her suitor, Macbeth, to murder his rival. Macbeth is reluctant because having offspring by Lady Macbeth is "against baboon law," but she persuades him. In the end Lady Macbeth is killed by a leopard, and a http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 6 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

character anticipates that Duncan's son will kill Macbeth and become the "dominant male": A new dominant male Will replace another: This is the history Of the baboons, This is the history Too of this world. (Smith and Cunningham 2012)

Shakespeare's text is filleted down to nothing more than a narrative about the power of the female to lure her lover to commit murder, just as so often Romeo and Juliet comes to be no more than a narreme about the death of two adolescents in love. Shakespeare fragmented becomes generalized into a narrative about primates, and the applicability of Shakespeare narrative forms to other contexts is little more than a process of adaptation. Shakespeare here is no longer the preserve of humans. As McCall Smith comments, the idea for the opera came from a combination of a safari holiday and reading Baboon Metaphysics, by the primatologists Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth: "I was struck by the hierarchical nature of baboon society and by the status and role of powerful females. It seemed to me that the essential elements of the Macbeth story could well be told in the context of baboon society. I sounded out the composer, Tom Cunningham, and we decided that this was a theme worthy of opera" (quoted in The Okavango Macbeth). With time, we could think about the extent to which the triangulation of baboons, Shakespeare, and opera speaks of elite cultural forms and the aspirations of a writer of popular detective fiction.

But it is the echoes in the libretto of Cheney and Seyfarth that intrigue me. The baboon action of The Okavango Macbeth is observed by a group of primatologists — often comic in their observation — who themselves are observed by the baboons who sing of them: Such strange creatures, Such strange, unfinished creatures, They do not belong here; They are in the wrong place. (Smith and Cunningham 2012) The observers cannot intervene: the scientist watches but may not influence events because "Science," they sing, is a hard-hearted Mistress, who lets things Happen . . . We shall note We shall make A history now Of each thing, As you'd record the weather. There are no tragedies in nature, Only events, things that happen. (Smith and Cunningham 2012)

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 7 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

Observation and description, analysis without metaphysics also turn the primatologists, overweeningly, into divine beings: As God is to man In his grant of free will, That gives such freedom To suffer and to die, So are we to these Dumb creatures. (Smith and Cunningham 2012) Of course, the opera shows the baboons not to be at all "dumb." It is the half-seeing, half-seen primatologists who offer us a perspective on the limited nature of our own assumptions about the boundaries to our humanity. Iago's sense of limit is, as so often, inadequate: changing one's humanity with a baboon is not to change very much.

IV humanity, n. I. Sense relating to humane adj. 2. Freq. in the humanities. a. In sing and pl. Literary learning or scholarship; secular letters as opposed to theology; esp. the study of ancient Latin and Greek language, literature, and intellectual culture (as grammar, rhetoric, history, and philosophy); classical scholarship. In later sing. use, chiefly in Scottish universities: the study of Latin language and literature. Cf. humane letters n. at humane adj. Special uses, litterae humaniores n. (OED)

You will know that familiar assumption that the nineteenth-century worker's home had in it two books — the Bible and Shakespeare — at a time when a complete works of Shakespeare could be bought for a shilling. (If you do not remember, please read Andrew Murphy's brilliant study Shakespeare for the People: Working-class Readers [2008].) If you were brought up in the U.K., you will remember too that choice given to the castaways on Desert Island Discs, radio's longest-running factual programme: which book would you take in addition to the Bible and Shakespeare, which are on the island already (later modified to include the presence of a large encyclopedia)? What precisely was the difference between the two books? Does Shakespeare function as an equivalent, for "secular letters," of the central text of its opposite, theology? Or as the modern classic of classics, the text that replaces the objects of attention of the humanities as '"classical scholarship," the early modern text for the study of litterae humaniores, defined as "the humanities, secular learning as opposed to divinity" (OED), albeit at Oxford the course long known as "Greats"?

Somewhere here is the anxiety caused in English by our limited use of the term "human sciences," which has primarily come to mean the social sciences, where, for instance, French treats "les sciences humaines" much more broadly and inclusively. In the OED, the entry for "human sciences" includes this notion: "[compare German Geisteswissenschaften (1829 or earlier); also the humanities at humanity n. 2] (in pl.) those academic subjects in which people or their actions form the object of study, as contrasted with the natural sciences or physical sciences; the humanities, (in later use esp.)

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 8 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

the social sciences."

As Robin Milner-Gulland, responding to an article by George Monbiot, the environmental activist, commented in a letter to The Guardian (7 April 2010), "Only the English language uses 'science' to mean exclusively the natural sciences, or has adopted the 19th-century coinage 'scientist,' and can speak of 'the scientific community.' Monbiot is right in deploring the consequent damage to education, not to mention the disastrous and unnatural schism between various fields of knowledge and scholarship all this opens up" (Milner-Gulland 2010).

If the humanities fail to be the human sciences, ceding this ground to anthropology, psychology, and sociology, we can also note the humanities' imperialism, annexing the transcendental by no longer being the secular realm opposed to theology but absorbing the latter. And how precisely the religious turn might redefine Shakespeare study in an unexpected way is my next step. I turn now to comic- book Shakespeare or, rather, to give it its more dignified title, Shakespeare in graphic novel form, not the long line of manga versions of Shakespeare plays, but a twelve-part work by Conor McCreery and Anthony Del Col called Kill Shakespeare (think: Tarantino and therefore the joke on Kill Shakespeare). The narrative unmoors Shakespeare's characters from their plays and their plots, allowing them to interact freely across a canvas of a world that is peopled by Shakespeare's creations but without being constrained by his concept of action. They are instead constrained by a pre- determinate — that is, Shakespearean — character so that the action pits the expected forces of evil (Lady Macbeth, Richard III, Don John, Iago) against the equally predictable forces of good (Hamlet, Falstaff, Othello, Juliet) in a quest to find Shakespeare himself, the hidden god of a prophetic myth, in order to gain control of the magic quill (think: the pen as phallus, the penis mightier than the sword) in a world in which one swears "by Will." Shakespeare turns out to be living in a dilapidated cottage (think: Anne Hathaway's cottage abandoned by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust), a deeply depressed alcoholic, unable to write more than odd fragments of text on pages tacked up on the walls.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 9 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 10 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

Kill Shakespeare, Issue 12, pp. 20-21 But summoned by Hamlet to the final battle, where he kills Richard III and calls on his "children" to

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 11 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

end the fighting: "Children, break thy weapons! Now is the time for empty hands! And the rest shall be silence!" (McCreery and Del Col 2010-2011).

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 12 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 13 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 14 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

Kill Shakespeare, Issue 12, pp. 30-31 In spite of Lady Macbeth's repeated definition of him as a "false god," Shakespeare in Kill Shakespeare is the true deity — father, creator, author — who ends his role in the narrative wandering off with a backpack, accompanied by some fairies (think of Neil Gaiman's famous 1990 Sandman story, "A Midsummer Night's Dream" [Callahan 2004, 257-80]), giving Hamlet a speech to read out to the assembled survivors of the battle, which turns out to be Sonnet 71, "No longer mourn for me when I am dead."

Graphic novels' concepts of humanity tend to be moral black and white, with no room for shades of grey, but Kill Shakespeare shows an intriguing fascination with the plight of a creator whose despair is driven by an awareness that his creation spirals out of control. The divine Shakespeare or, rather, the mortal Shakespeare whose creatures view him as divine, redraws this separation of humanity from theology, asks us to rethink in what ways humanity's indicators are or are not limited when the humanity is that of a dramatic character — oh, and Juliet turns down the resurrected Romeo and goes off with Hamlet in the final frames.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 15 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 16 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 17 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

Kill Shakespeare, Issue 9, pp. 16-17 With people cosplaying its characters at conventions, a film version in preparation, and national fame when Julie Taymor mentioned it on The Colbert Report, Kill Shakespeare displaces authorship and theology, resurrecting the author, proving his reality for the narrative, and giving, as Douglas Lanier has argued (Lanier forthcoming),4 Roland Barthes' argument for the death of the author a wholly new spin.

And where, you may be wondering, do the Seven Deadly Sins fit in to all of this exploration of the interaction between Shakespeare and the boundaries of the indications of humanity, the topic which is still, I believe, centrally and justifiably our communal project? When in Marlowe's Dr. Faustus, Beelzebub and Lucifer come from hell to make sure the wavering hero does not turn to heaven, Faustus' renewed obedience leads to reward: "Faustus, we are come from hell in person to show thee some pastime. Sit down, and thou shalt behold the Seven Deadly Sins appear to thee in their own proper shapes and likeness" (Marlowe 1962, 6.104-107). The moral warning against sin has turned into a parade led by a piper, a sight that Faustus unguardedly anticipates as one "as pleasant to me as paradise was to Adam the first day of his creation" (109-110). If Faustus' experience of the show drains it of moral power so that it becomes simply a pastime ("O how this sight doth delight my soul!" 170), this opposition between pleasure and learning, between delight and moral engagement does not have to be ours. Our humanity, though not his doubly contracted one, allows us to learn and to enjoy our learning.

V inhumanity, n. 1. a. The quality of being inhuman or inhumane; want of human feeling and compassion; brutality, barbarous cruelty. (OED)

I turn finally to inhumanity in a particular conjunction with being allowed to learn in describing a series of decisions that by turns anger and terrify me. Arizona's state law HB2281 includes the following provisions (15-112): Prohibited courses and classes; enforcement A. A school district or charter school in this state shall not include in its program of instruction any courses or classes that include any of the following: 1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government. 2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people. 3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group. 4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals. (Arizona House Bill 2281, 2011, Sec. 15-112) The first two provisions might be seen as unexceptionable. The third and fourth reveal the real purpose of the law, which was promoted by Tom Horne, then a State Senator and now the State's Attorney-General. The attack on Ethnic Studies was, of course, never intended to be universally

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 18 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

applied. Horne was succeeded as Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction by John Huppenthal, who campaigned on a platform that included his (to me, entirely racist) promise to "stop la Raza." Huppenthal used the law, upheld in court, to end Tucson's thirteen-year program of Mexican-American Studies (to return to my initial interest in acronyms, it's known as MAS). Note that the attack on ethnic studies has been used solely to end MAS and no other kind of ethnic studies. The Tucson Unified School District had appealed Huppenthal's ruling but, frightened of the penalties the law imposed on non-compliant schools, was unwilling to appeal the decision, made in December 2011 by Judge Lewis Kowal, that the program was in breach of the law; "the law permits the objective instruction about the oppression of people that may result in racial resentment or ethnic solidarity. 'However, teaching oppression objectively is quite different than actively presenting material in a biased, political, and emotionally charged manner, which is what occurred in (Mexican- American Studies) classes,' Kowal wrote. The judge said such teaching promotes activism against white people, promotes racial resentment, and advocates ethnic solidarity" (Billeaud 2011). Note that it is assumed throughout this process that ethnic studies programs are solely intended for those people who are members of that ethnicity and, while studying Chicano history is clearly of tremendous importance for the Chicano/Chicana students who make up 60% of the school population in some TUSD schools, it is, in my view, of at least equal and perhaps greater importance for the other 40%. The attack on MAS is the state's exercise of its power to act in terms that I can only see as a sign of inhumanity.

So, in mid-school year, following Judge Kowal's list, the TUSD boxed up and removed to a depository all the textbooks used in MAS courses from the schools, including many contemporary novels and works with such inflammatory titles as 500 years of Chicano History in Pictures, Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years, and Richard Delgado's Critical Race Theory. The books were not banned: they are still available in the library system, but they cannot be used in the classroom. And MAS, which was nationally admired for its success in increasing high-school graduation rates, is no more in Tucson.

And what has this to do with SAA? Two matters. The first, which, more than any other part of this horror, propelled the story into the national press was the fact that Curtis Acosta, a much-admired, award-winning teacher at University High School and then at Tucson High Magnet School, where he taught Chicano literature, was told by the school's site administrators not to teach The Tempest from a perspective that might consider the play as a text of colonialism, oppression, race, and power. Here is Acosta's account of what happened: What is very clear is that The Tempest is problematic for our administrators due to the content of the play and the pedagogical choices I have made. In other words, Shakespeare wrote a play that is clearly about colonization of "the new world" and there are strong themes of race, colonization, oppression, class, and power that permeate the play, along with themes of love and redemption. We study this work by Shakespeare using the work of renowned historian Ronald Takaki and the chapter "The Tempest in the Wilderness" from his a book A Different Mirror, where he uses the play to explore the early English settlements on this continent and English imperialism. From there, we immerse ourselves in the play and discuss the beauty of the language, Shakespeare's multiple perspectives on colonization, and the brilliant and courageous

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 19 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

attention he gives to such important issues. However, TUSD is basing our compliance upon their appeal and Mr. Kowal's ruling. Thus, I believe our administrators advised me properly when they said to avoid texts, units, or lessons with race and oppression as a central focus. If we are asked to follow a bad law then absurdities such as advising I stay away from teaching The Tempest not only seems prudent, but intelligent. We also have not received confirmation that the ideas, dialogue, and class work of our students will be protected. In clearer words, if I avoid discussing such themes in class, yet the students see the themes and decide to write, discuss, or ask questions in class, we may also be found to be in violation. The stakes are far too high since a violation of the law could cost the district millions, our employment, and personal penalties from the state for breaking the law. (Biggers 2012) The advice was widely misreported as being a ban on The Tempest. It was not. It was simply a prudent requirement that most of the issues in the play that Mr. Acosta thought worth discussing in class be excluded. It is not easy to analyze oppression and colonization dispassionately if one is Chicano. In Arizona, it is also illegal to fail to do so.

The second reason for our concern here at SAA with Superintendent Huppenthal's inhumanity is his comment in an interview reported on Fox News Latino on 28 March 2012, that he "is considering taking his fight to the state university system": Huppenthal . . . says Tucson's suspended Mexican American studies curricula teaches [sic] students to resent Anglos, and that the university program that educated the public school teachers is to blame. "I think that's where this toxic thing starts from, the universities," [he] said. (Planas 2012) Before HAL and after it, we need to guard against IAL: Inhumanities in American Life, a list in which these actions in Arizona would serve as a prime example. That is where Shakespeare studies should stand as the indicators of humanity.

NOTES 1. This is a lightly revised version of the paper given as part of the plenary panel at the 40th Meeting of the Shakespeare Association of America, Boston, April 2012. Beyond putting back in some material cut for length, I have deliberately kept it close to that version as a record of a moment. My thanks to the Trustees of the Shakespeare Association of America for the invitation and to the staff of the SAA office for all their help. 2. All references from Shakespeare are to the Complete Works, edited by Stanley Wells et al. (1986). 3. Quotations from the libretto are taken from the CD liners (Smith and Cunningham 2012). 4. My thanks to Doug for an advance copy of this in draft form.

REFERENCES

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 20 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

Arizona House Bill 2281. 2011. "An Act Amending Title 15." Available online: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf) [cited 12 May 2012]. Biggers, Jeff. 2012. "Breaking: The 'Madness' of the Tucson Book Ban: Interview with Mexican American Studies Teacher Curtis Acosta on The Tempest." Huff Post Education, 17 January. Available online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/tucson-ethnic-studies-_b_1210393.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/tucson-ethnic-studies-_b_1210393.html) [cited 12 May 2012]. Billeaud, Jacques. 2011. "Arizona Schools' Ethnic Studies Program Ruled Illegal." Huff Post Latino Voices, 27 December. Available online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/arizona-schools- ethnic-st_n_1172360.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/arizona-schools-ethnic- st_n_1172360.html) [cited 12 May 2012]. Callahan, Bob, ed. 2004. The New Smithsonian Book of Comic-book Stories: From Crumb to Clowes. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. Cheney, Dorothy L., and Robert M. Seyfarth. 2008. Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Collini, Stefan. 2012. What Are Universities For? London: Penguin Group. Ellison, Julie. 2009. "This American Life: How Are the Humanities Public?" Humanities Indicators Protoype. The American Aacdemy of Arts and Sciences. Available online: http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/essays/ellison.pdf (http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/essays/ellison.pdf) [cited 12 May 2012]. Hartley, Andrew James. 2009. "Time Lord of Infinite Space: Celebrity Casting, Romanticism, and British Identity in the RSC's 'Doctor Who Hamlet.'" Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 4.2 (Spring/Summer): 16 pp. in PDF. Humanities Resource Center Online. 2009. "About the Humanities Indicators." Available online: http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/humanitiesData.aspx (http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/humanitiesData.aspx) [cited 12 May 2012]. Kubrick, Stanley, dir. 1968. 2001: A Space Odyssey. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Stanley Kubrick Productions. Lanier, Douglas M. Forthcoming. "The Bard is dead, long live the Bard: Kill Shakespeare and the Popular Death of the Author." Unpublished manuscript. Marlowe, Christopher. 1962. Doctor Faustus. Edited by John D. Jump. The Revels Plays. London: Methuen and Co. McCreery, Conor, and Anthony Del Col. 2010-2011. Kill Shakespeare. 2 vols. San Diego: IDW Publishing. Milner-Gulland, Robin. 2010. The Guardian, 7 April.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 21 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

Murphy, Andrew. 2008. Shakespeare for the People: Working-class Readers, 1800-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Okavango Macbeth, The. n.d. Available online: http://www.okavangomacbeth.com/ (http://www.okavangomacbeth.com/) [cited 12 May 2012]. Oxford English Dictionary. Available online: http://www.oed.com/ (http://www.oed.com) [cited 12 May 2012]. Palmer, Charlie, dir., and Gareth Roberts, screenplay. 2007. The Shakespeare Code. Doctor Who: The Complete Third Series. Disc 2 of 6 DVDs. BBC Video. Planas, Roque. 2012. "Arizona Official Considers Targeting Mexican American Studies in University." Fox News Latino, 28 March. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/03/28/arizona-official- considers-targeting-mexican-american-studies-in-university/ (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/03/28/arizona-official-considers-targeting-mexican- american-studies-in-university/) [cited 12 May 2012]. Shakespeare, William. 1986. Complete Works. Edited by Stanley Wells et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shapiro, James. 2006. A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599. New York: Harper Perennial. Smith, Alexander McCall, and Tom Cunningham. 2012. The Okavango Macbeth. 2 audio CDs. Delphian DCD34096. Solow, Robert M., et al. 2002. Making the Humanities Count: The Importance of Data. Cambridge, Mass.: American Academic of Arts and Sciences. Available online: http://www.amacad.org/publications/monographs/Making_the_Humanities_Count.pdf (http://www.amacad.org/publications/monographs/Making_the_Humanities_Count.pdf) [cited 12 May 2012].

PERMISSIONS All artwork from Kill Shakespeare by Andy Belanger, © Kill Shakespeare Entertainment.

ABSTRACT | I | II | III | IV | V | NOTES | REFERENCES | TOP

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 22 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(15 PM

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783091/show Page 23 of 23 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Shakespeare in Stained Glass: The (/current) Shakespeare Memorials of Southwark Cathedral and "Local" Bardolatry (/previous) BRIAN WALSH, YALE UNIVERSITY (/about)

ABSTRACT This essay offers a novel history and analysis of a little known episode in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Shakespeare appropriation: Southwark Cathedral's claim to Shakespeare as its most famous parishioner. During a decade when the church was undergoing a major renovation in anticipation of its translation to a cathedral, it memorialized Shakespeare in stained glass windows, an act that anticipated the later installation there of a prominent Shakespeare effigy, and a replacement Shakespeare window when the first was destroyed in WWII. I show how the rhetoric of the Cathedral's main historian at the turn of the century shifted from making claims about the relationship between his parish and a thoroughly Christian Shakespeare to emphasizing more forcefully a "local" Shakespeare of Southwark, whose genius was nursed in South London. I suggest that this was the first iteration of the thinking that seeks to celebrate Shakespeare in a site-specific London location, the fruits of which include the new Globe Theatre in Bankside.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 1 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Samuel Colman's painting The Edge of Doom — The End of All Things and the Immortality of Shakespeare (1836-1838) depicts an apocalyptic scene in which a Londonesque city and various revered pieces of art collapse around a statue of Shakespeare. Commenting on the pitch this work makes for Shakespeare's cultural status, Diana Henderson wittily remarks: "in time, Westminster may crumble, Guido Reni may tumble, but our Bard is here to stay" (Henderson 2006, 4).

Figure 1. Samuel Colman, The Edge of Doom; Bequest of Laura L. Barnes, by exchange Colman's vision of an effigy of Shakespeare amid rubble provides a harbinger of the ominous scene that would have greeted a visitor to Southwark Cathedral, located near the foot of London Bridge on the south bank of the Thames, early in 1941. A bomb dropped by Nazi air forces in mid-February had exploded nearby the Cathedral, killing at least six people and destroying within it a series of windows that stood over an alabaster statue of Shakespeare ("Southwark Cathedral" 1941). While portions of the ancient church's edifice were shattered, the monument to Shakespeare remained.

Not all of the Cathedral's icons of Shakespeare were here to stay, though. The windows blown out by the bombing featured a stained glass representation of the poet amid texts of some of his works. The story of the Shakespeare statue, the memorial window that was shattered, and a replacement window devoted to images of Shakespeare's characters, which can still be seen today, has not been

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 2 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

fully told or analyzed in relation to the history of Southwark, the Cathedral itself, or the broader history of nineteenth and twentieth- century Shakespearean commemoration. This essay seeks to address these multi-temporal, multi-faceted issues. I will concentrate especially on the resonances of the initial Shakespeare window installed in the 1890s in Southwark Cathedral, which at the time was still known as St. Saviour's. This window offered a Christian vision of Shakespeare that was promoted in the growing body of publicity materials produced by the church at the turn of the twentieth century. But in the emerging historiography of the parish, religious claims on Shakespeare were eventually obscured, or at least diluted, by a geographic emphasis. As I will trace through those same materials, the Christian vision of Shakespeare was gradually overshadowed by an impulse to celebrate him as primarily a local author. In the way church officials told its story, new claims were being made for the playwright as a creature of this particular South London parish where the original Globe Theatre had stood. There was much at stake for the church and its partisans as they crafted this discourse about Shakespeare as parishioner. During the last decade of the nineteenth century St. Saviour's, as a physical building and as a religious community, was emerging from a long period of decline and neglect. During the 1890s, it was restored to physical grandeur and elevated to cathedral status for a newly created Southwark diocese. The new memorials, as well as a set of books vigorously promoting the church's past, called on Shakespeare's cachet and incorporated him into the fabric of the building in an attempt to ennoble and elevate the church, its people, and its environs. For the champions of Southwark Cathedral, claims for the dignity of the church and the historical significance of the Bankside neighborhood were being settled in all these moments of appropriation, largely by establishing a connection between the parish and the golden age of Elizabethan and Jacobean culture.

While the bulk of this essay will focus on this earlier period of the original Shakespeare window, I will conclude by discussing the later development of the effigy and the post-World War II replacement window in order to assess what is at issue in all of these cases of Shakespearean appropriation. Attention to these little-known episodes can shed light on more recent attempts to commemorate Shakespeare through site-specific strategies in this same area. Today, this neighborhood is an increasingly high-traffic area for London residents and tourists. The Cathedral itself is adjacent to the extremely popular Borough Market and a number of trendy shops, galleries, restaurants, and pubs. The most visible current incarnation of Shakespeare in http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 3 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Southwark is, of course, the replica Globe Theatre, located just a few blocks from the Cathedral. More and more newer residents and visitors to the area experience the Cathedral and its monuments in relation to the close-by Globe.

Figure 2. Southwark Cathedral, east end They are twin shrines to a local connection with the great playwright. This cultural synergy and upscale milieu did not always exist or even seem intuitive, though. Before the mid-1890s, when the Shakespeare window was unveiled, anyone wishing to see Shakespeare commemorated in South London would have had to seek out the plaque on a brewery wall near the original Globe site which, along with the Cathedral, then sat amidst smoke-enveloped factories, warehouses, and general squalor.

The enticing new Globe Theatre and recent gentrification of Bankside represent a clear break from this past. I will suggest that the thinking behind the new Globe — the wish to localize Shakespeare through a monument to him in the part of London where he most famously thrived, and, in turn, the wish for this monument to refine the area itself — has a largely overlooked precursor: the move a century earlier by the church next door to appropriate Shakespeare's aura for its own re- emergence from a long period of deterioration. We will see also how http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 4 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

assumptions about a metonymic relationship between Shakespeare and high culture have, in these attempts to bring him back to the traditionally hard-scrabble streets of Southwark, prevented a fully smooth homecoming for the Bard in Bankside.

CHRISTIAN SHAKESPEARE The series of stained glass windows honoring Shakespeare in St. Saviour's were the most elaborate, but not the first of their kind in the English capital. The 1880s saw stained glass windows dedicated to Shakespeare installed in two London houses of worship, and it is worth considering these precursors first in order to put in relief the range of cultural work the Southwark window attempts to do. The first, which can still be seen today, was unveiled in St. Helen's Bishopsgate in 1884, and another was presented to the public in 1886 in the now-demolished St. James's Church in Curtain Road ("Lord Mayor Unveils the Memorial Window" 1884; "Shakespearean Memorial Window" 1886).1 The dates of these London memorials bookend the 1885 unveiling of a Shakespeare window in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford. Even during the elevation of Shakespeare to national icon in the preceding century, the poet's birthplace enjoyed a monopoly on "local" ownership of its homegrown Bard. The installation of the commemorative windows in London indicates that by the late nineteenth century, the capital was beginning to stake its own claims on Shakespeare. The idea of a London provenance for Shakespeare's art is obvious enough on the face of things. He presumably wrote the majority, if not all, of his plays there, and it was in and around the city that they were principally performed. And yet this fact had largely been obscured by, on the one hand, the general universalizing of Shakespeare's genius and the concomitant emphasis on him as a poet detached from the material world of the London theaters; and, on the other hand, the tourist business that emerged in the eighteenth century in Stratford to make the argument that, if there were any particular place that could be viewed as sacred Shakespearean ground, it was the banks of the Avon (Watson 2007, 199-200).

Newspaper advertisements that announced the unveiling of the windows at St. Helen's and St. James's emphasized Shakespeare's connections to the respective parishes in his professional and personal life. A blurb in one paper informing the public that the Mayor and other local dignitaries would unveil the window at St. Helen's states that Shakespeare "was an inhabitant of the parish in the early part of his career," while a similar advertisement for the unveiling of the window

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 5 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

at St. James's notes that the church is "situated opposite the spot where the Curtain Theatre used to stand" ("Lord Mayor Unveils the Memorial Window" 1884; "Shakespearean Memorial Window" 1886). A plaque near the St. James's window noted that it was erected to mark the "tercentenary of the Poet's arrival in London" (Ordish 1899, 281). St. Helen's promoted the reputed actual presence of Shakespeare in the church itself: there is evidence, as the press announcement states, that he was at one time a resident of the parish (Nicholl 2007, 40-42). In the case of St. James's, a church that was only erected in 1841, the church highlights a more diffuse Shakespearean association through marking Shakespeare's connection with the Elizabethan-era theaters that had been located in the neighborhood of Shoreditch.

The rhetoric promoting these ventures pursues a local angle in the parishes' respective claims to Shakespeare, and, despite the setting in houses of worship, the window designs eschew religious overtones. The imagery in both presents a secular Shakespeare as laurel-crowned author, bequeathing the fruits of his imagination to the world. One observer even seems to have had a pagan connotation in mind when, describing the St. James's window in 1899, he called it a "memorial of the genius loci" of the old Shoreditch theaters near the church (Ordish 1899, 281). The fact that Shakespeare is inscribed in the church architecture did not make him seem more Christian, nor did the windows themselves attempt to mark him this way; rather, they presented him as a spirit of culture presiding over the churches and their neighborhoods.

The window dedicated to Shakespeare a few years later in St. Saviour's church in Southwark also emphasized a local connection between Shakespeare and the parish, although it combines this emphasis with overtly religious claims for Shakespeare. The driving force in charge of the window memorial seems to have been one Reverend William Thompson, who had been affiliated with St. Saviour's in various offices since the 1870s.2

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 6 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Figure 3. Rev. William Thompson In 1892, Thompson published a short book about the church's history, which he eventually expanded and then split into two works: a shorter guide to the monuments and fixtures and a longer narrative history of the church and the parish that was still, at heart, intended as a guidebook for touring the building. Both versions went through multiple revised editions between 1892 and 1910, and Thompson documents in them the addition of the window. The books, in particular the longest version published posthumously in 1910, are still the most comprehensive treatments of the Cathedral and its history. Through these books, we gain insight into Thompson's thinking about the uses to which Shakespeare might be put in telling the story of St. Saviour's, in print and in stained glass. Shakespeare, he discovered, had a role to play in the radical reimagining of Southwark's grand, but often-

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 7 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

neglected, Gothic church.

As part of the commemoration, Shakespeare shared space in St. Saviour's with other literary figures from his time. An image of Edmund Spenser appeared in a panel of the Shakespeare window, and adjacent to this, along the south aisle of the church nave, other windows memorialized Philip Massinger, Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, and Edward Alleyn. The subjects of this series were not chosen at random. Most had a documented connection with the church as parishioners, as in the case of Fletcher and Alleyn, or as non- residents who nonetheless found a final resting place here, like Massinger, who was reportedly put in the same grave as Fletcher. Shakespeare's connection was two-fold. Shakespeare's brother Edmund, an obscure player, was buried in the church in 1607, perhaps at his famous brother's expense. Firmer evidence for Shakespeare's association with St. Saviour's comes from documents that indicate he was living in the Winchester Diocese in the late 1590s, around the time that the Globe opened, in which case he would almost certainly have belonged to St. Saviour's parish (Hales 1904; Schoenbaum 1987, 222- 23).3 The church thus sought to commemorate the fact that leading lights from the early modern theater had lived and worked within the parish.

Beyond such basic connections, though, the windows promoted all of these figures as good members of the true faith. The non- Shakespearean windows were single lights, divided horizontally into separate panels that contribute to a larger religious theme. The Edward Alleyn window depicted the famed actor in one panel reading out his bequest to create a college, and includes in another panel a figure of Christian charity and text from the Psalms: "Come, ye children, hearken unto me." The Fletcher window includes a representation of the dramatist, along with a scene inspired by Fletcher's Knight of Malta that portrays St. John the Baptist, as well as a knight who is being invested in the Maltese order by two Bishops. The Massinger window, inspired by a scene from his play The Virgin Martyr, shows St. Dorothea in one panel and in another, a scene in which a doubting observer to her execution is later converted to Christianity when he perceives a miracle after her death (Thompson 1898, 55 ff; Thompson 1904, 270-88).4

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 8 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Figure 4. Philip Massigner Memorial Window

The Shakespeare window continues in this vein. It is a triplet window executed by the famous stained glass company of Charles Eamer Kempe. The center light features the Muse of Poetry sitting on a throne, with a dove above her.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 9 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Figure 5. Photograph of the 1897 Shakespeare Memorial Window According to Thompson, this is "the symbol of the spirit of God, and of the inspiration of the Almighty, the source of all that is good in literature." A quotation from the Book of Wisdom was inscribed at the base of the window: "Doctrix disciplinae Dei, et electrix operum illius" ([She is the teacher of the knowledge of God, and the chooser of His words]; Thompson 1904, 301). Shakespeare was represented to the left of this Christian Muse, and at his feet were visible copies of his plays (Stevens 1922, 25). Thompson's description of the transmission of heavenly doctrine from the dove/spirit of God, to the Muse, to Shakespeare suggests why an old playwright might belong in a church: his work is merged with divine teaching. That this graphic remembrance of Shakespeare was ultimately meant to be an act of religious piety is reinforced by an inscription on the window, placed http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 10 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

below the Muse of Poetry, provided by the Shakespeare scholar John Hales: "To the glory of God, in gratitude for His good gift to men in the genius of William Shakespeare" (Thompson, 1904, 293).

The inclusion of Spenser disrupted the larger series of windows by admitting a poet to the dramatic fraternity. The fact that Spenser has no known links to the church or the parish makes his presence even odder, given the trend of honoring those believed to have been parishioners, or those who were at least buried in the church. Spenser was placed in the window to the right of the Muse. She held in her left hand, the one facing Spenser, a book labeled "Poesis." Spenser held a copy of the Faerie Queene, and at his feet other copies of his epic were opened. Moralistic tags that emphasize elements of the poem as Christian allegory, such as "Una and the Lion" and "House of Pride" could be read there, creating a consistent Christian theme with the Shakespeare portion of the window. Spenser was long heralded as the poet of the Elizabethan Settlement, and his addition to the window series — indeed, the fact that he actually shares space in the same window with Shakespeare — can best be explained as an attempt to strengthen by association Shakespeare's status as an orthodox Protestant. The window looks superficially as though the two poets — especially Shakespeare, who stands with open book and quill in hand — are Gospel writers awaiting dictation from the divine being in the center, a means of associating their literary work with the work of the Word.

Thompson was evidently anxious to quell doubts over Shakespeare's religiosity. In longer editions of his book, under the heading "His [Shakespeare's] Creed," Thompson writes: "Some have tried to prove that he was an unbeliever. The tone and tendency, however, of his writings are plainly on the side of religion" (Thompson 1904, 296). Thompson is quick to clarify that Shakespeare's putative Christianity is of the "Anglican" variety, and he is careful to dismiss the persistent rumors of the poet's Catholicism (Thompson 1904, 296-97). Whether or not Thompson intended his stained glass Shakespeare to be a deliberate reaction to the more secular windows dedicated to the playwright in St. Helen's and St. James's is not known, but the Southwark glass does stand out from the others in its overt Judeo- Christian imagery and text. Thompson made explicit efforts to promote the windows as seamless celebrations of dramatic genius and Godliness. In the Shakespeare window, drama itself is given explicit license from God. There, in symmetry with the "Poesis" book in her left hand, the Judeo-Christian Muse held in her right hand a book labeled "Ludi," in an attempt to address the heretofore tainted past of http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 11 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Southwark. On the "wrong side of the river," Bankside was notorious in Shakespeare's age for its taverns, blood-sport arenas, gaming venues, and whorehouses as well as its theaters, which were aligned in some strains of Christian thinking with blasphemy, bawdy language, and lewd, morally polluting behavior. Thompson looks to heal the old antagonism between stage and pulpit when he dismisses the anti- theatrical view as "bigoted," a push back against his own early modern predecessors at St. Saviour's, who intermittently quarreled with and sought to shut down their theatrical neighbors (Thompson 1904, 296).5 He quotes admiringly a scholar who wrote that the works of Shakespeare, like those of Spenser, "trained and exercised men's minds to virtue and religion" (Thompson 1904, 296).6

Thompson's window and books claim Shakespeare as an ardent Christian loyal to the Elizabethan Settlement's version of Christianity, and thus work to launder him clean of age-old charges that he lacked interest in religion, that he was a crypto-papist, and more generally that his writing was compromised by a corrupting stage milieu. By affirming that Shakespeare was not merely safe for the Church of England, but that he was also an active promoter of Christian values whose enduring popularity gave continued vigor to the circulation of those values, Thompson trumpeted the probity of his church through the Shakespearean link. This particular church, he seemed to say, helped to nurture Shakespeare's religious feeling. And the great poet's works were infused with a moral goodness that reflected his parish.

Beside the difference in the emphasis on Christianity, though, the key factor that distinguishes the Southwark windows is that they were created to enhance their church in a more significant way than was the case with the earlier ones. The windows in St. Helen's and St. James's were added as a fairly limited means of honoring the churches' past alliance with greatness, but were not part of any larger effort to re-think the churches' status or the place of these parishes in London. In the case of St. Saviour's, the installation of the Shakespeare window, along with the windows dedicated to some of his contemporaries, was directly connected to a larger effort on behalf of the Church of England to perform a major renovation of the church and the parish in which it sat, both in terms of the physical church building and in terms of its reputation and function in metropolitan London.

As the proliferation of Thompson's books attests, a vigorous attempt to publicize the church's history accompanied this physical renovation. St. Saviour's, in the late nineteenth century, was in need of both forms of

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 12 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

resuscitation. It is one of the capital's most ancient churches — its basic edifice has stood on the southern bank of the Thames near London Bridge for centuries — but it has never been well known. Originally called St. Mary Overie's, its oldest foundations date to the Norman era, when it was built to serve as the church for an Augustinian priory. The building was seized by Henry VIII in the early years of the Reformation and re-named St. Saviour's when, by an act of Parliament, it became a parish church for the surrounding community (Thompson 1894, 40, Monroe 1933, 29-30). Traditionally part of the Winchester Diocese, St. Saviour's was reassigned in 1877 to the Diocese of Rochester. The parish was by and large very poor, and church officials began to feel that its people could be better served by a closer bishopric. This was only a temporary measure, though. By this time a movement was already afoot to create a new diocese of Southwark, one that could be even more immediately responsive to the needs of South Londoners. In 1889, the Bishop of Rochester announced at a meeting in St. Saviour's his intent to attend closely to the parish's ancient physical church, declaring that "the great if not absorbing duty of the next few years" would be the restoration of the church building ("St. Saviour's Southwark" 1890, 394).7 This signaled a major intervention in talk about the future of the church. For almost one hundred years, parishioners had debated among themselves over the burdens of maintaining the old, crumbling building versus the benefits of demolishing all or large portions of the existing structure and rebuilding a modern parish church on a smaller scale.8 With the Bishop's proclamation, the traditionalists, enamored with the Gothic architecture and long history of the building, won out. When the church reconstructions were substantially complete in 1905, the new diocese of Southwark was created. St. Saviour's was elevated to its present-day status as a cathedral and given its current name, Southwark Cathedral.

It was during this time when the church edifice was being extensively restored and beautified in preparation for its re-birth as a cathedral that the set of windows dedicated to luminaries of the Elizabethan and Jacobean literary world were planned and executed. The decision to place Shakespeare among other playwrights is a nod to the church's various theatrical associations and suggests an initial reluctance to single him out as deserving a more special place than his fellows. But even in the earliest version of his book, the short guide from 1892, Thompson specifically names Shakespeare as the church's "most distinguished PARISHIONER [sic], who lived and wrote some of the most magnificent of his masterpieces in this Parish for representation at his own theatre, the Globe, of Bankside; the site of which . . . is close at http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 13 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

hand. It was in this Parish the genius of William Shakespeare rose to its greatest height" (Thompson 1892, 35). While the series of windows does contextualize Shakespeare as one among many devout dramatists and players tied to the church, he was also singled out as extraordinary even before the series was conceived, a trend that continued in descriptions of the windows once they were all unveiled. During this period, Shakespeare was always the focus of the church's celebration of its literary past. He was placed even over and above the great medieval poet John Gower, who was buried in St. Saviour's in a sumptuous monument centuries before Shakespeare's time and whose Christian bona fides needed no apology.

Shakespeare could not help but stand out. No other English author, early modern or otherwise, had, by the late nineteenth century begun to attract outright veneration. The incorporation of Shakespeare into the fabric of an Anglican church thus broaches questions about the status of Shakespeare in late-Victorian religious discourse at large. In a way that is inconceivable in relation to Massinger and the others, this status put Shakespeare in competition with the Christian God for attention in the church. It was in 1892 that Alfred Tennyson, on his death bed, is reputed to have called out "Where is my Shakespeare? I must have my Shakespeare" (Decker 2003). That one would call on Shakespeare for comfort while at the point of death elevates him to quasi-divine status, and also suggests that appreciation of Shakespeare's genius could replace traditional modes of Christian piety. Tennyson's choice to self- administer a version of the Last Rites through perusing his Shakespeare justifies G. B. Shaw's neologism "Bardolater," which he introduced just a few years later. If Tennyson, in 1892, exemplifies a trend to regard the work of Shakespeare as a kind of secular scripture, the presence of Shakespeare in stained glass in St. Saviour's was promoted as in harmony, rather than competition, with Christian piety (Laporte 2007).

And yet such arguments, while useful for establishing a place for Shakespeare in the walls and the history of the church, were also limited. Claims about Shakespeare's religious convictions are notoriously slippery, while claims about the location of Shakespeare's professional milieu in St. Saviour's parish could be more confidently pressed. The emphasis on Shakespeare over and above his fellows, despite the fact that his work is arguably the least moralistic and recognizably Christian among the authors in the window series, reveals the tensions inherent in attempts to harmonize Bardolatry with Christian feeling. Indeed, the decision to emphasize Shakespeare points to the greater appeal that his uncontested worldly fame held for the http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 14 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

church's make-over strategy when compared with the more difficult claims to his religious orthodoxy. Thompson and his successor rectors and church historians never dropped their characterization of Shakespeare as a Christian. But as time went on, it became less central to their vision of Southwark Cathedral's past than what might be called the "Shakespeare slept here" angle. Attempts to maintain the religious focus became strained. Consider, for instance, Thompson's report in the 1910 edition of his book on the church's first Shakespeare commemoration service, held on the playwright's birthday in 1909, where he oddly states that "the fact that two laymen, a poet, and an actor, took the principal part in the proceedings seemed only to intensify the solemnity and religious character of the occasion" (Thompson 1910, 356k).9 At the turn of the century, more and more attention was lavished on the re-modeled, re-designated church as a vital thread in the fabric of London history. The length of Thompson's books increased edition to edition, as he and other journalists and observers began to revel in and foreground more prominently an antiquarian perspective on the history of the parish, one in which the significance of Southwark to Shakespeare's achievements, and, therefore, the significance of Southwark to English history is given pride of place above arguments for Shakespeare's Christianity.

LOCAL SHAKESPEARE A brief nod to Shakespeare as St. Saviour's "most distinguished parishioner" in the 1892 edition of Thompson's guide book is only a side note to his history of the church. Thompson's interest in expounding on Shakespeare and his connections to the parish would grow in ensuing editions of both the shorter and longer guides. The more involved Thompson became in trying to write a narrative history of the church, the more convinced he seems to have become that Shakespeare should play a conspicuous role in that history. In subsequent editions he adds more biographical information, as well as the assessments of Shakespeare's work in relation to Christian thought and feeling that we have just considered. In the 1910 edition, published after Thompson's unexpected death in 1909, he devotes a full thirteen pages to Shakespeare, promoting his genius, refuting the nefarious Baconian authorship theories, and even attempting to excuse Shakespeare's "effeminate" wearing of an earring in the Chandos portrait by describing it as an unfortunate trend of his age that the poet failed to avoid (Thompson 1904, 291).

Thompson's investment in this "local" angle — that Shakespeare was of

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 15 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

this parish — was essential to the larger case being made for the historical importance of the parish and the physical structure of the church itself. It was a claim of continuity with the putative Elizabethan Golden Age; other local landmarks like the old London Bridge, Winchester Palace, and the theaters themselves were all gone. But St. Saviour's remained, a prominent part of Shakespeare's own everyday landscape that was still available to turn of the century Londoners. To emphasize the Shakespeare link was to make a bid for St. Saviour's as a space steeped with aura where Shakespeare's presence might be easily imagined, even on some level still felt by the visitor whose historical consciousness had been properly enlightened.

The proximity of the original Globe Theatre to the church was crucial to Thompson's discussion of Shakespeare. Thompson cites a collection of scholars, starting with Edmund Malone, to show that Shakespeare was a resident of Southwark and a parishioner at St. Saviour's, and tracks the evidence, some of which was turning up in the very years he was writing his books, about the playwright's London life.10 By the 1904 edition, he renders irrelevant the fact that no particular residential address for Shakespeare in Southwark is known: "I may add that people who carry on their business in any parish are parishioners, although their private residences are situated elsewhere. The Globe, once in St. Saviour's, was Shakespeare's place of business" (Thompson 1904, 292- 93, emphasis in original).

Beginning with the 1904 edition of his guidebook, Thompson includes a rudimentary map of the church's neighborhood in order to illustrate the place of the Globe in the parish.

Figure 6. Map of St. Saviour's and the Original Globe Site

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 16 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

St. Saviour's and the site of the original Globe Theatre are marked, and a series of arrows tracing the route along Clink and Park Streets are illustrated to connect them. He writes above the diagram, "Let me lead the lover of Shakespeare to the place where the Globe stood. The accompanying plan will help us" (Thompson 1904, 300). He also includes a detailed set of walking instructions from the door of the church to the Globe site.11 As I have noted, Thompson intended his books, even the longer versions, first and foremost as practical guides for touring the Cathedral. He envisions here a parishioner or a visitor to Southwark Cathedral who might perambulate the church to gaze on and appreciate its antiquities, and then be inspired to walk to the Globe site a few blocks away on Park Street, carrying with them a sense that Shakespeare is braided with the church's past. The map encourages readers to enjoy a spatial experience of that association — a kind of performance of history they can undertake — by walking the short distance from the church grounds to the Globe site, perhaps even with the fantasy of retracing Shakespeare's own steps between them. From being a guide to the history and furniture of the church building, the book here becomes a guide to discovering Shakespeare's own London, and the literal place St. Saviour's had in it as part of his quotidian experience.12

In 1897, the year the window was unveiled, Shakespeare did not need to be celebrated in the proto-Southwark Cathedral to be considered important. But Southwark Cathedral at this time did need Shakespeare in order to secure its claim to being one of the most important ecclesiastical structures in the nation, and to being perhaps behind only Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's in significance in the history of London churches. The church was barely removed from a moment when it faced threats of the wrecking ball. The massive investment in its renovation, and its new status as the seat of a bustling diocese in the capital, lent the church more long-term security than it had enjoyed for decades. A recurring feature in the rhetoric of the Cathedral's supporters — one evident in the early twentieth century, and still evident today — is the sense that it has been too long overlooked; that it is a gem hidden in plain sight, unappreciated or, more often, simply unnoticed, by the hordes of Londoners and tourists who pass by it each day as they walk over London Bridge ("London's Hidden Cathedral" 1912; H. G. 1931, 113; Stevens 1949, "Preface").13 Its advocates set about cementing also the church's claims to fame and raising its profile through circulating a storied version of its past.

Pierre Nora has theorized the creation of what he calls lieux de http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 17 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

mémoire, physical "places of memory" that are "embodiments of a memorial consciousness," as "moments of history torn away from the movement of history, then returned" (Nora 1989, 12). The Southwark Cathedral memorials to Shakespeare, as places of memory in Nora's sense, were constructed in part to highlight and foreground the place as urgently significant to the history of the capital and the nation. They host the return of the moment of Shakespeare's presence in the Bankside neighborhood to the consciousness of early twentieth-century London. Thompson puts his diagram of the route to the Globe site in his guidebook to begin the process of adding that old theatrical place to his own church as another, intimately linked, lieu de mémoire. He thus strengthens the association between St. Saviour's and Shakespeare by calling attention, in graphic form, to the proximity of the church to the site of the vanished theater, revered in the historical imagination because it was Shakespeare's theatre. He counts on an assumed interest in Shakespeare as a bid to put the Cathedral and its area more visibly on the map of historical London and more forcibly in the mental constellation of places in the city that matter for residents and visitors.

The claim that Thompson makes on Shakespeare for his parish reaches an apogee when he strikes, politely but forcefully, at the heart of the de facto local claim to Shakespeare: Without the smallest desire to deprive Stratford-on-Avon of one particle of that high honour which it proudly enjoys as the birthplace of Shakespeare, we should like it to be remembered that he belongs more truly to London, and especially to St. Saviour's, where he spent the best, if not the greater, part of his days, and where all his mighty works were done. (Thompson 1904, 292)14 "He belongs more truly to London": this is a vague statement. What does it mean to "belong" to a place? Why, in the long run, does it matter? Does localizing Shakespeare in this way provide a fantasy of access to the past through rediscovering the sites he physically touched, or the dream that some aura of the playwright himself, or of the Elizabethan era more broadly, is more palpable in some places than in others? Thompson does not elaborate. It is enough for him to make such blanket assertions about his parish's historical richness. But the effect of his rhetoric is to establish his church as a pilgrimage site in the veneration of Shakespeare. As the Church of England turned St. Saviour's into a Cathedral, Thompson turned it into an altar of Bardolatry. Shakespeare was no longer just a person who had once worshipped in St. Saviour's. In keeping with larger trends in Bardolatry throughout the era, he himself was now enshrined in glass as an object http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 18 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

of worship there.

SHAKESPEARE VS. SOUTHWARK There is a further, fascinating twist to the story of the Cathedral advocates' devotion to this patch of Southwark as a privileged site because of its Shakespearean connotations, one that has reverberations for some of the controversies that emerged over the construction of the new Globe Theatre in the 1980s and 1990s: how well suited is post- Shakespearean Southwark to serve as a place of Shakespearean commemoration? As much as turn-of-the-century boosters of the Cathedral wanted to praise the history of the building and of Southwark's Shakespearean ties, they also explicitly express dissatisfaction with the current state of the area. The great Shakespeare scholar and editor of the Dictionary of National Biography, Sidney Lee, wrote in 1905 about various other, grander plans then afoot to pay tribute to Shakespeare in London. He pointedly dismisses Southwark as a worthy site, claiming that there would be an "awkward incongruity in introducing" a great public monument into the "serried ranks" of "Southwark wharves." He goes on to say, more damningly, that the "genius loci has fled from Southwark" (Lee, 1906, 227-28). For Lee, celebrating Shakespeare in London made sense. But commemorating him in one of the presently dilapidated neighborhoods in which he had lived and worked was absurd. Attempts to show local appreciation for the Bard in the capital could only go so far before they would break under the pressure of geographic impropriety.

This feeling was shared, perhaps surprisingly, by Thompson himself, whose vivid description of the contemporary neighborhood draws power from incongruity: "Bankside — where it [the Globe] stood — Poet and Player Land, as it has been styled — in spite of its gaunt warehouses and grim workshops, its old iron, broken glass, creaking cranes, and sordid alleys, is one of the most famous spots in Europe" (Thompson 1894, 128). Thompson saw the juxtaposition of this past with the "sordid" present as impetus for further restoration, restoration that would move out from the church to the neighboring streets. In the 1910 edition of his book, published posthumously after his sudden death in 1909, Thompson notes in the preface that the poor condition of the Cathedral's neighborhood was a matter of urgent concern. He writes that one of "our present needs" is "a clean and decent PRIVATE APPROACH from the High Street," saying that this is a "pressing and vital necessity, the lack of which is a discouragement to congregations and visitors" (Thompson 1910, 4b). Other writers of the time also

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 19 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

express reservations about whether the actual site of the Cathedral is worthy of the building and its historical associations ("A Cathedral's Undignified Approach," 1910). The grim poverty and the indices of industrialization that surrounded St. Saviour's in the nineteenth century were the stuff of Dickens and other social reform-minded Victorians. These were the very conditions that created momentum for the creation of a Southwark diocese and made possible the elevation of the church to its status as a cathedral in the first place. Yet they were soon after seen as embarrassments to the newly renovated Cathedral's dignity.

That there was an emerging tension between pressing claims for past greatness and resolving present conditions can be seen as well in a perhaps unexpected source. In 1899, when St. Saviour's had been declared a pro-Cathedral in anticipation of its eventual elevation to Cathedral status in 1905, an investigator interviewed Thompson as part of the philanthropist Charles Booth's massive survey of London poverty. Only a few lines of the interview made it into the printed version of the Booth study. But a set of unpublished notes from the interview exist in the archives of the London School of Economics. There we find that, at least according to the investigator, Thompson seemed unaware of the daily lives of most of his parishioners, and that he left to his subordinates social outreach and ministrations to the poor. The investigator finds him to be a thoroughly amiable and decent man, but he also notes wryly that Thompson seems more the "custodian of the general church than the parish priest." He continues: "I could scarcely get him to talk at all about the parish and its work . . . but [he] told me about its [the church's] history, showed me round, and explained its [interest] and beauty" (Booth Collection 1899).15 Thompson filled out — in a very "casual" way, according to the investigator — a form for the survey that is collected with the interview notes (Booth Collection 1899). There Thompson writes that the church population is "Rich and poor," but nearby is the terse addition, "Rich non-resident." The well-heeled parishioners, those most likely to contribute money for the creation and upkeep of church monuments, and those more likely to be well-educated and familiar with Shakespeare and his work, came from outside the immediate area of the church (Booth Collection 1899).

The church's uninspiring physical surroundings become fodder for a conflict between Southwark as a place in turn-of-the-century London and Southwark's "place" in history. The investigator quotes Thompson as saying that, as the renovations proceed, the church "is becoming beautiful and worthy of the place it will shortly assume" — that is to http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 20 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

say, of being a cathedral (Booth Collection 1899, 107). The place it would assume also refers to attempts to make the cathedral a site of artistic and intellectual refinement. A recent historian of popular culture in late Victorian and Edwardian Southwark has claimed that after its designation as pro-Cathedral in 1897, the same year the Shakespeare window was unveiled, the church "remained aloof from the parishioners, functioning primarily as a trans-local centre for culture and music" (Williams 1999, 44). By the 1920s, indeed, the Cathedral was renowned for its choir and its organ music. Concerts held there were admiringly reviewed in the London papers, and radio broadcasts from the church made it known to a much wider public as a site for gentility and art (H. G. 1931). The idea that local, poorer parishioners were perhaps alienated from the grand new church and its urbane aspirations at the turn of the century is suggested by comments Thompson makes to the interviewer about diminishing attendance at daily services, a hint that he elaborates on in a note to the next edition of his book in 1904. Thompson specifically links the decline to the church's expanding musical program. As he enumerates the lower attendance figures, Thompson reasons that it is because "the people are not yet accustomed to the elaborate musical services which the new order of things has introduced" (Thompson 1904, 247).

Thompson's obituary in the Guardian newspaper confirms the centrality of antiquarian enthusiasm to his life as a whole. It notes that his "great delight was in antiquarian research; and all that belonged to the past history of S[t]. Saviour was his special study" ("Rev. William Thompson Obituary" 1909). It does not once mention any aspect of Thompson's spiritual office or ministrations to the poor and needy who made up the bulk of his parish. The focus of nearly the entire obituary is on his love of the church's past, and, echoing the private notes of the Booth investigator, how "he took great pleasure in personally conducting parties around the Cathedral, imparting to them the stores of information he possessed" ("Rev. William Thompson Obituary" 1909).

At the turn of the century, the most immediate problems facing the residents of the old St. Saviour's parish, the neighborhoods that now surrounded the seat of the new Southwark Diocese, were issues of crime, poverty, health, and economic opportunity. One hopeful article about the proposed new diocese, written in 1890 when plans for the transformation were stirring, states that St. Saviour's cannot be restored to be "a mere antiquarian relic"; that "it ought to be, and unless a great opportunity is thrown away, it will be, a centre and a rallying point for all Church work in South London . . . in daily touch with the people, http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 21 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

grimy with London smoke, and its stones worn with the feet of the London poor" ("St. Saviour's Southwark" 1890, 413-14). The Guardian obituary and the comments of the Booth interviewer — a person looking specifically into the relation of the church to the daily lives of its members — indicate that to some degree this opportunity was indeed lost. Unlike Sidney Lee, the scholar who felt that the genius loci had abandoned South London, Thompson did not dismiss Southwark altogether as a site for Shakespeare memorials. In one sense, we might say that Thompson began to envision that such monuments could have a transformative effect on the area — or to put it more cynically, that he felt they could perform a kind of erasure of the area as it existed at the end of the nineteenth century and re-constitute it as a site of cultural refinement based on historical connections to Shakespeare.

Thompson began to imagine what such a wide-scale demolition and renovation would look like. He conjured a largely unprecedented version of Southwark that would coincide with the beautifying work being done on the Cathedral building and would affirm the modern association of Shakespeare with high culture. He ends the last edition of his book that he completed in his lifetime with a brief visionary paragraph: A Dream. — The site of the old Cloisters — the ground between the Cathedral and the Thames — cleared. Bankside, a boulevard rivaling the Victoria and Albert Embankments. The ungainly warehouses and ugly structures in the vicinity . . . moved further afield. The railways from Charing Cross and Cannon Street driven underground. Winchester Park with its trees and gardens and wide spaces restored. And "the most famous theatre the world has ever seen" rebuilt on a scale and in a style worthy of a world's homage to the genius of Shakespeare. (Thompson 1910, 356u)16 This is a vision of a Southwark that had never existed, one that would not be recognizable to denizens of the Borough in the 1590s or the 1890s, but that might be familiar to those of 2012. If Thompson could walk today from Southwark Cathedral along Clink Street to the Thames Path, the Bankside Jetty, and the Jubilee Walkway as far as Waterloo Bridge, he would see something like what he here imagines: a Southwark that indeed features a replica of the Globe as well as the National Theatre complex, where these stages are detached from the seedy Elizabethan circuit of brothels and animal baiting rings and the gritty urban enclave of the late nineteenth century. This esplanade, inviting to tourists as well as Londoners, boasts theaters, art galleries — including the magnificent Tate Modern — outdoor concert venues, http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 22 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

shops, restaurants, and even some hint, here and there, of "trees and gardens and wide spaces." The origins of this Southwark, at least the area between the Cathedral and the Tate Modern, lie largely in the urban renewal energies that helped nurture the new Globe. The current glow of Bankside serves also as a validation of Thompson's conviction, first crystallized in glass and then elaborated on in his books, that exploiting Shakespeare's connections to South London provides cultural capital to Southwark and its institutions, allowing it to become the hub of gentility and civilized leisure to which it had for so long seemed antithetical.

But Thompson's "dream" captures as well the complexity of urban renewal schemes, which so often obscure who wins and who loses in such undertakings and which equivocate about where transformation leaves off and displacement begins. The "new" Globe project itself occasioned controversy when charges arose that it posed threats to housing and job opportunities for poorer members of the community, and that it would enrich only outside developers (Holderness 1988; Drakakis 1988). The clash between high culture and everyday need that was present when St. Saviour's became Southwark Cathedral has echoed over the past thirty years as newer, bigger efforts have been put in place to commemorate the area's Shakespearean heritage.17

David Wiles writes astutely about the idealism behind the site-specific commemoration of the Shakespeare Globe project: the "new Globe offers a challenge to the notion that urban space is homogenous and infinitely malleable. It offers the spectator a reassuring sense that he or she inhabits a structured 'world' or 'cosmos,' and not the fragmentary condition of postmodernity. It provides a physical center around which values can be constructed" (Wiles 2003, 60). Such rhetoric can be persuasively retrofitted to the Southwark Cathedral Shakespeare memorials. The memorials were constructed largely to make the case for the Cathedral as just such a "reassuring" place as Wiles describes, a point of stability and a space of continuity with the glories of the past and with the genius of the master poet-thinker-philosopher-moralist of modernity. The memorials have the flavor of honoring Shakespeare for his transcendent brilliance, but they are, at the same time, urgently local and contingent. They serve a present-tense desire that was felt mainly by Thompson and other elites, but was broadcast as a more widespread need. It was a need to re-Christen, as it were, the church and its neighborhood as sacralized space. The space was made holy by the past presence of Shakespeare, and to memorialize that presence through physical monuments confers charismatic authority on the cathedral, http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 23 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

thus making it the most fitting portal to commune with his legacy and to enrich life in the here and now.

GENIUS LOCI The next chapters in the story of the Shakespeare memorials in Southwark Cathedral involve the Shakespeare effigy and the new Shakespeare window, both of which can still be seen in the church. Each is a complex instance of Shakespeare appropriation that builds on, and expands the scope of, many of the issues with which I have dealt. Their histories are too involved to explore fully here. By way of conclusion, I will provide a brief overview of how they came to be, and how they continue to signify today.

Up until his death, Thompson was supervising plans to expand the church's commemoration of Shakespeare in a way that would show how intimately the playwright was implicated in Southwark. In the last edition of his book, he announces a proposal to install an effigy of Shakespeare beneath the Shakespeare window, and includes a precise artist's sketch of what the statue and its setting would eventually look like (Thompson 1910, 356s).18 The statue depicts a recumbent Shakespeare lounging on his side, legs casually crossed, leaning on his elbow and supporting his head with his hand, as if the famous Scheemaker's effigy from Westminster had decided to lie down for a bit. Although the niche in which he rests resembles at first glance a sepulcher, closer inspection reveals it to be more of a museum-like diorama. This is not Shakespeare reposing in death, but in life, in (literal) touch with his environment. Reverend T. P. Stevens was one of Thompson's immediate successors as a clergyman-historian of the Cathedral. In a short guide of his own on the Cathedral that he began writing after Thompson's death, Stevens describes the carved setting of the finished product. In the niche behind the effigy could be seen, "above the shoulder of the poet . . . the tower of" St. Saviour's, "the same tower [that] dominated the landscape during the years he [Shakespeare] lived in the parish. The little building on the left represents Winchester Palace, which was at the height of its magnificence in the sixteenth century . . . further to the left . . . is the Globe Playhouse . . . on the extreme right may be seen a representation of the southern gateway of London Bridge" (Stevens 1949, 20). Here is a life-sized, three dimensional Shakespeare set in the heart of Elizabethan Bankside, and so framed by his theater and his parish church.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 24 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

The statue came to fruition and was unveiled beneath the window in 1912, three years after Thompson's death, in a ceremony presided over by Sidney Lee, who evidently had softened somewhat in his view that Southwark was inhospitable ground for Shakespearean monuments ("A Shakespeare Shrine" 1912).

Figure 7. The Shakespeare Effigy in Southwark Cathedral He concluded his remarks by saying, "In reverence I unveil this witness in stone to Shakespeare's name; a monument firmly planted in the heart of the district where he did much of his undying work, where he first gave earnest of his measureless influence" (quoted in Symon 1929, xv). The event was attended by many scholars and actors, conferring academic and celebrity star power on the Cathedral and its Shakespearean claims. Annual birthday events dedicated to Shakespeare began to be celebrated in the Cathedral around this time, and newspaper accounts for the next several years always note the turnout among actors, academics, and sometimes members of the aristocracy.

When the dramatic window series was destroyed in 1941 by German bombing, it was not considered so terrible a blow; compared to the constant strain and catastrophe of the Blitz at large and the tragedy of the six individuals killed from the blast that destroyed the windows, the loss was comparatively small. The lack of permanent structural damage to the Cathedral made most members of the church community simply

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 25 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

grateful it was not worse ("The Bishop's Letter" 1941). But by the later 1940s, internal church records show the slow development of plans among its custodians to replace at least the Shakespeare window. In 1952, the vestry commissioned such a work from the stained glass artist Christopher Webb. Patrons of the fund to raise money for the window included the actor John Gielgud and Shakespeare scholar J. Dover Wilson, as the church proprietors cannily gathered both theatrical and academic stars for their cause (Southwark Cathedral Vestry Minutes, 1949-1954).19 There was no effort to re-create the dramatic fraternity that had once lined the south aisle. This was post-war Britain: resources were scarce, and the committee limited their vision to replacing only the most prominent of the church's famous sons, the one who had always mattered most. The spaces that had depicted Massinger, Fletcher, Beaumont, and Alleyn are currently filled with clear glass.

A new version of Shakespeare in stained glass was unveiled on 23 April, 1954 at the annual birthday celebration by Sybil Thorndike, a well-known actress. In her remarks, Thorndike compared the light passing through the window to the light of God passing through Shakespeare's work ("Memorial Window to Shakespeare" 1954). But nothing like that is evident from the window itself. Its design is entirely different from the original, which had explicitly represented such inspiration. It is once again a triplet, although Shakespeare himself is not represented.

Figure 8. The present Shakespeare Window, unveiled 1954 http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 26 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

The central pane depicts Prospero, his arms raised, while Ariel, an ethereal streak, whisks above his head and a Neanderthal-like Caliban crouches naked at his feet. The left light shows characters from the comedies, such as Feste in full jester regalia, Bottom with an ass's head, Malvolio in his yellow stockings and crossed garters, as well as, most prominently, Falstaff in the center in a brilliant scarlet doublet. The right pane is reserved for tragic figures: Hamlet broods, skull in hand, while Lady Macbeth lurks nearby. The overall effect is stunningly unusual. Prospero in the center is certainly the most dominant and most striking figure of the whole composition. A casual observer might at first assume that Prospero is a saint in prayer rather than a theatrical magus in the act of conjuration. Shedding the Judeo-Christian text and symbolism of the first window, the new one flaunts a celebration of Shakespeare's literary imagination. The focal point here is Prospero summoning his spirits, and the always implicit comparison between this character and the playwright who created him cannot be put out of mind entirely: Shakespeare's genius in Thompson's window was inspired by God; here, it is aligned with necromancy.

Thompson, in his description of the plans for the effigy, hearkened back to the Christian imagery of the original window. He suggests that the effigy depicts Shakespeare listening to the muse, God's Dove, in the window above (Thompson 1910, 356R). But the statue as it was executed is overwhelmingly secular in tone, and none of the subsequent guide books written by Thompson's successors, the men who saw the finished product, develop his idea about the spiritual relationship between the effigy and the iconography of the old window above. The original window and the statue were in fact duplicative and out of synch, since in both there was a visual rendering of the poet. The 1954 window does not contain a likeness of Shakespeare the man. I would argue that it thus complements the effigy in a secular version of the afflatus that Thompson suggested between the two monuments.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 27 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Figure 9. Shakespeare effigy and window The statue gives us a contemplative, almost Romantic-poet version of Shakespeare, as though he were lounging after a long hike. But here, he is not among nature, but, according to the carvings in the niche, surrounded by the physical, urban place of Southwark. Looking at the eye-level statue and then up at the window creates a fascinating tableaux. The ensemble of Shakespeare characters in the glass above might at first seem to be an unmoored, free-floating vision of Shakespeare's creative impulses. But taken in conjunction with the statue below it, the vision of the new window is anchored to that

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 28 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

specific time and place. The brightly colored figures of the window appear almost as though they are in a cartoon thought bubble that emanates from the reposing Shakespeare's head. The combined memorials produce a mise-en-scène: an image of Shakespeare imagining his greatest creations while lounging in the midst of Renaissance-era Bankside.

This sight is still available today to anyone who enters the Cathedral, and perhaps appears to some as simply a quaint or curious adjunct to the Globe Theatre, the prominent and increasingly famous "ode" to Shakespeare nearby. But the terms of its existence mark a milestone in the history of Shakespeare commemoration, one that was the culmination of a long and complex process that began in the closing years of the nineteenth century when Shakespeare was being recalled to the south bank of the Thames. In one corner of Southwark in 1954, in an alabaster and stained glass vision, a fantasy of Shakespeare in communion with the genius loci, or maybe Shakespeare as the genius loci, had returned to South London. It would take another forty some years, and a considerable degree of controversy over the complex marriage of Shakespeare and Southwark embodied in the new Globe, for that spirit to take the large-scale local habitation that, only now, seems inevitable.

NOTES 1. A window that is still extant was also erected in the Stationer's Hall in 1889. See Times of London 7 February 1889 ("Memorial Window to Shakespeare" 1889) for the announcement. For a brief analysis of this window and its implications, see Kastan 2001, 10-11. 2. At the time of his death in 1909, Thompson's obituary noted that "the stained-glass windows, illustrating the long string of literary and dramatic worthies connected with S[t]. Saviour, were arranged by him and carried out under his superintendence"; see The Guardian, "Rev. William Thompson Obituary" (1909). 3. Beaumont has the most tenuous association: he is depicted there because of his close association with Fletcher and the tradition that they had shared lodgings in the parish. 4. This summary of the windows is based on Rev. Canon Thompson's descriptions the 1898 edition of his book, the first published after the windows were installed, and in the 1904 edition. Thompson repeats a good deal of material verbatim from edition to edition of his books.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 29 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Citations from his work will indicate the particular editions used, but many of the quotations appear in multiple volumes. I have tried in each instance to cite the earliest edition where quotations appeared. The 1906 and 1910 editions have a revised title, and the 1910 edition is from a different publisher, as noted in the "References" section. 5. On controversies between St. Saviour's and the Southwark stages see, for instance, an extraxt from the parish Vestry records reprinted in Chambers, Elizabethan Stage 1923, 4:325-26 (item cxvi). 6. The scholar is John Keble. 7. On the diocesan reassignment from Winchester to Rochester, see also Monroe 1933, 64 and Yeatman-Biggs (Suffragan Bishop of Southwark) 1898. 8. An eastern portion of the Cathedral was demolished in the early nineteenth century at the time when the new London Bridge was being constructed close by, and later, in 1822, a large, connected chapel (what had been prior to 1539 a parish church called St. Mary Magdalene) was also torn down. Around this time, the parish had also voted to destroy the retro-choir, or the Lady Chapel, a vote that was later repealed. On the various efforts to deface and preserve the church, see "St. Saviour's Southwark" 1890, 408-409. 9. He reports also that there were "fifteen hundred people" in attendance, who were eager to see how the famous actress Ellen Terry had decorated the Shakespeare Window with flowers mentioned by Ophelia and Perdita (Thompson 1910, 356k, 356q). 10. See, for instance, Thompson 1910 for his report, in an appendix, of the "latest authentic item" discovered about Shakespeare's life, the record of his being paid in 1613 to write a shield "impreso," 350-51. 11. This is, it is worth noting, a few years before the plaque that now marks the site was hung in 1909; the brewery that sat there did apparently have a written indication of the Globe site on its outer wall. 12. Nicola Watson notes a similar dynamic at work in an episode in Christian Tearle's 1901 novel Rambles with an American, which features a scene of a Shakespeare walking pilgrimage in Bankside. As Watson notes, the scene also exhibits some of the same ambivalence about Shakespeare in Southwark that, I will show, Thompson and others exhibit. See Watson 2007, 218-20. 13. T. P. Stevens dedicated his first booklets on the history of the Cathedral to the "man on London Bridge," that is to say, the person who crosses London Bridge and regards the city with no knowledge of the Cathedral or its rich history. See the introductory materials in Stevens 1922 and Stevens 1930, as well as the remarks of a Bishop of Southwark in Monroe 1933, iii-iv.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 30 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

14. See also T .P. Stevens's more circumspect iteration of this thought, Stevens 1949, 17-18. 15. I quote from the handwritten description of Thompson and the interview. "Interest" is my best guess at an illegible word; it may also be "interior." The interviewer privately doubts how aware Thompson is of his poorer parishioners' well-being, and records Thompson's remarks about the futility of trying to get the poor to attend mass regularly. But he also does record Thompson's insistence that the parish was always aware of parishioners who were sick or in distress (Booth Collection 1899, 109). 16. The lines appear in an appendix. The quotation about the theater is Thompson's riff on words from James Halliwell-Phillips. 17. Those involved with Shakespeare's Globe have been sensitive to charges put forth by cultural materialists and other critics that the project was somehow reactionary, nostalgia-oriented, too much part of the "heritage industry," and irrelevant to the local community. See Spottiswoode, "Contextualising Globe Education," in Carson and Karim-Cooper, Shakespeare's Globe 2008, for one discussion of the ways the new Globe has sought to benefit the Southwark community through outreach and educational programs, and to function as a non- establishment site of cultural questioning within the increasingly slick Bankside area. See also his pointed claim, quoted elsewhere in the same volume, that the re-made Globe is at work "interrogating the past . . . not eulogizing it" (Carson and Karim-Cooper 2008, 177). 18. Along with Thompson, local physician and ardent Bardolater Dr. R. W. Leftwich was a driving force in the fund raising for, and conception and creation of, the effigy ("Medical News" 1912, 1347; "Drama" 1912, 415). Leftwich, inspired in part by Thompson's books, did much during Thompson's final years to create the yearly Shakespeare service at the church and passionately sought to brand Southwark Cathedral, and the Bankside area, by their Shakespearean associations. See in particular his short piece "A Shakespeare Commemoration for London," Leftwich 1908. 19. Internal discussions about commissioning the new window and about its progress can be found in the recorded minutes of the Cathedral's Vestry meetings. I am extremely grateful to the staff of the Southwark Local History Library, especially Stephen Humphrey, for assistance in consulting these and other primary documents about Southwark Cathedral and nineteenth-century Bankside. I am grateful also to the Whitney Humanities Center at Yale University for providing me with an A. Whitney Griswold Faculty Research Fund grant to pursue my work in Southwark.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 31 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

REFERENCES "The Bishop's Letter." 1941. Southwark Diocesan Gazette 4: 22. Booth Collection, London School of Economics. 1899. Interview Notebook B269. Carson, Christie, and Farah Karim-Cooper, eds. 2008. Shakespeare's Globe: A Theatrical Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. "A Cathedral's Undignified Approach." 1910. Daily Graphic, 4 February. Chambers, E. K. 1923. The Elizabethan Stage. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. Decker, Christopher. 2003. "Shakespeare and the Death of Tennyson." In Victorian Shakespeare, Volume 2. Edited by Gail Marshall and Adrian Poole. New York: Palgrave. 131-49. Drakakis, John. 1988. "Ideology and Institution: Shakespeare and the Roadsweepers." In The Shakespeare Myth. Edited by Graham Holderness. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 24-41. "Drama." 1912. The Nation, 31 October. H. G. 1931. "Southwark Cathedral and Its Music." The Musical Times 72.1056: 113-17. Hales, John W. 1904. "London Residences of Shakespeare." The Athenaeum, 26 March: 401-402. Henderson, Diana. 2006. Collaborations with the Past: Reshaping Shakespeare across Time and Media. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Holderness, Graham. 1988. "Sam Wanamaker Interview." In The Shakespeare Myth. Edited by Graham Holderness. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 16-23. Kastan, David Scott. 2001. Shakespeare and the Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Laporte, Charles. 2007. "The Bard, the Bible, and the Victorian Shakespeare Question." ELH 74.3: 609-28. Lee, Sidney. 1906. Shakespeare and the Modern Stage, with Other Essays. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 32 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Leftwich, R. W. 1908. "A Shakespeare Commemoration for London." Westminster Review 169.6: 695-700. "London's Hidden Cathedral." 1912. Pall Mall Magazine, 49. "The Lord Mayor Unveils the Memorial Window to Shakespeare in St. Helen's Bishopsgate." 1884. Times of London, 25 February. "Medical News." 1912. The British Medical Journal, 9 November. "Memorial Window to Shakespeare." 1954. Times of London, 24 April. "Memorial Window to Shakespeare Placed in the Hall of the Stationers' Company." 1889. Times of London, 7 February. Monoe, Horace. 1933. The Story of Southwark Cathedral. London: Raphael Tuck and Sons. Nicholl, Charles. 2007. The Lodger Shakespeare: His Life on Silver Street. New York: Viking Press. Nora, Pierre. 1989. "Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire." Translated by Marc Roudebush. Representations 26: 7-24. Ordish, Thomas Fairman. 1899. Early London Theatres. London: Elliot Stock. "Rev. William Thompson Obituary." 1909. The Guardian, 1 September. Schoenbaum, Samuel. 1987. William Shakespeare: A Compact Documentary Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. "A Shakespeare Shrine." 1912. Times of London, 5 November. "Shakespearean Memorial Window." 1886. Times of London, 1 April. "Southwark Cathedral — Air Raid Damage." 1941. Times of London, 21 February. Southwark Cathedral Vestry Minutes, Southwark Local Studies Library. Collection A396. Spottiswoode, Patrick. 2008. "Contextualising Globe Education." In 2008. Shakespeare's Globe: A Theatrical Experiment. Edited by Christie Carson and Farah Karim-Cooper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 134-46. "St. Saviour's Southwark." 1890. Quarterly Review 170: 394-414. Stevens, T. P. 1922. The Story of Southwark Cathedral. London: Sampson, Low, Marston & Co.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 33 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Stevens, T. P. 1930. Southwark Cathedral, 606-1930. London: Sampson and Low. Stevens, T. P. 1949. Southwark Cathedral, 606-1949. Surrey: Surrey Fine Arts Press. Symon, Sir Josiah Henry. 1929. Shakespeare the Englishman. New York: Haskell House. Thompson, Rev. Canon William. 1892. The History and Antiquities of the Collegiate Church of S. Saviour (S. Marie Overie), Southwark. London: Ash. Thompson, Rev. Canon William. 1894. The History and Antiquities of the Collegiate Church of S. Saviour (S. Marie Overie), Southwark. London: Ash. Thompson, Rev. Canon William. 1898. The History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of St. Saviour (St. Marie Overie), Southwark. London: Ash & Co., Ltd. Thompson, Rev. Canon William. 1904. The History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of St. Saviour (St. Marie Overie), Southwark. London: Ash & Company. Thompson, Rev. Canon William. 1906. Southwark Cathedral: A Guide to the The History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of St. Saviour (St. Marie Overie). London: Ash & Co. Thompson, Rev. Canon William. 1910. Southwark Cathedral: The History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of St. Saviour (St. Marie Overie). London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co., Ltd. Watson, Nicola J. 2007. "Shakespeare On The Tourist Trail." In The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare and Popular Culture. Edited by Robert Shaughnessy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 199-226. Williams, S. C. 1999. Religious Belief and Popular Culture in Southwark, c. 1880-1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiles, David. 2003. A Short History of Western Performance Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yeatman-Biggs, Huyshe Wolcott (Suffragan Bishop of Southwark). 1898. "The Reconstruction of the Diocese of Rochester." Nineteenth Century: A Monthly Review 43.253: 457-65.

PERMISSIONS http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 34 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

Figure 1. Samuel Colman (British, 1780-1845). The Edge of Doom, 1836- 1838. Oil on canvas, 54 x 78 1/2 in. (137.2 x 199.4 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Bequest of Laura L. Barnes, by exchange, 69.130. Figure 2. Southwark Cathedral, east end; photograph by the author. Figure 3. Rev. William Thompson, from Thompson's The History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of St. Saviour, Southwark, 1904 edition. Figure 4. Philip Massigner Memorial Window, from The History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of St. Saviour, Southwark, 1904 edition. Figure 5. Photograph of the 1897 Shakespeare Memorial Window. Reproduced by kind permission of The Dean and Chapter of Southwark. Figure 6. Drawing and text taken from The History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of St. Saviour, Southwark, 1904 edition. Figure 7. The Shakespeare effigy in Southwark Cathedral; photograph taken by the author. Figure 8. The present Shakespeare Window, unveiled 1954; photograph taken by the author. Figure 9. Image of Shakespeare effigy and window, from Southwark Cathedral: The Authorized Guide. Reproduced by kind permission of The Dean and Chapter of Southwark.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 35 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(17 PM

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783058/show Page 36 of 36 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

Hamlet's Soliloquy: An Eighteenth-Century Genre

(/current) REGULA HOHL TRILLINI, UNIVERSITÄT BASEL

(/about) ABSTRACT

(/archive) Scholars of Shakespearean appropriation tend to take the bard as their point of departure, assuming that rewritings reference the Shakespearean original; intertextual citations, however, often are varied in their range of allusion. This study of eighteenth-century Hamlet parodies uses the HyperHamlet database to examine a large corpus of parodies of the "To be or not to be" soliloquy. If we allow rewritings of Hamlet's soliloquy to transcend their status as samples of parasitic hackwork by reading them as a corpus, there emerges a pattern of recurrent features that makes them look like a genre. Shakespeare parodies make it possible to posit a process by which adaptations of a famous text become recognizable as tokens of a readily available pattern, with no particular reference to the Shakespearean original.

I offer you a Shakespeare sonnet, but it is no longer his — Tom Stoppard

Short parodies of famous poems or verse passages are popular anthology items, but the collectors themselves often defend or even depreciate their specimens.1 We may no longer feel Walter Hamilton's need to insist that "not the slightest disrespect is intended . . . to the immortal bard" (Hamilton 1885, 2:144) by such a collection; but even after Cultural Studies have provided a framework for serious research into the phenomenon of literary parody, scholars tend to focus on single pieces or representative selections (cf. Greenfield 2008, Müller 1997, Müller 1994, and Bate 1985). And even in selection, middlebrow Shakespearean http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 1 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

rewritings make their investigators uneasy. Jonathan Bate took considerable trouble to find "Parodies of Shakespeare" in eighteenth-century magazine archives, but concluded that they ultimately represent "a mean and limited thing when set beside the magnanimity and breadth of the plays themselves" (Bate 1985, 89). Similarly, Sayre Greenfield rounds out a summary of eighteenth- century examples by observing that Shakespeare's meaning "lingers in the reader's mind only as a point of contrast to indicate how far the subject matter has descended" (Greenfield 2008, 241, emphasis added). Shakespeare parodies are worth collecting because of the originals' fame, but as a point of reference these originals simultaneously devalue their rewritings. Like cinematic and theatrical adaptations of Shakespeare's plays, verse parodies are valued as tokens of the popularity and significance of his texts, but they are also expected to provide some kind of signification comparable to the originals, and on that count they inevitably disappoint.

Rather than setting up rewritings of Hamlet's soliloquy for failure by scanning them for Shakespeare's poetic presence and potency, I propose to take them seriously, in large numbers and on their own terms. These terms, I would like to claim, are often self-referential rather than Shakespearean. A contemporary paradigm is provided by Francis Alÿs's 2009 Fabiola installation, composed of 307 copies of a late-nineteenth-century St. Fabiola. Paintings, collages, drawings and pieces of embroidery found in attics, fleamarkets, and junk shops were catalogued and hung in the professional manner usually reserved for "masterpieces" and "originals." The result are several walls of similar female profiles with a red veil.

Francis Alys, Fabiola http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 2 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

Refraining from aesthetic value judgments on individual images, the installation raises significant questions about originality, reference, and genre, questions that also determine the following discussion of eighteenth-century texts.

The "installation" relevant to this article is a group of rewritings of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy: seventy-three poems (121 tokens, including reprints) dating from 1744 to 18412 which individually offer a range of unremarkable competence and occasional curio interest similar to the amateur Fabiolas.3 And like the Fabiolas, they are mostly obscure or elusive, like a Hamlet quotation in the middle of a fat novel. Widening the collection beyond familiar anthology set pieces required the modern equivalent of a flea market hunt: searches in electronic full-text databases like Eighteenth-Century Collections Online, Literature Online, Romantic Era Redefined, and British Periodicals.

The great advantage of such databases is that they make it possible to capture texts that have never been reprinted, footnoted, or indexed and thus allow us to complement print resources such as anthologies and annotated editions with materials that have not come under the scrutiny of scholarly editors.4 Moreover, tailor-made research media allow researchers to investigate these materials with the methods that corpus linguistics has made familiar.

The HyperHamlet Database The HyperHamlet database, which inspired this article and houses all the relevant texts (accessible, with thousands of other Hamlet references, at http://www.hyperhamlet.unibas.ch (http://www.hyperhamlet.unibas.ch)), is such a tool; data sets such as the poems discussed in the following can be searched and sorted for date, publication details, the way they mark (or do not mark) their

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 3 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

derivation, and many other parameters. Such a parameter-oriented approach is essential for dealing appropriately with large numbers of unfamiliar texts: instead of imposing on individual texts preconceived (and contested) labels such as "adaptation" or "parody," it enables researchers to look at emerging patterns with an open mind (cf. Hohl Trillini and Quassdorf 2010).

If we allow rewritings of "To be or not to be" to transcend their status as samples of parasitic hackwork by reading them as a corpus, there emerges a pattern of recurrent features that makes them look like a genre. They make more sense as realizations of an "architextual" pattern than as individual mediocre "hypertexts" (to use the term in Gérard Genette's sense) of a famous passage. Producing and enjoying them is then similar to enjoying any token of a genre with clearly determined formal rules, such as a sonnet, a villanelle, a version of Proust's questionnaire, or a Golden Age detective novel. With such genre (non-)fiction, readerly anticipations and expectations do not center upon how meaningfully a specimen relates to a master text such as Hamlet or The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Hamlet may confer prestige, but its content and context become secondary to a template that also contains other features. This is typical of genres, which have "no moments of authority and points of origin except those which are retrospectively designated as origins and which, therefore, can be shown to derive from the series for which they are constituted as origin" (Culler 1976, 1394). In the following essay, I will show how Hamlet, the ostensible "point of origin" for dozens of parodies, is effaced, overlaid, and even ignored in favor of correlations and cross-references among generic tokens.

THE FORMAL PATTERN The first thing to consider in a corpus of texts based on the same model are those features that they have in common and that can be surmised to have stimulated reproduction. This is the "unique repertoire, from which [. . .] representatives [of a genre] select characteristics [. . .] either formal or substantive" (Fowler 1987, 55). In the case of "To be or not to be," one would expect the existential topic to be the basic "substantive" characteristic, but this is only rarely the case. The "highly metaphorical and abstract" passage "must have sounded ambiguous" even "to generations immediately succeeding Shakespeare's own" (Bugliani 1995, 11), and whether Hamlet is pondering the advisability of suicide, the life eternal, plans for murder, or other questions is still debated. The play's "habit of generalization" (Levin 1959, 11) rises to an almost mathematical level in this speech, and what does get across is indeed an abstract thing: the literally esse-ntial urgency of a two-faced dilemma. Hamlet's subject matter, whatever it may exactly be, is usually lost from sight. What rewritings preserve and play with is a blueprint for debating any either-or question, together with a number of surface features: a sequence of roughly thirty-three blank verses that starts off with the phrase "To be

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 4 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

or not to be," or a variant thereof, and contains a number of other recognizable catchphrases and syntactical patterns.

The discursive blueprint, the structure of the argument, runs as follows. First, the contrasting potentials of "A" and "Not-A" are presented and paraphrased briefly. Death is the immediately preferable second option, "a consummation / Devoutly to be wish'd." In line 5, the catchy infinitives of the opening are used to re-phrase the "Non-A" option ("to die, to sleep"). In line 9, they return ("To die, to sleep, / To sleep, perchance to dream") and bring the text to a halt with the thought that the tempting "Not-A" (death) is disturbingly unpredictable: "there's the rub." The next eleven lines (12-22) discuss the pressures of "A" (life) that might nevertheless make "Not-A" desirable,5 but fear of the unknown prevails (lines 23- 27), and the conclusion laments the paralysis resulting from this stand-off.

A or Not-A To be or not to be? That is the question. A means to suffer the slings and arrows . . . Not-A means to take arms against a sea of troubles . . . Not-A is tempting. A consummation / Devoutly to be wish'd . . . But Not-A is unknown. To sleep: perchance to dream ay, there's the rub . . . A is terrible. For who would bear the whips and scorns of time . . . But Not-A is unknown. But that the dread of something after death . . . makes us rather bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that we know not of . . . So it is impossible to decide. . . . and lose the name of action.

Such is the stuff that parodies are made of; these "metaphysical opposition structures" encourage humorous rewriting (Müller 1994, 100) because their content is vulnerable to comic bathos and because they offer an adaptable, re- applicable model.

The most popular topic for re-application of the Hamlet structure is marriage; if reprints are included, the poems of the "To wed or not to wed" kind constitute almost a third of the corpus. The fifty-three others take up a wide variety of topics, ranging from leisure pursuits — such as "to swig" (1826),6 "to feast" (1795), "to ride" (1792 and 1800), "to hunt" (1759 and 1798), and "to walk"

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 5 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

(1760) — to political issues such as the poll tax, electioneering, farming laws, and Presbyterian ministers ("To conform or not to conform"). Certain topics were especially popular. The 1747 "to drink" text was reprinted immediately and again in 1768, while new versions appeared in 1800 and 1841. John Wolcot, writing as usual as "Peter Pindar" in 1786, worried about censure that impinges on the question "To eat or not to eat" and influences the decision whether "To print or not to print," which was addressed in different poems in 1758, 1793, and 1799.7 None of these relate to Hamlet's dilemma, but rework a formal pattern, like tokens of other lyrical genres.

"To write" is the second most popular single verb after "to wed" (see below), appearing in texts from 1747, 1763, 1786, and 1810, which were all reprinted at least once. The earliest text is "A Parody on the Speech of To be, or not to be, in Hamlet,"8 which was published in March 1747 and opens as follows: To write or not to write! That is the Question! Whether 'tis nobler with the Pen to scribble The Flights and Fancies of outrageous Nonsense; Or to lay down the Quill, or forbear to tire The Patience of the world? To write! to scrawl! And by that Scrawl to say we utter all The Horrid Stuff and the thousand foolish Whimsies Labouring in the Brain — tis a Deliverance "Devoutly to be wish'd." (Anon. 1747, lines 1-9) This is remarkable not only as an early description of therapeutic writing, but also for the inverted commas that signal an "uber-quote" within a text that is itself one long quotation. Further phrases so favored are "Ay, there's the Rub," what "may come," "must give us Pause," "There's the respect," and "For who could bear." These are not the only phrases conserved verbatim, but were those obviously considered most likely to invite recognition of the famous passage that is being adapted.

However, these signals also help to mask the fact that the discursive blueprint is not followed exactly. The conclusion runs: [T]he itch of writing for the Stage . . . "puzzles the Will" And makes us rather risque all Ridicule, Than shun the Muses, and forbear to rhime. Ambition thus makes Asses of us all; . . . And Petit-mâitres, of great Skill in Dressing, Ev'n from the fav'rite Mirror "turn away," To gain the name of Author. (Anon. 1747, lines 25-32) The two phrases that are marked here originally introduce Hamlet's indecision: http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 6 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

"the dread of something after death . . . / Puzzles the will" so that many plans "turn away (or awry) / And lose the name of action." But here, these phrases do not signal a self-criticism that might induce writer's block; the scribblers' determination does not turn "awry," but "away" from paralyzing introspection, and the Will writes.

So while the overall shape of the famous passage is preserved and ostensibly honored by adaptation, it is also casually deconstructed, as its even more famous constituents are used against the meaning of the original context. Before the Stratford bicentenary enthroned the bard and long before casual quotations began to litter Romantic and Regency literature, we can observe first-hand the process that turned Hamlet into a "repository for favorite quotations" (Levin 1959, 11) and made it into "literature's greatest bazaar; everything available, all warranted and trademarked" (Kermode 2000, 125). Wholesale "adaptation" — whether cocky imitation, reverent rewriting, or affectionate parody — disintegrates into local "quotation" in a single early text.

If already in this early text, isolated Hamlet quotations have become self-ironic samples of the "foolish whimsies" whirling in the author's brain, the next text to start with "To write or not to write" ambitiously weighs "[t]he impatient longings of a tow'ring soul" and a "heart aspiring to immortal fame" against the battle with "the critic's rage" (Ashley 1763, lines 2-5). Aptly named, this proto-Romantic "The Poet's Soliloquy" makes no mention of Hamlet or Shakespeare. What may look like a declaration of artistic independence, however, turns out to be a generic feature. The pattern of substituting a speaker persona for Hamlet in the title had been introduced twenty years earlier in the oldest of all these poems, the 1744 "Batchelor's Soliloquy." This inspired a number of other "bachelor" titles until it was itself established enough to invite variation and establish itself as a generic blueprint, as we can see from titles such as the following: "The Soldier's Soliloquy. A Parody" (1779) "The Presbyterian Parson's Soliloquy; Or a Parody of Hamlet's celebrated Soliloquy" (1791) "Bonaparte's Soliloquy at Calais. A Parody" (1803) "Gleanings: Clean Linen, or The Housewife's Soliloquy. A Parody" (1803) "The Journeyman Tailor's Soliloquy" (1823) "The Spouter's Soliloquy" (1825) "Old Tunbelly's Soliloquy" (1831) There were also variations such as "The Young Farmer: A Parody" (1802) or "Bonaparte Solus" (1805), and from the 1830s onward, persona titles become endemic.

Multiple referencing to other rewritings occurs also when the titles conserve

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 7 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

Hamlet's name and even his topic. The 1810 "To write or not to write" appeared in the Hibernia Magazine as "A Parody on Hamlet's Soliloquy on Death." This is as full a Shakespearean reference as could be wished — but it is also the exact title of a poem that had been published in 1797 in Walker's Hibernian Magazine and pondered whether "to shave or not to shave," signed "Barbatus." Time and again, these poems copy not only Hamlet, but also each other, signaling awareness of a literary mode or genre predicated just as much on contemporary forms and issues as it is on Shakespeare. This is especially obvious in the numerous rewritings that have marriage as their topic.

A SUB-GENRE Before the 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act, which made divorce available without a hugely expensive Act of Parliament, "To wed or not to wed" nearly rivalled "To be or not to be" for seriousness. The Hamlet parodies that take up this question reflect the marriage debate that was stoked by 1790s radicals and feminists and the doubts that continued, even though the Regency postwar period was expected to "make the world safe for conjugality" (Walker 2009, 71), through the late Victorian "marriage question" well into our time. In keeping with this situation, the 1744 "Batchelor's Soliloquy in Imitation of a celebrated speech of Hamlet" is not only the earliest, but also the most successful individual specimen.9 It was reprinted thirteen times in various magazines, and its opening line copied in many more versions. The HyperHamlet database offers more than twenty examples dating from 1744 to 1984, including variants such as "To marry or not to marry" or "To pop or not to pop" the question (1888).

All of these texts seem aware of each other and of their shared topic, but work at one or several removes from the source of their shared structure. This is evident already in the titles, where generic terms precede the mention of the Shakespearean model, and the term "imitation" (rather than "parody") frequently announces a competitive rather than derivative spirit. The adjective "celebrated" indicates a crowd of other admirers (and future rewriters), which reinforces the rewriting's validity as much as does the final source information "of Hamlet." As Peter Campbell says of the Fabiola installation: "The variations put you in the presence of a crowd — that of the makers" (Campbell 2009, 10). Shakespeare, implicit and indispensable, is admired by a writer who knows of many literate fellow admirers and writes with reference to them as much as to the Bard.

The first "Batchelor's Soliloquy" follows closely Shakespeare's structural template. It sets out the initial "A"-"Not-A" alternative as follows: To wed or not to wed, that is the question. Whether 'tis happier in the mind to stifle The heats and tumults of outrageous passion, http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 8 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

Or with some prudent fair in solemn contract Of matrimony join. (Anon. 1744, lines 1-5) As in Hamlet, the unknown horrors of Not-A (marriage) remain vague, ills "we fancy greater" that might cause "dull remorse," while the present woes of the familiar bachelor life are detailed as "the scorn and jeers which batchelors / When aged feel, the pains and flattering fevers / Which each new face must give to roving fancy" (lines 15-17). Finally, "dreadful thoughts / Of curtain lectures, jealousies, and cares" prevail so that "the lover checks his passion, / And, miserable, dies a BATCHELOR" (lines 27-30). The impossibility of taking decisive action in favor of a fascinating, but uncertain state results in a regrettable life; death — another Hamlet echo — is the only release from either marriage or single unhappiness.

This struck a chord: reprints followed in 1748, 1754, 1756, and 1757, and in 1758 the "Imitation" was, in its turn, first imitated. This second "Bachelor's Soliloquy," published in the Scots Magazine, does not acknowledge its predecessor, but uses the same title and opening line as well as a number of Shakespearean catchphrases. The mood is very different, however: here, it is not the single life that stifles passion, but marriage. The alternatives are . . . to rove at large From fair to fair, amid the wilds of passion; Or plunge at once into a sea of marriage, And quench our fires? (P—o 1758, lines 2-5). Consequently, the main fear is not "dull remorse" but "A wife, — perchance a devil" (line 10).10 Hamlet's familiar "ills we have" are replaced by a decidedly pleasant lifestyle, and the refusal to venture into the unknown will not inconvenience the roguish, merry bachelor-speaker as much as it will the maid who will never get him: "And hence the face of many a willing maid / Is sickly'd o'er with the pale cast of languishment" (lines 31-32). Stopping short of marriage is not a paralyzed stand-off but a very active process: "And many a youth of no small pith and moment, / With this regard, spends all his days in whoring, / And damns the name of husband" (lines 33-35). As in the 1763 "To write or not to write," Hamlet's topic is abandoned, together with the structure of his argument and its mood: forestalling marriage here is not a despairing paralysis, but an enjoyable (if reprehensible) and stable state.11

The third bachelor soliloquy, in 1768, comes with yet another conclusion. George Philip Tousey's "The Batchelor's Deliberation: A Parody of the Soliloquy of Hamlet, (To be or Not to be) versified" concludes neutrally that the "Ills which all center in the name of Wife" can be avoided if "a single life we chuse, / By Prudence urg'd to shun the Marriage noose" (Tousey 1768, lines 28-30). Again,

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 9 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

Hamlet is marginal: indecision is not a problem; the title furnishes the names and the "or not to" catchphrase, but gives the prime spot to the "Batchelor's soliloquy" tag. This reflects the fact that by 1768 at least six reprints of the first and second bachelor soliloquies had been published, as well as nine new parodies, including the first variation on the speaker persona, a "Poet's Soliloquy" (see above). Moreover, the opening line and the first rhyme are borrowed from a "Soliloquy in Imitation of Hamlet" published in 1749. This is not a version of "To be or not to be," but addresses Hamlet by name and exhorts him in heroic couplets to forgo his "rash resolves" and curb his desire for revenge through "salutary fear" in the name of "God, Nature, Reason" (Anon. 1749, lines 110-11).

By the 1780s, the bachelor variant was well established. The 1744 poem was republished six times during this decade, the 1758 version once in 1784, and the motif was finally stable enough to be recognized even in variations, ready to be used as a generic pattern where, by definition, every single realization varies.12 So in 1783, the "willing maid" got her turn in "The Maid's Soliloquy." The Hamlet tag takes second place in the subtitle "in Imitation of a Speech in Hamlet," and the outcome, unlike in Hamlet, is a clear decision. Although men are "by nature fickle" (Anon. 1783, line 12), the "pitied" and laughable "state of stale virginity" (line 7) is worse than the "dread of something yet untried" (line 28), and so the girl decides to "venture marriage let what will befall" (line 32), gender and genre overriding the literary template.

The next item, which appeared in 1792 in the Gentleman's Magazine as "A Parody on Hamlet," was decidedly against marriage, the main concerns being a possibly unfaithful wife and the ensuing "jeers and taunts of men" (Philomeides 1792, line 15). This text not only scraps the genre's inconclusive ending, but also inverts its argumentative structure. By analogy with Hamlet, it should run "marriage is tempting but unknown; bachelorhood is terrible, but marriage is unknown"; instead, the section "who would bear . . ." elaborates on the humiliations of a cuckolded husband, rather than the miseries of the single life. Nobody wants to put up with "[t]he insolence of an unfaithful wife, / And other ills the patient cuckold takes," especially considering that the sexual perks of marriage can be attained simply by paying for them. The poem ends after a mere twenty lines with an analogue to Hamlet's "When he himself might his quietus make / With a bare bodkin" and omits the final third of Hamlet's soliloquy, where doubts are cast on this shortcut: why should anybody marry "When he himself possession may procure / For half a crown!" (lines 20-21).

This sample of Regency rakishness was never reprinted, and the bachelor soliloquies that were published after 1805 abandon marriage with decorous regret. The 1808 "Bachelor's Soliloquy: A Parody on Hamlet" fears scoldings, obnoxious children, and above all, "vast expenditure," so that it is ultimately "economy [that]

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 10 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

makes bach'lors of us" (Hawkins 1808, lines 24 and 28). The decision to remain single is a "serious thought" and a "melancholy resolution" (lines 29-30), but irrevocable: what is lost is not the capacity for "action," but "the name of husband" (line 33). In 1809, the soliloquy is spoken by an "Old Bachelor" who suffers from "The pangs of stifled love, the world's contempt," and so on (W. B. 1809, line 17), but concludes that he will remain a bachelor with Hamlet's own lines: "And makes us rather bear those ills we know / Than fly to others that we know not of" (lines 24-25). Because the final lines of Hamlet's soliloquy are cut, a decision can be implied, even though the wording comes very close to Hamlet's expression of indecision.

In the 1810s and 1820s, the bachelors' concerns become increasingly domestic. Not rakes but "pleasant and free hearted youth[s]" are kept from marrying by a dread of being "henpeck'd" (Twiss 1814, line 10), marrying a "scold" for a wife (Anon. 1824, line 9), and other "horrors," such as "[t]he cook's conceit, a curtain lecture, / The apothecary's visits, or the wrongs / A patient husband from his wife must take." (Kean 1824, lines 17-19). It is "the dread of sundry fits of gout / And other ills that need a womans care" that finally assures that "man's natural bacheloric hue / Is sickly'd o'er and kill'd" (lines 23-24, 29-30). The eighteenth- century rake has dwindled into a Victorian husband.

Whether the outcome is singleness, whoring, or wedlock, the "To wed or not to wed" texts are so strongly dominated by their topical trajectory that attitudes to marriage override the Shakespearean structure. Their conclusions do not take their cue from Hamlet's indecision; instead, they provide definite answers to the "or not to" question on and reduce intertextual reference to surface features of Hamlet's soliloquy, such as the opening, the meter, and the catchphrases that were becoming familiar quotations in isolation. A letter to the editor of the Loyal Reformer's Gazette, complaining about the "exorbitant fee of Two Guineas" for having marriage banns called, refers to "that 'sea of troubles' — Matrimony" ("A Declared Bachelor" 1831, 301), and in a poem from 1809 called "To Marry or Not to Marry," the female speaker happily uses the implied freedom of choice to envision yet another outcome to the everlasting question: Ye ladies then who think that wives Can greater pleasures carry, Than they, who single pass their lives, Oh! pray make haste and marry! But if that's true, which I've just said, I think this truth will follow That, could you sink the phrase "Old Maid," By Jove! you'd beat "Wives" hollow. (Anon. 1809, lines 79-86) Phrases — whether "to be or not to be," "old maid" or "bachelor's soliloquy" — http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 11 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

are indeed unsinkable.

Phrases also lead independent lives. The very first reprint of the 1744 "Batchelor's Soliloquy" occurs in the second edition (1748) of a peculiar pamphlet called The Bachelor's Recantation. First published in 1731, the Recantation maintains that the "Contempt of Matrimony in either Sex is big with the greatest Evils" (Single 1748, iii) and adds five items of supporting evidence in an appendix, including "A Young Lady's Recantation of Her Resolution to turn Nun" and "The Doctor confuted: Or, NO Cure for Love." The 1748 edition adds a different "Maid's Soliloquy" (of which more later) and the 1744 "Batchelor's Soliloquy," the latter not even indirectly advertised as Shakespearean. This may, of course, signify a familiarity with Hamlet that can dispense with any kind of pointer, but it also indicates the priority of the topic. This priority is also chronological: the 1731 edition of The Bachelor's Recantation predates the very first rewriting of "To be or not to be" by thirteen years and demonstrates a concern for the most eye- catching title in the table of contents: readers flicking through a magazine number or a miscellany of jokes, "amusements," and set pieces were expected to turn pages for the Bachelor rather than the Bard. In fact, the 1744 and 1758 bachelor poems saw twenty reprints in the period under discussion, whereas only half of the fifty non-bachelor ones were reprinted even once. The occurrence of "Hamlet" or "Shakespeare" in the title bears no correlation to frequency of reprinting; the bachelor soliloquies take their formal cue from Hamlet, but owe what success they had to their topic as much as to an association with the Bard.

This prevalence of genre over Shakespearean reference is also evident in an anonymous poem on "Female Celibacy," which was advertised in 1813 as being by "the Author of the 'Bachelor's Soliloquy.'" Interestingly enough, "the" soliloquy is not one of the seven versions of "To wed or not to wed" that had appeared by 1813, but a completely unrelated text that has nothing at all to do with Hamlet or with decision-making. The eight stanzas of "The Soliloquy of a Bachelor, on the Anniversary of his Birthday" lament an anniversary that is "With no kind gratulations blest" (Jackson 1812, line 7). Although he felt the "hallow'd flame" (line 41) in his youth, his singleton's misery is now so intense that old age and poverty are powerless to move him and death is simply welcome: "Have I no tie to keep me here? / Not one. — Why then, without a tear, / I yield the worm its prey" (lines 78-80, emphasis in original). In this way, death, Hamlet's great subject, returns by the back door, as it were: not as the topic of an extended reflection, but as an afterthought. So the obscure J. Jackson's claim to fame is a title borrowed from a group of poems on marriage with a bachelor persona, some of which happen to incorporate the surface structure of Hamlet's soliloquy.

The bachelor soliloquies, whether Hamletian or not, were not the only literary battlefield on which the marriage debate was fought. Their heyday coincides with

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 12 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

the flowering of the courtship novel, from Samuel Richardson in the 1740s through Burney, Edgeworth, Austen, and the Silver Spoon novelists of the 1830s. The resolutely bachelor poems provide a masculine counterpart to the literary heroines in search of the right husband. In 1809, the evangelical educationalist Hannah More published a gender-flipped courtship novel, Coelebs in Search of a Wife, which elaborates on the perspective of a bachelor who ends up happily married. By analogy to the plotline of rakes and laughing-stocks who are disqualified from marrying the questing heroines in Austen's and Burney's novels, pious Coelebs rejects a number of potential brides before finding Miss Right, but also provides a counter-plot to the bachelor poem. The refreshing combination of two popular motifs made the book into an immediate bestseller.

This success brought yet another literary template into the referential network of soliloquy parodies. Long before the twelve impressions of Coelebs's first year were out, an anonymous poet capitalized on its popularity in March 1809 with a "Coelebs' Soliloquy." Its narrator decides against marriage, remaining literally coelebs: But that the dread of these oppressive ills, (And oft some others of still darker shade Which modesty conceals) disturbs the soul; And makes one rather choose some monkish haunt, Than fly to noise, confusion, and a wife? Thus marriage does deter my tow'ring soul [. . .] And all in air dissolve! (Menander 1809, lines 23-33; emphasis in original) Even if this Coelebs sounds repressed rather than rakish, his conclusion represents the triumph of the bachelor motif over the courtship novel; the use of More's pious tone to deploy reasons for remaining single makes the subversion of her ideal of Christian marriage all the more effective.

Coelebs's indecision may echo the inconclusiveness of Hamlet's original speech, but the overtly Shakespearean signals are, once again, generic. John Frow has noted that "cycles and series tend in turn to become genres" (Frow 2006, 139), and "Coelebs' Soliloquy" appeared in the Gentleman's Magazine as the second in a mini-series of "Imitations of Shakespeare." This not only points back to the first of these imitations (of "Now is the winter of our discontent . . .," published two months earlier), but also evokes the far more sustained series "Parodies of Shakespeare," which was published in the Gentleman's Magazine between June 1793 and December 1802.13 Its hybridity incorporates the tradition of "bachelor statements" with the "Hamlet soliloquies" that had emerged from "Imitations of Shakespeare." Unlike botanical hybrids, however, bachelor soliloquies were extremely fertile, spawning ever more variants and combinations. Beyond topical http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 13 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

and generic cross-references, this profusion was further enriched by what now remains to be discussed: the additional literary models that were incorporated into some parodies and increased the competition for Shakespeare's rhetorical and thematic framework.

WHOSE SOLILOQUY? I have already mentioned an example of literary cross-reference: the title of "Coelebs' Soliloquy" refers to a book as much as to a fashionable topic, and it is not the only one. The 1763 "Poet's Soliloquy," which has been mentioned above, is modeled closely on Hamlet, as the first lines show: To write! — or not to write! — that is the question Whether 'tis better in the mind to suffer The impatient longings of a tow'ring soul A heart aspiring to immortal fame; Or to take pen against the critic's rage, And by opposing end them? — To write! — to please. No more — and by that please to say we end The heart-ach, and the thousand natural fears . . . (Ashley 1763, lines 1- 8) With the exception of the third and fourth lines, which stand in for "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune," the changes are minimal; Hamlet's syntax and mood are carefully conserved. However, this extremely close rewriting has a completely un-Hamletian subtitle: "The Poet's Soliloquy, a Parody of Cato's celebrated Soliloquy."

Things turn out to be even more complicated. The suicidal musings of the hero in Addison's Cato are, of course, themselves inspired by Hamlet's speech; but Addison not only uses the theme of suicide, but also includes a number of phrases from Shakespeare. "The wide, th'unbounded prospect" for the immortality of the soul recalls Hamlet's "undiscovered country"; "[t]his must end them" echoes "and by opposing end them"; and Cato's final decision to kill himself is couched in terms that remind us of Hamlet's doubts, as Cato becomes "[i]ndifferent in his choice to sleep or die." None of this is evident in the "Poet's Soliloquy" — but fifty years after the first performance of Cato, Addison's tragedy was still popular enough to have its title replace Hamlet in the title of a rewriting of "To be or not to be." In fact, searches for "celebrated speech" in the ECCO (Eighteenth-Century Collections Online) database turn up far more hits connected with Cato than with Shakespeare.

Cato's soliloquy contains not only references to Hamlet (which must of course go unacknowledged in a play set in the Roman world), but also, explicitly, to Plato.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 14 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

The stage direction runs: "Cato, solus, sitting in a thoughtful posture: in his hand Plato's book on the Immortality of the soul. A drawn sword on the table by him," and explicitly debates Plato's promises as set out in Phaedo (cf. Kelsall 1966, 159). The book harks back to a bit of stage business hinted at in the First Quarto of Hamlet, where Claudius, hiding to spy on Hamlet, announces the prince's entrance by saying: "See where he comes poring upon a book." The content of Hamlet's book has been the subject of much speculation; Cato indicates one of the historically possible sources. The "Maid's Soliloquy" in the appendix to the Bachelor's Recantation picks up both references. Its full title is "The Maid's Soliloquy: Act V, scene I of Cato Imitated," and the girl is introduced by a kind of stage direction as entering "alone, with Milton in her Hand, open at this celebrated Passage." (Single 1748, 22): "Hail, wedded Love, mysterious law, true source / Of human offspring, sole propriety / In Paradise of all things common else!" (Paradise Lost 4:750-52). Unlike many Hamlet rewritings, the following text respects the gist of the intertextual "source": the maid finally decides to "wed — my liberty is gone forever, / But Happiness from Time itself secur'd" (Single 1748, 23).

It is strange enough that Hamlet's open-ended soliloquy on death should have become a popular template for decisions for or against matrimony, but to elaborate on this issue through a reworking of a passage that ends with the suicide of the speaker stresses even more strongly just how multidirectional these intertextual games are.14 Cato's soliloquy, in its turn, invades versions of Hamlet's in the shape of the stage direction "solus," which brings a generic element of drama back into poems adapted from a stage soliloquy. It occurs with political personae such as Bonaparte (1805, "To invade or not to invade") or Lord North (1770, "Potter's last dispatches lying upon the table before him. To war, or not to war?").

In 1751, "Socrates on Death: Translated from Plato's Apology in Shakespeare's Manner" viewed "The Question" in Socrates' philosophical manner, as a logical issue rather than as an elusive decision: To be or not to be; that is the Question! Death either robs this Clod of feeling Earth of Sense; or there is something after Death, Some undiscover'd Country, to whose Coast Th'unburthen'd Soul, without Obstruction fails. But if no Wreck of Sense survive the Grave; If Death be Sleep; a Sleep where Dreams ne'er fright No Thoughts disturb us, 'tis a Consummation Devoutly to be wish'd, to die! to sleep! (Anon. 1752, lines 1-8) The poem ends with a happy anticipation of "rich Discourse" to be conducted http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 15 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

with innumerable illustrious dead, which "shall feed my famish'd Soul With many a sweet Repast" (648). An introductory note aims to "vindicate the Attempt of translating [Socrates' speech] in Shakespeare's Stile" by the "Similitude which this Passage bears to the celebrated Speech in Hamlet" (648). Its high reputation is evidenced by a number of references in the "Antients," from Cicero's Tusculanae to Addison. The "translation" was published twice in December 1751 and once again three months later in the Ladies Magazine.15

The last example of such multiple references to be discussed here was published in the Dublin University Magazine in 1841 as part of a sequence of "Summer Garlands," anthology snippets that probably made up for the summer dearth of original writing. In the company of a Carlyle quotation (B. B. F. 1841, 75), a French song with translation (77), a "Complaint after the manner of Shelley" (78- 79), and a poem with the Lear tag "Poor Tom!" as its title and a Latin motto, neither of them referenced (78), the piece needed no title to signal its derivation. It is merely the opening phrase "To wed or not to wed" that appears in inverted commas. This refers, of course, to the hundred-year-old bachelor tradition, but turns Hamlet's subsequent paraphrase of his dilemma into a quoting tag. Shakespeare is made to quote his own "question": "To wed or not to wed" — to bear the thousand griefs the single know. And with life's ills unaided battle wage, Or end them by a little ring — and so Escape the heart-ache . . . (B. B. F. 1841, lines 1-6) Further down, intertextual references call on philosophers and feminist campaigners; "Malthus and Martineau!" are accused of casting a "potent spell" (line 57) that is blamed for "[s]icklying the hopes of husband-hunting belle" (line 59) "with the pale cast of thought" (line 58). Their voices indeed cast a spell on the poem: it is Thomas Malthus and Harriet Martineau, with their insistence on "the consequence, the certain curse / of children tugging at an empty purse" (lines 63-64), who remind the speaker that marriage means to "go we know not where" (line 65). The gender-neutral "we" is a new twist in the bachelor soliloquy story.

A GENRE Written in a period that saw the rise of "bardolatrous" reverence, both casual and purposeful Shakespeare quotation (cf. De Bruyn 2008, Rumbold 2007, and Price 2000), and the flourishing of Shakespearean parody, travesty, and burlesque (cf. Bate 1985, Wells 1977, and Jacobs 1976), the rewritings of Hamlet's great soliloquy are remarkable for the distance they keep from their original. Taking their cue from formal and linguistic surface features, they ignore the larger context of the passage, its central topic, and even its argumentative structure. Instead, additional literary references, cross-borrowed patterns such as "The X's

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 16 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

Soliloquy" and serial contexts such as the "Dramatic Parodies," signal a generic rather than allusive process. Authors and editors make explicit that they are exhibiting samples of a pattern that many others have worked with, as when another poem is advertised as being by "the author of The bachelor's Soliloquy." The recognition of both isolated catchphrases and of external generic contexts is obviously rated as at least as interesting as knowledge of "Shakespeare" or "Hamlet": these names are often missing from the titles, which favor generic terms like "soliloquy," "parody," or "imitation."

Alistair Fowler refuses to consider literary adaptations of one single famous text as a genre because "[e]laborations of an original have the latter as their context, rather than each other. Their relations are radial, not circumferential" (Fowler 1987, 127). In the case of the eighteenth-century Hamlet soliloquies, this implies that "elaborations" do represent a genre because they refer not radially to Shakespeare's play as their thematic center, but circumferentially to other realizations of the soliloquy/bachelor parody genres. The famous phrases are pleasantly memorable but decontextualized, with the most famous ones marked by inverted commas — not as Hamlet extracts, but as particularly popular elements in a familiar quoting game. Similarly, the "or not to" structure is preserved as a catchphrase, but Hamlet's proverbial indecision, which it encapsulates so pithily, is lost in favor of a catchy conclusion that sums up a topical argument with a comic speaker persona (another generic element crowding out an all-too-familiar name in the source). Taking up Leah Price's insight that the Shakespeare quotations may function "less as an intersubjective transaction between author and reader than as an interpersonal relation between one reader and another" (Price 2000, 80), I would like to claim that eighteenth-century "soliloquists" understand reading and rewriting as a transaction between one rewriter and many others. The "circumferential" references become part of a poetics that "relates a literary work to a whole series of other works, treating them not as sources but as constituents of a genre" (Culler 1976, 1394). As Richard Bauman puts it, we find an "intertextual relationship with prior texts" (Bauman 2004, 4) in the plural rather than with a single text.

This vanishing effect has an instructive parallel in the Fabiola installation: Jean- Jacques Henner's original, the painting that inspired hundreds of copies, is lost. It is a merely implicit presence that we can at best try to extrapolate in our imagination. In the case of Hamlet, the original (or at least the version of it that is mostly used as a template) is of course available; but its rewritings lead a life of their own that distances them thoroughly from the original context. This is disconcerting to the students of parody whom I have quoted at the outset, but it is a process that is profoundly typical of Shakespeare reception. Take the case of those Shakespeare phrases that have become common linguistic currency:16 once a quotation has become an idiom, shedding author, context, and even quotation http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 17 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

marks, it may make very little difference whether we say "he kicked the bucket," "he cashed in his chips," or "he shuffled off his mortal coil." What characterizes all of these sentences is the speaker taking refuge in a stock phrase to evade the blunt phrase "he died."

Over decades and centuries, the process of lexicalization has turned authored quotations into idioms, anonymous linguistic items whose origin have become opaque. Shakespeare parodies make it possible to posit an analogous process of gentrification17 that turns adaptations of a famous text into tokens of a generally available pattern, with no original context to consider. Apart from the increasing irrelevance of the original, two processes also have continued creativity in common. Although fixity of expression defines idioms as much as an "original text" mines our idea of a literary work, we all play around with idiomatic phrases, subjecting them to irreverent processes of permutation, extension, omission, or lexical substitution (Langlotz 2006) and enjoying the difference to a familiar pattern without necessarily bothering about its historical meaning. Similarly, "To be or not to be" continues to function as a pattern for new texts. The HyperHamlet database contains roughly 150 specimens dating from 1744 to 2007, and the internet is full of more and more recent examples.

Such productivity at the expense of Shakespearean signification tends to irritate. As Gary Taylor writes: "Shakespeareans, almost by definition, never look at negative evidence: evidence of the absence of Shakespeare, where one might expect his presence" (Taylor 1999, 198), and when they are confronted with such evidence, they complain. Marjorie Garber finds "the disappearance of confident and knowledgeable Shakespeare quotation [. . .] not especially useful to chronicle" because she mourns the "more direct engagement with [. . .] the character and plots of [Shakespeare's] plays" (Garber 2004, 35) in those who use his phrases. In 1821, Charles Lamb complained that tearing Hamlet's soliloquy "so inhumanly from its living place and principle of continuity in the play" made it "a perfect dead member" (Lamb 1876, 192). But the "engagement" that Garber mourns was never compulsory; and calling the soliloquy dead in the early nineteenth century misses the fact that it had already risen again as a genre in the 1740s. "[P]arts of [Shakespeare's] plays had passed into popular consciousness and, for many, were not 'literature' in an elevated, elitist sense" (Bate 1986, 196), not only in the 1780s and 1790s, but about forty years earlier. A largely undiscovered territory of decades of "Banal Shakespeare" (Rumbold 2007), of casual quotations and middlebrow rewritings, promises rich returns to the traveller.

NOTES http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 18 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

1. My thanks are due to Balz Engler, Ladina Bezzola Lambert, and to two anonymous readers at Borrowers and Lenders, who all contributed extremely valuable comments to drafts of this article. 2. This cut-off date ensures full coverage of the "the golden age of verse parody" (Bate 1985, 75), which also saw the emergence of full-scale travesties of Shakespeare plays and a huge upsurge in casual references and quotations, be it in Gothic fiction, Scott's novels and courtship narratives, Byron's poems, Hazlitt's essays, Burke's speeches, or the political caricatures and satires of the period. 3. The most notable single find was an autobiographical version in Hester Lynch Piozzi's commonplace book. 4. In the HyperHamlet database, for example, passages retrieved from electronic databases (and not mentioned in published research anywhere else) account for roughly half the 3,000-plus Hamlet quotations recorded for the period 1740-1840. 5. This extended description is the place where rewritings deviate most frequently from the original. 6. The title is worth reporting: "A Touch of the Sublime and Beautiful: Translated from Hamlet's Soliloquy!" It appeared in the Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction in May 1826. 7. The political implications and backgrounds of these and other Shakespearean parodies are discussed in Bate 1985 and Greenfield 2008. 8. This title is identical to that of a "To drink or not to drink" poem that was published in the same month in a different magazine. 9. Sayre Greenfield gives a 1752 poem as "the first parody" (Greenfield 2008, 239), but there are at least eight earlier specimens. 10. In a witty twist, the honeymoon is inserted before the "undiscovered country" of marriage: "But that the dread of something after honey-moon, / (That gaily- fleeting period, whose sweet joys / Few loves, alas! survive) puzzles the will / And bids us rather linger in the path, / The well-known, simple path of single life" (P—o 1758, lines 24-28). 11. Eight reprints bear witness to the attraction of this scenario, even if some of them toned down the risqué final lines to "spends all his days in wh—g, / And d—s the name of husband" (Anon. 1784) or even "spends all his days [a]-wenching" (1775 and 1795). 12. Coincidentally or not, the first silly joke on the first line appeared just one year before "Maid's Soliloquy"; in 1783, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg mimicked a sheep's bleat in order to mock a colleague's misguided ideas about the pronunciation of a Hebrew vowel: "To bäh or not to bäh, that is the Question" (Lichtenberg 1949, 139). 13. The author, "Master Shallow," is the Reverend Thomas Ford, who also laced his sermons with Shakespeare quotations. The series ran to more than fifty pieces, five of which (Nos. 6, 21, 32, 39, and 42) riff on "To be or not to be." 14. The title "The Maid's Soliloquy," for example, is taken from a text that has

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 19 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

nothing to do with Hamlet, but reappears in a 1783 version of "To be or not to be" (discussed above), constituting another not purely Shakespearean antecedent. 15. This last specimen omits the exact bibliographical references to Plato's text, evidently considered to be of no use to the fairer sex. 16. The phrase "To be or not to be" is so much taken for granted that it is not even put in quotation marks in the 1747 "To write or not to write," which treats several especially quotable phrases in that way. 17. I borrow the term from Rick Altman, who coined it in Film / Genre to describe a process in Hollywood marketing where words like "Western" slide "from adjective to noun" (Altman 1999, 52) as they develop from descriptions of individual films to genre terms.

REFERENCES Critical Altman, Rick. 1999. Film / Genre. London: British Film Institute. Bate, Jonathan. 1985. "Parodies of Shakespeare." Journal of Popular Culture 19.1: 75-89. Bate, Jonathan. 1986. "Shakespearean Allusion in English Caricature in the Age of Gillray." Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 49: 196-210. Bauman, Richard. 2004. A World of Others' Words: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Intertextuality. London: Blackwell. Bugliani, Francesca. 1995. "Hamlet's Soliloquy 'To be or not to be.'" Hamlet Studies 17.1-2 (Summer and Winter): 10-42. Campbell, Peter. 2009. "At the National Portrait Gallery." London Review of Books 31.11 (11 June): 10. Culler, Jonathan. 1976. "Presupposition and Intertextuality." MLN 91.6 (December): 1380-96. De Bruyn, Frans. 2008. "William Shakespeare and Edmund Burke: Literary Allusion in Eighteenth-Century British Political Rhetoric." In Shakespeare and the Eighteenth Century. Edited by Peter Sabor and Paul Yachnin. London: Ashgate. 85-102. Fowler, Alastair. 1987. Kinds of Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Frow, John. 2006. Genre. London: Routledge. Garber, Marjorie. 2004. Shakespeare After All. New York: Panthon Books.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 20 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

Greenfield, Sayre. 2008. "Quoting Hamlet Outside Britain in the Eighteenth Century." In Shakespeare's World / World Shakespeares. Proceedings of the International Shakespeare Association World Congress, Brisbane 2006. Newark: University of Delaware Press. 237-46. Hamilton, Walter, ed. 1885. Parodies of the Works of English and American Authors, Collected and Edited by Walter Hamilton. 5 vols. London: Reeves and Turner. Hohl Trillini, Regula, and Sixta Quassdorf. 2010. "A 'Key to all Quotations'? A corpus-based parameter model of intertextuality." Literary and Linguistic Computing 26.3: 285-96. Available online: http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/05/18/llc.fqq003 (http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/05/18/llc.fqq003) [cited 13 April 2012]. Jacobs, Henry, and Claudia Johnson. 1976. An Annotated Bibliography of Shakespearean Burlesques, Parodies, and Travesties. New York: Garland. Kelsall, M. M. 1966. "The Meaning of Addison's Cato." The Review of English Studies 17.66 (May): 149-62. Kermode, Frank. 2000. Shakespeare's Language. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Langlotz, Andreas. 2006. Idiomatic Creativity. A Cognitive-Linguistic Model of Idiom-Representation and Idiom-Variation in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Levin, Harry. 1959. The Question of Hamlet. New York: Oxford University Press. Müller, Beate. 1997. "Hamlet at the Dentist's: Parodies of Shakespeare." Parody: Dimensions and Perspectives. Edited by Beate Müller. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 127- 54. Müller, Beate. 1994. Komische Intertextualität: Die literarische Parodie. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Price, Leah. 2000. "The Poetics of Pedantry from Thomas Bowdler to Susan Ferrier." Women's Writing 7.1 (March): 75-88. Rumbold, Kate. 2007. "'So Common-Hackneyed in the Eyes of Men': Banal Shakespeare and the Eighteenth-Century Novel." Literature Compass 4.3: 610-21. Taylor, Gary. 1999. "Afterword: The Incredible Shrinking Bard." In Shakespeare and Appropriation. Edited by Christy Desmet and Robert Sawyer. London: Routledge, 1999. 197-205. Walker, Eric. 2009. Marriage, Writing, and Romanticism: Wordsworth and Austen after War. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 21 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

Wells, Stanley, ed. 1977. Shakespeare Burlesques. 3 vols. London: Diploma Press, Ltd. Primary A Declared Bachelor. 1831. "Session-Clerks versus Matrimony." The Loyal Reformers' Gazette 19 (10 September): 301. Anon. 1744. "The Batchelor's Soliloquy, In imitation of a celebrated speech of Hamlet" [To wed]. Scots Magazine 6 (April): 176. Anon. 1747. "A Parody on the Speech of To be, or not to be, in Hamlet" [To write]. British Magazine 2 (March): 128. Anon. 1749. "A Soliloquy in Imitation of Hamlet." Poems on Several Occasions. Glasgow: Robert and Andrew Foulis. Anon. 1752. "Socrates on Death: Translated from Plato's Apology in Shakespeare's Manner." Scots Magazine 13 (December): 583-84. See also Newcastle General Magazine 12 (December 1751): 648 and Ladies Magazine 3.6 (February 1752): 91-92. Anon. 1759. "Parody of the Soliloquy in Hamlet." The London Magazine, or Gentleman's Monthly Intelligencer 28 (July): 389. Anon. 1783. "The Maid's Soliloquy. In Imitation of a Speech in Hamlet." Edinburgh Weekly Magazine 57 (September): 338. Anon. 1784. "The Bachelor's Soliloquy in Imitation of the Celebrated Soliloquy of Hamlet" [To wed]. In The Poetical Museum. Hawick: G. Caw. 307-308. Badcock, Samuel. 1791. "The Presbyterian Parson's Soliloquy; Or a Parody of Hamlet's celebrated Soliloquy" [To conform]. Weekly Entertainer 17.426 (March): 318-19. Anon. 1795. "Parody on Hamlet's Soliloquy." The Culler, No. 9. Glasgow: A. Cameron. 144-45. Anon. 1809. "To Marry or not to Marry." Cabinet 6 (June): 537-39. Anon. 1810. "A Parody on Hamlet's Soliloquy on Death" [To write]. Hibernia Magazine (December): 327-28. Anon. 1813. "Female Celibacy; Or, The Grave of Cynthia." Gentleman's Magazine (June): 567. Anon. 1824. "Parody on Hamlet. Recited in a Company of Bachelors." Kaleidoscope; or, Literary and Scientific Mirror 4.196 (March): 325.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 22 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

Anon. 1839. "The Dental Soliloquy" [To have it out]. Chamber's Edinburgh Journal. Quoted in Beate Müller, "Hamlet at the Dentist's: Parodies of Shakespeare." In Parody: Dimensions and Perspectives. Edited by Beate Müller. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997. 127-54. Ashley, J., Jr. 1763. "The Poet's Soliloquy, a Parody of Cato's celebrated Soliloquy" [To write]. Court Magazine (June): 303. B. B. F. 1841. "Our Summer Flowers: Second Garland — To Wed or Not to Wed." Dublin University Magazine 18.103 (July): 75-76. Barbatus. 1797. "A Parody on Hamlet's Soliloquy on Death" [To shave]. Walker's Hibernian Magazine, or, Compendium of entertaining knowledge (April): 367. G. D., Esq. 1775. "The Bachelor's Soliloquy in Imitation of the Celebrated Soliloquy of Hamlet" [To wed]. The Caledoniad: A Collection of Poems Written Chiefly by Scottish Authors. London: W. Hay. 154-55. Hawkins, Joseph. 1808. "The Bachelor's Soliloquy: A Parody on Hamlet's." Monthly Mirror Reflecting Men and Manners, with Strictures on Their Epitome, the Stage. Vol. 4. London: Vernor, Hood, and Sharpe. 114-15. Jackson, J. 1812. "The Soliloquy of a Bachelor, on the Anniversary of his Birthday." Gentleman's Magazine (March): 263. Kean, Philo. 1824. "Dramatic Parodies No. 4. Hamlet's Soliloquy." The Drama; or Theatrical Magazine 6.4 (June): 169. Lamb, Charles. 1876. "On the Tragedies of Shakspeare." In The Life, Letters, and Writings of Charles Lamb. Edited by Percy Fitzgerald. 6 vols. London: Moxo. 4:188-213. Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph. 1949. "Über Hrn. Vossens Verteidigung gegen mich im März des Deutschen Museums 1782." In Gesammelte Werke. Edited by Wilhelm Grenzmann. 2 vols. Frankfurt am Main: Holle. 2:139-90. Menander. 1809. "Imitations of Shakespeare No. 2: Coelebs' Soliloquy" [To wed]. Universal Magazine 11.64 (March): 239-40. Philomeides. 1792. "A Parody on Hamlet." Gentleman's Magazine 62.3 (March): 263. Pindar, Peter [John Wolcot]. 1786. "Peter Pindar's Soliloquy" [To eat]. The Times. 30 December: 2; column D. P—o. 1758. "The Bachelor's Soliloquy" [To wed]. Scots Magazine 20 (June): 306.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 23 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

Single, John. 1748. The Batchelor's Recantation; or this estimate of the expences of a Married Life. Reconsidered Paragraph by Paragraph, and retracted . . . . London: M. Payne. Tousey, George Philip. 1768. "The Batchelor's Deliberation. A Parody of the Soliloquy of Hamlet, (To be or Not to be) versified." In Flights to Helicon: or, Petites Pieces, in Verse. London: T. W. Gisborne. 153-54. Twiss, Horace. 1814. "A Bachelor's Soliloquy, Being a Paraphrase of a Passage in the Play of Hamlet, by William Shakespeare" In Posthumous Parodies and other Pieces, composed by several of our Most Celebrated Poets. London: John Miller. 80-81. Quoted from Walter Hamilton, ed., Parodies of the Works of English and American Authors, Collected and Edited by Walter Hamilton. 5 vols. London: Reeves & Turner, 1885. 2:80-81. W. B. 1809. "The Soliloquy of an Old Bachelor, a Parody on Hamlet." Walker's Hibernian Magazine, or, Compendium of Entertaining Knowledge (February): 118.

ONLINE RESOURCES Alys, Francis. 2012. Francis Alys: Fabiola. Dia Art Foundation, Mexico City. Available online at: http://www.diacenter.org/exhibitions/main/2 (http://www.diacenter.org/exhibitions/main/2) [cited 29 March 2012]. HyperHamlet: The Cultural History of Shakespeare's Play in Quotations. 2006. http://www.hyperhamlet.unibas.ch (http://www.hyperhamlet.unibas.ch) [cited 12 April 2012].

PERMISSIONS Alys, Francis. 2009. Fabiola. Available online: http://blog.robbiecooper.org/wp- content/uploads/2009/07/fabiola2.jpg (http://blog.robbiecooper.org/wp- content/uploads/2009/07/fabiola2.jpg) 8 July [cited 6 December].

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 24 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(20 PM

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783057/show Page 25 of 25 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

Playing the Fool with Shakespeare: Festivity, (/current) Falsity, and Feste in Twelfth Night and King of the Masquerade (/previous) GISELLE RAMPAUL, THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES, ST. (/about) AUGUSTINE CAMPUS

ABSTRACT This paper examines the appropriation of a Shakespearean character within the context of twentieth-century Trinidad in the novel King of the Masquerade, by Michael Anthony. Although King of the Masquerade does not simply rewrite Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, a comparison between the two works reveals a strong resemblance between them in their treatment of theme, in their exploration of the tensions between two opposing groups and, to a certain extent, in terms of characterization. In both texts, the Shakespearean fool also cleverly brings together differing perspectives about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behavior, high and low culture. King of the Masquerade is not overtly counter-discursive to the play, so the engagement with Shakespeare in the Caribbean is nuanced in different ways, and the novel's exploration of various attitudes to Shakespeare gives a broad picture of the complex relationship between Caribbean postcolonial society and what was considered a metonym of colonial greatness and superiority.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 1 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

All the world's a stage and everybody playing a part. We are all acting, according to Shakespeare [. . .] but there's no reason why we should act the fool. (Michael Anthony, King of the Masquerade)

C. L. Barber (1959) considers Twelfth Night "a festive comedy" because it includes carnivalesque elements that are implied in the very title of the play. The play does, in fact, involve many of the themes — such as heteroglossia, carnivalesque reversals, subversion of authority, masquerade, and disguise — associated with the medieval carnivals that Mikhail M. Bakhtin explores when theorizing the carnivalesque in Rabelais and His World (1984). There is also a symbolic battle between the many characters who represent the holiday or festival spirit of the play and the somewhat puritanical Malvolio, a battle that has been characterized in terms of a symbolic battle between Carnival and Lent in theoretical studies of the carnivalesque. The appropriation of Feste the Fool into Michael Anthony's King of the Masquerade (1974), another Carnival text, but one set in a completely different time, setting, and context — that of twentieth-century Trinidad — immediately has postcolonial implications; but the short novel also explores many of the themes present in Shakespeare's play, not least the symbolic battle between Carnival and Lent. By comparing Twelfth Night and King of the Masquerade, this essay examines the appropriation of Shakespeare's Feste into the Caribbean setting of Anthony's novel, which reveals various interpretations of and reactions to Shakespeare in the postcolonial Caribbean.

Because King of the Masquerade is not simply a rewriting of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, it does not "write back to the empire," as many postcolonial West Indian texts have — for example, George Lamming's Water with Berries (1973) and Elizabeth Nunez's Prospero's Daughter (2006), both of which are re-visionings of Shakespeare's The Tempest; Derek Walcott's Pantomime (1980) and Samuel Selvon's Moses Ascending (1975), both of which rewrite Defoe's Robinson Crusoe; and Jean Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea (1966), which challenges Brontë's Jane Eyre. Anthony's novel is different in that its relationship with the "canonical" text derives from an appropriation of the Shakespearean fool as the costume chosen by the protagonist, Alan, which he hopes will win him the masquerade competition on Carnival Tuesday. There is in the novel a play on the phrase "playing the fool," which refers to the actual costume of the Shakespearean fool, but also reflects the condescension, snobbery, and class-consciousness of Alan's father, who despises Carnival for its associations with the rabble and with wasting time. The tension between Alan's desire to play in the http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 2 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

Carnival band and his knowledge of his parents' disapproval is the main plot of the novel. This tension is played out in the contrast between what is "classical" and therefore acceptable, and West Indian folk elements (namely Carnival) that are condemned by the upper classes. Although King of the Masquerade does not simply rewrite Shakespeare's play, a comparison of the two works reveals that the novel does bear a strong resemblance to the play in its treatment of theme, in its exploration of the tensions between two opposing groups and, to a certain extent, in terms of characterization. And in both texts, the Shakespearean fool complicates ideas about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behavior, high and low culture.1

The relationship between King of the Masquerade and Twelfth Night cannot, however, simply be described in terms of a Caribbean appropriation of Shakespeare, although Christy Desmet's definition of appropriation as a "theory of textual relations" (1999, 4) is useful because it encourages the sort of reading that accords with Homi Bhabha's concept of interstitial spaces (1994), or Edouard Glissant's rhizome theory that argues for a relational interpretation of Caribbean cultures (1997). This approach allows for a reading of the novel, of Caribbean culture, and of the textual relations as hybrid, a term "used to characterise the range of psychological [. . .] mixings generated by colonial encounters" (Loomba and Orkin 1998, 7); or as syncretic, "result[ing] spontaneously from the natural development of contact cultures" (Hogan 2000, 330), "a creative tension built around interaction and contestation" (Dash 2004, 791). The relationship between the texts, therefore, becomes dialogic in the Bakhtinian sense (1982), moving from what Derek Walcott would call a "self-torturing schizophrenia" that "precedes the resolution of identity" (quoted in Stone 1994, 126) to "the hope of final therapeutic development of a sure identity" (Savory 1999, 229). At the same time, the commandeering of Feste in Anthony's novel is an appropriative act. Jonathan Bate argues that the term "appropriation" has strong political overtones because he sees it as a self-conscious activity "engaged in for at least implied political purpose" (Bate 1989, 5; Cartelli 1999, 16, emphasis in original). Jean Marsden agrees that appropriation is "neither dispassionate nor disinterested," as "it has connotations of usurpation, of seizure for one's own uses" (1991, 1). The appropriation of Feste, however, seems to be of the transpositional kind that Cartelli identifies as "appropriation which identifies and isolates a specific theme, plot, or argument in its appropriative objective and brings it into its own, arguably analogous, interpretive field to underwrite or enrich a presumably related thesis or argument" (Cartelli 1999, 17). Still, http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 3 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

because King of the Masquerade is not overtly counter-discursive, its engagement with Shakespeare in the Caribbean is nuanced in different ways, and the novel's exploration of various attitudes to Shakespeare gives a broad picture of the complex relationship between Caribbean postcolonial society and what was considered a metonym of colonial greatness and superiority. The novel and its relationship with Twelfth Night allows us to see what is "mean[t] by Shakespeare" (Hawkes 1992; emphasis in original) in postcolonial Trinidadian society.

FESTIVITY The titles of both texts evoke the festive spirit. King of the Masquerade directly relates to the annual Carnival celebrations associated with revelry and abandon, held in Trinidad before the Lenten period of the Roman Catholic calendar, which carries associations of fasting, prayer, and restraint. Elizabeth Story Donno points out, however, that Twelfth Night may not have been "specifically occasional"; as she notes, "the text contains no allusions to the actual date of Twelfth Night — that is, to the Feast of the Epiphany celebrated on 6 January."2 She argues, though, that "its title was originally intended simply to evoke a festive occasion comparable to that celebrating the last of the Christmas holidays, when revelry and folly were permitted to turn the real world topsy-turvy under a Lord of Misrule" (Donno 1985, 1). These associations with festivity and holiday relate directly to the genre of comedy to which the play belongs. As Bente A. Videbæk argues, "Comedy provides an organized and socially acceptable outlet to channel potential riotous feelings into collective laughter, and the vicarious experience liberates us" (Videbæk 1996, 191). The mention of "liberty" in Videbæk's comments also may remind us of Barber's theory of a "release to clarification."3 The festive spirit of the comedy relies on our belief in its denouement, when the tangled plot will be unravelled, often through equally impossible means. The very structure of the play is therefore festive in its light-heartedness and its movement towards resolution. Videbæk's description of comedy also relates to Michael Bristol's summation of Carnival as a temporary authorized transgression that ultimately rests on binaries: "A central instance of [. . .] Carnival or popular festive structuration of politically significant narrative is the use of characteristic festive personae and the festive agon or Battle of Carnival and Lent as a narrative scheme governing both comic and serious actions" (Bristol 1996, 78). The comments of both critics, as well as the calendar relationship between Carnival and Lent in Anthony's novel, point directly to the structural and thematic opposition existing in both texts.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 4 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

In the beginning of King of the Masquerade, the opposition between Carnival and Lent is expressed through Alan's being "in two minds" (Anthony 1974, 2) when he witnesses the Jour Ouvert band passing outside his window on Carnival Monday morning, since he desires to join them against the disapproval of his parents.4 The rabble is, in fact, characterized in two ways in the novel: through the perspective of those characters who are in favour of Carnival, such as Alan and Letitia, and through that of Dr. Broomley, who is totally against the festival.5 The first presentation of the Carnival rabble, however, comes from Alan's perspective. The Jour Ouvert crowd is described as "wild with ecstasy," "dancing in complete abandon," and as a "melée" (1). Water imagery is also used to describe both the crowd and the steel pan music, reflecting a certain fluidity and naturalness associated with the rabble: the music is described as "liquid and seemed to fall upon him like a shower" (1), the steel band as "surging" (3), "a bubbling, turbulent, irresistible stream" (2), and the crowd as "a mad, bubbling river," causing Anne- Marie to think of them as "sail[ing] by" (3). Dr. Broomley's perception of Carnival, first voiced in the novel by his wife, contrasts with Alan's fascination. Mrs. Broomley refers to the Carnival celebrations as a "foolish jam session" and complains, of the rabble, that "their God was Carnival" (9) and that they are "Devils in every sense of the word" (17). According to Dr. Broomley, Carnival "is a cancer" (10) that he associates with "bedlam" (11), and he describes the masqueraders as "so much like savages; drinking liquor, assaulting people, being so coarse and vulgar" (37).

The wildness and ecstasy (ex-stasis) associated with Carnival is constructed in opposition to the artificiality and stasis of the Broomley household. Throughout the novel, Dr. Broomley's title is used to suggest his social aspirations but also to maintain a distance between this character and the reader. The social class to which the Broomleys belong is central to the attitude of exclusion and exclusivity that is adopted by the parents in the household. Their use of the word "savages," in particular, belies a sort of internal colonialism evident in the class consciousness and superiority complex that make these characters distance themselves from their own people, whom they consider inferior.6 As such, there is a contrast between the activity outside and inactivity inside the house — the outside being associated with freedom and abandon, the inside with restriction and propriety. The movement of the Carnival crowd and the sounds emanating from it contrast with the "absolute stillness" and silence of the house: "There was not a sound in the house" (Anthony 1974, 2). The Broomley household — and Dr. Broomley, in particular — are therefore http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 5 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

constructed as somewhat unnatural and artificial in their determination to ignore the band passing below their very window. Still, they cannot prevent the Carnival noise from "pouring into the house" any more than they can prevent Alan's interest and fascination with Carnival. The image does, in fact, seem to foreshadow Alan's involvement in the Carnival celebrations and Anne-Marie's changing attitude to Carnival despite their father's attempts to insulate them from associations with the masses.

The characterization of Sir Toby in Twelfth Night is very similar to the characterization of the uncontrollable Carnival rabble of King of the Masquerade; a similar contrast is constructed between those associated with the festive spirit (Sir Toby, Sir Andrew, Maria, Feste, and, to a certain extent, Viola) and those against it (Malvolio and, initially, Orsino and Olivia). From the first moment we see Sir Toby, his association with misrule is obvious. Indeed, he might even be considered a "Lord of Misrule" in Twelfth Night. He is "a hanger-on in Olivia's household, indulging in wine and good fellowship at the buttery bar" (Brown 1957, 166). Sir Toby strongly disapproves of his niece Olivia's cloistering herself to mourn her brother's loss and declares, "I am sure care's an enemy to life" (Twelfth Night, 1.3.1-3), which contributes to his construction as a carnivalesque character. This scene is the first time that we see him coming in late after drinking and carousing; the exchange with Maria, who advises Toby to restrain himself, is very funny indeed: Maria: Ay, but you must confine yourself within the modest limits of order. Sir Toby: Confine? I'll confine myself no finer than I am: these clothes are good enough to drink in, and so be these boots too; and they be not, let them hang themselves in their own straps. (1.3.6-10) Maria is indeed asking too much of such a character. Her suggestion imposes multiple restrictions on him impossible to heed: the words "confine," "modest," "limits," and "order" do not seem to be words Sir Toby can understand; indeed, they are words contrary to the spirit of the carnivalesque, with which Sir Toby and the Carnival rabble of Anthony's novel come to be associated. They are words, instead, that Malvolio, the Puritan figure similar to Dr. Broomley, understands completely and pompously upholds. However, the scenes in which Sir Toby appears are full of rowdiness, gaiety, and energy — Maria calls it "caterwauling" (2.3.73) — as opposed to the paralysis, stasis, and melancholia suffered by Duke Orsino and the Countess Olivia at the http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 6 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

beginning of the play (although they are quickly cured of their paralysis by Viola, arguably the play's "spirit of love") and the conceited seriousness of Malvolio. Indeed, the second time that Sir Toby comes in late, his declaration that life "consists of eating and drinking" (2.3.12) points not only to his rotund figure, as compared with the lean and gangly Malvolio, but also to the lower bodily stratum and its base needs. Dympna Callaghan aptly describes Sir Toby as "epitomis[ing] the corpulent excess of the carnival grotesque" (Callaghan 1996, 138). Sir Toby's freedom and carefree attitude to life contrast with Malvolio's demeanor, highlighting the symbolic battle between Carnival and Lent.

Language also reveals a contrast between the carnivalesque characters and the ones who are opposed to festivity. In both the Shakespearean play and the West Indian novel, different dialects are used. They convey a sense of social structure and could be used as a subversive means to deflate dominant discourses and hierarchical structures by contrasting one mode of speech with another. This heteroglossia also contributes to the carnivalesque potential of the texts. David Bevington distinguishes between the different types of language in Shakespeare's plays as "one of order and one of holiday release" (Bevington 1984, 5). Anthony Gilbert remarks on Shakespeare's "dramatic speech, which ranges freely from the eloquent to the colloquial" (Gilbert 1997, 1). And Lynne Magnusson also calls Shakespeare a "verbal chameleon" for his adeptness in "mimic[ing] in his writing all the street lingos around him . . . [and] the registers of conversational situations and formal occasions" (Magnusson 2001, 25).

Sir Toby's language falls into the heteroglossia and billingsgate of the carnivalesque world. It is lively and witty, as becomes apparent in his exchanges with those around him. His language, especially when directed at Malvolio, is also full of what Bakhtin terms "carnival abuse": for example, when Toby exclaims, "Go, sir, rub your chin with crumbs" (Twelfth Night, 2.3.120-21), "Sneck up!" (2.2.95), "O, for a stone-bow, to hit in the eye!" (2.5.49), and "does not Toby take you a blow o' the lips then?" (Twelfth Night, 2.5.70-71). Sir Toby also swears frequently, as when he says "a plague o' these pickle-herring!" (1.5.18- 19), "Fire and brimstone!" (2.5.53), and "Bolts and shackles!" (2.5.59).7 Toby flirts with Maria and engages in bawdy talk with the daft Sir Andrew, whom he is using to finance his revelry and drinking spree. Toby's mood, therefore, contrasts with the Lenten severity and puritanical decorum of Malvolio, whose smile is so rare that it becomes a target of ridicule. According to Richard A. Levin, "Sir Toby is regarded as a personification of the holiday spirit of comedy. His http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 7 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

opposition to Malvolio is the opposition of a Lord of Misrule to a killjoy" (Levin 1985, 130).

Malvolio's language contrasts strikingly with Sir Toby's. He is almost always sullen and serious; and while Sir Toby may joke and bandy words, Malvolio's language is more frequently used for denunciation and insult. An important example of his penchant for indictment is evident in his condemnation of Feste and of fooling in general: I marvel your ladyship takes delight in such a barren rascal: I saw him put down the other day with an ordinary fool, that has no more brain than a stone. Look you now, he's out of his guard already: unless you laugh and minister occasion to him, he is gagged. I protest, I take these wise men, that crow so at these set kind of fools, no better than the fools' zanies. (Twelfth Night, 1.5.81-87) This opposition to fooling, to laughter, and to the generation of laughter by fools is contrary to the spirit of the carnivalesque. Malvolio is instantly presented as a character who stands for everything opposed to the world of festivity and who is alienated and aloof. Alexander Leggatt, in fact, calls Malvolio "the most obviously solitary figure in Illyria" (Leggatt 1974, 227). Barber warns, though, that Malvolio "is not hostile to holiday because he is a Puritan; he is like a Puritan because he is hostile to holiday" (Barber 1959, 256). And this reference to hostility and holiday emphasizes the symbolic battle between Carnival and Lent in the play. It is Malvolio's combined conceit and severity that spur Maria and the rest of Sir Toby's company to force him to "play mas" — that is, to partake in the world of festivity, in the celebration of Twelfth Night. Because Malvolio is so averse to the concept of play, however, they can only do this by appealing to his pride and vanity and, in the process, make a right ass of him.

In Anthony's novel, language is also used to distinguish between the natural and the artificial. Alan reflects on his decision to play in the Carnival band; he asks, "why must I hold back me little Carnival! I is a Trinidadian" (Anthony 1974, 29). The use of Creole in his affirmation of what Edward Kamau Braithwaite would call "nation language" (Brathwaite 1995) represents a "radical dis/mantling of European codes and a post-colonial subversion and appropriation of the dominant European discourses" (Tiffin 1995, 95), especially significant in the passage that follows: He said this in the tone and manner of the steelbandsmen and the other people in the street. The people that his parents always called

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 8 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

ordinary people, and he always marvelled at the term. [. . .] All his life he had been to what his parents would call upper class schools. So he was supposed to speak differently. [. . .] He smiled and mimicked to himself in a quaint upper-class voice, "Oh, I cannot be bothered about your Easter and your Christmastide. They are too terribly dull and not so frightfully English. Give me a good shattering, dilapidating Carnival any day." (Anthony 1974, 29) In the latter part of the passage, Alan imitates his parents' denouncement of the folk as "ordinary people" in the affected accent and vocabulary they assume. Robert Stam calls parody "the privileged mode of artistic carnivalization [. . .] especially well suited to the needs of oppositional culture, precisely because it deploys the force of the dominant discourse against itself" (Stam 1989, 173). Alan is exaggerating their speech here to parodic effect, but the result is both a rejection of false assumptions about superiority and an affirmation of the folk language and culture. According to Elaine Savory, "if the speaker is sufficiently colonised to desire to speak like a white person, then it is as if the mask has taken over the entire personality, as if whiteness has possessed the speaker" (Savory 1999, 223).8 Letitia, the maid, also rejects their affected speech in her frustrated and unabashed Creole exclamation: "Chu Matt! These big shots! I really can't stomach them. I can't stomach this big English" (Anthony 1974, 60).

Just as Jennifer Rahim characterizes the difference between Tantie and Auntie Beatrice of Merle Hodge's Crick Crack Monkey in terms of laughter (Rahim 1998), in King of the Masquerade the characters in favor of Carnival, on the one hand, and the Broomleys, on the other, are contrasted in terms of their ability or inability to laugh. At the beginning of the novel, we repeatedly hear that the Carnival band evokes laughter from its onlookers — namely, Alan and Anne-Marie. Anne-Marie also repeats the words to the calypso, "Schooldays are happy happy days" (Anthony 1974, 3). Letitia, like Hodge's Tantie, is also very much associated with laughter, which Wilfred Cartey sees as emphasizing an alliance with "communality" (Cartey 1991, 271). Dr. Broomley, however, chastizes Letitia for laughing loudly: "Look here if you want this job please respect this house. You just can't laugh out like that in this unbecoming fashion. [. . .] There is a certain amount of dignity that people in these parts have to uphold. Stand up straight and get serious at once" (Anthony 1974, 25). Laughter therefore opposes respect, and dignity and seriousness are the preferred mode of behavior as far as Letitia's employers are concerned. Laughter is also associated with the folk and Carnival, especially when Alan reflects later that his

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 9 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

costume should be "a bright, comic piece [because] Carnival itself was ideal for a bright, comic piece" (28). The Broomley parents, like Malvolio, are therefore constructed in opposition to all that is festive.

FALSITY Dr. Broomley is very similar to Malvolio not only in his pompous disapproval of the spirit of festivity and his seeming inability to laugh, but also in his keen awareness of class and his fervent attempts to assume a position or posture beyond his proper social place. According to Anne-Marie, her parents "were always talking about good breeding and respectability and about being elite." She also comments on the "prejudice they seemed to have against the masses simply because they themselves were considered upper class" (Antony 1974, 6). This class snobbery is seen on many other occasions. Mrs. Broomley is referred to as "the lady of the house," and Letitia often grumbles about her employers' condescension. She marvels at the menu she is asked to prepare on Carnival Day: "Beef-steak and chips! All my life I know that Carnival Day is rice and peas" (18). The Broomleys' choice of food not only suggests social aspirations but also a rejection of the traditional folk food associated with Carnival.

Later, through the limited omniscient narration, Anne-Marie reflects about her father: [. . .] he was the typical example of a Victorian gentleman. It was impossible for him to relax or bend. He would rather break than bend. He simply refused to change with the changing times. She was a little amused at the figure he cut, stiff in dinner jacket and tie and with his glinting watch-chain, and it was so funny, it made her see some connection between this and Carnival. For it was nothing short of disguise; masquerade. (Anthony 1974, 36) Furthermore, Anne-Marie finds her parents' speech comical and "ridiculous"; she describes them as speaking "as if they were still in the Victorian era" (36). The description of Dr. Broomley as a Victorian gentleman evinces his social pretensions but also his valorization of the English. He seems to be suffering from the black skin/white mask syndrome that Franz Fanon writes about (Fanon 1991) and fits V. S. Naipaul's description of the ex-colonized as "mimic men" (Naipaul 2004). According to Savory, "the more colonised the person, the more the mask may be an attempt at white-face" (Savory 1999, 224). Dr. Broomley therefore becomes associated with what Patrick Colm Hogan calls "purgative mimeticism," where "the mimic seeks to purge every

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 10 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

suggestion of indigenous culture from his or her thought and action" (Hogan 2000, 330). He is of African descent but tries his utmost to emulate the qualities and culture associated with the English, whom he evidently sees as representing "civilization," as opposed to the "savagery" of the Trinidadian masses.9 Although Victorian England has no relation to the history of the West Indies, Dr. Broomley and his wife adopt what they see as a foreign, and therefore, superior culture. Moreover, the term "Victorian" is especially appropriate to this context because of its associations with a past era of supposed repression, especially bodily and sexual repression, that contrasts sharply with the Carnival festivities.

Even Anne-Marie admits that her father "had introduced her to classical music purely because of snobbery" (Anthony 1974, 6), since being a metonym of foreign culture, music is considered an upper-class social activity that would give their daughter the opportunity to go abroad; listening to classical music, it is implied, is better and more acceptable for their social rank and aspirations. For the same reason, Dr. Broomley encourages Alan's love for Shakespeare, the venerated English playwright. Later, when the Broomleys attend the Carnival competition Dr. Broomley, struck by the splendor of the costumes, ignorantly asks, "And do they have anybody come down from England to advise them?" (64) — to which Letitia hotly replies, "Doc, from the very first we start Carnival. We make it. Nobody could come from any place and tell us how to play it" (64). Her answer humbles the pretentiousness of the Broomleys but also rejects the colonial and the foreign in favor of the folk and the local. Despite his rejection of Carnival, Dr. Broomley's daughter ironically associates him with the festival, so that the novel's title, King of the Masquerade, might describe Dr. Broomley as much as it does his son.

Twelfth Night's Malvolio is also a social upstart, the "type of presumptuous person who sometimes amused but more often annoyed Elizabethan playgoers," at whom "[c]onservative Englishmen laughed [. . .] loud and scornfully, but perhaps a trifle nervously" (Goldsmith 1955, 80). Malvolio seeks to change his fortunes by marrying the Countess Olivia, who is far above his station. According to Mark Thornton Burnett, such characters "touch upon anxieties about upward and downward social mobility" (Burnett 1997, 93); "[t]he most frequently articulated anxiety is that stewards and gentlemen ushers will overstep the boundaries they themselves were enjoined to maintain, thereby damaging the household's symbolic role and precipitating it into practical confusion" (181). The play therefore "hints at the potential for http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 11 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

an abuse of the domestic power network" (161). However, as Leonard Tennenhouse observes, "the carnivalesque [that is, Sir Toby and company] operates in concert with the interest of an idealized aristocratic community to punish the figures opposing that ideal" (Tennenhouse 1986, 67). The forged letter prepared by Maria outlining outrageous behavior from Malvolio towards Olivia therefore "swerves" Malvolio's improper treatment of his superiors in another direction, to his downfall and his embarrassment.10 He makes a fool of himself by assuming a ridiculous mask. In the play, the assumption of a mask emphasizes the absurdity of this pretense, just as it does in the case of Dr. Broomley.

Malvlio's donning of the abhorred yellow stockings, his adoption of cross-gartering, and his constant smiling all amount to a masquerade that he is duped into believing will win him Olivia. The masquerade is especially ridiculous because the part he is made to play is so incongruous with his inherent character. Malvolio is tricked into participating in a situation where he can justly claim, "I am not that I play" (Twelfth Night, 1.5.181). Persuading Malvolio not only to play what he is not, but also to play the very thing of which he disapproves — the beaming, buoyant, and foppish lover — is Sir Toby and company's ultimate revenge. As Brown puts it, Malvolio "chooses the fool's head" (Brown 1957, 170). This masquerade theme, which continues into the dark-room scene, in which the carnivalesque company pretend that Malvolio is mad and possessed by the Devil, is also consistent with the Carnival-Lent theme. Here, the Puritan is possessed by the Devil and locked up for his madness to be exorcised by Feste masquerading as Sir Topas. The whole ruse, then, culminates in the carnivalization of the Lenten character.

Although both Malvolio and Dr. Broomley are exposed as fools in their respective texts, there are obvious differences between them. Although there is a certain self-hatred manifested by his espousing of English values, Dr. Broomley is at the top of the social hierarchy in Trinidad while Malvolio, accused by Olivia of being "sick of self-love" (Twelfth Night, 1.4.99), is a servant dissatisfied with his social position. While Dr. Broomley masquerades as an English gentleman from the beginning of the novel and only towards the end begins to show some interest in the folk culture, Malvolio is tricked into assuming a mask. They are both, however, "playing the fool," and their masks reveal the absurdity of their false values.

FESTE http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 12 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

Alan's choice of the Shakespearean Fool as his Carnival costume is, of course, what directly links King of the Masquerade with Twelfth Night. The Fool is lifted out of his Shakespearean context and placed in the Trinidad Carnival celebrations. Because Shakespeare, a metonym for the English, is considered "classical" writing by the Broomleys, Alan's parents therefore are pleased at his interest in the bard. They do not associate Shakespeare with the Carnival revelry that occurs outside their window; rather, they approve of reading the plays as a foreign, and therefore civilized, occupation. They see Shakespeare as "more than a literary figure, becoming established as an icon of Western culture" (Marsden 1991, 2). This is why Dr. Broomley uses a Shakespearean quotation to criticize Carnival: "Alan's always saying, 'All the world's a stage.' Shakespeare. All the world's a stage and everybody playing a part. We are all acting, according to Shakespeare [. . .] but there's no reason why we should act the fool" (Anthony 1974, 10-11). Dr. Broomley's ignorance, however, is evident in his assumption that Shakespeare lacks the carnivalesque elements of subversion and revelry. His comment is especially important since it is the fool that his son decides to play— a genuine character from the Shakespeare that Dr. Broomley reveres and dissociates from the Carnival rabble. The use of the Shakespearean Fool as Alan's third costume (the first two are the Devil and the Bat, both of which are traditional Carnival costumes in Trinidad), effectively complicates the binary opposition, suggested by the Broomley parents, about what is savage behavior and polite decorum, about the folk and the civilized.

This tension between Shakespeare and the folk is developed further when Anne-Marie assumes that Alan is lost in his book and oblivious to the festivities in the island: "What's on, boy — big Carnival Tuesday and you studying Shakespeare?" (Anthony 1974, 48). She suggests that the two are incompatible, just as she finds it difficult to practice her piano with the Carnival music pounding in her head. Although she is more open to Carnival than her parents, Anne-Marie still seems to distinguish it from what is socially deemed classical, even if she can appreciate the difference between them. When Letitia voices a Creole proverb, she too dissociates the folk from Shakespeare: "'Long rope for mangy horse' or something. This is not Mr. Shakespeare now" (23). It is significant that she often refers to "Mr. Shakespeare," again revealing the distance she feels from his work and all associated with it. Alan seems to be the only one who recognizes a familiarity in the Shakespearean character and its possibility as a Carnival costume. He understands that the character is derived from a different culture and a different time, but he is able to "lift the fool straight from Shakespeare http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 13 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

and put him in local colour" (33). As Dr. Broomley observes during the parade, "every expression was a genuine expression from Shakespeare. From Twelfth Night, if he recalled rightly. Sometimes the expressions weren't exact, but turned and twisted to suit this place and this time" (67).

Alan's choice of the fool is also a careful one and, in his eyes, suits the spirit of Carnival: "the more he re-acquainted himself with the fool it was the more he felt like playing the fool. Besides, the fool was a clown, and quite apart from hilarity which had to be natural to a clown [. . .] a clown was one of the prettiest things one could play — if you knew how to handle it" (Anthony 1974, 30). Although Anthony uses the words "fool" and "clown" interchangeably, the fool in Shakespeare was different from the clown in that he was less of a common rustic and more of a professional entertainer, the jester. Through his sometimes scathing wit and subtle manipulation of language, the fool created a carnivalesque atmosphere without the boorish type of slapstick comedy that was usually associated with the clown. Singing, usually associated with fools and with Feste in particular, was a form of entertainment that would have appealed to all sectors of the audience, thus creating a sense of community in the theater. Fools also did jigs sometimes and performed other antics that would have delighted the audience and increased the festivity of watching a comedy.

There is a play on the words "playing the fool" that is consistent with Dr. Broomley's view of Carnival as an excuse to act in a ridiculous and unbecoming manner, but it is also in the tradition of Carnival of playful enjoyment without too much care about decorum. Alan also chooses the fool because it promises to be both a beautiful and entertaining costume that the general public could relate to. This is, in fact, the reason he decides against playing another comic character, such as Sir Andrew: "A few scholars sitting in the stands might know him and would appreciate it, but in any case Carnival is not for any few scholars — Carnival is for the people. The people sitting in the stands wouldn't know Sir Andrew. Power to the People" (Anthony 1974, 30). This final statement is a celebration of the common man and reflects the idea in the novel that binaries imposed by social classes are not definite. It also is consistent with the characterization of Carnival as a celebration of the people by the people.

In Twelfth Night, as in many Shakespearean comedies, the fool creates a carnivalesque dimension to the plays. The fool in Shakespeare's play also straddles the boundaries between "high" and the "low." Although

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 14 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

he is in the employ of a Countess, he is not a "high" character. Although he proves himself witty and clever — indeed, cleverer than his mistress in claiming that she is the fool for mourning her brother when she believes he is in Heaven — he does not belong to the same social class as she does. At the same time, Feste is also not a "low" character. He, like Sir Toby, Sir Andrew, and Viola — who also complicate (or defy) categorization in terms of "high" and "low" — seems to move easily between the social classes. No wonder, then, that Alan is attracted to this character for his Carnival costume.

Feste, however, is a curious character in that although he provides much of the entertainment and laughter in Twelfth Night, his somewhat melancholic song that closes the play complicates the genre of comedy. Despite many of the characteristics associated with Shakespearean comedy that are present in Twelfth Night — such as the unravelling of the complicated plot, the multiple marriages, and the sense of restoration and harmony at the end of the play — Feste's final song about the transience of things and the presence of sadness in the world ("It raineth every day") ends the play on a sober note. In many ways, then, Feste dissolves binaries that exist in the play.

Feste is also involved in disguise (as is Viola), further complicating the issue of identity in the play. He masquerades as Sir Topas in the exorcism scene, which also characterizes him as a trickster. This again provides a point of comparison with Alan, who also behaves Anansy- like,11 employing Leititia to keep his surreptitious involvement in the Carnival celebrations secret. The trickster figure in West Indian literature was very popular, as it symbolizes the necessity of the oppressed to use their wit to survive and to deal with the oppressive authoritarian figures and models of the colonizer — in this case, represented by Dr. Broomley and his outdated and foreign ideas of what is acceptable and proper. Trickster characters therefore represent not only a plebeian insistence on self-recognition and self-assertion (albeit in indirect and more subtle ways), but also a triumph of wit and survival instincts in a repressive environment. Alan, considered by Leititia to be a "university man," like Feste complicates the binaries in the text by straddling the world of the upper class and the educated, and the world of the less privileged and the folk. The shape-shifting of both Feste and Alan, achieved through disguise, facilitates their success.

In King of the Masquerade, the contrast between the educated upper class and the folk also finds expression in the difference between classical and Carnival music. This is made feasible in the novel because

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 15 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

Anne-Marie plays the piano and dreams of attending the Royal School of Music in London. She finds it difficult to play when the Jouvert band is parading outside her window and reflects, "who could practise a rhapsody of Brahms with all the confusion and the colour and the music of Carnival still in one's head?" (Anthony 1974, 4). She appreciates its difference but also its beauty, and her attitude therefore contrasts with her parents': "So why can't it be a thing of the masses and still be beautiful? It is beautiful. I mean, is only classical music beautiful? You think only Beethoven and Bach and Brahms beautiful?" (6; emphasis in original). Letitia, though, finds the playing of classical music on Carnival Day to be a mad mixture: "Just imagine Beethoven on Carnival Day. And you want to tell me those people ain't mad?" (22). Dr. Broomley refuses to listen to and appreciate the Carnival music blasting right outside of his window until towards the end of the novel, when Anne-Marie and her mother encourage him to attend the Carnival competition, at which he is forced to admit, "I prefer steel" (65). His initial reaction to the music, however, is: "And this thing they call the steelband — that is music too? Tell me, you call that music? Going down the road, making ruction beating old tins and drums — that is music? [. . .] Now compare that with you sitting at your piano!" (38-39). Not only the music and musical instruments, but also the manner of execution are contrasted — going down the road beating drums is behavior associated with the rabble, while sitting primly at the piano suggests, in his eyes, respectability and decorum.

The surface contrast between classical music and Carnival music is complicated, however, when Anne-Marie detects the sound of the guitar pan, which sounds like a piano in the steelband. While the sound may suggest beauty only because it produces the same sound as the "classical" instruments, I prefer to regard this detail as an instance in which binary oppositions are challenged in the novel. The division between classical and Carnival music is not as straightforward and clear-cut as first appears, in the same way that the Shakespearean fool complicates the great divide the Broomleys perceive between "classical" literature and the Carnival celebrations of which they disapprove.

Both the Shakespearean play and the West Indian short novel also end on an ambivalent note, with no real sense of resolution. Although at first glance there seems to be the triumph of Carnival over Lent at the end of Twelth Night in the successful humiliation of Malvolio, this is not clear-cut. Harry Levin's comment can, therefore, be slightly misleading and needs to be approached with caution: http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 16 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

Shakespeare loaded his dice on the side of carnival, in that hungover hanger-on Sir Toby, as against the lenten Malvolio, that prince of wet blankets. But Shakespeare was writing a comedy — and, what is more, a comedy written in defense of the comic spirit. He could commit himself, in this case, to the wisdom of folly and to the ultimate foolishness of the conventional wisdom. (Levin 1976, 141) Bristol's argument on the thrashings of both Carnival and Lent at the end of Twelfth Night seems more discerning: "the pattern of festive agon is not compatible with asymmetrical, one-sided, and conclusive outcomes. The combatants, Carnival and Lent, each have certain obligations, in particular the obligation to be thrashed" (Bristol 1996, 80). Sir Toby's revels stop at the end of the play, and his thrashing comes at the hands of Sebastian; we have a brief glance of him bleeding before he is taken offstage. Malvolio, of course, suffers deep humiliation, and his swearing of vengeance as he exits the stage — "I'll be reveng'd on the whole pack of you" (Twelfth Night, 5.1.380) — is heavy and ominous in the midst of the unravelling of the imbroglio. As Bristol observes, "The battle of angry Carnival and sullen, vindictive Lent is not concluded in the represented world of Illyria, nor is it ever concluded in the world offstage" (1996, 81). The presumed victory of Carnival over Lent becomes even more problematic with the resumption of order and hierarchy in the play, although it is consistent with the definition of Carnival as a short respite. The multiple marriages at its denouement also suggest order as` the characters are neatly swept into couples. That the party is over is further suggested by the poignancy of Feste's final song.

The conclusion to King of the Masquerade is also left open to interpretation. Although the Broomleys exhibit a more accepting attitude toward Carnival by the end of the novel, the revelation of the identity of the masquerader who wins the competition sends Dr. Broomley into a faint. There is therefore no real conclusion drawn at the novel's end, although Letitia seems to think that showing Dr. Broomley that, unbeknownst to him, his own son has been playing Carnival is a triumphant moment. Still, Alan's father does not recognize him and thinks the masquerader's embracing of his wife is unacceptable behavior. It is all a case of misunderstanding.

Both Twelfth Night and King of the Masquerade show the complexities of the societies in which they are set, revealing tensions between social classes and between high and low cultures. They both explore the

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 17 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

possibilities of the carnivalesque, but it is important to recognize that their depictions can be contradictory, compromising, and shifting. They reveal the multiple meanings of masks — the ability of masks to dissociate and alienate one from a sense of identity and belonging, but also to transcend boundaries and to create a deeper understanding of the self and a stronger sense of communality. Both works reveal that playing the fool, engaging in the transforming festival spirit of the Carnival can therefore be a path to self-recognition and understanding. It is hardly surprising, then, that the poet Wayne Brown compared twentieth-century Trinidad to the Elizabethan period, especially in relation to Carnival modes: The society is Elizabethan. In its exuberance and volatility, its ribaldry and ostentation, above all in its turbulent love affair with language — language as self-creation, as in the Midnight Robber; language as scourge, as in the tents; language as proof of, and resistant against, the ultimate absurdity of the human condition, as in that promiscuous derision and rage of punning which constitutes an Old Mas band — in these it recalls the flair and angst of Shakespeare's world. (Brown 1991; quoted in Stone 1994, 1) However, despite the similarities between two works, "colonial literatures could grow to resemble [English literature] closely but could never be considered its legitimate heir," as Walcott cautions (1999, 28). Instead, King of the Masquerade may be seen as a local creative response to a literary tradition that was long established in colonial societies: "by the writer's making creative use of his schizophrenia, an electric fusion of the old and the new," Anthony creates in his text what can be better described as the "courtesies of exchange" (Walcott 1999, 16, 27). The creative engagements with Shakespeare, variously interpreted in the postcolonial Caribbean context, transform Shakespeare into a locally manufactured production and an expression not only of individual identity (as in the case of Alan), but also of national and cultural identity.12

NOTES 1. See Lawrence Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America (1988). 2. There is, however, reference to the "twelfth day of December" (Twelfth Night, 2.3.85) in Sir Toby's song. 3. Northrop Frye also asserts that "Comedy is [. . .] the name of a

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 18 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

structure, yet it has a predominating mood which is festive [. . .] The normal action of a comedy moves from irrational law to festivity." Frye's analysis, however, becomes increasingly complicated as he cautions that comedy is not usually wholly festive but only so in the majority. See Northrop Frye, A Natural Perspective: The Development of Shakespearean Comedy and Romance (1965), 49, 115. 4. Jour Ouvert, French for "open day" but pronounced "jouvay," is the name given to the morning of Carnival Monday, when the two-day Carnival celebrations officially begin. 5. Mrs. Broomley echoes her husband's feelings about the festival at the beginning of the novel. 6. Paradoxically, the superiority complex that these characters seem to exhibit actually suggests feelings of inferiority in relation to the colonial ideals they perceive in Shakespeare and classical music. 7. For more on swearing in Shakespeare, see Frances A. Shirley, Swearing and Perjury in Shakespeare's Plays (1979). 8. Although Savory's comment is useful here, I do see problems with the assumption that all white people speak the same and that whiteness itself is not also a construction. 9. Although this is not confirmed by the text of the novel, the illustrations of Alan show a young man of African descent. 10. Stephen Greenblatt observes that through "swerving," which he describes as "one of the central structural principles" in the play, the sexual relationships that tend toward homoeroticism and the social order that seems threatened by Malvolio take their "natural" course and are, in the end, left intact. See Stephen Greenblatt, Shakespearean Negotiations (1988), 68, 72. 11. Perhaps the most important model figure in literature for the West Indian trickster comes from the Anansy stories brought to the West Indies by African slaves in the colonial period. The folk character Anansy was a spider man from Akan folklore who took many forms in the West Indian setting (Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 2002, 35). Anansy stories resemble American Brer Rabbit tales in that the least likely member of the creature world is able to use sheer wit and ingenuity to escape difficult and almost impossible situations. The Anansy figure became especially important and popular to the early West Indians because the trickster figure symbolized their own plight, first as underprivileged slaves and then as a struggling people to assert an identity as West Indian peoples. According to Joyce E. Jonas, "his survival in folk imagination surely has to do with his capacity to transform disruption, discontinuity, brokenness, and defeat into triumphant new configurations of possibility" (Jonas 1988, 347).

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 19 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

12. Ania Loomba, "'Local-manufacture made-in-India Othello Fellows'" 1998, 143-63.

REFERENCES Anthony, Michael. 1974. King of the Masquerade. London: Nelson. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. 2002. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures. London: Routledge. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1984. Rabelais and His World. Translated by Hélène Iswolsky. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1982. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. Barber, C. L. 1959. Shakespeare's Festive Comedy: A Study of Dramatic Form and Its Relation to Social Custom. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Bate, Jonathan. 1989. Shakespearean Constitutions: Politics, Theatre, Criticism, 1730-1830. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bevington, David. 1984. Action Is Eloquence: Shakespeare's Language of Gesture. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Brathwaite, Edward. 1995. "Nation Language." In The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. Edited by Bill Ashcroft et al. London and New York: Routledge. 309-13. Bristol, Michael D. 1996. "The Festive Agon: The Politics of Carnival." In Twelfth Night: Contemporary Critical Essays. Edited by R. S. White. New Casebooks. London: Macmillan. 72-81. Brown, John Russell. 1957. Shakespeare and His Comedies. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Brown, Wayne. 1991. Daily Express. Port of Spain, Trinidad. 13.2. Burnett, Mark Thornton. 1997. "Masters and Servants in English Renaissance Drama and Culture: Authority and Obedience." In Early Modern Literature in History. Edited by Cedric C. Brown. Houndmills, Basingstoke, and London: Macmillan Press.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 20 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

Callaghan, Dympna. 1996. "'And All is Semblative a Woman's Part': Body Politics and Twelfth Night." In Twelfth Night: Contemporary Critical Essays. Edited by R. S. White. New Casebooks. London: Macmillan. 129-59. Cartelli, Thomas. 1999. Repositioning Shakespeare: National Formations, Postcolonial Appropriations. New York: Routledge. Cartey, Wilfred. 1991. Whispers from the Caribbean. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Dash, J. Michael. 2004. "Postcolonial Caribbean Identities." In The Cambridge History of African and Caribbean Literature. Edited by F. Abiola Irele and Simon Gikandi. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2:785-96. Desmet, Christy. 1999. "Introduction." In Shakespeare and Appropriation. Edited by Christy Desmet and Robert Sawyer. London, New York: Routledge. 1-12. Donno, Elizabeth Story. 1985. "Introduction." Twelfth Night, or What You Will. New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fanon, Franz. 1991. Black Skin, White Masks. Translated by Richard Philcox. New York: Grove Press. Frye, Northrop. 1965. A Natural Perspective: The Development of Shakespearean Comedy and Romance. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, Inc. Gilbert, Anthony J. 1997. Shakesepeare's Dramatic Speech. Studies in Renaissance Literature, Vol. 15. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press. Glissant, Edouard. 1997. Poetics of Relation. Translated by Betsy Wing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Goldsmith, Robert Hillis. 1955. Wise Fools in Shakespeare. Michigan: Michigan State University Press. Greenblatt, Stephen. 1988. Shakespeare Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hawkes, Terrence. 1992. Meaning by Shakespeare. London and New York: Routledge.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 21 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

Hogan, Patrick Colm. 2000. Colonialism and Cultural Identity: Crises of Tradition in the Anglophone Literatures of India, Africa, and the Caribbean. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Jonas, Joyce E. 1988. "Carnival Strategies in Lamming's In the Castle of My Skin." Callaloo 10 (Spring): 346-60. Lamming, George. 1973. Water with Berries. London: Longman. Leggatt, Alexander. 1974. Shakespeare's Comedy of Love. London and New York: Routledge. Levin, Harry. 1976. Shakespeare and the Revolution of the Times: Perspectives and Commentaries. New York: Oxford University Press. Levin, Richard A. 1985. Love and Society in Shakespearean Comedy: A Study of Dramatic Form and Content. London and Toronto: Associated University Presses. Levine, Lawrence. 1988. Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Loomba, Ania. 1998. "'Local-manufacture Made-in-India Othello Fellows': Issues of Race, Hybridity, and Location in Post-colonial Shakespeares." In Post-colonial Shakespeares. Edited by Ania Loomba and Martin Orkin. London and New York: Routledge. 143-63. Loomba, Ania, and Martin Orkin. 1998. "Introduction: Shakespeare and the Post-colonial Question." In Post-colonial Shakespeares. Edited by Ania Loomba and Martin Orkin. London and New York: Routledge. 1- 22. Magnusson, Lynne. 2001. "Style, Rhetoric, and Decorum." In Reading Shakespeare's Dramatic Language: A Guide. Edited by Sylvia Adamson et al. London: Arden Shakespeare. 17-30. Marsden, Jean I., ed. 1991. The Appropriation of Shakespeare: Post- Renaissance Constructions of the Works and the Myths. New York: St. Martin's Press. Naipaul, V. S. 2004. The Mimic Men. New York: Vintage. Nunez, Elizabeth. 2006. Prospero's Daughter. New York: Ballantine Books. Rahim, Jennifer. 1998. "Laughter in M. Hodge's Crick Crack Monkey: An Exploration in Comic Discourse." In The Woman, the Writer, and Caribbean Society: Essays on Literature and Culture. Edited by Helen

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 22 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

Pyne-Timothy. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 208-19. Rhys, Jean. 1966, Wide Sargasso Sea. New York: W. W. Norton. Savory, Elaine. 1999. "Registering Connection: Masking and Gender Issues in Caribbean Theatre." In (Post) Colonial Stages: Critical and Creative Views on Drama, Theatre, and Performance. Edited by Helen Gilbert. West Yorkshire: Dangaroo Press. 222-33. Selvon, Samuel. 1975. Moses Ascending. London: Heinemann. Shakespeare, William. Twelfth Night. Edited by Elizabeth Story Donno. New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shirley, Frances A. 1979. Swearing and Perjury in Shakespeare's Plays. London: George Allen & Unwin. Stam, Robert. 1989. Subversive Pleasures: Bakhtin, Cultural Criticism, and Film. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press. Stone, Judy. 1994. Studies in West Indian Literature: Theatre. London: Macmillan. Tennenhouse, Leonard. 1986. Power on Display: The Politics of Shakespeare's Genres. New York and London: Methuen. Tiffin, Helen. 1995. "Post-Colonial Literature and Counter-Discourse." In The Post-Colonial Studies Reader. Edited by Bill Ashcroft et al. London and New York: Routledge. 95-98. Videbæk, Bente A. 1996. The Stage Clown in Shakespeare's Theatre. Contributions in Drama and Theatre Studies, No. 69. Westport, Conn. and London: Greenwood Press. Walcott, Derek. 1999. "What the Twilight Says." In What the Twilight Says: Essays. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux. 3-35. Walcott, Derek. 1980. Remembrance & Pantomime: Two Plays. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 23 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(21 PM

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783056/show Page 24 of 24 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(22 PM

JULIE SANDERS, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

(/current) REFERENCES

Shakespeare and Contemporary Fiction: Theorizing Foundling and (/previous)Lyric Plots, by Barbara L. Estrin. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2012. xxvii + 255pp. ISBN 978-1-61149-369-6. $80.00 (cloth).

(/about) This study asserts at its beginning that "The art of the simple is at the core of this study of the intersection between the foundling and Petrarchan plots in contemporary fiction and Shakespeare's plays" (p. (/archive) xvii), but what follows is rather more dense critical fare than this statement suggests. The study is very much presented in two halves, which can at times seem like two discrete studies yoked together with a degree of unsatisfactory violence. Estrin, I suspect, would claim that this is part of the point and the purpose of her approach. She deliberately "reads backwards" in this study, moving from the first section's concentration on in-depth studies of foundling plots — which inevitably shade into refugee narratives — in late twentieth-century and contemporary fiction by, among others, Caryl Phillips, Anne Michaels, and W. G. Sebald to offer a fresh stance on Shakespearean adaptations of the archetypal foundling plot in plays such as Othello, The Merchant of Venice, and The Winter's Tale.

It's a bold strategy and has strengths and weaknesses at various times. There is inevitably a strong emphasis on plot and genre and as a result, a welcome amount of time is dedicated to close reading. Estrin identifies in the various reworkings of the foundling plot with which she engages a particular kinship between stories of family and nation. She is especially interested in plot variations that lead to a form of gender revisionism, and she is strongly shaped and informed throughout by the theories of Luce Irigaray and her suggestive phrase, "a new cultural elaboration," in understanding her case-study adaptations (including Shakespeare's plays) (Irigaray 2012, 139).

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783054/show Page 1 of 5 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(22 PM

Part One is labelled "Contemporary Pasts" and begins with a sensitive and engaged reading of Caryl Phillips under-studied The Nature of Blood (1997) which contains, among other things, conscious reworkings of Othello and The Merchant of Venice refracted through ruminations on various moments of historical trauma over a five-century period including, inevitably, the Holocaust and the foundation of modern-day Israel as well as the parallel trauma for the Palestinian peoples that this particular nation formation entailed. Estrin is alert to the disruptions of form that Phillips employs to great effect in this complex and haunting novel.

From Phillips, Estrin moves to examine Liz Jensen's 1998 Ark Baby, a critically acclaimed text that has also been a limited focus of critical analysis. She regards the novel as a further example, along with Phillips's oeuvre, of the "current formal 'reinvention' of traditional British fiction" (p. 47), and this is something I would like to have heard more on. The novel is invested in discussions of Darwinian-informed genetic engineering but Estrin also identifies buried allusions to The Merchant of Venice and The Comedy of Errors. How useful or satisfying this chapter would be for students and scholars of Shakespearean adaptation is something of a moot point; the chapter is essentially a critical close reading of Jensen in which the Shakespearean echoes play a secondary role, but it makes interesting observations on the relationship between foundling plots and the evolutionary narrative that has dominated scientific discourse since the nineteenth century. The novel takes place in two time periods, 1845 and 2005, and explores complex notions of bloodlines and inheritance that clearly relate it back to the preceding discussion of The Nature of Blood.

I had not expected to find W. G. Sebald in a book entitled Shakespeare and Contemporary Fiction (and it is perhaps telling that the author confesses that the study has gone through various titles on its way to print; there is a problem of categorization here). But in the "traumatic dis-remembering" of Sebald's 2001 radical "memory text" Austerlitz, Estrin finds analogues to Shakespeare's lyric and foundling plots. She cites, in particular, Hamlet and Pericles as informing texts for her purposes in this chapter. There are undoubtedly sensitive and perceptive readings of Sebald's text presented here but in the end, I found the Shakespearean connections far too buried and too diffuse to really do the work I would expect in a monograph bearing the title of Shakespeare and Contemporary Fiction. The theme of memory forms the bridge from the chapter on Sebald to that on Anne Michaels's Fugitive Pieces (1996) and beyond to the more extended discussions of Shakespeare in http://borrowers.uga.edu/783054/show Page 2 of 5 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(22 PM

the book's second section. Memory becomes a means of thinking about recovery and revival (not least of that which is presumed dead) and in this way, becomes a means of thinking about The Winter's Tale and Hamlet.

The section on "Shakespearean Presents" is formed of three chapters, each focusing on a single play; Estrin's hope is that these readings are informed by the contemporary fiction studies that have gone before. I like the idea of reading backwards very much, and the approach chimes with some of Linda Hutcheon's recent theorizing of ways in which we might teach and practice adaptation studies in the future, but the process is only partly formed and partially achieved in this study (Hutcheon 2006, passim). The chapter on The Merchant of Venice returns in earnest to earlier points raised around gender revisionism and plot. It is clear that Estrin regards Shakespeare as much as an adapter himself as a focus for contemporary adaptations, and there is some welcome attention to the Gobbo subplot, which can often seem so unsatisfactory in performances of the play. She reads Gobbo's story as a partial foundling plot in which his apprenticeship stands for a "form of adoption" (p. 115). There is much interest in mythology in the reading of the Portia/Bassanio/Antonio triad, but this was yet a further example for me of the study trying to achieve too many things at once and lacking a coherent central through-line.

The chapter on Othello that follows is fashioned in particular around ruminations on Desdemona's lyric narrative of her nurse "Barbary" in the so-called willow scene. There are interesting observations on the relationship between space and memory, and here Estrin also makes use of Philip Roth's notion of "fictional amplification" to explore the ways in which Othello consistently fashions something from nothing (Roth 2007, 23). In themselves these are interesting and challenging analyses, but their relationship to the earlier case studies of contemporary fiction was never entirely clear to me. In the final Shakespeare-focused chapter of her study, Estrin turns, unsurprisingly, to The Winter's Tale, which has constituted a kind of foundation text for her preceding observations on the "founding plot" and its recurrence in drama and fiction. This is in fact one of the few moments in the study when the performative conditions of Shakespeare's own time, and indeed the status of these texts as scripts for performance — as playtexts — becomes visible when Estrin ponders the sexually charged language of the Sicilian court scenes and the particular effect of all-male acting companies on the understanding of the staging of these moments in the play. There is more on mythology (for the most part Ovidian in provenance) and on the http://borrowers.uga.edu/783054/show Page 3 of 5 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(22 PM

spatial turn that connects this chapter to the previous Shakespearean play discussions, but the relationship to the first section of the study remains fleeting at best.

The study is then rounded off by a similarly unsatisfactory foray into contemporary artworks on gender and identity, which by this point seem to have travelled such a distance from the opening premise of the study that their validity is questionable. While interesting in themselves and theoretically challenging, these analyses seemed not to be anchored securely enough in the claims to Shakespearean interests in what preceded or, indeed, in the title of the study to win their place securely.

This is a difficult book to review and a difficult review to write. Estrin is a strong close reader, and there is much of interest here, in particular for the student of the contemporary authors she elects to study. There are some helpful theoretical position-takings and challenges embedded in its pages. A satisfactory or sustained study of Shakespeare and Contemporary Fiction, however, it is not. Not all books do quite what they say on the cover.

REFERENCES Estrin, Barbara L. 2012. Shakespeare and Contemporary Fiction: Theorizing Foundling and Lyric Plots. Newark: University of Delaware Press. Hutcheon, Linda. 2006. A Theory of Adaptation. London and New York: Routledge. Irigaray, Luce. 2012. Between East and West: From Singularity to Community. Translated by Stephen Pluháček. New York: Columbia University Press. Roth, Philip. 2007. Exit Ghost. New York: Random House.

REFERENCES | TOP

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783054/show Page 4 of 5 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(22 PM

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783054/show Page 5 of 5 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(23 PM

LISA BOLDING, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

(/current) REFERENCES

Lisa S. Starks and Courtney Lehmann, eds. The Reel Shakespeare: (/previous)Alternative Cinema and Theory. Madison and Teaneck, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press; London: Associated University Presses, 2002. 298 pp. ISBN-10: 1611472326; ISBN-13: 978-1611472325. (/about) $49.50 (cloth).

In their introduction to The Reel Shakespeare: Alternative Cinema and (/archive) Theory, editors Lisa Starks and Courtney Lehmann establish the broad goal of providing "a theoretical tour through important, non-mainstream films and the oppositional messages they convey" (14). The Reel Shakspeare certainly achieves this aim.

In the fine tradition of punning Shakespeare studies titles, the "reel" under examination in this essay collection is not only a particular set of movies but also notions of "the real" throughout the first century of cinema Shakespeares. As the introduction explains, cinema Shakespeares may have provided the early film industry with the credibility necessary to survive its infancy, but it also gave audiences the need for a reality check, so to speak. What was more "real" — the earliest movies that showed ordinary events from everyday life (called "actualities"), or the fictional stories that patrons could see on the stage? Did it feel more "real" to share a theater with the live bodies of stage actors or simply view the "ghostly, flickering shadows" of bodies onscreen? (10). As I read the introduction, it struck me that changing entertainment contexts since The Reel Shakespeare was published in 2002 have presented us with the "3.0" version of early cinema audiences' negotiations with "the real," for actual film reels are disappearing from theaters as more of them convert to digital exhibition. Furthermore, partnerships between the production and distribution arms of the film industry and instant-streaming venues such as Netflix may eventually

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783055/show Page 1 of 5 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(23 PM

endanger the very existence of both movies as physical objects and "real" movie-watching venues outside the home.

The Reel Shakespeare is divided into four parts. Part 1 contains the least overtly "theoretical" piece in the collection, an essay by the late, great Kenneth Rothwell doing what he does best: silent cinema history. Although there is some cross-over from Rothwell's A History of Shakespeare on Screen, he focuses here on silent Hamlets, including a good deal of information not featured in the monograph. Part 2 features three essays (by Peter Donaldson, Alan Walworth, and Lia Hotchkiss) that each deal with a notable auteur's avant-garde negotiation of mainstream cinema "realism" via Shakespeare. Donaldson offers an excellent analysis of Peter's Hall's A Midsummer Night's Dream, showing how characteristics of avant-garde style, such as jump cuts and hand-held camera movements shift in meaning during the course of the film from markers of "leftist social critique and Brechtian distanciation" to a more ideologically conservative "celebration, along Laurentian lines, of marriage as a 'stellar equilibrium' between self-sufficient though not quite equal individuals" (44). Whereas Donaldson balances a careful formal analysis of the film with traditional literary theory, Walworth occasionally allows Slavoj Žižek to dominate his exploration of the image/sound disjunction in Jean-Luc Godard's King Lear as a "hysterical protest against the restrictively commercial circumstances of its own production and the limitations of language itself" (60). Of all the essays in this collection, Walworth's requires the greatest background in film studies in order to appreciate its fine qualities. Readers unfamiliar with Godard's work will not get a sense of his importance in film history or of this film's marginal position within the Godard canon. Hotchkiss offers a strong conclusion to this section by examining how Peter Greenaway, in Prospero's Books, represents competing claims to "the real" among the book, stage, and screen. A particular strength of this essay is her analysis of how the film uses motion studies by cinema pioneers Muybridge and Marey.

Part 3 is also composed of three essays (by Lisa Starks, Bryan Reynolds, and Kathy Howlett), this time exploring counter-cinematic depictions of "the real" through "the violence of the cinematic image in postmodern films that appropriate a radical Shakespeare on the margins of dominant culture" (16-17). Reynolds and Howlett deftly blend their theoretical approaches with film history and early modern history. Howlett looks at the influence of Chimes at Midnight (Orson Welles, 1965) upon My Own Private Idaho (Gus Van Sant, 1991), and Reynolds places the Polanski Macbeth (1971) within the cultural contexts of both Renaissance http://borrowers.uga.edu/783055/show Page 2 of 5 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(23 PM

England and the United States of the 1960s and early 1970s. Starks masterfully provides a double dose of Julia Kristeva, applying her theory of the abject to both the play itself and to Taymor's Titus via Barbara Creed's application of abjection to the classic horror film. Titus refuses to conform to the genre's cathartic convention of expelling the abject, the fear of which is embodied in "the monstrous-feminine" (124). Instead, the film revels in a discomforting exploration of "the real/surreal, inside/outside, [. . .] the borderline of that which is and is not" (122). Ultimately, Titus foregrounds the act of horror spectatorship via the character of Young Lucius and an arresting, often "absurd" visual style that discourages the sense of immersion in a "realistic" world promoted by the Classical Hollywood filmmaking tradition.

Part 4 takes us into the "radical" classroom with two essays about teaching mainstream Shakespeare films and concludes with a selective bibliography of criticism that contains pedagogical resources, but also covers a wide range of significant scholarship on cinema Shakespeares. The contributions by Douglas E. Green and Don Brett Mischo should be required reading for anyone who brings screen Shakespeares into the classroom. Their methods, however, are not so much "radical" as simply responsible ways to teach film in a literature course. Green shows how Branagh's films can open up discussions of sexuality in both Shakespeare's day and our own, and Mischo discusses how screening both the Taylor/Pickford/Fairbanks and Zeffirelli/Taylor/Burton Shrews can set up conversations about "original texts" and authorship. José Ramón Díaz Fernández's outstanding selective bibliography of cinema Shakespeare criticism includes works published until 1999. He introduces the bibliography by mentioning a dozen or so sources forthcoming when the book was published in 2002. Díaz Fernández, the reigning king of bibliographies and checklists, has since produced resources on more focused Shakespeare/screen subjects: film and television derivatives, Orson Welles, criticism of the comedies filmed between 1990 and 2001, and criticism of teen films.

If The Reel Shakespeare has a weakness, it is that the pedagogy essays seem geared toward those without a substantial film background while the rest of the book seems to be written for an audience of screen Shakespeare experts. Newcomers to the field, and especially to film studies in general, may find themselves confused by some of the book's basic concepts. Although the second section is devoted to "avant-garde cinema" and the third to "countercinema," for example, the introduction does not precisely articulate the difference between the two terms — or that in film studies these categories also often overlap. More http://borrowers.uga.edu/783055/show Page 3 of 5 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(23 PM

fundamentally, however, the introduction discusses these films in terms of "formal experimentation" without providing any context about the formal elements of "mainstream" cinema, the classical Hollywood mode of narrative and stylistic realism against which alternative cinema rebels. Non-experts can get by with just their "life experience" of watching movies and knowing what looks "normal," but a few more introductory pages devoted to defining terms and contexts would prepare many readers for a more robust appreciation of the collection's second and third parts.

Of course, no book can be all things to all readers, even one with as much to offer as this one. If The Reel Shakespeare is to raise the profile of "the marginal, radical, and experimental uses to which Shakespeare has been put in twentieth-century film culture" (14), however, making these films more accessible to a larger academic audience seems like a worthwhile endeavor, especially since several of these films have been garnering attention from critics of screen Shakespeares for decades now. This year marks the tenth anniversary of The Reel Shakespeare's publication; what better occasion for an expanded edition?

REFERENCES Starks, Lisa S., and Courtney Lehmann, eds. 2002. The Reel Shakespeare: Alternative Cinema and Theory. Madison and Teaneck, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press; London: Associated University Presses.

REFERENCES | TOP

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783055/show Page 4 of 5 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(23 PM

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783055/show Page 5 of 5 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(23 PM

(/current) Lisa Bolding received her Ph.D. in English from the University of Georgia in May 2012. Her dissertation is entitled "Non-Shakespearean Renaissance Drama on Film and Television."

(/previous)Regula Hohl Trillini is Lecturer in English at Universität Basel. She holds a Ph.D. from the University of Basel as well as an M.A. in German and English literature and degrees as piano teacher and (/about) chamber musician. Her book The Gaze of the Listener: English Representations of Domestic Music-Making (Rodopi 2008), analyzes (/archive) the place of music in the English imagination with particular regard to gender, from Shakespeare's sonnets and early modern drama to prose fiction from the long nineteenth-century, including Jane Austen. Other research interests include intertextuality studies and the reception history of Shakespeare's works. Regula Hohl Trillini has co-designed the HyperHamlet database, an extensive corpus of references to and quotations from Shakespeare's Hamlet, and continues to edit this collection. Her habilitation-in-progress, "Transitive Shakespeare," focuses on the anonymous references and middle-brow re-writings which have constituted an essential part of the ongoing "Shakespeare phenomenon" since the early seventeenth century.

Peter Holland is McMeel Family Professor in Shakespeare Studies in the Department of Film, Television, and Theatre, and Associate Dean for the Arts at the University of Notre Dame. He moved there in 2002 from his position as Director of The Shakespeare Institute, Stratford- upon-Avon and professor of Shakespeare Studies at the University of Birmingham. He is editor of Shakespeare Survey, co-General Editor with Stanley Wells of Oxford Shakespeare Topics (Oxford University Press) and co-General Editor with Adrian Poole of Great Shakespeareans (Continuum Books). He is currently completing his edition of Coriolanus for the Arden Shakespeare, third series.

Giselle Rampaul is a lecturer in Literatures in English at The http://borrowers.uga.edu/783042/show Page 1 of 2 Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation 2/28/20, 11(23 PM

University of the West Indies, St Augustine Campus. Her research interests include the intersections between British and Caribbean Literature (especially Caribbean Shakespeares), representations of childhood in Caribbean Literature, and the work of Samuel Selvon.

Julie Sanders is Chair of Literature and Drama at the University of Nottingham in the UK. She has authored several books and articles on adaptation as well as on seventeenth-century drama, and her most recent publication is The Cultural Geography of Early Modern Drama, 1620-1650 (Cambridge University Press, 2011).

Brian Walsh is an Assistant Professor in the English Department at Yale. He is the author of Shakespeare, the Queen's Men, and the Elizabethan Performance of History (Cambridge 2009), which won the 2010 Heyman Prize for outstanding scholarly publication at Yale, and articles on Shakespeare, Dekker, Greene, and others. He is currently involved in creating an edition of Henry V specifically designed for use on electronic tablet devices.

| TOP

http://borrowers.uga.edu/783042/show Page 2 of 2