Exploring the Individuality of Shakespeare's History Plays
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-theses Repository REWRITING HISTORY: EXPLORING THE INDIVIDUALITY OF SHAKESPEARE’S HISTORY PLAYS by PETER ROBERT ORFORD A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY The Shakespeare Institute The University of Birmingham January 2006 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract ‘Rewriting History’ is a reappraisal of Shakespeare’s history cycle, exploring its origins, its popularity and its effects before challenging its dominance on critical and theatrical perceptions of the history plays. A critical history of the cycle shows how external factors such as patriotism, bardolatory, character-focused criticism and the editorial decision of the First Folio are responsible for the cycle, more so than any inherent aspects of the plays. The performance history of the cycle charts the initial innovations made in the twentieth century which have affected our perception of characters and key scenes in the texts. I then argue how the cycle has become increasingly restrictive, lacking innovation and consequently undervaluing the potential of the histories. Having accounted for the history of the cycle to date, the second part of my thesis looks at the consequent effects upon each history play, and details how each play can be performed and analysed individually. I close my thesis with the suggestion that a compromise between individual and serial perceptions is warranted, where both ideas are acknowledged equally for their effects and defects. By broadening our ideas about these plays we can appreciate the dramatic potential locked within them. i Dedication Derick W. Orford In life, my father encouraged and provided for me to go to university, and I would never have started my PhD without his support. Since his death, I have endeavoured to honour his investment in me. This thesis is dedicated to his memory. ‘Me thinks ’tis prize enough to be his son.’ (3HVI.2.1.20) ii Acknowledgments I cannot imagine a better place to undertake a research degree than the Shakespeare Institute. I am indebted to the staff and students for their time, experience and camaraderie. Thanks must go to my supervisors. Pamela Mason guided me through the first year of research, helping me to find and establish my opinion amongst an overwhelming critical background. John Jowett has proved an exacting and rewarding supervisor, with an uncanny knack for always being right, and an endless supply of further reading suggestions. His support has been extensive, inspiring and vital, especially towards the close of my research. Additionally Rebecca White and Juliet Creese have provided administrative support above and beyond the call of duty. Martin Wiggins has been an inspiring mentor, with informative and constructive feedback. I have been fortunate in the excellent service I have experienced in the library. My thanks go to Jim Shaw and Kate Welch of the Shakespeare Institute library, as well as the staff of the Shakespeare Centre and the Birmingham Central library, for kindly providing me with help and advice, as well as a wealth of resources and reading to make the long winter evenings just fly by. Robert K. Sarlos incorrectly assumed that the readers of his essay would be able to understand German quotations: I am especially grateful therefore to Kerstin Woerster of the Shakespeare bookshop for translating these passages. Equally I am thankful to Richard Pearson for his time and insights into adapting the histories. I must also thank my friends and family for their support and proof-reading, for which thanks are also due to Jami Rogers and Andy Kesson from the Shakespeare Institute for their useful notes. Finally my greatest thanks must go to my wonderful wife Jodie. When I started my PhD I didn’t even know her, now as I finish my thesis I don’t know how I ever managed without her. For her unconditional support, both academic and emotional, I offer my eternal gratitude. iii Contents Abstract i. Dedication ii. Acknowledgments iii. Contents iv. List of Tables v. Introduction: Rewriting the Histories 01. Part One: Making the Cycle 17. Chapter One: 18. Critical Histories Chapter Two: 83. Theatre Histories (or: One Hundred Years of Multitude) Part Two: Breaking the Cycle 147. Chapter Three: 148. I am Myself Alone: Richard II, Henry V and Richard III Chapter Four: 184. Three Glorious Suns: Individuality in Henry VI Chapter Five: 227. Two Stars keep not their Motion in One Sphere: Henry IV Epilogue: 267. Other Histories: Beyond the Boundaries of the Cycle Appendices 309. Bibliography 312. iv List of Tables Table 1: Appendix 1 (p. 295) Appearances of Hal and Hotspur in Henry IV Part One Table 2: Appendix 2 (p. 296) Structural Comparison of Henry IV Part One and Two v Introduction: Rewriting the Histories Shakespeare might have written a great and closely integrated cycle of plays on English history from Richard II to Richard III. But he did not. He wrote eight plays, each capable of standing by itself, though to varying degrees related to others.1 This comment, from Stanley Wells’ introduction to Richard II, offers a brief consideration of the phenomenon we now regard as Shakespeare’s history cycle, a grand series of plays running from Richard II through the two parts of Henry IV to Henry V, then on through the three parts of Henry VI to its finale in Richard III. Wells’ analysis strikes a cautionary note, and contrasts the popular theory of the cycle with the practical experience of presenting any one of these eight plays alone on the stage. But the context of the comment itself provides a contradictory interpretation, for the introduction, along with Wells’ edition of the play, has since been repackaged in 1994 amongst an edition of Shakespeare’s histories, presenting what was once an individual text alongside Henry IV Part One, Henry IV Part Two and Henry V. No rationale was given in the collected edition for why these plays should have been presented together, save a cursory note on the back cover which claimed that while ‘Each play possesses its own distinctive mood, tone and style […] together they inhabit the period of change from the usurpation of Richard II by Bolingbroke to the triumph […] of heroic kingship in Henry V’. The balanced views of Wells’ edition were absorbed into a larger volume with little explanation: in this example the concept of the cycle has absorbed the individual presentation into its larger framework.2 1 Stanley Wells, ed., William Shakespeare, Richard II, New Penguin Shakespeare (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969), p. 11. 2 Stanley Wells and others, eds, William Shakespeare, Four Histories: Richard II, Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV Part 2, Henry V, New Penguin Shakespeare (London: Penguin, 1994). - 1 - In the pages that follow I shall explore the theories surrounding the history cycle: its beginning, its justification and the consequent effects upon our critical and theatrical perception of each drama. My thesis comes at a curious time when to argue for the individuality of the plays is to be in the minority. For many centuries discussions of links between the history plays were sporadic and brief, and on stage the histories were performed individually, but my argument must be read in the wake of an incredible revolution which has taken place in our approach to Shakespeare’s history plays. It is astounding that the first history cycle on the English stage can be as recent as 1901, and yet the idea of a continuing saga stretching from the narrative of Richard II through the reign of kings to Richard III has now monopolised the way in which we approach and appreciate these eight plays. I do not wish to suggest that the plays cannot be performed as a cycle; indeed, while reviewing the many productions of the history cycle on the English stage, I have been able to appreciate the pioneering spirit and exploration of themes which some of these productions have offered. Equally, however, I have also seen the strain and limitations that a cycle can inflict upon individual plays and characters: the plays are unfairly accused of having poor structure, weak characterisation and no conclusion and are thus considered as inferior to Shakespeare’s other works. When the English Shakespeare Company presented their history cycle, The Wars of the Roses, in the late 1980s, the director Michael Bogdanov noted the unsatisfactory consequences of presenting epic Shakespeare: The problem with getting even 75% of The Wars of the Roses right, however, is that while out of twenty-four hours eighteen might be - 2 - passable, that still leaves six whole hours that are naff! That’s two whole plays!3 Bogdanov identified the feat of producing twenty-four hours of sustained high-quality drama as too much to expect from a director; ultimately some of the production would be below standard. Unfortunately, what can seem to be just a dull patch from the director’s viewpoint of the complete cycle, can, from an audience perspective, translate to an entire evening at the theatre. The sheer length of an epic cycle can prove to be a deterrent to many audiences; Michael Ewans notes of Aeschylus’ tetralogy, Oresteia, that ‘These plays present an almost intolerable challenge to any subsequent dramatist; for […] such uncompromising works have never since proved capable of holding the attention of a mass audience in the west.’4 The presentation of a large amount of material under the pretence of a coherent unit can prove too arduous an undertaking for some, especially when they are presented, as the RSC has chosen to do on numerous occasions, as all-day marathons.