Davip Garrick: His GARDEN at Hamptonandthe ‘cuit ofSHAKESPEARE after appearing at an exhibition at the Royal taste of the progression of the monarchs who Academy, were ready to be introduced to the formed the succession of Privy Gardens at two northernplinths in the overgrownparterre Hampton Court. of the Privy Garden. They were made by As always there are many unanswered Robert Jackson in marble and were also known questions. What were, and what becameof, as Flora and Adonis. (figs. 2r & 22) In 1933, as the two marblefigures ofApollo and Adonis of we have heard, the bronze statues of Venus de Charles I’s Privy Garden? What was Nost’s Medici and Cleopatra were re-introduced into lost figure of Victory? Whatis the exact prove- the Privy Garden around 300 years after they nance of William III’s garden statues? We had madetheir first appearance here. In fact, could be edging towards some tenuousresolu- with two bronze figures and two marble fig- tion of that question. But were the marble ures, one ofwhom was Adonis, standing in the figures imported by Balle what William III four quarters of the garden, the statuary envisaged for his personal garden? Hehesitat- recalled what had been there in the mid seven- ed to give his approval; had he lived, wouldhe, teenth century. In 1946, the National Art like Queen Anne, have wanted them sent back Collections Fund purchased the figure of to their owner? Unless an amazing new piece Abundance by Derwent Woodfor display in of archival evidenceis found, that is something the Privy Garden andit wasplaced to the west weshall never know.. . of the fountain. However, the three figures of Spring, Summer and Abundance are now fea- kK KK KOK tures of the Rose Garden at Hampton Court, and following the restoration in 1995, all the I would like to thank Juliet West at English Heritage elements of the Privy Garden now correspond for so generously sharing with me her ownresearch with those of William III’s garden of1702. into statuary at Hampton Court manyyears ago and One would imagine that statuary, com- fuelling my own enthusiasm for this subject. bining as it does the difficult attributes of being mostly angular and generally cumber- some, considerably weighty and at the same Davip Garrick: His GarDEN at HAMPTON time immenselyfragile, and then - to be prop- and the ‘cut of SHAKESPEARE’ erly seen - requiring to be lifted onto plinths, By Susannah Fleming would tend once in positionto stay put. But, as we have seen from the foregoing, this is not ‘What needs my Shakespearfor his necessarily the case. Statuary in the 1700 peri- honourd Bones, od was shipped from Whitehall by barge along The labour ofan age in piled Stones... vt the Thames to Hampton Court where a crane was in use at the wharf. The 1829 move to he beautiful ‘Shakespeare Temple’ Windsor in ordnance wagons with so little on the riverside at Hampton was mishap is either a miracle, or more likely, evi- built for David Garrick (1717-79) in dence that a great deal of thought, planning 1755. For those visitors who came to and care went into the removal, for which we pay homage at this monument, and evenfor now have only list of the statuary removed. those who merely passed by on the river, the a Even today, with modern equipment, moving message wasclear: this marked the spot where statuary is never an easy or straightforward the most celebrated actor/manager procedure. In all events, the continual move- ever produced chose to commemorate the ‘god ment of statuary in the Privy Garden at of his idolatry’... .’ As Hampton Courtis, I think, a recognition of might be expected, the arrangement of the importance given to such ornamentation Garrick’s garden, with its Temple of in the gardensetting, notonly in termsofclas- Shakespeare positioned near the bank of the sical iconography but in sequential fashionsin Thamesand the Villa in the background, sug- gardening, andalso of the value of statuary in gested a sort of permanent theatrical stage set.

its own right as a reflection of the status and 1. ’s sonnet, 1632, 2nd Shakespeare Folio.

2. David Piper, O Sweet Mr Shakespeare I'll have his Picture (: 34. Carlo Milanois at present working on this subject. National Portrait Gallery, 1964), p. 30.

51 m THE LONDON GARDENER Or z £be Gardener's Intelligencer Volno.8 For the yeers 2002-2003

23. A View ofthe Seat 0vfthe Late David Garrick Esq. , with the Temple 9ofShakespeare a trom. Th 4¥:Lodern Universal Traveilex, 1779 4 A Courtesy THE TempLe Trust)

52 Davip Garrick: His GarDEN at Hamptonandthe ‘cuLT ofSHAKESPEARE’

This aspect may only have been apparent to least not as such. Ostensibly, the Villa at the casual observer whilst gliding gently by in Hamptonandits garden were intendedto pro- a boat, or sitting out on the bank opposite. It vide a peaceful retreat for the Garricks - well is certainly a characteristic discernible in sever- away from their hectic social life in town and al of the contemporary topographical engrav- the rigorous demands of the Londonstage. ings. (fig. 23) The stage-like quality of the Yet, when we look at the Zoffanys or some of scene would have been especially pronounced the other later topographical engravings, we during a summer's evening in 1774 when one of could easily imagine that a contemporary visi- the London journals reported that the tor to this garden must have felt a pervading Garricks had given a ‘splendid entertainment, sense of being on a stage, as if wandering into or Fete Champetre ... The companyincluded a an impromptu performancein a play already in great number of the Nobility and Gentry’, progress. Like any good stage set, the appro- whoenjoyed‘a concertand an elegant firework priate props were essential to setting the scene display. The gardens, the grotto-tunnel, and here. The focal point of the riverside lawn was, the Temple of Shakespeare were illuminated of course, the octagonal Temple with its mar- with 6000 lamps’.’ This must have had an ble statue of Shakespeare inside. The Ionic enchanting and highly theatrical effect. For orderofthe portico identified this as a Temple some of the same guests, it must also have of Wisdom.° More importantly, it proclaimed been ample compensation for the exceptional- Shakespeare to be in the ranks of the classical ly bad weather that had spoiled Garrick’s poets - an idea hadinitiated a Shakespeare Jubilee at Statford-upon-Avon hundredyears beforeby referring to him as the five years before." ‘ of the British poets’.’ The Italian The atmosphere of the Hampton scene cypresses near the building would almost cer- was one ofinformality. This was immortalised tainly have conveyed the potent message of in two exquisite conversation pieces by Johann Shakespeare's immortality, and perhaps by Zoffany, painted in the summers of 1762 and extension also recall Shakespeare’s own words 1764. (figs. 24 &F 25) Each painting captures a in Twelfth Night: ‘Come away, come away, tranquil moment in the garden; one shows death; and in sad cypress let mebe laid’ (Act 2, David and Eva Maria Garrick relaxing by the Scene 4). Shakespeare Temple with the Roubiliac statue Similarly, the emblematic character of of Shakespeare visible through the open door, the weeping willows at the river’s edge and and in the other the couple are shown seated their association with the 137¢/ Psalm — ‘by the on the Temple lawn taking tea with family and streams of Babel’ etc. — would consciously friends. Two additional smaller paintings by intermingle with the memory of Desdemona’s Zoffany each show different parts of the gar- famous ‘Willow Song’ from Ofhello (Act 4, den and Villa. One of these depicts Garrick Scene 3). Perhaps an even more direct associa- writing while crouched under the shade of a tion was intended here by the careful juxtapo- large tree, whilst his gardener, Bowden,rolls sition of the cypresses with the willows — rec- the turf. In the other, Garrick’s two nieces are ognizably drawn from Dryden's assessment of at play in front of the grotto-tunnel. All four Shakespeare: ‘...he is always great when some intimate scenes once hung in the dining room great occasionis presented to him; no man can of their London house in the Adelphi.’ They say he ever had fit subject for his wit, and did a are perhaps most remarkable for having just not then raise himself as high abovetherest of exactly the right touch of the theatrical about the poets - guantum lenta solent inter viburna them. cupressi [as cypresses often do among bending Although we know that Garrick mused, osiers].”° wrote, rehearsed and entertained friendshere, The River Thames itself at Hampton, there is no evidence that he performedhere,at with its ever-present swans, would inevitably

3. Helen R Smith, The Story of Garrick and his life at Hampton evoke the famous reference to Shakespeare as (London: The Temple Trust, 1998), p- 5- ‘the Swan of Avon’. And for the initiates of a Christian Deelman, The Great ShakespeareJubilee 4. See, for example: (London: Michael Joseph, 1964). 6. Douglas Chambers, The Planters ofthe English Landscape Garden 5. See ‘Inventoryofarticles belongingto the estate of David Garrick (New Haven & London:Yale, 1993), p. 55- on Mrs Garrick's death’ from: The Papers ofthe Reverend Thomas 7. Piper, op. cit. p. 14. Rackett as Executor to Mrs Garrick, Hereford City Museum and Art 8. Deelman, of. cit. p. 30. Gallery. 53 THE LONDON GARDENER or The Gardener’s Intelligencer Volno.8 For the years 2002-2003 far more famous garden at Stowe, the Thames plays, or even of the so-called ‘cult of could easily conflate with the River Styx, The Shakespeare’. Rather interestingly, it has been Temple Lawn with the Elysian Fields, and the noted that by the time he made his famous Shakespeare Temple with Lord Cobham’s stage debut in 1741, the trend was already well Temple of British Worthies, in which on its way.’* On closer examination of the evi- Shakespeare shared the Pantheon of national dence, it emerges that he was not eventhefirst merit - a proud assemblage devised to empha- to build a garden temple solely devoted to size the Patriot agenda of the 1730s. Yet, at Shakespeare!® Thus, we can safely say that Hampton there was a different message to Garrick inherited the legacy of Bard-worship convey. Unlike Stowe, here there could be only from previous generations of devotees. one British Worthy, and that was Shakespeare. Through Garrick’s tremendous fame and From the moment David Garrick made influence, he managed to bring Shakespeare his astonishing official stage debut in thetitle firmly into the mainstream of public con- role of Richard III in 1741 up until his retire- sciousness. As his ownstar rosein the theatri- ment in 1776, he was the dominantfigure on cal stakes, so did the reputation of his adopted the English stage.’ Moreover, his unique pro- idol. (fig. 26) In his persistent promotion of fessional stature was suchthat herapidly rose Shakespeare as the National Poet, with an to pre-eminencein the social andartistic life emphasis on idolatry and patriotism, Garrick of eighteenth-century London. There is no tookthe ‘cult’ into a whole new sphere, never doubt that he was the leading Shakespearean before imagined. The resulting phenomenon actor of his day. Always uncannily anticipating is perhaps best explained when we remember public taste, he revolutionised acting tech- what Shakespeare's own friend and fellow niquebybringingit far closer to nature - a sig- playwright Ben Jonson hadsaid: he honoured nificant preoccupation commonto both gar- Shakespeare’s memory ‘on this side of idola- den-making and the theatre in this period. As try’; Garrick seized a propitious moment in the central figure in the eighteenth-century history and took Shakespeareto ‘the other side revival of Shakespeare on the English stage,it of idolatry’. The culmination of this process may seem fitting that he chose to erect such a took place at his Shakespeare Jubilee at monument in his garden in the 1750s. And Stratford in 1769. In short, a sort of apotheosis hardly out of place are contemporary testimo- tookplace- first for Shakespeare at the Jubilee nials to Garrick's talent: ‘Garrick was born to and later for Garrick shortly after his own speak what Shakespeare wrote’? or: passing.” To relish Shakespear, read him o’er and o’er The beginnings of the ‘cult of See Garrick play him, and he’ll charm you more.” Shakespeare’ could be said to have begun dur- However, when we read that he was ing the months immediately following the sometimesreferred to as ‘Shakespeare’s Priest” Bard’s death in 1616. There was sometalk of or even occasionally simply as ‘Shakespeare’,” removing his remains from the small webegin to suspect that somethingin excess of a Stratford-upon-Avon church and placing _ mererevival was underway - something midway them in Abbey, but this idea betweena reincarnation and an apotheosis! never cameto fruition. Onthis topic, William In order to understand Garrick’s garden Basse composed an_ elegiac sonnet. monumentin the context in which it was con- Remembering the recent death of Francis ceived, it is importantto first carefully exam- Beaumontearlier that same year and his sub- ine the background of Shakespeare idolatry sequent burial in , near to and its iconography. Modern scholarship has Chaucer and Spenser, Basse wrote: shown that Garrick was notthe originator of RenowndSpencer, lye a thought more nye the increased interest in Shakespeare and his To learn’d Chaucer, and rare Beaumontlye

g. See, for example: Helen R Smith, David Garrick 1717 - 1770 14. Deelman,op.cit., p. 31. (London:The British Library, 1979). 15. The Genius ofthe Place: The English Landscape Garden 1620-1820, 10. Letters ofDavid Garrick, ed. D. Little & G.Kahrl, 3 vols. ed. by J Dixon Hunt & Peter Willis (London: MIT, sth ed., 2000) ? (London, 1963), no. 23. p. 265. 11. Gentlemans Magazine, 23 June 1753, p. 287. 16. Jonathan Bate, Shakespearean Constitutions: Politics, Theatre, 12. Tessa Murdoch, ‘HuguenotArtists, Designers, and Craftsmen in Criticism 1730-1830 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), p. 22. Great Britain and Ireland 1680-1760’ (PhD thesis, University of 17. See, for example: Michael Dobson, The Makingofthe National London,1982), see: n.45. Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation, andAuthorship 1660-1769 (Oxford: 13. Deelman,op.cit., p. 95. Clarendon Press, 1992). 54 Davin Garrick: His GarpEN at Hampton andthe ‘cuit of SHAKESPEARE’

24. Mr and Mrs Garrick by~y the Shakespeare‘pTemple, ipHampton ip byy Johann Zoffany,Ys 176217! (CoLLecTION or Lorp LamBTon)

55 THE LONDON GARDENERorThe Gardener’s Intelligencer Vol no.8 Forthe years 2992-2003

25. The Tea Party by Johann Zoffany, 1762 (CoLLEcTION or Lorp Lampton)

56 Davin Garrick: His GarDEN at Hamptonandthe ‘cut of SHAKESPEARE’

A little neerer Spenser to make roome aim was to convince the managers of the two For Shakespeare in yourthreefold Londonpatenttheatresto focus on ‘legitimate’ sowerfold Tombe. drama and particularly to begin staging more Basse then ends with the prophesy:‘rare of Shakespeare's plays, in preference to the Tragoedian Shakespear slept alone’. more popular pantomime and opera - enter- In answer to Basse, Ben Jonson wrote tainmentsthat the Ladies perceived as ‘foreign’ with considerable indignation: ‘My and therefore corrupting influences. Then, to Shakespeare, rise! I will not lodge thee by further establish the pre-eminence of their Chaucer or Spencer, or bid Beaumontlyea lit- adopted idol, and in a politically-charged bid tle further to make thee roome.’? When the to elevate Shakespeare to the status of Britain's first Folio of Shakespeare’s works finally national poet, the Ladies endeavoured to have appeared in 1623, Jonson's prefatory elegy was his monumenterected in Westminster Abbey. resolute in its conviction: “Thou art a Through a sort of public subscription involv- Moniment, without a Tomb,andartalivestill, ing various benefit performances, they accom- while thy Booke dothlive, and wehave wits to plishedall their aimsin full, especially with the read, and praise to give’. erection of the Shakespeare monumentin 1741. The Shakespeare ‘cult’ was kept alive on (fig. 27) If Sir Robert Walpole’s downfall in the the stage later in the seventeenth century by following year had anything whatsoever to do men such as Davenant and Betterton, but with their efforts, then we might say they principally by their collaborator John Dryden accomplished that too! whose immensely authoritative criticism In 1739, in the lead-up to the referred to ‘our reverence for Shakespeare’ and Westminster Abbey monument campaign, one ‘the venerable shade of Shakespeare’.* By 1726 of the Ladies, Elizabeth Boyd, published a there were signs that the movement to com- satirical piece entitled Don Sancho: or, the memorate Shakespeare in Westminster Abbey Students Whim: A Ballad Opera of Two Acts, was about to resume in earnest. In this year with Minerva’ Triumph, a Masque.” John Rich, the managerof the Covent Garden Significantly, this is set in the Oxford theatre, proposed just such a monument Botanical Garden at midnight, where three (although it seems ironic, since Rich was rather bored undergraduates attempt to call regarded as the leading pantomimist of his forth the ghosts of Shakespeare and Dryden. age),” and Lewis Theobald observed that Tellingly, the piece opens with oneofthe stu- ‘there is scarce a poet that our English tongue dents singing a little song: ‘For Liberty the sol- boasts of, who is more the subject of the dier fights; For Liberty the poet writes...etc.’ Ladies’ reading’.» The ‘Ladies’ he spoke of Thetrio attempt their strange deed with the turned out to be a formidable group of women help of a mysterious necromancer named Don - mainly aristocratic and thoroughly intellec- Sancho (actually the assumed name of a tual - who becameespecially active in the late ‘Nobleman of real Merit ...generous Baron 17308. Generally, their particular patronage Worthy...ruined by Party Spleen and wasidentified on playbills as: ‘at the desire of Boundless Bounty’). After several ritualistic several Ladies of Quality’.* Ostensibly, their chants, producing ample smoke and commo- efforts were focused on the promotion of tion, the bewildered and somewhat indignant Shakespeare's plays, although running through ghosts materialize momentarily, but speak dis- all of the contemporary material relating to the dainfully of the students’ folly. The apparitions group can be detected a very strong anti- then ‘rise as in Glory to a soft sweet sympho- Walpole theme, and in particular such Whig- ny’. When the smoke clears the students find, opposition coalition catchwords as ‘liberty’ lo and behold, that Minerva’s Temple has and ‘patriot’ are in evidence. Calling them- arisen in the garden - the ‘Altar-piece richly adorn’d with the Statues of all the most cele- 18. Deelman, of.cit., pp. 2, 3- brated ancient and modern Poets’. At this 19. Ibid. pp. 19, 20. point, Minerva and Apollo descend from the 20. Ibid. pp. 19, 20. 21. Bate, op.cit., p. 22. heavens to preside jointly over the scene, 22. Morris R. Brownell, Alexander Pope and the arts of Georgian Whim (London: Gq. England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), p. 354- 25. Elizabeth Boyd, Don Sancho, or the Students 23. Dobson,op.cit., p. 147. Parker, 1739), BL: 161.¢.56. 24. Bate, op.cit., p. 25. 57 THE LONDON GARDENERor The Gardener's Intelligencer Volno.8 For the years 2002-2003

assisted in their ritual by Mercury. With even were allocated space mainly in private libraries more noise and shaking, monuments of such as that of Alexander Pope at Twickenham Shakespeare and Dryden emerge, as Mercury and in Lord Chesterfield’s house in Mayfair, proclaims: Shakespeare took centre stage in thelibrary.* See, oh see the rising bust During this period, an actual Temple of Shakespeare's Tomb, the Good,the Just Shakespeare was erected in the garden at To his country's endless Praise WimborneSt Giles in , the seat of the See the Bard from Letheraise 4th Earl of Shaftesbury. Unfortunately, we have Joining worthy Dryden's Urn, no illustration of this structure, but it was Social pair see they return. described as a round thatched building posi- The chorus then concludes: tioned in a moundcontaining glass bookcases Onceagain, Britannia’s Fame for Shakespeare’s works and a small Statue of Lettered Gold their Worth proclaim the Bard” - somewhatin the manner of Queen Once again, etc. Caroline’s emblematic Merlin's Cave at With this, all the Gods return to Richmond.* Intriguingly, the title page of a Elysium, Minerva's Temple sinks steadily back published prologue in Shakespeare’s honour — into the earth in a great rumble. The students written by Samuel Johnson and spoken by proceed to gather round the two remaining Garrick in 1747 at the opening of the Drury monuments of Shakespeare and Dryden; they Lane Theatre - featured an image that was observe that Shakespeare is here revealed as clearly Merlin's Cave. (fig. 28) The Homer to Dryden's Virgil. Attempting to ‘Shakespear House’ at WimborneSt Giles was decipher the inscriptions, they find obviously meantas a garden/library specifical- Shakespeare’s is poorly inscripted in Greek, ly dedicated to Shakespeare. It was built for which theytranslate obliquely as: Susanna, Countess of Shaftesbury, who was Six score years; after Death upreared I stand founder of the Shakespeare Ladies Club. Until The Wonder, as the Glory of the Land recently, the very existence of the Ladies Club William Shakespeare. had virtually been erased from the historical Dryden's, being clearly inscribed in Latin, is record, and the namesofits memberslay com- moreeasily translated: pletely unrecognized by scholars until the last As Shakespeare's Friend, I here erect my Throne few years.” Lady Shaftesbury’s work in the The grateful Burden of unfeeling Stone cause of Shakespeare, and especially her cen- John Dryden. tral role in establishing the Bard as pre-emi- Elizabeth Boyd’s prologue was addressed nent, was in fact commemorated in 1743 in An to Alexander Pope, whois cited for his role in Epistle to the Right Honourable, the Countess of giving a voice to the neglected poets of Shaftesbury with a prologue [spoken by Mr. England. In 1735, Frederick, Prince of Wales, Garrick] and epilogue [spoken by Mrs. whom theso-called ‘Patriots’ were inclined to Woffington], on Shakespeare andhis writings: pin their hopes on to,” had presented Pope Fair Patroness of long departed Worth with a gift of four marble busts for his library O! Thou, wholately called our genius forth - these were Spenser, Milton, Dryden and of Who,like a Guardian Angel, didst inspire course, Shakespeare - all were sculpted by Thousands, and taught them whatthey Peter Scheemakers. Before 1743 Francis should admire Hayman had painted two large scenes from O! Thou whoseSpirit wak'd a drowsy age Shakespeare's plays for The Prince's Pavilion To pay a due regard to Shakespeare's page... at the Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens, the paint- The Poets Bays around thy Temples twine ings inspired by Garrick’s naturalistic style of Andthe fair Wreath of constant acting and the Prince of Wales himself is Loveis thine...etc.”

reported to have taken a great interest in the 28. Piper, 1982, p. 78. rapid rise of Garrick's career.” 29. The Genius ofthe Place, op.cit., p. 265. 30. Ray Desmond, Kew (London: Harvil Press, 1995), pp. 16-19. Until this point, images of the poets 31. See, for example: Dobson,of.cit., pp. 146-58.

26. Chambers,p 59. 32. Thomas Cooke, An Epistle to the Right Honourable, The Countess ofShaftesbury with a prologue andepilogue on Shakespeare and his 27. David Piper, The Image ofthe Poets (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Writings (London: T. Cooper, 1743), pp. 3-4, BL: 1347.m.20. 1982), p. 78; also: Brownell, p- 355; Brian Allen, Francis Hayman (New Haven & London:Yale, 1987), pp. 16, 17.

58 Davip Garrick: His GARDEN at Hamptonandthe ‘cutof SHAKESPEARE

26. Garrick with a Bust ofShakespeare after Thomas Gainsborough, mezzotint by Valentine Green, 1769 (Courtesy THe Tempte Trust)

59 THE LONDON GARDENERorThe Gardener's Intelligencer Volno.8 For the years 2902-2003

27. The Shakespeare Monurmeztin Poets’ Corner, Westminster Abbey, designed by , sculpzed by Peter Scheemakers, completed 1741 (Courtesy THe Dean anp CuapTer, WESTMINSTER ABBEY) 60 Davip Garrick: His GarpEN at Hamptonandthe ‘cut ofSHAKESPEARE

The same author hadearlier likened her project was conceived as a sort of affirmation to both the Venetian and the Roman Portias.* of the national poet’s resistance to ministerial Evenearlier, Robert Dodsley had cited her for corruption - in precisely the same way that her grace combined with intelligence in Shakespeare had been shown in Cobham’s Beauty, or the Art of Charming (1735).* Temple of British Worthies at Stowe. We may The Countess of Shaftesbury was the perceive the Abbey scheme to be somewhatof daughter of Baptiste Noel, the Earl of a continuation of Lord Cobham's politically- Gainsborough. She was related directly to charged programmein his garden at Stowe, Lord Burlington through his mother, who was begun in 1734. Burlington's commissioning of born Juliana Noel.* From the evidence, the same designer, William Kent, and one of Burlington's ownrole in helping the Ladies to the same sculptors, Peter Scheemakers, erect Shakespeare's monument in Westminster implies at least some connection. Also, both Abbeywassignificant, and has more recently projects are characterised by an explicit claim- led some to dub it the ‘Burlington Abbey ing of Shakespeare as ‘both a foe to tyranny Project’.* It is interesting that both the and a genuinely patriotic national hero, above Burlingtons and the Shaftesburys are general- the reach of bribery and invidious patronage’.® ly shown in a rather benign light, as great Indeed, the Lords Burlington and Cobham patrons of opera - one of the ‘foreign’ influ- were each members of great Whig dynastic ences opposed by the Ladies Club. Both fam- families, and each had gone into opposition ilies were patrons of Handel, and Burlington during The Excise Crisis of 1733.” The and Kent had come under direct attack by Shaftesburys were believed to have been William Hogarth as early as 1724 in satirical secretly connected with opposition writers as a engraving entitled The Taste of the Town, or early as 1729, supposedly identified as the Masquerades and Operas in which Shakespeare’s praiseworthy uni-sex couple ‘Florio and Clara’ and Dryden’s works are being carted away as in The Female Faction: or, the Gay Subscribers, wastepaper. As to whether Lady Shaftesbury and amongthe patrons supporting the publi- had in fact recruited her cousin Lord cation of John Gay's Polly - banned from the Burlington to the cause, or the other way stage by Sir Robert Walpole. Certainly, Lord around, is not entirely clear. However, whatis Shaftesbury waspolitically active as an oppo- certain is that in the spring of 1737 both nent of Walpole's government over the ques- Burlington and Pope were the leading figures tion of war with Spain in 1739 - an issue also on the committee to raise the Abbey monu- frequently associated with the Shakespeare ment. Other committee members included Ladies Club. On this, The Hon James Noel Benjamin Martyn (authorof the anti-Walpole (another blood relative of both Lord play Timoleon in 1730), Dr Richard Mead, and Burlington and Lady Shaftesbury) wrote an Charles Fleetwood, the manager of the Drury epilogue for the first Abbey Monument bene- Lane Theatre. Together, these men were the fit performance ofJulius Caesar on 28 April 1737: recognized‘trustees’ of the Fund,and they had WhenPortia weeps,all gentle breasts ‘the sole Direction of the Monument’.” The must mourn main emphasis of the Ladies Club / WhenBrutusarms,all gen’rous bosoms burn Burlington Committee campaign was that When ’s firm Patriots on the stage Shakespeare would now be erected in the are shown national pantheon (Westminster Abbey) Withpride we trace the Patriots of our own.” entirely by public subscription. The supposed The overall presentation of the monu- public-spiritedness of this enterprise was ment would have beenpartially influenced by in meant to be in contra-distinction to the sus- Alexander Pope. The iconography shown pect practices of private patronage associated relief on the pedestal featured Elizabeth I, with Walpole's government. Thus, the entire Henry V and Richard II, identifying Shakespeareas the creator of the histories and 33. Thomas Cook, A Demonstration ofthe Will of God by the Light of Nature (London, 1742), ‘The Dedication’, pp. v-vi, BL:1253.e the tragedies. The presence of Elizabeth I 34. Robert Dodsley, Beauty, or The Art of Charming: A Poem (London: E. Cook, 1735), p. 27, BL: 1486.¢.23. 38. Ibid. p. 138. 35. Dobson,op.cit., p. 149; also see: John Harris, The Palladian 39. Ibid. p. 138. Revival (New Haven & London:Yale, 1994), p- 35- 40. Ibid. p. 149. 36. Dobson,of.ciZ., p 139, 0. 9- 41. Ibid. p. 138. 37. Ibid. p. 138. 61

THE LONDON GARDENERor The Gardener's Intelligencer Vol no.8 For the years 2002-2003

recalled notonly the lost days of royal patron- be filled with some bland misquotedlines from age, which Shakespeare and all other epic The Tempest instead. This hasty, botchedpiece poets had previously enjoyed, but also, more of work apparently infuriated Pope, who in his specifically, her role in seeing off the Spanish notes to the 1743 revision of the Dunciad calls threat. Overall, Shakespeare was being it ‘that Specimen of an Edition ... which claimed as the British Worthy who immor- indeed Shakespeare has great reason to point talised his nation's heroic golden age.* Pope's at’.Throughit all, Burlington maintained an role also seems to have revolved around the air of mild disinterest in the activities he clear- proposed inscription to fill the scroll that ly presided over. Shakespeare points to insistently. The public Censored or not, edited or not, was invited to submit their proposals to the Shakespeare entered the national pantheon as Burlington Committee for consideration, in an opposition poet. As the only full-length much the same way as the Gentleman’ portrait in Poets Corner, he was now pro- Magazine had earlier sponsored a competition claimed as the Bard of all Bards - the King of (in 1732 and 1733) for the best poemsacclaim- all British Poets, so to speak. In this sense, per- ing Queen Caroline’s Hermitage at haps Shakespeare also came to embody the Richmond.Reflecting his own conviction that idea of the ‘Patriot King’, at least for the so- the nation's poets had long been neglected, he called ‘Patriots’. The monument drew such circulated one such epigram paraphrasing large crowdsto the Abbeythat special railings Elizabeth Boyd’s inscription in Don Sanchos: had to be erected to protectit. After an hundred andthirty years nap Early in 1741, shortly after the monu- Enter Shakespear with a loud clap.* ment was unveiled butbefore his official stage His eventual proposals involved a Latin debut, Garrick appeared in a masked mime inscription to hang over Shakespeare's head: role as Harlequin for two or three scenes when ‘Amor Pvblicvs Posvit’ to affirm the public the actor Richard Yates suddenly fell ill. The subscription, along with an epigram to fill the play was entitled Harlequin Student; or, The scroll: Fall of Pantomime, with the Restoration of the Thus Britain lov'd me, and preserv'd my fame Drama and topically featured a copy of the Clear from Barber's or a Benson's name. Westminster Abbey statue. Its title directly The ‘Barber’ and ‘Benson’ mentioned mimicked the illicit fairground play entitled here were the names of two patrons loyal to The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth, with the Walpole's government, who had already Restauration of the Protestant Religion: or, The appropriated the nearby busts of Samuel Downfall ofthe Pope (published in 1680).* The Butler and John Milton respectively, thus theme of the play was by now familiar one, a tainting the reputationsof these poets and glo- certainly as a result of the Shakespeare Ladies rifying their own namesinstead. Curiously, Club: Pantomime invadesthe provinceoflegit- when the Shakespeare statue was finally imate drama. Yet now Harlequin and his min- unveiled in February 1741 the scroll was left ions are vanquished by the presence of the blank. Had the Dean and Chapter of the Shakespeare statue in a final apotheosis scene. Abbey refused the proposed epigram? Or was It was staged at the Goodman's Fields by this an intentional ploy by the Burlington Henry Giffard, who operated his theatre in Committee? The absurdity of the situation - open defiance of Walpole’s Licensing Act of of Shakespeare pointing to a blank page - led 1737. Within months, Garrick madehisofficial to a tremendous controversy. The Dean was debut at Goodman's Fields in the role of accused in some London journals of being Richard III, which was reportedly so power- afraid to incur the wrath of the Prime fully naturalistic that it soon set the town ‘horn Minister. The implication was that mad’. He wrote to his brother Peter in Shakespeare was also now the victim of cen- Lichfield with news that Pitt and Lyttelton, sorship. Realising he had to defuse a delicate among other ‘Cobhamites’, wished to have situation, the Dean ordered the blankscroll to supper with him and: ‘the Prince has heard so

42. Ibid. p. 143. great a Character of me that weare in daily 43. Correspondence ofMary Granville, Mrs Delany, ed. by Lady Llanover (London: R. Bentley, 1862), vol. ii, p- 139 [21st December, 44. Dobson, op.cit., p. 146. 1740] 45. Ibid. p. 162.

62 Davip Garrick: His GARDEN at HAMPTON andthe ‘CULT of SHAKESPEARE’

Expectationsof his coming to see Me’.In the neighbours, Edward Lovibond, entitled The same way as Shakespeare had entered the Mulberry Tree. It tells of a thoroughly drunken Abbey as an opposition poet, Garrick entered Garrick trying to reach the upper branches of the Theatre as an opposition actor. Of the old tree at Stratford by standing on the Walpole's imminentfall from politics, Garrick shoulders of an equally drunken Johnson. wrote excitedly to his brother: ‘Sir Robertis in When Garrick can't get quite high enough to a very bad hole & I believe He can't find a reach the top, he stands on Johnson's head, Rope strong enough not even in ye Treasury to and then climbs onto a rotten bough. This in draw him outofit’.” turn brings the whole tree crashing to the In the following year, Garrick paid ground, accompanied by a hale of expletives homage to his adopted idol by visiting from Johnson. If anypart of this tale is true, it Stratford-upon-Avon. He was accompanied may help to explain why later that year the on this pilgrimage by Charles Macklin, fellow Revd Gastrell chose to rid himself of the bur- collaborator in the new revolutionary style of den of stewarding the tree, with all the naturalistic acting. The actors duly visited increased attention it brought, by having it Holy Trinity Church to see the earlier monu- chopped down and the wood sold to make ment to the Bard, containing an effigy of relics! The poem ends: Shakespeare in painted limestone, which had Yet mistake me not rabble, this tree’s been paid for by his own descendants a few a goodtree years after his death. George Vertue had been Does honour, Dame Nature, to Britain here in 1721 to make design drawings for the and thee! title-page of Alexander Pope's edition of Andthefruit at the top, take its merits in brief Shakespeare's works, and again in 1737 when Makes a noble dessert, where the dinner’s he made a drawing showing a devotee before roast beef.” the Stratford shrine. (fig. 29).Garrick and In the summerof 1756, Garrick’s proud Macklin also visited New Place, the last home Temple of Shakespeare had reached comple- of Shakespeare and the house in which he had tion on the bank of the Thames at Hampton. died. Here they were shown the legendary It was conspicuous not only for its dramatic mulberrytree in the garden, reputedly planted riverside setting, but also its striking resem- by Shakespeare himself in 1609. Years later, blance to Lord Burlington's much earlier Ionic when Garrick wascreating his Villa garden, he Temple at Chiswick. The Burlington connec- apparently returned to Stratford specifically to tion is perhaps quite important, for in 1749 take a slip from the sacred old tree with the Garrick had married Lord and Lady intention of planting this in his own Burlington's young protegé, Eva Maria Veigel, Shakespeare garden at Hampton. This time in the beautiful Viennese dancer sometimes his company washis lifelong friend and erst- known by her stage name La Uzrolette or while tutor Samuel Johnson. Both Johnson Violetti. Since coming to England in 1746, she and Garrick became acquainted with the new had lived with the Burlingtons at Chiswick owner of New Place, Revd Francis Gastrell, and at Burlington House, and was byall through mutual connections in their home- accounts treated as if she were their own town of Lichfield. Whether or not the request daughter. The close domestic arrangement for a cutting of the tree was granted willingly, had even led some to suppose that she was we can only guess. However,from the fact that actually the illegitimate daughter of Lord many years later Mrs Garrick would often Burlington from oneofhis earlier Grand Tour proudly show visitors the mulberry tree in the exploits, a rumour that was never quite sub- Hampton garden as being ‘grown from slip stantiated.*° Garrick himself eventually became a of Shakespeare’s tree at Stratford’, we can a trusted memberof the Burlingtoncircle, and assume that some arrangement had been made the newly-wed couple spent part of their hon- for securing the cutting. Ofthis, an extremely eymoon at Chiswick. By the time he came to comical episode is recalled in an allegorical erect his Temple of Shakespeare, Garrick’s

poem written by one of Garrick’s Hampton 49. Edward Lovibond, Poems on Several Occasions (London,1785),

‘The Mulberry Tree’ [c.1760], BL: 11643.aa.54.(1.). 46. Letters, no. 18. so. Iain McIntyre, Garrick (London: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press, 47. Letters, no. 21. 48. Deelman,op.cit., p. 35; Piper, 1964, op.cit., p. 10. 1999), P- 155- 63 THE LONDON GARDENER or The Gardener's Intelligencer Volno.8 For the years 2002-2003

PN ODO Ge YE

SPOREN BY Mr GAR RIC K,

SH EN Learning’s Triumph o’er herbar- b’rous Foes * Firft rear’d the Stage, immortal SHAKE- SPEAR rofe 5 Each Change of many-colour’d Life he drew, Exhaufted Worlds, and then imagin’d new: 3 oO Exi-«

|i ; ;

i y yrod #6 ij 4 - de “94 ids — : ee ‘ i si be ha pe . ‘ ~ 2 hod Carat Fe

ki

a fosvy

=. _ faa Ins in is i 7 27}Pe > - re “s Pah!4} ~ Z q ty PM > va

- z 4 SL

+, am .ss Ra ——

28. Title page of the Prologue written by Samuel Johnson, spoken by David Garrick at the opening of the 1747 season ofThe Drury Lane Theatre under Garrick’s management (Courtesy Britis Lisrary)

29. The Earl ofOxfordpaying homage to the Shakespeare monumentat Stratford-upon-Avon by George Vertue, 1737 (Courtesy Britis Lisrary)

64

Davip Garrick: His GarpEN at Hamptonandthe ‘cuLt ofSHAKESPEARE’ career was already inextricably boundupin the momentofinspiration. The expressiveness of public mind with the contemporary revival of the characterisation - ‘the poet’s eye in a fine interest in Shakespeare andhis plays.* Garrick frenzy rolling’ - reflected the naturalistic idiom would havefully recognized Lord Burlington's of Garrick's own revolutionary modeofacting, central role in the Westminster Abbey project, for which he had become renowned,*especial- and may well have participated by supporting ly in his astonishing debut as Richard III at the benefit performances alongside him. It Goodman's Fields. Some of his power in the seemsentirely plausible, and more thana little role was famously capturedin 1745 in a life-size appropriate, that when he decided to build a painting by William Hogarth.* We may even Temple in honour of Shakespeare, he chose suspect, as has often been supposed, that the Burlington's Ionic Temple as architectural model. Roubiliac statue for Garrick's Temple was in Horace Walpole, Garrick's neighbour at fact a portrait of Garrick himself, in the role of Strawberry Hill, had watched the building of Shakespeare.” Undoubtedly, Roubiliac's dis- the Temple with considerable interest. In 1755 tinctive style shines through in the piece. The he wrote to a friend: ‘I have contracted a sort ‘dazzling range of incidental un-statuesque of intimacy with Garrick, who is my neigh- textures’ are displayed in the figure: the vast bour. He affects to study mytaste.’ Although ‘drooping parchment, quill pen, the elaborate having earlier consciously resisted Garrick's drapery of the moving cloak, the knee-frills of legendary social charms and elan, by October the breeches, the delicate lace of the cuffs, the 1756 Walpole was finally showing signs of suc- crumpled shirt exposed by the casually gaping cumbing: waistcoat, and, most showy of all, the soft John and I are just going to Garrick’s with a leather of the right slipper folded under the grove of cypresses in our hands,like the Kentish men at poet’s heel at the back through his neglect of a the Conquest. He has built a grateful Temple to his shoehorn’.* This final detail was particularly master Shakespeare and I am goingto adorntheoutside reminiscent of Roubiliac's treatment of the fig- since his modesty would not let me decorate within.” ure ofHandelfor the Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens In fact, the interior decoration Walpole (now in the Victoria & Albert Museum). had in mind, and which Garrick had somehow Roubiliac’s statue of Shakespeare may managed to diplomatically resist, was a Latin also be seen as a sort of loose rococo transla- inscription andits expanded English translation: tion of the Westminster Abbey figure. The Quodspiro, et placeo, st placeo, tuum est emblematic devices of the Abbey pedestal are That I spirit have and nature absent, as well as all inscriptions. Roubiliac has That sense breathes in every feature signed and dated his work discreetly, but it is ThatI please, if please I do otherwise free of fuss or distractions. Instead Shakespeare, all I owe to you.” of Shakespeare leaning forward to point at a Precisely how or why Garrick had scroll, he lifts his left forefinger to his chin in refused Walpole's inscriptionsis not recorded. a thoroughly convincing unconscious gesture. However, we may assume that he indeed Like the Abbeystatue, this is a portrait of the accepted the cypresses, as they appear in con- national poetas a venerable figure, but it also temporaryillustrations of the garden. presents Shakespeare as a working playwright, Garrick commissioned a full-length preparing to write and looking in the skyward statue of Shakespeare from his fellow horizon for inspiration, in much the same way Huguenot, Louis Francois Roubiliac, to pre- as Garrick saw himself as an actor/manager side over the interior of the Temple. (fig. 30) who wrote for the stage. Similar to the Abbey Work to the proposed figure began in earnest figure, Shakespeare's dress is neither correctly in the summerof 1757, and it wasfinally fin- Elizabethan, nor even Georgian, but ratherit ished and installed in its niche in the Temple belongs to a romantic nether-period - a hybrid at Hampton during the following summer.* mix of the two eras - infused with the drama Reputedly, the pose was struck by Garrick of a Van Dyke painting.” Moreover, the sim-

himself, showing Shakespeare at the precise 55. David Bindman and Malcolm Baker, Roubiliac and the 18th century monument (New Haven & London:Yale 1995), p. 77.

51. Smith, 1998, op.ciz., p. 6. 56. David Bindman, Hogarth (London: Thames & Hudson,1991), 52. Blest Retreats (London:L.B. of Richmond,1984), p. 11. pp. 108-9. 53. Deelman,op.cit., p. 98. 57. Piper, 1964, op.cit., p. 28; Dobson,op.cit., pp. 179-80. 54. Dobson,op.cit., p. 179. 58. Dobson,op.cit., p. 180. 65 THE LONDON GARDENERor The Gardener's Intelligencer Volno.8 For the years 2002-2003 plified Garrick/Roubiliac tableau seemstocall As might be expected, the perpetuation forth, quite directly, John Dryden's ‘venerable of the ‘cult of Shakespeare’ at Hampton did Shakespeare’ of the previous century: not proceed without a fair bit of criticism. Shakespeare(thy gift) I place before my sight Samuel Foote published a pamphletin 1760 in With aweI askhis blessing as I write whichhesaid: With reverence look on his majestic face [Garrick] has dedicated a Temple to a certain Proudto be less, but of his god-like race.°° Divinity called Shakespeare [here printed in Greek] Hence, the scroll is expanded into ‘an before whoseshrine frequentlibations are made, and on immense Bard-size blank vellum page’ inviting whose altar the fat of venison, a viand grateful to the infinite possibilities for inspiration.” This goes Deity, is seen often to smoak... this must be considered some way towards explaining the prescribed a mere personal superstition, for which the Man, and ritual that visitors to Garrick's Temple were notthe Profession is accountable.” encouraged to follow, whereby written tributes Foote and many other critics and in honourof the Bard were solemnly placed at satirists were increasingly outraged by the the base of the statue. In effect, Garrick was idolatry that Garrick promoted on behalf of continuing the tradition of public subscription Shakespeare, and this was particularly appar- initiated during the Abbey project.” Could this ent in the lead-up to the Shakespeare Jubilee be the reason behindhis firm butpolite rejec- at Stratford-upon-Avonin 1769. Dr Johnson, tion of Walpole's permanent inscription? one of the leading Shakespearean scholars of Indeed, of those visitors who obliged their the day, was obviously preparedto tolerate his host’s request, some may have been amusedto friend’s private tribute in the garden at find their tributes published anonymously in Hampton, and whenfirst shown the garden the Londonjournals, part of an ingenioustac- improvements is reported to have said: ‘Ah tic for keeping the so-called ‘cult of David, it is the leaving of such places that Shakespeare’ alive in the public mind. makes a deathbed terrible’. When Johnson Shortly after the arrival of the statue of famously wrote: ‘Shakespeare may now assume Shakespeare, one such tribute appeared in the the dignity of an ancient’,”we maybe forgiven London Magazine entitled ‘Lines dropt in Mr. for wonderingif he was thinking of Garrick's Garrick's Temple of Shakespeare, Hampton’.® Temple! In fact, Johnson's conspicuous Here Garrick: absence from the Jubilee at Stratford would Invokes the animated stone indicate he thought Garrick had gonetoofar. To makethe poets mind his own However, Garrick was adequately skilled at dis- Unnoticed long thy Shakespeare lay arming even his worstcritics, and at bringing To dullness andto time a prey some others aroundtohisside of the argument. But lo! I rise, I breathe, I live When the Frenchman Voltaire launched In you, my representative. an attack on Shakespeare's writing, it had the In this, we witness Garrick proclaimed effect of rallying the whole British nation not only as Shakespeare’s greatest interpreter behind Garrick - especially useful to him at on stage, but more,hisliving representative on the Jubilee.* Something of this was noted Earth! Garrick thus emerges as the embodi- whenJohnson explained to Boswell his reason ment of Shakespeare. Remote though this may for withholding any mention of Garrick in the seem to us today, contemporary audiences Preface to his Shakespeare edition: ‘Garrick were witness to Garrick’s extraordinarily hasbeenliberally paid, sir, for anything he has expressive technique. There was certainly a done for Shakespeare. If I should praise him,I strong contemporary perception that Garrick's should much morepraise the nation who paid ‘speaking Eye’ was the key to his genius as an him’.” Mrs Elizabeth Montagu, the wealthy actor, and that it was the central organ in con- bluestocking, wrote an influential essay in 1769 veying Shakespeare's meaning.” in responseto Voltaire's attack, just in time for

59. Ibid.p. 16. Garrick’s Jubilee. In this she defended both 60. Piper, 1964, op.cit., p. 14. 61. Dobson,op.cit., p. 180. Garrick and Shakespeare, and was obviously

62. Ibid. pp. 139-46. 66. Ashton and Mackintosh, The Georgian Playhouse (London: The 63. London Magazine, November 1758, p. 539. Arts Council, 1975), cat. no. 84. 64. Dobson,op.cit., p. 182. 67. Piper, 1982, op.cit., p. 80. 65. Cecil Price, Theatre in the Age of Garrick (Oxford: Basil 68. Deelman,of.cit., pp. 228-30. Blackwell, 1973), p. 18; also see: Bindman and Baker, of.cit., pp. 77-9. 69. Ibid. p. 96. 66 Davip Garrick: His GarpEN at Hampton and the ‘cuit of SHAKESPEARE

30. Statue of Shakespeare by Louis Francois Roubiliac, 1753 (Courtesy British Museum)

31. Garrick unveiling a term ofShakespeare end the Epbesian Diana by Cipriani. c.1770 (By Permission or THE Fotcer SHAKESPEARE Lisrary, WaSHINGTON D.C.)

67 THE LONDON GARDENERorThe Gardener’s Intelligencer Volno.8 Forthe years 2002-2003

32. Garrick’s Temple followingrestoration, 2000. Thecypresses (above) which were planted in the newly-restored garden were donated by the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust. (see London Gardener, vol. v, p. 63) (PHoTocrapH: SALLy WILLIAMs)

68 Davip Garrick: His Garpen at Hamptonandthe ‘cut of SHAKESPEARE’ aware that in the popular mind, Voltaire, like boughs would cascade downinto the Thames. the French nation itself, was to be seen as the Traditionally, it has been assumed that arch enemy of all things Shakespearean and Robert Adam was the architect of the British.” Garrick knew the value of tapping Shakespeare Temple. However, we know that into the nationalfeelings of patriotism, and in he was on the Grand Tour in Italy between 1759 he had writtenthelyrics to the song Heart 1754 and 1758, and the Adam involvement only ofOak,first performed in his Christmas enter- came in 1765, and again in 1775, when Garrick tainment entitled Harlequin Invasion, yet commissioned alterations to the Villa. John anotherversion of Harlequin Student in which Adams, who visited in 1759, thought the a statue of Shakespeare triumphsover the for- Temple was ‘much too large for this small eign invasion.” As we might expect of the son piece of ground, andis not elegant either out- of an army recruiting officer, and being of side or inside, though the prospect to the river good humble French Protestant stock, Garrick is most delightful...’”° Capability Brown and would have understood, almost by instinct, the even Roubiliac have been suggested as the importanceofinspiring patriotic feelings, even architects of the Temple, yet we have no spe- if he sometimes got it completely wrong, such cific supporting documentation. We may just as the time he hired French dancers for The as easily consider that this is not an architect’s Chinese Festival in 1755, leading to riots in building at all, but a builder’s building - the Drury Lane, and the windows of his town- sort of structure that was based on the house being broken.” Burlington model at Chiswick, and translated Garrick had acquired his Villa at for Garrick by a competent builder. One such Hamptonin 1754, not simply as a retreat but as candidate, with whom Garrick had dealings in a visible symbol of his astonishingrise to fame the early 1750s, was Thomas Rosoman, the and fortune. His quest for the perfect proper- actor/manager of Sadler's Wells. In addition to ty had begunin the previous year. He haddis- Rosoman’s theatrical career he had been a very patchedhis brothers Peter and George to scout successful and ambitious builder/developer, out the estate market in various parts of the particularly in the Islington area. He eventual- country. In a letter to Peter he set out his chief ly retired to Hamptonin theearly 17708, and requirements: ‘I own I love a good Situation lived in Jessamine House. Johann Zoffany prodigiously & I think the four great painted him with his family on Taggs Island Requisites to make one are, Wood, Water, with the Shakespeare Temple shown promi- Extent & inequality of Ground’.? Whyheset- nently in the background.” tled on the Hamptonproperty is not recorded Early on in his career, Capability Brown precisely, but it seems that it answered many of advised Garrick in laying out the grounds, but his specific requirements. From a practical the extent to which he was responsible for standpoint, Hampton was close enough to implementing the works is uncertain.” London, and to the Drury Lane, to make a Reputedly, he gave the actor the idea of creat- convenientescape, but also far enough away to ing the grotto-tunnel(a “Pasi/lipic’) under the be considered sufficiently rural. Perhaps Garrick road to connect the Villa garden to the Temple was cognizant of Alexander Pope's words: lawn. Garrick had originally envisaged a Blest Thames shores the brightest beauties yield bridge over the road, but when he told Dr Feed here my lambs, I’'ll seek no distantfield.” Johnson of Brown's advice, Johnson exclaimed In homage, Garrick may well have taken ‘Davey, Davey, what can't be over-done must cuttings from Pope's legendary weeping wil- be under-done!’” This feature was complete lows at Twickenham in much the same way as by 1759. Earlier, when Horace Walpole had he had taken a slip from Shakespeare's mul- written that Garrick‘affects to study mytaste’, berry tree at Stratford around this time.” Still it is likely that Garrick was interested in his

rare in England, he planted these willow slips 75. Mark Laird, The Flowering ofthe Landscape Garden (Pennsylvania: right up to the bank, so that as they grew the Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), pp- 158, 403 n. 76, 77,78. 76. See: Murdoch,op.cit. 77. Auction catalogue: Important English Pictures, Christie's, Friday 70. Ibid. p. 135. 24th, 1987, Lot 105, pp. 160-2. 71. Smith, 1998, op.cit., p. 9. 78. Dorothy Stroud, Capability Brown (London: Country Life Ltd., 72. McIntyre, op.cit., pp. 235-56. 73. Letters, I, no. 126. 1950), Pp- 97-8. 74. Mavis Batey, Arcadian Thames (London: Barn Elms, 1994), p. 67. 79. Ibid. p. 60.

69 THE LONDON GARDENERooThe Gardener's Intelligencer Volno.8 For the years 2002-2003 gardening activities at Strawberry Hill, and further than his friend Colonel George more specifically, Walpole’s ‘serpentine wood Bodens, formerly of the Coldstream Guards,* of all kinds of trees and flowering shrubs’.*° whois identified as the large elderly gentle- Perhaps one bit of advice that Walpole may man with a cane seated with the Garricks in have conveyed washisbelief that ‘the posses- Zoffany’s painting entitled The Tea Party (fig. sor, if he has any taste, must be the best 25). Someone with the initials ‘GB was designer of his own improvements’.” David recruited to compile an extensivelist of avail- and Eva Maria Garrick certainly took great able trees and shrubs for the Hampton garden pride in planting manyofthetrees in the gar- and just such a document exists amongst the den themselves. Contemporary engravings Garrick estate papers at the Hereford City show an undulating lawn with manyfinetrees Museum. Evidently written by an intimate and a serpentine path bordered by flowering friend, it ends: “But for the Violetta, you are so shrubs and evergreens. The trees included happy to have that already, the finest in the Cedar of Lebanon,fir, chestnut, elm, oak, yew, world, the Beauty of your garden. Supereminet and a tulip tree.” There were, of course, the omnes. Only three clear candidates emerge for famous mulberry, weeping willows, and the authorship of this preciouslist: Grosvenor cypresses. As late as the 1770s, Henrietta Pye, Bedford, Giuseppe Baretti, and George Bodens. a local resident and writer, described Garrick's Another of Garrick's friends, William garden as being ‘laid out in the moderntaste’.® Hogarth, would have provided an extremely In the early 1750s, this layout would have been important theoretical influence in the making regarded as absolutely cutting edge, and a very of the Hampton garden, as well as several fashionable addition to the Twickenham / other new gardens in the area. His long-await- Hamptonriverscape. ed Analysis ofBeauty was publishedin 1753, yet In 1757 Garrick introduced a new comic as early as 1745 Hogarth introduced into his character, Lord Chalkstone, into his play famous self-portrait the mysterious ‘Line of Lethe, or Aesop in the Shades, first produced in Beauty and Grace’. In the painting, the ser- 1740.* The character of Chalkstone, often pentine line was shown as a relaxed S-curve. played by Garrick himself, was a sort of amal- However, rather than being a mere two- gam of the various oldaristocratic ‘Patriots’ of dimensional squiggle, it was painted with a the previous generation - the Cobhams and shadow; therefore, Hogarth intended it to Burlingtons who both Garrick and Capability have form and substance. Moreover, it was Brown would have encountered at the start of seen to undulate. Interestingly, in the composi- their careers - but freshly animatedby the spir- tion of the painting, Hogarth's portrait rests it of the new generation of landowner/garden- on volumes of Swift, Milton and Shakespeare. ers. In the play, the gout-stricken peer com- Clearly his intended message was that hisart, plains as he waits to cross the River Styx into like the work of the British poets, and even the the Elysian Fields that it is laid out without ‘Line of Beauty’itself, were all of indigenous taste and should have beengiven a ‘serpentine origin and inspiration.” sweep’ to improve its ‘capabilities’ ... ‘You Sometime after 1757, William Hogarth should clear the wood to the left, and clump designed alterations to an already elaborate the trees to the right: in short, the whole wants chair intended to form the interior decoration variety, extent, contrast, and inequality’. As he of the Shakespeare Temple. Thesealterations advances to the edge of the stage, he peers includedan oval relief of Shakespeare (suppos- downinto the orchestra pit: ‘Upon my word, edly carved from the wood of his mulberry here’s a fine ha-ha! ...and a most curious col- tree) set into its backrest. The back of the chair lection of evergreens and flowering shrubs’. As was also then surmounted by a dramatic the- both a physical and comic model for atrical trophy.* It was referred to as ‘The Chalkstone, Garrick possibly had to look no 85. Thraliana, ed. K.C. Balderston, I, 1942, PP- 4, 330; see also

80. Batey, op.cit., p. 63. ‘Descriptive Inventory of the household furniture and fixtures 81. Ibid. p. 60. belongingto the late David Garrick, Esq., 18th February 1779’, 82. Michael Symes, ‘David Garrick and landscape gardening’, Victoria & Albert Museum. Journal ofGarden History, vol. 6, no. 1, p- 41. 86. Hereford City Museum, documentno: 1992-24/39¢/g 83. Blest Retreats, op.cit., p. 10. 87. Bindman,of.cit., p. 151. 84. David Garrick, Lethe, or: Eesop in the Shades (London, 1757), 5th 88. See Rococo: Art and Design in Hogarth's England (London: V&A, ed., BL: T.1609.(5.). 1984), p. 67, cat. no. Ez.

70 Davip Garrick: His GARDEN at HampTON andthe ‘CULT of SHAKESPEARE’

President of the Shakespeare Club chair’, and Garrick’s Temple of Shakespeare is open on May Dayeach year Garrick would distrib- on Sundayafternoons 2-5pm from ute money, cake, and wineto the poorchildren April through to September. of Hampton whilst seated in the Temple next to the Roubiliac statue of Shakespeare.” Over KEK KX the years, various interesting Elizabethan and Jacobean relics were introduced to the con- tents of the Temple, such as a glove,a salt-cel- NEWINGTON GREEN lar, and a signet ring with the initials ‘WS.’.”° By Sally Williams Garrick believed these to have once belonged to Shakespeare himself. To the display were hese notes have been triggered by eventually added a number of elaborately the discovery of four early black and carved modernartifacts - mostly made of mul- white photographs showing — berry wood and associated with the Newington Green soonafter it had Shakespeare Jubilee at Stratford in 1769.” The beenlaid out as a public amenity by Islington Temple thus becamea sort of cabinet ofcurtosi- Borough Council, which had acquired the ties for the Shakespeare /Garrick‘cult’. land in 1874. (figs. 33, 34 35 © 36) Who took As Michael Symes has written in his these photographs and for what purposeis not article on Garrick and his garden: known, but they show young trees recently The Temple at Hamptonserved both as a cele- planted andvirgin footpaths, and were perhaps bration of Shakespeare and also a symbolof the inspi- taken before the gardens had been publicly ration and cause of Garrick's success as an actor. The opened. Indeed, the dating of these pho- conflation of garden andtheatre is therefore at its most tographs has been established by comparison potent and apparentat this point.” with an imageofc.1878 which shows the same Along similar lines, a critic had pro- scene with the trees a little more grown, the claimed in 1757 that Garrick had rejuvenated path now flanked by benches and with a small the English stage by establishing ‘Nature, picturesque central kiosk, which in later pic- Shakespeare, and himself’.» This idea was ture postcards became shaded by well-grown provided a bizarre visual interpretation by trees. Both the 1878 imageandtheslightly ear- Cipriani in 1776: (fig. 31) a painting in the lier one illustrated here (see fig. 33) feature a Folger Shakespeare Library shows Garrick large white building on theleft, by then a bank unveiling a Homeric term of Shakespeare paired and the formerresidence of Samuel Rogers, of with an Ephesian Diana(goddess of Nature). whom more later, a building which is known The restoration of this historic site in to have been pulled downin late 1881. Adjacent the Greenis an 1998-2000, including the Life of Garrick exhi- to this house and overlooking brick terrace built in 1658 bition and a copy of Roubiliac’s Shakespeare important surviving the statue mounted permanently within the - Nos. 52-55 Newington Green - among housing in London andlisted Temple, provides a fitting memorial to oldest terraced buildings Britain's greatest actor-manager. The layout Grade I, which along with other clues to the histor- and plantings of the garden have been based around the Green provides of this area, which straddles the on both the George Bodens’list of trees and ical interest boroughsof Islington and Hackney.’ shrubs, and on eighteenth-century illustra- modern Newyngtongrene’ is recorded in 1480 as tions. Here, in a beautifully re-created garden on the edge of Stoke setting is displayed a visual record not only of the green of a tiny hamlet which itself had existed as a vil- Garrick's illustrious career, his image, his gar- Newington, time of the Domesday Survey and den, and his life at Hampton, but also evi- lage by the the formerly extensive oak dence of how, by his talent, he made was a clearing in once covered this central to the British theatrical Forest of Middlesex that Shakespeare a favourite tradition.(fig. 32) area. In Tudor times it became eeeee royal hunting park and consequently there 89. Blest Retreats, op.cit., p. 1; see also J. Norris Brewer, Histrionic Topography (London:J Cole, 1818), p. 10. 1. Forfuller history, see The Changing Face ofNewington Green go. Smith, 1998, op.cit., pp. 4-5: (London: The Factory, 1977). gt. Ibid.p. 4. 2. See A D Mills, A Dictionary ofLondon Place Names (Oxford: g2. Symes, of.cit., p. 39. Oxford University Press, 2001). 93. Piper, 1982, op.cit., p. 88. 71