Issues in Review 167 Daniel’s Cleopatra and Lady Anne Clifford: From a Jacobean Portrait to Modern Performance Yasmin Arshad, Early Theatre 17.2 (2014), 167–186 Helen Hackett, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12745/et.18.2.2548 and Emma Whipday Recent interest in staging so-called ‘closet dramas’ by early modern women has bypassed Samuel Daniel’s Cleopatra, because of the author’s sex. Yet this play has strong female associations: it was commissioned by Mary Sidney Herbert, and is quoted in a Jacobean portrait of a woman (plausibly Lady Anne Clifford) in role as Cleopatra. We staged a Jacobean-style production of Cleopatra at Goodenough College, London, then a performance of selected scenes at Knole, Clifford’s home in Kent. This article presents the many insights gained about the dramatic power of the play and its significance in giving voices to women. Early in the early seventeenth century a young woman, costumed as Cleo- patra, posed for a portrait, holding aloft the fatal asps (figure 1). She is not Shakespeare’s Egyptian queen: an inscription on the portrait comes from the 1607 version of Samuel Daniel’s Cleopatra. The sitter may have ‘performed’ the role of Cleopatra only for the portrait, or the portrait may record a fully staged performance of the play; either way, this Jacobean woman identi- fied with Cleopatra and wanted to speak through Daniel’s lines. We have reasons to identify the woman as Lady Anne Clifford, countess of Dorset (1590 –1676),1 and the portrait may relate to her lengthy inheritance dispute, during which she defied her uncle, her husband, and even King James, just as Cleopatra defies Caesar in the play. Inspired by this possibility, we staged a performance of Daniel’s Cleopatra in March 2013 at Goodenough College, London, and in June 2014 performed selected scenes at Knole House, Kent, Clifford’s home.2 The processes of rehearsal and performance produced many insights into the dramatic qualities of Daniel’s text and the opportun- ities it offers for voicing and performing female heroism. Yasmin Arshad ([email protected]) is a doctoral student in English at University College London. Helen Hackett ([email protected]) is professor of English at University College London. Emma Whipday ([email protected]) is a teaching fellow at King’s College London and a Globe Education lecturer at Shakespeare’s Globe. 168 Issues in Review Fig. 1: ‘Lady Ralegh as Cleopatra’, by an unknown artist. Oil on panel, 109.2. x 82.5 cm. Christie’s 23 July 1948 (77). Photograph: National Portrait Gallery, London. Present whereabouts unknown. Female Devisership: Play and Portrait The connections of Daniel’s Cleopatra with female authorship, patronage, and performance are strong. Mary Sidney Herbert, countess of Pembroke,3 commissioned the play as a sequel to Antonius (1592), her translation of Rob- ert Garnier’s French Senecan tragedy Marc Antoine. This translation was the first Cleopatra play in English, Daniel’s the first original English play on this subject. As he explained in prefatory verses to the 1594 first edition of Cleopatra, it was ‘the worke the which she [Mary Sidney] did impose’, and he would not have written it, Madam, had not thy well grac’d Anthony (Who all alone having remained long,) Requir’d his Cleopatras company.4 Margaret P. Hannay has emphasized the shared topical project of Mary Sidney’s Antonius and Daniel’s Cleopatra in the turbulent 1590s, when criticism of Elizabeth I’s dilatory foreign policy and neglect of the suc- cession grew among the ‘forward’ Protestant party: ‘Insofar as Mary Sid- ney did sponsor drama, it was a drama that focused on political themes, Issues in Review 169 particularly on the duties of the monarch. Both her translation of Marc Antoine and Daniel’s sequel in Cleopatra focus on the conflict between private and public issues’.5 The plays were companion pieces, with Sidney’s relation to Daniel’s Cleo- patra exemplifying female ‘devisership’, a term proposed by Peter David- son and Jane Stevenson for the extensive cultural activities of early modern elite women which are not adequately described by the terms ‘authorship’ or ‘patronage’. Davidson and Stevenson cite creative acts by Elizabeth, Lady Russell such as commissioning and designing elaborate tombs, and oversee- ing the entertainment offered when Elizabeth I visited her home at Bisham, in which Lady Russell’s daughters performed speaking roles. They argue the ‘case for expanding our ideas of what constitutes a cultural intervention to consider works that communicate a woman’s intentions without necessarily being created by her own hand’.6 Mary Sidney’s commissioning of Daniel’s Cleopatra was just such an act of devisership, exercising artistic agency and conveying a message via a work executed by another. Both Antonius and Cleopatra belong to the genre designated by modern critics (sometimes dismissively) as ‘closet drama’: plays, often neoclassical and elevated in tone, designed for reading aloud or private performance or some- thing in-between among a privileged circle of family and friends in a domes- tic setting. Until recently so-called ‘closet plays’ — hereafter referred to in the present article as ‘elite domestic plays’ — were largely ignored by scholars of early modern drama.7 Recent attention, however, has substantially revalued the genre, revealing its potential for literary innovation, dramatic experi- ment, and political comment; the opportunities for literary and dramatic participation that it offered to women; and its performable qualities. Because access was restricted to a known social circle, the private house paradoxically opened up possibilities for female participation in drama. Sasha Roberts, discussing early female readers of Shakespeare’s erotic narrative poem Venus and Adonis, has shown how the home and the closet, which look like forms of enclosure, in fact offered women spaces for intellectual independence. She observes that ‘Feminist criticism has often associated women’s privacy with their subordination — women’s exclusion from the “public sphere”; the patri- archal “domestic enclosure” of women’, but finds that ‘We do not always need to write early modern women out of their homes in order to discover their opportunities for self-expression and empowerment’.8 Roberts points to scenes in the Urania of Lady Mary Wroth (Mary Sidney’s niece) where women withdraw into their private chambers to read, write, and explore their 170 Issues in Review emotions without inhibition: Bellamira, for instance, describes ‘being come to my chamber, and having liberty by privatenesse to exercise my sorrow’.9 Female participants in elite domestic drama could enjoy an analogous ‘lib- erty by privatenesse’, whether as translators (Lady Jane Lumley, Mary Sid- ney); authors of original drama (Elizabeth Cary, Mary Wroth); or devisers (Elizabeth Russell, Mary Sidney). Scholars have also increasingly come to believe that elite domestic drama offered women opportunities as perform- ers. Even a static group reading would have constituted a form of perform- ance, but recent experiments in staging Lumley’s Iphigenia, Cary’s Mariam, and Wroth’s Love’s Victory have demonstrated these plays’ suitability for full staging. Marta Straznicky points out that elite domestic plays were analogous to academic drama, which took place in a more private and privileged milieu than commercial playhouse drama, but nevertheless was ‘not only read but performed at universities’.10 Schools, universities, and the Inns of Court offered performance spaces for educated young men; similarly, the even more enclosed and regulated space of the country house made possible per- formance by women. Writing about Mary Sidney’s Antonius, Alison Findlay acknowledges that ‘how the play was realized in a private or communal read- ing or in a household performance is unknown’. She points, however, to ‘the Sidney and Pembroke families’ long-standing patronage of stageable drama’ and to ‘evidence of a tradition of reading and performance in the Pembroke household’.11 Mary Sidney’s brother Sir Philip participated in domestic theatrical activities, confirmed by Edmund Spenser’s elegy for him, ‘Astro- phel’, which recalls that ‘he himselfe seemd made for meriment, / Merily masking both in bowre and hall’.12 Findlay proposes that a staging of Anto- nius at Wilton, Penshurst, or Ramsbury (a smaller manor house from where Mary Sidney dated her translation manuscript) is plausible ‘if we imagine a small coterie production drawing on clothes and objects from the household itself ’.13 Hannay, having previously averred that ‘a stageable Antonius would have taxed the resources of the Wilton household’, now feels in the light of recent research that both Antonius and Daniel’s Cleopatra could have been staged in private settings.14 Findlay asserts that ‘we have … reached a new critical frontier’ where we can conceive of early modern elite domesitc plays as intended for performance, and can develop fresh analyses from this shift of view.15 Exciting evidence for a possible full staging of Daniel’s Cleopatra emerges in the Jacobean portrait discovered by Yasmin Arshad in the archives of the Issues in Review 171 National Portrait Gallery (NPG), London (figure 1).16 The inscription at top right, from Cleopatra’s dying speech in Daniel’s play, appears as a torn and unfolded manuscript, perhaps part of a player’s script, implying that the sitter is speaking the lines.17 The present whereabouts of this portrait are unknown, and the NPG archives record it only as a monochrome photo- graph. Christie’s have catalogued it twice, in 1931 and 1948, and on both occasions identify the sitter as Lady Raleigh (formerly Elizabeth Throck- morton), an identification repeated in the NPG record and in discussions of the painting by Kim F. Hall, Pamela Allen Brown, and Anna Beer.18 Only Beer identifies the inscription on the painting as from Daniel’s Cleopatra, and she does not investigate the edition used, which is crucial to dating the portrait and identifying its sitter.