This dissertation has been 65—3820 microfilmed exactly as received AYRES, James Bernard, 1933— SHAKESPEARE IN THE RESTORATION: NAHUM TATE'S THE HISTORY OF KING RICHARD THE SECOND, THE HISTORY OF KING LEAR, AND THE INGRATITUDE OF A COMMON-WEALTH. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1964 Language and Literature, modern University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan SHAKESPEARE IN THE RESTORATION: NAHUM TATE'S THE HISTORY OF KING RICHARD THE SECOND. THE HISTORY OF KING LEAR. AND THE INGRATITUDE OF A COMMON-WEALTH DISSERTATION Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By James Bernard Ayres, B.A., A.M. ****** The Ohio State U niversity 1964 Approved by Department of English ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am Indebted to my adviser, Professor John Harold Wilson, for the answers 'o questions I c e rta in ly would not have thought about, for his patience in helping me, through broken hand and jaw, to understand the varieties of Restoration tragedy, and for permitting me the use of his library and valuable notes on Restoration drama, esp ecially Emmett Avery's unpublished records of the London stage, 1660-1700. I would also like to thank Gary D. W illh ard t and Joseph A. Johnson, J r ., for reading and commenting upon the various chapters. 11 VITA March 25, 1933 Born - Kansas City, Missouri 1953 — 1955 .... United States Army 1958 .......................B.A., Baylor University, Waco,Texas 1958-1960 .... Graduate Assistant, Department of English, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida I960 ....................... A.M., Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 1960-196^ .... Assistant Instructor, Department of English, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................... Ii VITA .......................................................................................................................................i i i INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 The Critical Reaction to the Alterations ..................................... 6 The L ife and Work of Nahum T a t e............................................................ 14 The. General Plan of this P a p e r............................................................ 22 CHAPTER I. The Influence of Politics and Political Drama .... 32 Political and Civil Disturbance in England 1678-1682 32 Political Drama 1678-1682 38 Political Themes in Tate's Alterations ....................... 46 II. The Conflict of Critical Theory and Dramatic P r a c t ic e ................................................................................................. 77 The U n i t i e s ................................................................................... 80 D e c o ru m ............................................................................................ 100 Poetic Justice .............................................................................. 105 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page III. The Language of Statement......................................................... 116 IV. The Changes for Stage Effectiveness .................................. 136 V. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 161 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 167 v INTRODUCTION The twenty-three Restoration alterations of Shakespeare's plays fa ll, according to their dates of performance, conveniently into three well-defined periods. During the first decade after the restoration of Charles II (1660-1670), five alterations appeared among the seven­ teen productions of Shakespeare's plays. Pepys saw Hamlet, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry V I I I , Macbeth, The Merry Wives of Windsor, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Othe1lo, "the Moor of Venice," Romeo and Ju liet, The Taming of a Shrew, The Tempest, Twelfth Night, and Davenant's altera- t ion combi ni ng Measure for Measure and Much Ado about Nothi ng, Law Agalnst Lovers. ^ To this lis t John Downes, in Roscius Angi icanus, added four more: Julius Caesar, Titus Andronicus, Pericles, and King 2 Lear. According to these two sources, the five altered versions were Davenant's Law Agalnst Lovers, Macbeth, and The Tempest; James Howard's 3 ’Tragicomedy" of Romeo and Ju llet, "preserving Romeo and Juliet alive," and Lacy's Sauny the Scot. With these early a lte ra tio n s began, George Odell said, "the habit of altering Shakespeare's plays according to 4 the whim of the adapter or the fashion of the passing hour." In Colley Cibber's opinion, however, Davenant's changes were prompted less by whim than by practical considerations. They reflect the same predilection for singing, dancing, "cloaths" and machines, the trap­ pings of "opera," he had earlier exercised In The First Day's Enter­ tainment at Rutland House ( I656 ) and in the first English opera, The Siege of Rhodes ( 1656 ). In his Apology, Cibber explained Davenant's interest in "Sight and Sound" as an attempt to counteract the i 11-success his company was suffering at the hands of the King's company: . the better Actors (which the King's seem to have been allowed) could not fail of drawing the greater Audiences. Sir M111iam Davenant, there­ fore, Master of the Duke's Company, to make head against their Success, was forced to add Spectacle and Music to Action; and to introduce a new Species of Plays, since call'd Dramatick Opera's, of which kind were the Tempest, Psyche, Ci rce, and others, all set off with the most expensive Decorations of Scenes and Habits, with the best Voices and Dancers.5 We may only speculate on the reasons for changes in Romeo and J u lie t and Taming of the Shrew, for Howard's version was never printed—we have only Downes' note that it alternated with Shakespeare's play, 'Tragical one Day, and Tragicomical another; for several days to­ gether"^—and the records of Lacy's Sauny the Scot are few: Hazelton Spencer theorized that Lacy's version was the result of gradua1 tampering with the play, intended only "to proviae a low comedian with a fat part."^ The second period of alterations, I 678 to 1682, produced ten altered versions of Shakespeare's plays. This period of intense activity for adapters was in general provoked by political and civil discord. These are the years of /the Popish P lo t, of the c o n flic t 3 between Tory and Whig, between c ity and country, of the Exclusion B ill, and of Shaftesbury's intrigues to place the Duke of Monmouth on the throne. in their choices of Shakespeare's plays, the adapters revealed the influence of the factious age; they selected from his tragedies and histories plays which were-~or which could be made to be—thematically appropriate to the times. Leading the procession was Thomas Shadwell's Timon of Athens (DG c. January, 1678 ; 4to 1678 ), called "the least objectionable of all Restoration tamperings, a popular play, as Langbaine noted, "often acted at the Theatre Royal, 9 as any Tragedy | know." The flurry of alterations which followed were Edward Ravenscroft1s T itus Andronlcus (DL October, 1 678 ; 4to 1687 ), John Dryden's Trollus and Cressida (DG c. April, 1679; ^to 1679), Thomas Otway's The H istory and Fal1 of Caius Marius, an a 1terat i on of Romeo and J u lle t (DG c. September, 1679; ^to 1680), John Crowne's The Misery of Civil War, a combination of 11 Henry V I, acts four and five, and a ll of I I I Henry VI (DG c. February, 1680; kto 1680), Nahum Tate's The History of King Richard the Second (DL January 18, 1681; 4to 1681) and his famous The History of King Lear (DG Marc.,, 1681; kto 1681) , Crowne's Henry the S ix th , the F irs t P a rt, b u ilt around the f ir s t three acts of I 1 Henry VI (DG September, 1681; kto 1681), Tate's The In g ra ti­ tude of a Common-Wealth, an a lte ra tio n of Corloianus (DL December, 1681; 4to 1682), and Thomas D'Urfey's The Injur'd Princess, an altera­ tion of Cymbe1ine (DL c. March, 1682; kto 1682).^° I have omitted from the lis t Dryden's A11 for Love (DL December 12, 1677; **to 1679), which Is not an alteration of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, but a completely different play. Most of the plays expound a loyal Toryism and emphasize the horrors of civil war and commonwealth government, but all dramatize the danger of flatterers, sycophants, and demagogues at court. The preoccupation of these dramatists with the political and civil conflict effectively demonstrates the close relationship which existed between the Restoration dramatist and the theatre and s o c ie ty . The th ird period of a lte ra tio n s began a decade a fte r the second, with the production of Elkanah Settle's The Fa 1ry Queen, an alteration of A Midsummer N ight's Dream (DG 1692; 4to 1692). i t was followed in 1700 by Charles Gildon's Measure for Measure ( L1F 4to 1700), Colley Cibber's Richard I I I (DL 1700; kto 1700), George Granvilie's Jew of Venice (LIF 1701; 4to 1701); John Dennis' The Comical Gallant, an a lte ra tio n of The Merry Wives of Windsor (DL 1702; 4to 1702), and Charles Burnaby's Love Betray'd, an alteration of Twelfth Night (LIF 1703; kto 1703). This group of plays, a ll comedies but one, reflec te d the influence of "Scene and Spectacle." The same elements of elaborate scenery, music, and dancing found in the earlier alterations of Davenant and sustained in the popularity of his Tempest and the Davenant-Dryden-ShadwelI Tempest (the latter burlesqued in Thomas D u ffe tt's Mock Tempest, DL November 19, 167^+5 ^to 1675) reappeared in The Fa i ry Q.ueen, Measure fo r Measure, The Jew of Venice, The Comlca 1 Gallant, and Love Betray'd. Cibber's very successful Richard III was the only tragedy in the group. 5 The Restoration alterations had varied success. A few--Tate's The History of King Lear and the Davenant-Dryden The Tempest — held the boards until early in the nineteenth century.