V
MR BENSON AND SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA[20]
[Footnote 20: This paper was first printed in the _Cornhill Magazine_, May 1900.]
I
Dramatic criticism in the daily press of London often resembles that method of conversation of which Bacon wrote that it seeks "rather commendation of wit, in being able to hold argument, than of judgment, in discerning what is true." For four-and-twenty years Mr F.R. Benson has directed an acting company which has achieved a reputation in English provincial cities, in Ireland, and in Scotland, by its exclusive devotion to Shakespearean and cla.s.sical drama. Mr Benson"s visits to London have been rare. There he has too often made sport for the journalistic censors who aim at "commendation of wit."
Even the best-intentioned of Mr Benson"s critics in London have fallen into the habit of concentrating attention on unquestionable defects in Mr Benson"s practice, to the neglect of the vital principles which are the justification of his policy. Mr Benson"s principles have been largely ignored by the newspapers; but they are not wisely disregarded. They are matters of urgent public interest. They point the right road to the salvation of Shakespearean drama on the modern stage. They cannot be too often pressed on public notice.
These, in my view, are the five points of the charter which Mr Benson is and has long been championing with a persistency which claims national recognition.
Firstly, it is to the benefit of the nation that Shakespeare"s plays should be acted constantly and in their variety.
Secondly, a theatrical manager who undertakes to produce Shakespearean drama should change his programme at frequent intervals, and should permit no long continuous run of any single play.
Thirdly, all the parts, whatever their significance, should be entrusted to exponents who have been trained in the delivery of blank verse, and have gained some knowledge and experience of the range of Shakespearean drama.
Fourthly, no play should be adapted by the manager so as to give greater prominence than the text invites to any single role.
Fifthly, the scenic embellishment should be simple and inexpensive, and should be subordinated to the dramatic interest.
There is no novelty in these principles. The majority of them were accepted unhesitatingly in the past by Betterton, Garrick, Edmund Kean, the Kembles, and notably by Phelps. They are recognised principles to-day in the leading theatres of France and Germany. But by some vagary of fate or public taste they have been reckoned in London, for a generation at any rate, to be out of date.
In the interest of the manager, the actor, and the student, a return to the discarded methods has become, in the opinion of an influential section of the educated public, imperative. Mr Benson is the only manager of recent date to inscribe boldly and continuously on his banner the old watchwords: "Shakespeare and the National Drama,"
"Short Runs," "No Stars," "All-round Competence," and "Unostentatious Setting." What better t.i.tle could be offered to the support and encouragement of the intelligent playgoer?
II
A constant change of programme, such as the old methods of the stage require, causes the present generation of London playgoers, to whom it is unfamiliar, a good deal of perplexity. Londoners have grown accustomed to estimate the merits of a play by the number of performances which are given of it in uninterrupted succession. They have forgotten how mechanical an exercise of the lungs and limbs acting easily becomes; how frequent repet.i.tion of poetic speeches, even in the most competent mouths, robs the lines of their poetic temper.
Numbness of intellect, rigidity of tone, artificiality of expression, are fatal alike to the enunciation of Shakespearean language and to the interpretation of Shakespearean character. The system of short runs, of the nightly alterations of the play, such as Mr Benson has revived, is the only sure preservative against maladies so fatal.
Hardly less important is Mr Benson"s new-old principle of "casting" a play of Shakespeare. Not only in the leading roles of Shakespeare"s masterpieces, but in subordinate parts throughout the range of his work, the highest abilities of the actor can find some scope for employment. A competent knowledge of the poet"s complete work is needed to bring this saving truth home to those who are engaged in presenting Shakespearean drama on the stage. An actor hardly realises the real force of the doctrine until he has had experience of the potentialities of a series of the smaller characters by making practical endeavours to interpret them. Adequate opportunities of the kind are only accessible to members of a permanent company, whose energies are absorbed in the production of the Shakespearean drama constantly and in its variety, and whose programme is untrammelled by the poisonous system of "long runs." Shakespearean actors should drink deep of the Pierian spring. They should be graduates in Shakespeare"s university; and, unlike graduates of other universities, they should master not merely formal knowledge, but a flexible power of using it.
Mr Benson"s company is, I believe, the only one at present in existence in England which confines almost all its efforts to the acting of Shakespeare. In the course of its twenty-four years"
existence its members have interpreted in the theatre no less than thirty of Shakespeare"s plays.[21] The natural result is that Mr Benson and his colleagues have learned in practice the varied calls that Shakespearean drama makes upon actors" capacities.
[Footnote 21: Mr Benson, writing to me on 13th January 1906, gives the following list of plays by Shakespeare which he has produced:--_Antony and Cleopatra_, _As You Like It_, _The Comedy of Errors_, _Coriola.n.u.s_, _Hamlet_, _Henry IV. (Parts 1 and 2)_, _Henry V._, _Henry VI. (Parts 1, 2, and 3)_, _Henry VIII._, _Julius Caesar_, _King John_, _King Lear_, _Macbeth_, _The Merchant of Venice_, _The Merry Wives of Windsor_, _A Midsummer Night"s Dream_, _Much Ado About Nothing_, _Oth.e.l.lo_, _Pericles_, _Richard II._, _Richard III._, _Romeo and Juliet_, _The Taming of the Shrew_, _The Tempest_, _Timon of Athens_, _Twelfth Night_, and _A Winter"s Tale_. Phelps"s record only exceeded Mr Benson"s by one. He produced thirty-one of Shakespeare"s plays in all, but he omitted _Richard II._, and the three parts of _Henry VI._, which Mr Benson has acted, while he included _Love"s Labour"s Lost_, _The Two Gentlemen of Verona_, _All"s Well that Ends Well_, _Cymbeline_, and _Measure for Measure_, which Mr Benson, so far, has eschewed. Mr Phelps and Mr Benson are at one in avoiding _t.i.tus Andronicus_ and _Troilus and Cressida_.]
Members of Mr Benson"s company have made excellent use of their opportunities. An actor, like the late Frank Rodney, who could on one night competently portray Bolingbroke in _Richard II._ and on the following night the clown Feste in _Twelfth Night_ with equal effect, clearly realised something of the virtue of Shakespearean versatility.
Mr Benson"s leading comedian, Mr Weir, whose power of presenting Shakespeare"s humorists shows, besides native gifts, the advantages that come of experienced study of the dramatist, not only interprets, in the genuine spirit, great roles like Falstaff and Touchstone, but gives the truest possible significance to the comparatively unimportant roles of the First Gardener in _Richard II._ and Grumio in _The Taming of the Shrew_.
Nothing could be more grateful to a student of Shakespeare than the manner in which the small part of John of Gaunt was played by Mr Warburton in Mr Benson"s production of _Richard II._ The part includes the glorious panegyric of England which comes from the lips of the dying man, and must challenge the best efforts of every actor of ambition and self-respect. But in the mouth of an actor who lacks knowledge of the true temper of Shakespearean drama, this speech is certain to be mistaken for a detached declamation of patriotism--an error which ruins its dramatic significance. As Mr Warburton delivered it, one listened to the despairing cry of a feeble old man roused for a moment from the lethargy of sickness by despair at the thought that the great country he loved was in peril of decay through the selfish and frivolous temper of its ruler. Instead of a Chauvinist manifesto defiantly declaimed under the limelight, there was offered us the quiet pathos of a dying patriot"s lament over his beloved country"s misfortunes--an oracular warning from a death-stricken tongue, foreshadowing with rare solemnity and dramatic irony the violent doom of the reckless worker of the mischief. Any other conception of the pa.s.sage, any conscious endeavour to win a round of applause by elocutionary display, would disable the actor from doing justice to the great and sadly stirring utterance. The right note could only be sounded by one who was acclimatised to Shakespearean drama, and had recognised the wealth of significance to be discovered and to be disclosed (with due artistic restraint) in Shakespeare"s minor characters.
III
The benefits to be derived from the control of a trained school of Shakespearean actors were displayed very conspicuously when Mr Benson undertook six years ago the heroic task of performing the play of _Hamlet_, as Shakespeare wrote it, without any abbreviation. _Hamlet_ is the longest of Shakespeare"s plays; it reaches a total of over 3900 lines. It is thus some 900 lines longer than _Antony and Cleopatra_, which of all Shakespeare"s plays most nearly approaches its length.
Consequently it is a tradition of the stage to cut the play of _Hamlet_ by the omission of more than a third. Hamlet"s part is usually retained almost in its entirety, but the speeches of every other character are seriously curtailed. Mr Benson ventured on the bold innovation of giving the play in full.[22]
[Footnote 22: The performance occupied nearly six hours. One half was given in the afternoon, and the other half in the evening of the same day, with an interval of an hour and a half between the two sections.
Should the performance be repeated, I would recommend, in the interests of busy men and women, that the whole play be rendered at a single sitting, which might be timed to open at a somewhat earlier hour in the evening than is now customary, and might, if need be, close a little later. There should be no difficulty in restricting the hours occupied by the performance to four and a half.]
Only he who has witnessed the whole play on the stage can fully appreciate its dramatic capabilities. It is obvious that, in whatever shape the play of _Hamlet_ is produced in the theatre, its success must always be primarily due to the overpowering fascination exerted on the audience by the character of the hero. In every conceivable circ.u.mstance the young prince must be the centre of attraction.
Nevertheless, no graver injury can be done the play as an acting drama than by treating it as a one-part piece. The accepted method of shortening the tragedy by reducing every part, except that of Hamlet, is to distort Shakespeare"s whole scheme, to dislocate or obscure the whole action. The predominance of Hamlet is exaggerated at the expense of the dramatist"s artistic purpose.
To realise completely the motives of Hamlet"s conduct, and the process of his fortunes, not a single utterance from the lips of the King, Polonius, or Laertes can be spared. In ordinary acting versions these three parts sink into insignificance. It is only in the full text that they a.s.sume their just and illuminating rank as Hamlet"s foils.
The King rises into a character almost of the first cla.s.s. He is a villain of unfathomable infamy, but his cowardly fear of the discovery of his crimes, his desperate pursuit of the consolations of religion, the quick ingenuity with which he plots escape from the inevitable retribution that dogs his misdeeds, excite--in the full text of the play--an interest hardly less intense than those wistful musings of the storm-tossed soul which stay his nephew"s avenging hand.
Similarly, Hamlet"s incisive wit and honesty are brought into the highest possible relief by the restoration to the feebly guileful Polonius of the speeches of which he has long been deprived. Among the reinstated scenes is that in which the meddlesome dotard teaches his servant Reynaldo modes of espionage that shall detect the moral lapses of his son Laertes in Paris. The recovered episode is not only admirable comedy, but it gives new vividness to Polonius"s maudlin egotism which is responsible for many windings of the tragic plot.
The story is simplified at all points by such amplifications of the contracted version which holds the stage. The events are evolved with unsuspected naturalness. The hero"s character gains by the expansion of its setting. One downright error which infects the standard abridgement is wholly avoided. Ophelia is dethroned. It is recognised that she is not ent.i.tled to share with Hamlet the triumphal honours of the action. Weak, insipid, dest.i.tute of all force of character, she deserves an insignificant place in Shakespeare"s gallery of heroines.
Hamlet"s mother merits as much or more attention. At any rate, there is no justification for reducing the Queen"s part in order to increase Ophelia"s prominence. Such distortions are impossible in the production of the piece in its entirety. Throughout _Hamlet_, in the full authorised text, the artistic balance hangs true. Mr Benson recognised that dominant fact, and contrived to ill.u.s.trate it on the stage. No higher commendation could be allowed a theatrical manager or actor.
IV
Much else could be said of Mr Benson"s principles, and of his praiseworthy energy in seeking to familiarise the playgoer with Shakespearean drama in all its fulness and variety, but only one other specific feature of his method needs mention here. Perhaps the most convincing proof that he has given of the value of his principles to the country"s dramatic art is his success in the training of actors and actresses. Of late it is his company that has supplied the great London actor-managers with their ablest recruits. Nearly all the best performers of secondary roles and a few of the best performers of primary roles in the leading London theatres are Mr Benson"s pupils.
Their admission to the great London companies is raising the standard of acting in the metropolis. The marked efficiency of these newcomers is due to a system which is inconsistent with any of the accepted principles of current theatrical enterprise in London. Mr Benson"s disciples mainly owe their efficiency to long a.s.sociation with a permanent company controlled by a manager who seeks, single-mindedly, what he holds to be the interests of dramatic art. The many-headed public learns its lessons very slowly, and sometimes neglects them altogether. It has been reluctant to recognise the true significance of Mr Benson"s work. But the intelligent onlooker knows that he is marching along the right road, in intelligent conformity with the best teaching of the past.
Thirty years ago a meeting took place at the Mansion House to discuss the feasibility of founding a State theatre in London, a project which was not realised. The most memorable incident which was a.s.sociated with the Mansion House meeting was a speech of the theatrical manager Phelps, who argued, amid the enthusiastic plaudits of his hearers, that it was in the highest interests of the nation that the Shakespearean drama should continuously occupy the stage. "I maintain," Phelps said, "from the experience of eighteen years, that the perpetual iteration of Shakespeare"s words, if nothing more, going on daily for so many months of the year, must and would produce a great effect upon the public mind." No man or woman of sense will to-day gainsay the wisdom of this utterance; but it is needful for the public to make greater exertion than they have made of late if "the perpetual iteration of Shakespeare"s words" in the theatre is to be permanently secured.
Mr Benson"s efforts const.i.tute the best organised endeavour to realise Phelps"s ambition since Phelps withdrew from management. Mr Benson"s scheme is imperfect in some of its details; in other particulars it may need revision. But he and his a.s.sociates have planted their feet firmly on sure ground in their endeavours to interpret Shakespearean drama constantly and in its variety, after a wise and well-considered system and with a disinterested zeal. When every allowance has been made for the Benson Company"s shortcomings, its achievement cannot be denied "a relish of salvation." Mr Benson deserves well of those who have faith in the power of Shakespeare"s words to widen the horizon of men"s intellects and emotions. The seed he has sown should not be suffered to decay.
VI
THE MUNIc.i.p.aL THEATRE[23]
[Footnote 23: This paper was first printed in the _New Liberal Review_, May 1902.]
I
Many actors, dramatic critics, and men in public life advocate the munic.i.p.al manner of theatrical enterprise. Their aim, as I understand it, is to procure the erection, and the due working, of a playhouse that shall serve in permanence the best interests of the literary or artistic drama. The munic.i.p.al theatre is not worth fighting for, unless there is a reasonable probability that its establishment will benefit dramatic art, promote the knowledge of dramatic literature, and draw from the literary drama and confer on the public the largest beneficial influence which the literary drama is capable of distributing.
None of Shakespeare"s countrymen or countrywomen can deny with a good grace the importance of the drama as a branch of art. None will seriously dispute that our dramatic literature, at any rate in its loftiest manifestation, has contributed as much as our armies or our navies or our mechanical inventions to our reputation through the world.
There is substantial agreement among enlightened leaders of public opinion in all civilised countries that great drama, when fitly represented in the theatre, offers the rank and file of a nation recreation which brings with it moral, intellectual, and spiritual advantage.
II