Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Schafer, Elizabeth
2012.
The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare and Contemporary Dramatists.
p.
244.
Article contents
“Webster, Horne and Mrs. Stowe”: American Performances of The Duchess of Malfi
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2009
Extract
When Samuel Phelps revived John Webster's tragedy, The Duchess of Malfi, at Sadler's Wells on November 20, 1850, its success was immediate. Based on an adaptation by Richard Hengist (Henry) Horne and presenting Isabella Glyn as the Duchess, the revival inspired numerous performances in subsequent years. The British performances varied little from the original revival, Miss Glyn's remarkable success as the Duchess having created an almost instant tradition that was seldom tampered with to any extent. However, in the United States there was less respect for what Horne-Phelps-Glyn had wrought, and the first performance of Webster's tragedy included innovations that were to have a lasting influence upon American productions. These changes are indicated in detail in the promptbook of James Stark, the actor-manager who introduced the Duchess of Malfi to the United States at the American Theatre in San Francisco on August 22, 1857. Stark's book is based upon Horne, consisting in fact of pages from the printed edition pasted in traditional fashion into a notebook, with the page opposite the printed text offering space for longhand revisions, notations of stage business, calls, and so forth. With the exception of the fifth act Stark makes few major changes in Horne's dialogue, merely shortening some speeches and noting a few longer passages which may be cut if necessary. Home's Act II, scene iii, where Ferdinand and the Cardinal discuss the Duchess' looseness, “Can be omitted,” Stark notes, suggesting that American spectators may have been even more prudish than their London cousins. The last act, on the other hand, has been completely revised. Although it retains most of Home's dialogue, it greatly simplifies his structure—a significant change, as Home's handling of the fifth act had not always satisfied even his admirers.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society for Theatre Research 1970
References
Notes
1. See Wadsworth, Frank W., “‘Shorn and Abated’ —British Performances Of The Duchess of Malfi,” Theatre Survey, X, 2 (November, 1969).Google Scholar
2. Stark's promptbook is now in the Theatre Collection of the New York Public Library. It is identified, in handwriting presumably Stark's, as the copy for a performance at the St. Charles Theatre on the night of December 9, 1857, a performance verified by Kendall, John S. in The Golden Age of the New Orleans Theater, (Baton Rouge, 1952), p. 311Google Scholar. In view of the circumstances leading up to the New Orleans performance (see Wadsworth, Frank W., “Some Nineteenth Century Revivals Of The Duchess of Malfi,” Theatre Survey, VIII, 2 [November, 1967], 71–72Google Scholar, and the number of notations indicating optional effects, it is almost certain that the book had been the basis for previous productions including the unique California performance of a few months earlier, and that we have here detailed first-hand evidence of what the original American production of Webster's tragedy was like.
3. See The Times, November 21, 1850.
4. See Wadsworth, , “Nineteenth Century Revivals,” pp. 70–73.Google Scholar
5. The only theatrical effect for which Home was directly responsible that received substantial criticism was the noise of madmen off-stage. The Tribune (April 6, 1858) commented that “The play was well put on the stage; and, excepting the awful tragic noises behind the scenes in the fourth act, kept the auditors as serious as could be wished. These, though set down in the book, made the listeners laugh during the death scene of the Duchess.” This opinion was echoed by the Spirit of the Times (April 10, 1858), which noted that the “horrid noises” in Act IV “caused considerable merriment” and the Post (April 6, 1858) which complained that “the hideous supernatural noises” were one of the “too conspicuous” horrors that did not “accord with the refined taste of the modem drama.”
6. Taylor was a Philadelphia actor, born in England and a friend of Booth, Couldock and others. See The New York Dramatic Mirror of May 16, 1908 for a brief obituary.
7. Although he himself never achieved real stature, Wilkins occasionally supported an artist of reknown, having been in J.R. Scott's company at the National Theatre in 1855, with J.W. Booth at Ford's in Washington in 1863, and with Mrs. Conway at the Park Theatre, Brooklyn, in 1864 (See Odell, George C.D., Annals of the New York Stage [New York, 1927–1949]Google Scholar, passim; and Washington playbills, Harvard Theatre Collection). Wilkins' wife, also obscure, was nevertheless rather more successful than he, gaining from Odell the label of the Bowery Actress.
8. The New York Public Library also owns a marked copy of the Duchess that was formerly the property of George Becks. This text is only lightly annotated; nevertheless, it is another indication of the hold that Webster's tragedy had upon the imagination of the nineteenth-century American theatre.
9. See Wadsworth, “Nineteenth Century Revivals,” p. 80, n. 6. Becks' book (see note 8) employs the same text.
10. The Davison text calls for “two children”; Wilkins has settled for one but has called particular attention to him by the child's relationship to Antonio.
11. Early Victorian Drama (1830–1870) (New York, 1936), p. 36.Google Scholar
12. Kean, as quoted by a contemporary reviewer in Cole, J.W., The Life and Theatrical Times of Charles Kean, F.S.A., 2 vols. (London, 1859), II, 392.Google Scholar
13. Life, II, 147; Odell, , Shakespeare From Betterton To Irving, 2 vols. (New York, 1920), II, 336, prints a contemporary illustration of the effect.Google Scholar
14. Quoted in Cole, Life, II, 384.Google Scholar
15. See Reynolds, , Early Victorian Drama, p. 43 and p. 43, n. 5, and the Times (April 14, 1868).Google Scholar
16. See Odell, , Annals of the New York Stage, VII, 484, 650Google Scholar; and passim.
17. The Wallers' Australian performances may have contained some or all of these non-British elements; if so, it would be interesting that their abortive Edinburgh production of 1857 (see Wadsworth, “Nineteenth Century Revivals,” pp. 70–71) introduced no unusual scenic effects, if one can judge from the absence of comment in the reviews.
18. In addition to Odell, see Moses, Montrose J., Representative Plays by American Dramatists (New York, 1925), II, 605–613Google Scholar; Birdoff, Harry, The World's Greatest Hit, Uncle Tom's Cabin (New York, 1947), passimGoogle Scholar; MacMinn, George R., The Theater of The Golden Era In California (Caldwell, Idaho, 1941), p. 206.Google Scholar
19. Moses, , Representative Plays, II, 608–609.Google Scholar
20. Quotations are from Moses' text.
21. Birdoff, World's Greatest Hit, pp. 315 ff.
22. See bills in Enthoven Collection, Victoria and Albert Museum and Birdoff, World's Greatest Hit, pp. 146–148.Google Scholar
23. For the period of the Duchess revivals, that is. Performances of Uncle Tom at the Princess in 1878 had a “Beautiful and Impressive Allegorical Tableau. EVA IN HEAVEN—THE BEAUTIFUL GATES AJAR” (See Enthoven bills). The Royal Aquarium Theatre that same year, the Standard in 1882 and the Princess again in 1887 also staged revivals with apocalyptic endings. In addition, William Poel's 1892 revival of the Duchess, usually regarded as coming nearer to Webster than had Phelps', shows at least one sign of Uncle Tom's Influence. Poel's version ends with the following stage-direction: “The figure of the Duchess is seen between the the [sic] Cypress trees at the back. She is looking sadly towards her son” (i.e., Antonio's son who has been brought on stage by Delio). Quoted from the second of two type-scripts of Poel's adaptation now in the Enthoven Collection where there is also a copy of Bosola's part. The first typescript (minus the last few pages) appears to have been the acting copy, the second a copy of the acting text in preparation for the press. The latter carries a pencilled note at the end of Act III, “Revised for the Press to here W.P.” and incorporates most of the changes made on the earlier copy.
A letter to Poel (the first page is missing) from Arthur Dillon, a designer for the revival, which is filed with the second type-script, praises Poel's adaptation at the expense of Phelps' —“it is far & away above the Phelp [sic] version” which “bungles …and funks … its way all through.” It is interesting, however, that Poel's version is not intrinsically different from Home's. Characterization is closer to Webster and the original language is retained more fully, but the staging, lighting, use of music, elaboration of the echo scene (the echo is heard intermittently until the final moment of the play) and pictorial effects all recall earlier performances. The ending especially is softened and sentimentalized (Bosola lives and goes off guarded), the language is bowdlerized in the scenes between the Duchess and Antonio, and the various “horrors” are understated. In short, Poel's revival was much more in the tradition of Home and Phelps than it was of John Webster.
24. See Wadsworth, , “Nineteenth Century Revivals,” pp. 76–77.Google Scholar
25. See Wadsworth, , “Nineteenth Century Revivals,” p. 75Google Scholar; also “Hamlet and Iago: Nineteenth-Century Breeches Parts,” Shakespeare Quarterly (Spring 1966), pp. 136–139.Google Scholar
26. Opinions of The Press of Emma Waller … [c. 1876], Theatre Collection, Harvard College Library.Google Scholar
27. It also commended Mrs. Waller for restoring Webster's “I pray thee, look thou giv'st my little boy/Some syrup for his cold, and let the girl/Say her prayers, ere she sleep,” lines that Horne had badly mangled.
- 1
- Cited by