Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T17:07:54.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XLIII. Elizabethan Acting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Alfred Harbage
Alfred Harbage*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

THE Elizabethan style of acting is discussed nowhere in the four volumes of The Elizabethan Stage, and the word acting itself is missing from the subject-index. It is as if Sir Edmund Chambers would crown his generosities by leaving us a playground—one precinct free for untrammeled guessing. The sport is active, and two teams are discernible on the field, but the teams are not playing with each other: they are not defending their own inferences or attacking those of their opponents. The purpose of the present essay is not to end the game but to organize it—at least so far as that can be done by one who enters a game not as a referee but as a player. The most conspicuous Shakespearian criticism of recent years is based largely upon assumptions about the style in which the plays were originally acted, so that even a partisan discussion of these assumptions may prove useful. What follows is an attempt to define two alternate styles of acting—formal acting and natural acting; to attack the case for natural acting on the Elizabethan stage and to defend the case for formal acting; and, finally, to suggest the manner in which the issue bears upon contemporary criticism.)

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , September 1939 , pp. 685 - 708
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 M. C. Bradbrook, Elizabethan Stage Conditions (1932), p. 109.

2 M. C. Bradbrook, Themes and Conventions of Elizabethan Tragedy (1935), p. 25.

3 The conclusions are better than the proof. Miss Bradbrook's discussion conveys the impression that Elizabethan acting was not only formal but crude; the derogatory comments of Shakespeare's characters are cited as if they expressed Shakespeare's views.

4 H. Granville-Barker, Prefaces to Shakespeare, First Series (1927), p. xxiv.

5 Quoted by K. Mantzius, A History of Theatrical Art, iv (1905), 241. For tie conflict between the old and the new manner, see Tilley, “Tragedy at the Comédie Française, 1680–1778,” MLR, xvii (1922), 362–380.

6 Ed. E. K. Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, iv, 255–257.

7 I say may simulate. I do not know what the actor usually does, and am not reviving the issue of William Archer's Masks or Faces.

8 H. Granville-Barker, “A Note upon Chapters xx and xxi of The Elizabethan Stage,” RES, i (1925), 60–71.

9 De Oratore, ii, xlvii (Bohn's Classical Library, pp. 274–275).

10 Hamlet, iii. ii. 1–39 (Camb. ed.).

11 An Apology for Actors, 1612. Reprinted for the Shakespeare Society (1841), pp. 28–29.

12 Shakespeare and the Theatre.... By Members of the Shakespeare Association (1927), pp. 62–87.

13 Apology for Actors, p. 29.

14 Ibid., p. 43.

15 Ben Jonson, Epigrams (1616), cxx. Jonson in Act ii of The Devil is an Ass lets a character assert that tie boy actor Dick Robinson can pass as a woman off the stage, but notice that this is off the stage on the stage.

16 Edwin Nungezer, Dictionary of Actors, (1929), p. 74. Professor Nungezer has taken a lively interest in my topic, and I wish to acknowledge his helpfulness in corresponding with me.

17 Hamlet, ii. ii. 11. 544–550 (Camb. ed.).

18 Shakespeare and the Theatre. ... By Members of the Shakespeare Association (1927), p. 93.

19 Ibid., p. 92. Quoted by Mr. Isaacs himself.

20 Tamburlaine, says the critic, is a character “rather to be exhibited than acted,” Prefaces to Shakespeare, Hamlet, Third Series (1937), p. 3.

21 The phrase is Fynes Morison's.

22 Pepys' Diary, Nov. 4 and Oct. 15. Betterton is said to have been coached in the parts of Hamlet and Henry VIII by Davenant, following respectively methods of Taylor and Lowin (John Downes, Roscuis Anglicanus, pp. 21, 24), but no more need be inferred than that he received guidance in the reading of lines. Betterton himself sought such guidance when he took over a rôle formerly by Hart. See Davies, Dramatic Miscellanies, quoted in Anon., Life and Times of Thomas Betterton (1888), p. 144.

23 Ibid., pp. 120–122, reprinted from Antony Aston's Supplement to Cibber's Lives of the Actors.

24 J. Isaacs, op. cit., p. 113.

25 A History of Theatrical Art, iii (1904), 226–227.

26 E. K. Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, iv, 369.

27 DNB.

28 Love's Kingdom (1664).

29 John Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 31.

30 For further evidence of Flecknoe's feud with the Duke's House, see A. Harbage, Sir William Davenant: Poet Venturer (1935), p. 156.

31 Arthur C. Sprague, Shakespeare and the Audience (1935), pp. 10–11.

32 Ibid., p. 11.

33 A gentleman related to Davies (Dramatic Miscellanies) how Betterton's countenance “which was naturally ruddy and sanguine” turned “as pale as his neckcloth” when he played Hamlet confronted by the ghost.

34 Julius Caesar, ii. i. 103–104 (Camb. ed.).

35 Sophocles, trans. F. Storr, 2 vols. (1924), ii. 433–435,

36 Julius Caesar, i. ii.

37 Henry VIII, iv, ii.

38 British Museum, MS. Sloane 3709.

39 P. 43.

40 P. 41.

41 Francescos Fortunes ... (1590), p. 132.

42 Apology for Actors, p. 43.

43 Ibid., p. 42.

44 John Northbrooke, Treatise ... (1577), p. 103.

45 Stephen Gosson, School of Abuse (1579), p. 19.

46 The Whole Art of The Stage, Eng. trans., 1684.

47 De Oratore, iii, clx, Bohn's Classical Library (1862), p. 398.

48 Ibid., i, xxviii (p. 175).

49 Ibid., i, lix (p. 215).

50 Institutio Oratoria, xi, iii, Loeb Classics, iv (1922), 275.

51 Ibid., xi, iii (p. 283).

52 G. K. G. Henry, “Roman Actors,” SP, xvi (1919), 351.

53 Institutio Oratoria, xi, iii (p. 303).

54 Thomas Dekker, Magnificent Entertainment (1604).

55 Ed. E. K. Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, iv, 257–258.

56 Harold N. Hillebrand, The Child Actors, University of Illinois Studies in Lang. and Lit., xi (1926), No. i, p. 271.

57 Ibid., p. 274.

58 F. A. Foster, “Dumb show in Elizabethan Drama before 1620,” Englische Studien, xxiv (1912), 16.

59 Prefaces to Shakespeare, First Series, p. 146.

60 Alfred Hart, “The Number of Lines in Shakespeare's Plays,” “The Length of Elizabethan and Jacobean Plays,” “The Time Allotted for Representation of Elizabethan and Jacobean Plays,” RES, viii (1932), 19–28, 139–154, 395–413.

61 My colleague Professor John Dolman. Although he does not share my views, Professor Dolman has generously discussed the problem with me and placed his knowledge of the theatre and experience in staging Shakespeare at my disposal.

61a W. Creizenach, The English Drama in the Age of Shakespeare (1916), p. 395.

62 Ashley H. Thorndike, Shakespeare's Theatre (1916), pp. 402–403.

63 Usually even the apostles of “Shakespeare undefiled” stop with an uncut text and a platform stage. William Poel thought in terms of natural acting. Cf. Shakespeareinthe Theatre (1913). The Ben Greet players, whom I did not see, apparently attempted formal acting.

64 Elizabethan Essays, pp. 15–16.

65 J. Isaacs, “Shakespeare as Man of the Theatre,” Shakespeare and the Theatre ... by Members of the Shakespeare Association (1927), p. 107.

66 Prefaces to Shakespeare, Hamlet, Third Series (1937), p. 5.

67 Shakespeare (1909), pp. 120, 123.

68 H. Granvme Barker, Prefaces, Third Series, p. 4.

69 Modern Essays, C. Morley, ed. (1921), p. 147.

70 The Roman Actor, Act iii.

71 I have a single standard for judging performances of Shakespeare: it is an excellent performance if I can hear the lines.