Alexandra Jones ‘04
Audiences have been experiencing the works of William Shakespeare around the world since the late sixteenth century. In modern times there are those who enjoy productions of Shakespeare’s works immensely, and others who would be much more content at a Broadway musical. But how did audiences react to Shakespearian plays before the twentieth century? Measure for Measure was written and produced by Shakespeare in the early 1600’s. Different audiences have had different reactions over the years. Some felt that the play did not make much sense the way it was written. Others believed that the actors and directors failed to see Shakespeare’s intentions for the play and thereby produced revivals that left something to be desired.
There is much discrepancy about exactly when Measure for Measure was written and first performed. The first recorded performance occurred in the court of King James on December 26, 1604, however there is speculation that it appeared for the first time in the Globe Theatre in April of 1604. Queen Elizabeth’s death, lent, and the plague kept theatres closed for most of 1603. By the time 1604 rolled around, the plague was everywhere in England except London. That summer there remained a general fear of the plague. Theatres were alternately opened and closed based on the plague death figures of the previous week. For this reason speculation can be made that Measure for Measure may have been performed in 1604 after the lent season and before plague deaths rose with the warm weather of June (Barroll 117-119).
In 1662, a man named Johnson wrote about Shakespeare’s works. “There is, perhaps, not one of Shakespeare’s plays more darkened than this, by the peculiarities of the author, and the unskillfulness of its editors, by distortions of phrase, or negligence of transcription. Of this play, the light or comic part is very natural and pleasing, but the grave scenes, if a few passages be excepted, have more labour than elegance” (Halliday 238). He also commented on the time of the action, saying that it was “indefinite,” but also went on to say that there was unity in the action and the setting. (Halliday 238)
European Magazine critiqued the opening night performance of Measure for Measure on November 3, 1783 at Drury-Lane. “Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, was performed, for the purpose of introducing Mrs. Siddons in the part of Isabel” (Salgado 216). “Of this general effect of her appearance we see nothing in Mrs. Siddons. An ample atonement, however, is made, at least to a great part of the audience, by artificial variations of voice and countenance, in the interesting points of the situations already mentioned” (Salgado 216). European Magazine did not seem to be impressed with the overall production of the play, but made references to the actors playing the other characters as “useful appendages of the theatre” (Salgado 217).
European Magazine seemed far more impressed with the Covent Garden revival of Measure for Measure in 1816. “The infinity of Shakespeare’s genius is no where more comprehensive than in the machinery of this play. He fathoms the depths of the human heart, not as an inquisitor; but by combining those secret sympathies which invest distinct degrees and attributes in society with the eloquence of truth” (Salgado 218). The author of this critique seemed to enjoy the play more as a whole when a new actress replaced Mrs. Siddons in the role of Isabella. He was able to focus more on the story and the general production values rather than commenting solely on individual actors’ performances.
William Robson recalled an 1811 performance of Measure for Measure starring John Emery as Barnadine in an 1845 edition of The Old Playgoer. “When I saw Emery crawl from his den with the straws sticking in his clotted hair and filthy garments, growling out his remonstrance at being disturbed from his sleep, I absolutely started! I had read the play often, and the character was familiar to me as that of a depraved, abandoned wretch; but here was a real, sombre splendour thrown upon it by the power of genius, and, with an oppressed chest, I sighed, ‘Oh, nature! Oh, Shakespeare! Who shall ever know the end or depth of your beauties?” (Salgado 218). Robson was able to see Shakespeare’s genius accented by the comedic presence of an outstanding actor.
Another critic, Dr. Johnson, wrote about a later performance played by many of the same cast members. “It is somewhat strange that Isabel is not made to express either gratitude, or wonder or joy at the sight of her brother”(Sprague 65-66). He went on to say that this was clearly a revision, “perhaps [Mrs. Siddons] originated the business. Or was it a boy-actress, some two centuries before?” (Sprague 66).
In The Theatrical World for 1893, William Archer wrote about a Shakespeare Reading Society performance of Measure for Measure.He was not impressed with the staging techniques chosen by the director. He also commented on the inability of the director and actors to properly represent Shakespeare’s intentions for the play. “...there is no other play of Shakespeare’s in which so much of the dialogue is absolutely unspeakable before a modern audience. Therefore large cuts were inevitable; and having begun to cut, the actors went on with a sweeping hand, and made huge excisions for the mere sake of brevity….some of the actors (quite improperly) recited their verses so fast as to be totally unintelligible…” (Salgado 219) His conclusion was that the Shakespeare Reading Society did no justice to a play that had a great deal of potential.
Author Robert Bridges studied the influence of Shakespeare’s audience on his writing for the stage. “…how incomprehensible is the neglect of Isabella at the close, when her brother, whom she thought worse than dead, is restored to her. The actress is not denied a fine opportunity, but the situation passes with out a word, and it must be concluded that the audience took no interest in Isabella’s religious character: reserved for the first prize of stage-marriages she has to stand up with the sinners and patiently endure the exposure and torment of the theatrical suspense and display, which the good Duke has devised to wind up the drama: and in order to lighten the elaborate finale Shakespeare associates with him the worthless profligate, Lucio; who, if he amused the audience bi his impertinent intrusion half as much as he degrades the already difficult situation, must have been a great success” (Bridges 13). Shakespeare had to write for all classes of people, most of whom, in the Renaissance, would have appreciated some twist of sexual tension rather than a purely virginal and religious character.
Measure for Measure is not one of Shakespeare’s most popular plays. After its debut it was not produced again in Shakespeare’s lifetime. It can only be concluded that it was produced so rarely because it is so difficult to perform and understand. There are inconsistencies in the plot that critics have attacked. More importantly, audiences of Measure for Measure through the years reacted much more strongly to other Shakespearian plays, probably leading to theatre companies to produce his more popular works. “The years have sifted into dust the Globe and all who gathered there; no scholarly effort nor feat of the imagination can reverse that ancient process. And even if the miracle occurred, if we could mingle with Shakespeare’s audience reincarnate, its secret would prove no more penetrable than the secret of audiences now. What occurs in the minds and hearts of some thousand men and women is not casually revealed: and audience—almost any audience—is as difficult to appraise as the human race itself” (Harbage 3).
Works Cited
Barroll, Leeds. Politics, Plague, and Shakespeare’s Theater. USA: Cornell University Press, 1991.
Bridges, Robert. The Influence of the Audience on Shakespeare’s Drama. New York: Haskell House, 1966.
Shakespeare & His Critics. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1958
Harbage, Alfred. Shakespeare’s Audience. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964.
Salgado, Gamini. Eyewitnesses of Shakespeare. USA: Harper and Row Publishers , Inc., 1975
Sprague, Arthur Colby. Shakespeare and the Actors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Printing Office, 1944