PATCHWORK PIECES

Otago Witness, Issue 3830, 9 August 1927, Page 77

PATCHWORK PIECES

By

Eileen Service.

(SPECIAL FOR THE OTAGO WITNESS.)

X.—A LADY OF THE PLAYS.

During the reign of Elizabeth, England’s glory, which under previous monarchs had been steadily growing in greatness, came to its full magnitude, and dazzled the world with its effulgence."’ The policy which Alfred had started of ensuring the nation’s safety by means of an active navy was adopted by the Virgin Queen, with gratifying results; and a race of seadogs, adventurers, and explorers at a white heat of courage and alertness sprang up to inhabit the island “ set in the silver sea.”

What stirring days were those I What a splendid product had emerged from the melting-pot of time, in which Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Roman, Danish, Norman, and French blood had been mixing for centuries I Under Elizabeth the flower of promise bloomed for the first time, and the stock which was to make Britain’s fame immortal put forth its matured appearance. Upon this people, children of the gods, descended the fruits of the revival of learning, and thev were blessed with not only one, but many geniuses whose names shone like a constellation from the darkness. Spenser, Jonson, Marlowe, Bacon, Shakespeare, all were there, but of them all, from the point of view of popular taste, the last was the greatest. The Elizabethan age was made for drama. With the people constituted as they were, nothing else, neither music nor sculpture, could satisfy them. It was life and life only that they cared about. Keyed to their pitch of vitality they were interested primarily in the portrayal of human characteristics, and for this reason honoured the playwright above all others. That he was able to reproduce for them the eternal realities of love, hatred, fear, courage, trust, jealousy, ambition, and justice so faithfully as to convince his audience that it was indeed a mirror reflecting nature that he was holding up before them, and that his works still remain as marvellous as they were when first written made Shakespeare not only the king of playwrights in those days, but the king of playwrights still For the art which endures is that which appeals as truth to generation after generation, the years being the real judge of what is gold and what no more than dross. A comparatively short time ago Shakespeare’s plays were acted as frequently and loved as fervently as they had been in the poet’s own days. But lately it is almost an exception to find them being played, and certainly to meet a company travelling round to produce nothing else. Why?

Two answers suggest themselves. First, that the hurry and bustle which typify these modern times have made people seek a corresponding type of recreation, such as motion pictures and musical comedy, rather than classical drama; and, second, that Shakespeare has been studied so minutely in the schools that an idea has risen that he is much too profound and philosophical for the taste of average folk, who feel that they might go to one of his plays for appearance’s sake, but never for entertainment.

This latter point can be disputed. When we consider that Shakespeare wrote for people the majority of whom could neither read nor write, and that his meaning had to be seized at one presentation, we see how erroneous is the idea that one must be a pedant to understand him. Instead of feeling frightened, a man should go to a Shakespearian play in the same spirit as he would attend anything else, when he would receive the diversion which the great bard meant him to. To think that at least a preliminary reading is essential for the enjoyment of the plays is wrong.

It was recently my privilege to talk to Miss Hunter-Watts.. This small, exquisite woman has given her life to the acting of female parts in Shakespeare’s works, and has gained a vast knowledge from her experience. 1 asked her what effect was produced on the character of a person who habitually acted Shakespeare, and her answer was immediate.

“ A refining and regenerating effect,” she said; “an ennobling of the whole nature. Look at the portraits Of Sir Henry Irving. Those which show him as a young man reveal an almost uninteresting and mundane countenance: but those taken -when lie was older and had acted such parts as Wolsey and Hamlet and Prospero till they were portions of himself disclose a face in which spirituality and power are dominant features. “ It stands to reason that this should be so. Whatever one thinks,- one becomes ; and just as surely as one cannot play with pitch and remain undefiled, so one cannot give time and thought to the mightiest of sentiments without reflecting them in one’s character. You see it everywhere, among scientists and poets and musicians and others who live -heir life not selfishly, but for the sake of bettering the world. And Shakespeare expresses the essence of Trigh thinking. When one has acted such parts as Queen Katharine, or Ophelia, or Ladv Macbeth, or Juliet, or all the rest of them, each one of which is a marvel in itself, one has expressed some of the greatest of human emotions. The influence cannot pass away. Slowly -but surelv it makes for a greater purity of mental, emotional, and physical development, the last thing apparent not only in the appearance of the actress, but also in the fact that the clipped vernacular of present-day speech jars upon her in its unharmonious contrast with the beautiful prose contained in the nlavs.

" And this brings un the question so often in people's minds lately, whether Shakespeare should be acted, or merely

read and pondered upon for the sake of his poetry and philosophy. Surely, the very fact that he wrote them as dramas proves that he intended his works to be performed. And however much one may read a play, one cannot grasp the full force of the passions it covers until one has seen it acted. Only then does what had before been so many words become appreciable, so that one receives an impression of reality which no amount of study could entirely give. “ I see this not only with Shakespearian plays (although when I first read ‘ Measure for Measure ’ to myself I diagnosed Isabella as a prig, and had to play her before I could see that she was indeed what her creator described her to be, a lady ‘ saintly and enskied,’ and one who is now my favourite to act), but with other plays, too. When I read ‘ Mary Rose,’ I liked it, but was forced to admit that I felt the author had outBarried Barrie in the main character. When I saw it played, however, my scepticism vanished immediately and I perceived it all, as the playwright had meant I should, time to life. I have not, by the way, lost one whit of * that first fine careless rapture ’ which I experienced on going to the theatre in my younger days, and I can be enthralled by another’s acting. “ To continue, when a play is only read, the spirit of the period is seldom caught. This is specially so in comedy, for comedy is a product of an age which must be presented as a whole before its wit is appreciated. With comedy it is specially necessary to get * into the skin of the part,’ for wit changes with everv new cycle. Compare different issues of Punch, the humour of which is always topical. To look at back numbers is to fail to see any humour at all; though, if a play dealing entirely with those times was given, and the lines not only read but acted, the old fun would reinstate itself and make its original appeal. “ Tragedy, on the other hand, is eternal, which explains why Shakespeare’s tragedies are as fresh now as they were when he wrote them. As the Greeks said, tragedy is intended to inspire terror and pity and to present to the audience phases of life which will have their counterparts in every age. Though it may show passions which to some portion of the audience are unknown, it can never fail to impress everybody in some way. even, as is often the case with myself, if it is only to give a greater contentment with regard to one’s own troubles, which, when compared with some of these others, are so very trivial! Shakespeare’s tragedies, on account of their sheer human appeal, have never yet been bettered. They wear the crown and hold the sceptre supremely. “Did Shakespeare mean us to take lessons from them? I should not say so. Rather let us suggest that in his presentation of facts he shows the whole of life, and lets us make our own choice as to what aspects of it are best. •“ Lastly, clothes and scenery and general stage property, which mean so much to the production of realism. These,, when a play is read in private, are entirely lacking, and until a piece has been seen in costume, its true atmosphere cannot be caught. Tradition has a large part here. Cleopatra was a Greek princess, and Greek was the language spoken at the Egyptian court. But if we were to produce ‘ Antony and Cleopatra ’ with Cleopatra as petite and golden, and the courtiers dressed in Grecian garments, no audience would suffer us. It is the same with Othello, who, being in Venice, should dress as a Venetian gentleman. But tradition has made him be thought of as a Moor, and hence he must always appear on the stage in robes and a turban. I mention dress to show how important it is to the full appreciation of a Shakespearian play. “ I wish everyone might know Shakespeare as well as we who act him do ; and I am glad beyond measure that we are able to help keep alight the fires that burn before his altar. He is still the god of his art. Perhaps some day a greater than he will come to take his.place; but until that time let us rejoice in showing our reverence by making the most of the gifts he has left us as our heritage.”