The Uses of Pageantry

CONTENTS

(i) Reasoning the need

(ii) The scope of the subject

(iii) Towards a definition

(iv) The contemporary context Notes:

CHAPTER I: The decorated tradition Notes:

CHAPTER II: Dressing down

CHAPTER III:

(i) Necessity's virtue

(ii) Dressed to kill

(iii) Glimpsing a sea-change

Notes:

CHAPTER IV: Re-awakening the emblematic eye Notes:

CHAPTER V: Ancient rites recovered Notes:

CHAPTER VI: The theatre of state Notes:

CHAPTER VII: Pageantry in an age of irony Notes:

Bibliography

SUMMARY

An Introductory chapter justifies the study of staged pageantry in terms of related research and acknowledges the aptness of the pageantic mode for the second tetralogy before glancing at pageantry within the contemporary social context.

A brief survey of pageantry in Shakespearean productions from the Restoration to 1900 provides an historical context for the thesis which shows that 'pictorial' pageantry, though vilified and much reduced in scale compared with Victorian literalism, proved resilient even in the face of the New Stagecraft and cinematic real ism.

From the 1950s the intellectualisation of Shakespeare production which accompanied the emergence of the university-educated 'director', however, harnessed spectacle in the service of an interpretative vision that demanded of audiences a capacity for analogical thinking akin to the 'cognitive eye' of Shakespeare’s own audiences.

In an era of social flux and intellectual anxiety pageantry has provided a stable vocabulary for interrogating monarchal and political ideologies together with the vocabulary for the examination of the ritual basis of the human condition. Subsequently practitioners have utilised the meta-theatrical concept of pageantry and in a society increasingly defined through the visual emblem have sought to reach beyond 'image' towards understanding, thereby reaffirming the need to take theatrical pageantry seriously.

For my parents

Lawrence ('Arthur') Roland and

Julia ('Julie') Elizabeth

11lustrations

Fig. 1: (between pages 66-67): 'The Grand Tableau concluding Act I: Henry V, Waller as Henry: Lyceum Theatre1900.

Fig. 2: (between pages 66-67): 'After the Battle' Henry V, Waller as Henry; Lyric Theatre 1908.

Fig. 3: (between pages 165-66) : The Betrothal Tableau: Henry V, Novello as Henry; Drury Lane Theatre 1938 .

Fig. 4: (between pages 165-66): 'Once more unto the breach...’: Henry V, Novello as Henry, Drury Lane Theatre 1938.

All photographs from the respective production files in the Theatre Museum archive.

The Uses of Pageantry: Pageantry as production style in revivals of Shakespeare's second tetralogy on the English stage in the twentieth century.

By way of introduction (i) Reasoning the need

It is full of pageantry, of shining armour and of banners; and today pageantry is something to which we are instinctively unsympathetic.

Thus Harold Hobson described Terry Hands's production of Henry V in 1975. In short, he felt it was a play to which "the temper of the time is altogether hosti1e " .¹

Such hostility has frequently to be understood as an extreme response to past excesses, a feverish reaction to post-Tree syndrome. Thus Robert Brustein had expressed dismay that John Barton's revival of Richard II in 1973 should proceed "against a background of extravagant ceremony that sometimes threatens to obscure it":² two years later he was still haunted by Barton’s "sumptuous, physical production" which, he asserted, marked a retreat towards a style "left over from a previous age".³

Nevertheless, such hostility is itself misleading in a century whose prevailing tone has generally been one of indifference. Peter Hall, it seems, in his quatercentenary production of Henry V for the Royal Shakespeare Company chose a "deliberately downbeat" production which avoided the "superfluous pageantry" often associated with the play⁴ and this sense of the 'superfluous¹ nature of this aspect of staging has underpinned much of the critical comment on the subject.

When referred to at all it has either been glanced at in terms of its 'colourful pageantry' or 'real Plantagenet splendour' or scornfully dismissed out of hand. Philip Hope-Wa11 ace. for example, reviewing Michael Benthall's revival of Richard II at the Old Vic in 1955, observed: "The general coming and going with banners aswirl call for no special comment".⁵

Herbert Farjeon at least offered an explanation when he complained of "a Grand Parade of Old Vic students" in preliminary business which opened Henry Cass’s revival of Richard II in 1934: "This tendency should be curbed at once. It inevitably leads to cuts".⁶ Farjeon’s conclusion is a fair one, given the history of staged pageantry in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and yet over fifty years later Peter Holland, writing of the Royal Shakespeare Company's revival of Troilus and Cressida in 1990 still found it worthwhile to express relief that the Prologue was not preceded by "the sort of grand procession with which so many directors feel obliged to begin a play...".'⁷

Holland's remark is an undeniable testimony to the tenacity of the pageantic mode on the stage in view of so sustained a critical assault during the century. Yet no substantial study has hitherto been undertaken of the part played by pageantry in recent production history.

This is the more surprising given the serious attention already paid to other aspects of the subject.

Scholars of the canon have written extensively of the textual importance of pageantry and have examined its theatrical dimension within the prevailing cultural, social and political milieu.e° The broader historical context of medieval and Renaissance pageantry has been even more extensively explored®⁰ while anthropologists as well as social and political historians have found the subject revealing in what David Cannadine has called "the study of power".¹⁰ Each discipline has its own preoccupations and methods, of course, yet collectively they play their part in "raising our ceremonial consciousness":¹¹

...no approach which defines power narrowly and ignores spectacle and pageantry can possibly claim to be comprehensive. Politics and ceremonial are not separate subjects, the one serious, the other superficial. Ritual is not the mask of force, but is itself a type of power.¹²

The political dimension of Shakespeare's history plays is obvious as is their "familiar insistence on human government as an endless contest for power".¹³ The 'dramaturgy of power’, therefore, demonstrates the need to "take pageantry seriously"¹⁴ on the stage no less than in the study and it is against this background that the present research is undertaken.

(ii) The Scope of the Subject

Before turning to consider the scope of the term ’pageantry' itself something needs to be said concerning the choice of the second tetralogy as the textual basis for this study. By and large, in fact, it will be concerned with just two of the plays, Richard II and Henry V, both of which have an established pageantic performance tradition though each has justified such an approach in its own distinct way.

Gordon Crosse observed that "to a play like Richard II the manner in which it is staged is of more than usual importance"¹³ and at first sight the most appropriate manner would appear to be that of ostentatious display: the very texture of the play seems to demand it. Phyllis Rackin has spoken of Richard as embodying a "static, picturesque, ceremonial world";¹⁶ "Richard II is nothing if not a ceremonial play", says Jeremy Brien in a review of Barry Kyle's Stratford production in 1986;¹⁷ Sir John Gielgud identifies 'ceremony' and the strong ritualistic character of many episodes in the drama as being necessary ingredients for the success of the early scenes of the play;¹ ® while Arthur Colby Sprague observes that "today Richard II has many admirers" and concedes that "for some of them its appeal is that of ritual and romance: the trial of arms in the first act and the ceremonial deposition of a king in the fourth; the spreading banners and the flung-down gages . . . " .¹ S>

In Richard II 'ceremony' may be seen as focusing upon the performance or implicit existence of the solemn ritual of coronation which bestows symbolic significance upon both the human subject and the artifacts of ceremony which thereafter possess a permanent residual significance which elevates both to representative importance. Andrew Gurr believes that the 'state' or royal throne, for instance, may well have stood, raised, centre stage throughout the play "as the focal point to which all stage action relates". He points out:

The symbolic, iconic potency of this source of authority was enormous for Elizabethans The throne or seat of justice was the visible emblem of power It is not merely a seat of justice but a symbol of the higher elevation, nearer heaven, that was be 1ieved. . .to be natural to a king.²⁰

In this play even when display is at its most ostentatious and, ostensibly, superficial - as. for instance, during Charles Kean's notorious interpolated 'Historical Episode' illustrating York’s speech describing Bolingbroke's triumphal entry into London - it inevitably suggests dramatic ironies, prompting reflections upon 'the divinity doth hedge a king' and upon the ceremony which makes him one.

The term 'pageantry', of course, also carries the suggestion of gorgeous processions, of show without substance. This definition often seems more appropriate when discussing Henry V since instances of display on stage have for much of the play's history rarely carried any significance beyond an intention visually to impress with a crudely emotional appeal devoid of intellectual justification, treating the play as "an excuse for parades around the stage, and spectacle".²¹

This is undoubtedly less true of productions staged in more recent times, and closer study cf the stage history of the play over the last thirty years, say. reveals a less strident, more thoughtful approach corresponding to what has been described as a certain "moral queasiness"²² towards Henry V among today's audiences. Nevertheless, the person of Henry has long occupied a unique place in the public imagination, particularly at moments of heightened national consciousness and the play which bears his name has provided a focal point at times of commemoration or celebration: an inspiration in times of war; a stimulant in periods of self-doubt. When words such as 'commemorate', 'tradition', 'heritage' and 'tribute' abound in the press; at such times of national consciousness the second Henriad in general - and Henry V in particular - has often been required to mark the occasion and express the mood of the nation.

At the time of the coronation in 1937, for instance, the News Chronicle remarked that "Henry V is evidently regarded as a sort of theatrical National Anthem, suitable for Coronation days"²³ while the Evening Standard described it as "the inevitable choice for occasions of this kind".²⁴ "

As a national epic the plays have also represented a rallying cry in more sombre times, carrying "a special message of courage to the English in times of gathering darkness, fear and falling empires".²⁵ In 1900. for example, the Boer War gave rise to productions of Henry V by Frank Benson and then by Lewis Waller. The Times responded with enthusiasm: "The causes underlying the present popularity of this trumpet-call to patriotism are sufficiently obvious The appeal of the play to our martial ardour and to our racial pride is irresistible".²⁶ When Benson again revived the play during the first winter of World War I The Times again applauded it as a splendid expression of 'the English spirit'. It thrilled that Benson "felt himself to be not merely playing the stage-part, but delivering a solemn message" and urged that "everyone should see it. not merely for its own artistic sake, but as a masterpiece of the literature of war".²⁷

Those two instances of 'merely' sum up in many respects the dilemma facing anyone attempting an analytical assessment of Henry V in performance. With almost any other play in the canon it would be possible to judge its production on 'artistic' grounds alone. But Henry V contains an extra dimension which is seen as both responding to and contributing towards the tenor of the times. J.T.Grein, reviewing Lewis Waller's production of the play at the Lyceum Theatre in 1905. was frankly exhilarated. Henry V, he said, "affects the hearer as a regiment of soldiers does when it marches through the streets with jubilating brass", particularly at a time when "never was patriotism more manifest".²⁸ In 1900 the Illustrated London News regarded it as "the happiest of ideas" that "at this hour of national excitement and patriotic fervour" Benson should "inaugurate his Lyceum season with a revival of that great epic of English Chauvinism".²⁹

David Nancarrow observes that "considering the earlier history of the production of Henry V in relationship to British conflicts it is somewhat surprising that there were only two major revivals during World War II".³⁰ Of course. Olivier’s film in 1945 more than compensated for the theatrical dearth and the period was marked by a number of government-sponsored theatrical pageants remarkable for the adulatory tone adopted towards the Soviet Union as Britain's al ly.³¹ ri

Henry V has. in fact, generally been a reliable thermometer to gauge the severity of the nation's war fever. In 1938 Lewis Casson’s production proved by his own admission "'a financial disaster'"³² partly because "the rather hysterical relief after Chamberlain's return from Munich with his sad little scrap of paper made any sort of war-play or sabre-rattling a complete anathema".³³ After all, "what did a nation cheering Chamberlain's useless scrap of Munich stationery want of a King who urged them to stiffen their sinews and summon up their blood?".³⁴

It is interesting that even in 1951. Festival of Britain year. Byam Shaw was sufficiently self-conscious of contemporary patriotism to justify its presence in his production by an appeal to Shakespeare’s own time: in the programme of the Royal Court Theatre. Liverpool, he wrote, "'at the time when Shakespeare wrote it. a tremendous wave of national feeling was sweeping over the country. In order to re-interpret the intention of the author, it seemed essential to capture that spirit'".³⁵

If this has the ring almost of an apology, however, at Stratford Anthony Quayle's presentation of the second tetralogy, described as "Stratford's contribution to the Festival of Britain" was less inhibited.³⁶ The Festival had been "planned by the Attlee government as a demonstration of Britain's post-war recovery" and at Stratford the cycle was adapted so that "the shadow of the Wars of the Roses" was not allowed to fall over "a model to which post-war Britons might aspire - an England united, after victory over a continental foe, under the benevolent rule of Henry V".³⁷ Thus, presented in a tone of "sentimental patriotism", the cycle was a suitable celebration of British achievement.³⁸

Of course, the play's detractors will say that the ready acceptance of the desirability of spectacle in this work arises largely from the fact that it has very little else to offer; that it is merely, as John Masefield described it, "'a chronicle or procession... eked out with soldiers' squabbles".³⁹ The Athenaeum, expressing impatience with certain aspects of Bridges-Adams's production at the Strand Theatre in 1920 said, rather wearily, "we are inclined to think that he [Shakespeare] simply meant to write a superb patriotic pageant for commercial purposes".⁴⁰ The Times expressed the opinion that Henry V is "so much a pageant of general action and so little a drama of individual thought that it must flow strongly or stagnate"⁴¹ while the News Chronicle, also reviewing Harcourt Williams s production at the Old Vic, describes the play as "nothing but a pageant with bursts of poetry and streaks of humour".⁴² In 1934 the Birmingham Evening Despatch dismissed it as "a faked chronicle - not a play - and as such commands interest only as a spectac1e",⁴³ and while the Birmingham Gazette was prepared to acknowledge its universal significance "for anyone who loves any plot of ground" it was equally dismissive of its dramatic qualities: "Henry V is not a play. A pageant - yes; a procession - of course; but a play, never".⁴⁴

It is an attitude summed up neatly by the Yorkshire Post reviewing Stanley Bell's production that had transferred from the Hippodrome Theatre, Manchester, to the Alhambra, London, in January 1934: "Intellectually Henry V is one of the barest things which Shakespeare wrote, and leaves much empty space for trumpets, tapestries, fluttering pennants, armour and gorgeous robes"⁴⁵ and 'Eric', writing for Punch of the same production's "flourish of trumpets and great spread of pageantry" was of the opinion that "if this play ought ever to be seen on the stage, which I personally doubt, there seems something to be said for such a mode of presentation".⁴⁶

At first sight the two parts of Henry IV may appear to contain little that is overtly ceremonial - apart from the coronation procession of Henry V at the end of Part Two - and yet one should not overlook the part played by both the context and the incidence of stage combat. Vernon's tribute to Hal and to his army in in Part One [ IV . 1.97-110 ]⁴⁷,n is an emblem of a military ideal that owes much to a type of visual imagery by which the neo-medievalism implicit in the contemporary cult of the chivalric legend of King Arthur was made manifest.

Indeed. Part One. "though it contains no ceremony of knighthood, presents the making of a knight" in which Hal, before becoming king, must first demonstrate the chivalric virtues.⁴⁸

The Battle of Shrewsbury is the only example of on-stage fighting in the second tetralogy but it is worth remembering that "all swordfighting in Shakespeare's plays would have been spectacular in presentation":⁴⁹

The combat sequences...when presented on the stage by actors who wore armour covered by colourful gowns bearing heraldic insignia, and who were skilled at fencing, thereby combining spectacular and realistic action with dramatic dia 1ogue. . .would do much to create the atmosphere of England's heroic past reborn in a manner that the Accession Day Tilts...and the royal entertainments, which were not unified dramatic works, could not approach.⁵⁰

Such resonances will inevitably be less potent for a modern audience and yet when the Henriad has been performed as a cycle of plays projecting a coherent historical vision the two parts of Henry IV may contribute to an overall ceremonial ethos in ways more significant and revealing than when presented in isolation.

(iii) Towards a definition

In 1856 Charles Kean expressed the hope that the "united accessories of painting, music, and architecture, in conjunction with the rapid movement and multiplied life which belong to the stage alone" would be regarded as "less an exhibition of pageantry appealing to the eye, than an illustration of history addressed to the understanding".⁵¹ Of course, his use of the term 'pageantry' - in which he includes the full panoply of scenic design as well as the more obviously ‘legitimate’ areas of musical setting and staging - is more embracing than will be usual here, and audiences no longer expect their Shakespeare to deliver illustrated history, but his distinction between 'understanding' and the merely visually diverting is a useful one and will be central in establishing the terms of reference which will define our subject.

There are obvious differences between the medieval 'pageant' and the general use of the term 'pageantry'. Nevertheless their common heritage will allow a measure of comparison. Robert Withington has stated the difficulties in any attempt at precise definition of the term 'pageant'. He dismisses as "not worth while"⁵² any consideration of the etymologies of the word and points out that the term has been "loosely used in late years" and that "since it has not, for a long time, been used exactly, it cannot be exactly defined".⁵³ Its derivative, 'pageantry', David Bergeron confesses, is a "multifaceted, sometimes elusive idea that has several different meanings".⁵⁴

Of the four elements which Withington identifies as the constituent parts of the pageant he regards "the allegory or symbolism or history which the living characters bring" as much the most important and these he terms the 'soul' because it is this which appeals to the intellect of the spectator.⁵⁵

Of course, Shakespeare was able to take the 'emblematic eye’ which perceived and interpreted pageantic

symbolism very largely for granted in his own audience:

Certainly everyone had some knowledge of the language of picture, and... society depended on nonverbal signs more exclusively there and then, than here and now In that culture, elaborate and formal pageantry was commonplace. Clothing, embroidery, colors, jewels, imprese and badges all had their meanings, several, codified and frequently obscure.. . .⁵⁶

In an intensely hierarchical society such as Shakespeare's "ceremony was omnipresent... because it gave overt form to the social roles through which members of that society found their place and identity"s'⁵⁷ and since the approved political order at the time the plays were written was not only hierarchical but also monarchical, accordingly, the visual presentation of the norm...employs (a) the vertical and centifrugal relationships of persons on stage and (b) the traditional emblems of monarchical power, such as the crown or garland, the sceptre, the purse, the mace, the staff of office, and the "state" or throne itse1f.⁵⁸ a

Any attempt to examine the use of pageantry in a group of Shakespeare's English history plays, therefore, will inevitably focus largely upon the ceremonial attendant upon the figure of the king. Barbara Palmer, using the term in its Elizabethan sense, asserts that "pageantry is the symbol of kingship".⁵⁹ a symbol which she perceives essentially in terms of conscious public display; spectacle 'calculated' and with a 'purpose': "to entertain, to impress, to appease, to reassure, to reaffirm a belief or commitment, sacred or secular".⁶⁰ In Shakespeare's day popular ceremonies celebrating a sovereign or foreign ambassador or Lord Mayor provided the chief spectacle in the lives of the people who filled the public playhouses and for these theatregoers "one of the chief attactions...was clearly its pageantry...: its ability to mime the spectacle of courts and aristocratic enterprises...".⁶¹

The representation of ceremonial on stage - at least in this country - has no doubt lost much of its political potency when compared with a time when "to mime the monarch was a potentially revolutionary act".⁶² Nevertheless, ’pageantry’ is something which we still associate with "special State or Civic functions, with processions and decorated streets, with flags and uniforms, with heraldic blazon and livery, with a sense of occasion...".⁶³ The symbolic properties of pageantry, too. both portable and static, "the parade of crowns and coronets, of gold keys, sticks, white wands and black rods; of ermine and lawn, maces and wigs"⁶⁴ remain powerful signifiers. Such artifacts, whether carried in procession or not. possess a permanent residual significance both actual and potential: they remain even now emblems, tokens, accoutrements to the "secular magic of monarchy"⁶⁵ as well as being symbols of the divine sanction for his rule. As such, they will contribute much to the pageantic context which is the subject of this study.

Also less potent today but none the less relevant for our purposes will be the incidence of gestural ceremony.

David Bevington has observed:

The ceremonious gestures through which social roles are affirmed take on an extraordinary centrality in Shakespeare's presentational language of the theater. Kneeling, embracing, clasping of hands, bowing, removing the hat. assuming a proper place at table, deferring to others in going through a doorway - all are part of a rich vocabulary expressing contractual obligation, obedience, homage, submission, fealty, petition, hospitality, parental authority, royal prerogative.⁶⁶

Andrew Gurr laments that we cannot 'repossess' the force of iconic rituais that dominated the staging of Shakespeare's history plays:

The iconography of hats...is as far gone as the collective awe for crowns and thrones That iconic potency is not our only loss. Even if there were modern directors who read their subtexts well enough to register when to supply thrones and crown and willing to instruct their actors in the rituals of respect for kings, we should not come much closer to the mental constructs or 'mindsets'...for which Shakespeare prepared his texts that require the minds of men in company to open. Audiences would have to acquire such mindsets collectively too, and audiences are less biddable than actors or even directors.⁶⁷

Producers and directors of Shakespeare's plays in the present century have been faced with something of a dilemma. Shakespeare and his contemporaries could represent the 'scene of state', "a visualization of existing order" which begins and ends almost every English history play,⁶⁸ in token form only since it was a scene "so familiar and so readily understood that a mere token representation will convey the entire meaning",⁶⁹ particularly since "all the physical symbols of theatrical kingship were invested with a great deal of reverence which was enhanced because the same visual symbols represented God the Father...".”⁷⁰ Clearly any attempt by a producer to 'enhance' this token display in order to compensate for the waning of such understanding and reverence in modern times would inevitably result in charges of nineteenth century revisionism.

Neverthe1 ess, whilst conceding the impossibility of re-creating in a modern audience the mental construct for which Shakespeare was writing it will nevertheless be the contention of this thesis that in the second half of the twentieth century directors have frequently exploited residual aspects of the emblematic tradition remaining in the collective consciousness as a basis for both reawakening and, indeed, reinventing the 'emblematic eye' of the audience in a context that has usually been production-specific but which has also depended upon multi-production cross-referencing for full understanding. However unevenly and imperfectly, therefore, the modern audience is expected to bring into the theatre a familiarity with the language of ceremony similar in kind - if not of degree - to that which obtained in Shakespeare's day.

(iv) The contemporary context

The experience of pageantry of the people who make up those audiences in the second half of the twentieth century is at once more extensive and less intense than in Shakespeare's time. The monarch and members of the extended royal family are not infrequent visitors to the nation's towns and cities but such visits - an official car and an entourage of bodyguards - can hardly be equated with the royal progresses of old.

The century has witnessed numerous events calling for high ceremonial'⁷¹ n and in the second half of the century these, as well as the state opening of parliament (since 1958) have all been very much "essays in television ritual".”⁷² The most remarkable instance of media pageantry, of course, was the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales in September, 1997, "the biggest single televised event" which had an audience of three quarters of the country's adult popul at ion. ”⁷³ ri

For the coronation of George V in 1911 two quite distinct processions were held on consecutive days, the second a State procession through the city with the King and Queen in an open carriage expressly so that "while on the previous day they had seemed but remote historic figures, they were now England’s own King and Queen among their people"."⁷⁴ From 1953 such contrivances could be superceded by the universal ising presence of te levision. ”⁷⁵ Never before had it been possible for the population as a whole to see the ceremonial as it happened, thereby obtaining an unprecedented sense of active particiption. Thus, despite initial misgivings it proved so successful that "all subsequent royal ceremonial occasions have been primarily television spectaculars".’⁷⁶ ”Thus, at the Prince of Wales’s investiture at Caernarfon the canopy above the dais was deliberately made transparent so that the television cameras might see through it.

Significantly, however, in 1995, while 4.5 million viewers watched the Cenotaph Ceremony. 2.6 million the Lord Mayor’s Show and 2.5 million Trooping the Colour, the Jonathan Cimbleby interview with Prince Charles attracted 13.4 million viewers and the Panorama interview with Princess Diana 22.8 mi11ion.⁷⁷ r* Such statistics testify to the extensive public interest in the private lives of the royals to which a bewildering variety of books, magazine and newspaper articles - both ‘official’ and otherwise - readily respond. This "expanding mass illusion of intimacy"-⁷⁸ may be seen as a particularly prurient aspect of the Cult of Personality which reduces the absolute to the particular and so inevitably undermines the principle of ’seldom but sumptuous’ once deemed essential to preserve the awe of majesty. It is instructive that although during preparations for the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, in September 1997 ceremonial form became a matter of intense national public dispute.-⁷⁹ S>n the debate was generated by an essentially media-led identification with the sentimental idea of ’The People's Princess'.

Yet even in an age when "we don't have speeches from the throne, we have fireside chats"⁸⁰ there remains a curious ambivalence. Kings may no longer rule by divine right but even today The Times, reporting the present Queen's state visit to Poland in 1996 and expressing a consciousness of mutual loyalties dating back to the Second World War remarked: "the symbolism of every gesture will therefore be of vital importance".⁸¹ An elaborate protocol likewise surrounds the person of the monarch in spite of the gradual erosion of the 'deference culture': a British subject who extends a hand to a monarch in greeting before the monarch's is proffered is still in breach of decorum; one who omits to bow or curtsey when addressed by the monarch is generally deemed guilty of discourtesy, notwithstanding recent 'official' relaxation of the formality; while a Commonwealth head of state who places a solicitous arm around the person of the sovereign provokes an international incident.⁸² n After all, in the popular imagination "monarchs are still represented as clad in regal robes, sitting on a throne, and with a crown on their head".⁸³

Ian Gilmour has noted: "Modern societies still need myth and ritual. A monarch and his family supply it"®*⁸⁴ while David Cannadine affirms: "If, as seems possible, the next coronation takes place without a House of Lords, a Commonwealth or an Established Church, the role of ceremonial in creating the comforting picture of stability, tradition and continuity will only be further enhanced. The dynamic dialogue between ritual and society, between text and context, will continue".⁸⁵

Nevertheless, an era in which "the yellow M of the McDonald's hamburger chain is the most widely recognised symbol in the world, including the cross".⁸⁶ creating a reverential icon out of a stage monarch presents a formidable challenge to any director of Shakespeare. Occasions displaying the pageantry of state with its tendency to foster such reassuring feelings of 'stability, tradition and continuity' are outnumbered in popular experience by instances of distinctly non-establishment 'pageantry': industrial disputes, displays of trade union solidarity, civil rights marches, anti-poll tax demonstrations , CND marches, the Belfast 'marching season' and the mournful ritual of funeral processions resulting from the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland have frequently challenged such assumptions and undermined the pageantic ideal which had become in Shakespeare's day primarily "an inducement to political order".e⁷ Such occasions, however, have been distinguished by their own banners, placards, insignia and ceremonial emblems and these, together with their occasionally violent conclusions, have inevitably entered the visual vocabulary of the nation. As such, in an age notoriously sceptical of the embodiments of social and political authority they have provided director and audience alike with an additional reservoir of shared iconic referants with which to interrogate and challenge the conventional pageantic mode.

For Charles Kean, as we have seen, 'pageantry' and 'understanding' were mutually exclusive terms and so they remained for the directors no less than the reviewers of Shakespeare for much of the present century. The use of pageantry for its appeal to the eye was never entirely eliminated, of course, and there have been a number of productions which have attempted with undisguised nostalgia to re-create the splendours of the past. 'Thoughtful' pageantry in the first half of the century was generally employed to reflect character but with the evolution of so-called 'Directors' Theatre' and a more interpretative approach to production ceremony has again acquired an intellectual dimension. Ceremonial elements have thus been harnessed in the service of an idea as a visible conceptual shorthand which the production itself may well have nurtured and enhanced but which has also utilised and exploited a vocabulary of non-verbal images still understood as commonplaces of the audience's pageantic heritage.

Our concern with stage pageantry in the twentieth century will naturally revolve upon Shakespeare's plays, and yet it is a strange testimony to the 'whirligig of time' that the theatrical journey of processional pageantry begins with the solemnity of the Mass and concludes its strange eventful history in the more tawdry context of the pantomime, the traditional march-down, two by two down the central staircase at the end of the pantomime being "the last vestige of this once familiar display".⁸⁸

In one respect, however, theatre pageantry's own royal progress appears to have travelled in a neatly prescribed circle. Virtually all pantomimes, to this day, are staged on the 'traditional' proscenium stage and - following the processional walk-down - the show concludes with the dropping of the equally traditional curtain. It is a strange irony, therefore, that the return to the open stage and consequent banishment of the curtain for most Shakespearean production in the second half of the century has led to something of a revival of the reviled procession.

Eric Salmon, citing the production of Antony and Cleopatra at Stratford in 1972, complained that attempts escape the picture-frame of the proscenium arch and to restore the open platform favoured in the Jacobean theatre have been "less than happy" and cited, by way of example, the final scene of the production in which the lights having slowly dimmed on the dead Queen - majestically dressed in "a great, golden-metallic robe and seated on her throne well forward on the open stage" - she and her equally dead attendants were "seen to scramble for the wings" in the dim gloom that followed. Ideally, the long, slow fade on a tableau needs to be followed, he says, by "the slow whisper of a descending curtain". On an open stage his solution was a simple one: "Cleopatra must be picked up, throne and all, and borne off the stage in solemn procession...".⁸⁹ Stage pageantry has never entirely relinquished its hold upon the public imagination but as a recommendation for the 'modern stage' Salmon's words point towards its emergence from the critical wilderness in the latter part of the century in ways that have offered intellectual no less than practical solutions to the problems inherent in reviving Shakespeare's plays for a modern audience.

CHAPTER I

The decorated tradition

The origins of pageantry on the English stage have been extensively chronicled: its embryonic beginnings in the Christian ritual of the Mass;lrk the religious and secular ceremonies - most notably the Feast of Corpus Christi - which abounded in medieval towns;² " the dramatic no less than the spectacular representation on Elizabethan stages of ceremonial described by the chroniclers as well as spectacles within the living memory of Shakespeare’s audiences are well understood and will not be rehearsed at length here.³ n

Undoubtedly, when the sub-title ’All is True' was appended to Shakespeare and Fletcher's Henry VIII it was intended to reassure the public of the authenticity of the play's elaborate processional element and although there is but scanty evidence of the staging of Shakespeare’s plays in the years immediately following the Restoration this play is something of an exception largely by virtue of its pageantry. Pepys declared himself generally disappointed with Sir William Devenant's revival of Henry VIII (1663) but he nevertheless excepted "‘the shows and processions'"⁴ and wrote of his being "'mightily pleased...with the history and shows of it'" when he saw the play again in December 1668.⁵

A foreign visitor, too, remarked upon the practice on the English stage of the King's entering "with something like the state that prevailed at Whitehall" and "the employment of large numbers of supernumeraries"⁶ at a time when the general run of plays was characterised by stock scenery, stock costumes and shabby production and only special productions were mounted with considerable pomp.

With these the visual appeal of ceremony and procession seems to have been largely superceded by every imaginable form of spectacle in the form of transformation scenes, elaborate machines and the operatic and masque-like ingredients of song and dance as in Shadwell's operatic adaptation, The Tempest, or the Inchanted Island (1673) with its wealth of allegorical and emblematic devices and mechanical toys that resembled the Caroline masque.

In other productions pageantry contained a political no less than a spectacular dimension. Nahum Tate's adaptation of Richard II (1681), although suppressed by a government authority nervous of the representation of the downfall of an English king in troubled political times, had striven, according to Tate himself, at least, to depict in every scene 'Respect to Majesty and the Dignity of Courts'-⁷ while Edward Ravenscrof t' s adaptation of Titus Andronicus, performed at the Theatre Royal in or near 1678 (though not published until 1687) may have been put together, like other adaptations of the latter portion of the decade, to warn a people divided by political animosity, of the incalculable evils of civil strife. Certainly the impressive funeral ceremony [1.1] and the formal robing of Titus [1.3], both of which represented serious attempts at pageantry, may be seen as metaphors of political and social order .⁰ ri

Undoubtedly, the early troubled years of George I's reign were marked by numerous mutilations of Shakespeare's plays from those who sought to exploit the histories for parallel conditions of faction, divided allegiance, conspiracy and rebellion, yet even at a time when processions constituted practically the principal theatrical splendour in shows, Cibber's production of Henry VIII at Drury Lane (26 October, 1727) had a tremendous impact in the period by virtue of the stage coronation of Anne Bullen which was devised in honour of the actual coronation of George II. No less than four of the five principal events mentioned on the title page of the 1734 acting edition were presented with processions⁹ but it was that of the coronation ceremony of Anne Bullen which caught the imagination of the public and was "’even added to every Play, as a Pantomime, &c. and exhibited, that one Season. 75 Times...’".¹⁰ Indeed, it inspired such loyalty in the public that an attempt to guy it with a mock coronation at the rival theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields was "'pelted off the Stage, in the utmost Contempt'".¹¹

Such productions were, of course, very special: stock productions on the legitimate stage were "always Cinderella to the wicked sisters, opera and spectacle of all kinds, including pantomime..."¹² and Shakespeare was always vulnerable to mutilation at the hands of the adapters and those who plundered him as the basis for farcical entertainments'.

He was partially rescued from such treatment by the possibly fictitious 'ladies of quality' who, in 1737, 'desired' Rich to produce several of his historical plays at Covent Garden in their original form. After years of adulterated Shakespeare the emphasis appears to have been very much on the idea of authenticity, a quality which seems to have been regarded as particularly important for Richard II, an announcement that it was to be performed at Covent Garden 'with Proper Decorations' being elaborated by Thomas Davies in his Miscellanies as in part constituting "the ancient ceremony which belonged to the combat... very accurately observed".¹³

Nevertheless, it was another adaptation, Cibber’s version of King John, which ushered in "a long line of pomp and circumstance in the way of processions".¹⁴ Cibber re-wrote Shakespeare's King John as Papal Tyranny in the Reign of King John, performed at Covent Garden in 1745, in the belief that Shakespeare's play lacked "Fire" against "his insolent Holiness"¹⁵ and given the troubled state of the nation in 1745 some artistic 'justification' for the splendour of the ceremonial might be claimed on religio-political grounds as an image of "the intoxicated Tyranny of Rome".¹⁶

[...]

---

¹ Harold Hobson, 'Hooray for Henry', Sunday Tines, 13 April, 1975.

² Robert Brustein, 'A surfeit of regal splendour'. Observer, 15 April, 1973.

³ Robert Brustein, The Culture Hatch: Essays on Theatre and Society 1969-1974 (New York: Knopf, 1975), pp. 131-32.

⁴ Sally Beauman, The Royal Shakespeare Coepany- k History of Ten Decades (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 326.

⁵ Philip Hope-Wallace, 'TWO PRODUCTIONS OF 'RICHARD II", Guardian, 21 January, 1955.

⁶ Herbert Far jeon, The Shakespearean Scene: Draeatic Criticises (London: Hutchinson. (1949]), p. 88.

⁷ Peter Holland, 'Shakespeare Performances in England, 1989-90', Shakespeare Survey, 44 (1991), 157-90 (p. 172).

⁸ n See David M Bergeron, ed., Pageantry in the Shakespearean Theater (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1985); Minoru Fujita, Pageantry and Spectacle in Shakespeare, Renaissance Monographs 8: Renaissance Institute, 1982); Barbara Hodgdon, The End Crowns All: Closure and Contradiction in Shakespeare’s History {Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991); Leonard Tennenhouse, Power on Display: The Politics of Shakespeare's 6enres {London: Methuen, 1986); Alice S. Venezky, Pageantry on the Shakespearean Stage (New York: Twayne, 1951; repr. AMS, 1972); Linda Woodbridge and Edward Berry, eds, True Rites and Halted Rites: Ritual and Anti-Ritual in Shakespeare and His Age (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992). *n See Sydney Anglo, Spectacle, Pageantry and Early Tudor Policy {Mori-. 1969); David M. Bergeron, English Civic Pageantry, 1558-1642, 3 vols (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971); Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, The Invention of Tradition (Caibridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Roy Strong, Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals 1450-1658 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Boydell, 1984); Robert Withington, English Pageantry: An Historical Outline, 2 vols (Caubridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918-20).

¹⁰ David Cannadine, 'Introduction: divine rites of kings' Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, ed. by David Cannadine and Sinon Price (Caubridge: Caubridge University Press, 1987), pp. 1-19 (p. 2). lln Ibid, p.12. Cannadine describes the literature on the subject as 'vast' but he names a number of works as offering 'an incisive way in" (p. 3).

¹² Ibid., p. 19.

¹³ John D. Cox, Shakespeare and the Dramaturgy of Power (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989), p. 93.

¹⁴ Cannadine, 'Rituals of Royalty', p. 5.

¹⁵ Gordon Crosse, Theatrical Dianes, 21 vols (January 1890-July 1953), II, p. 124.

¹⁶ Phyllis Rackin, 'The Role of the Audience In Shakespeare's Richard II', Shakespeare Quarterly, 36 (1985), 262-81, (p. 262).

¹⁷ Jeremy Bnen, 'Plight of a king without hope...', Bristol Evening Post, 11 September, 1986.

¹⁰ Sir John Gielgud's Introduction to Richard II (London: Folio Society, 1958).

¹⁹ Arthur Colby Sprague, Shakespeare’s Histones: Plays for the Stage, London, 1964, p.29.

²⁰ Andrew Gurr, 'The 'State" of Shakespeare's Audiences', Shakespeare and the Sense of Performance: Essays in the Tradition of Performance Criticism in Honor of Bernard Beckerman, ed, by Marvin and Ruth Thompson (Associated University Presses), 1989, pp. 167-68.

²¹ The Royal Shakespeare Company's Production of ‘HEHRY V for the Centenary Season at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, ed. by Sally Beauman (Oxford: Pergamon, 1976), p. 12.

²² Ralph Berry. Changing Styles in Shakespeare (London: Allen k Unwin, 1981), p. 80.

²³ Hews Chronicle, 23 March, 1937.

²⁴ n Evening Standard, 1 April 1937, The very fact that two major productions of the play (At the Old Vic, produced by Tyrone Guthrie; and at Stratford, produced by B. Iden Payne) opened almost simultaneously testifies to the play’s perceived capacity to reflect national sentiments. Moreover, Harold V. Me 1 Ison led a provincial tour “to nark Coronation year and to remind the younger generation of our splendid heritage’: Bournenouth Daily Echo, 17 November, 1937.

²⁵ Trevor Nunn, ’The Centenary Season¹ in The RSC's Production of 'Henry IT, ed. by Beauman, p. 6.

²⁶ 'LYCEUM THEATRE', Tne Tines, 24 December, 1900.

²⁷ Ibid..

²⁸ Sunday Tines, 21 January, 1905.

²⁹ Illustrated London Hews, 24 February, 1900, p, 249.

³⁰ David Nancarrow, 'A Stage History of William Shakespeare's King Henry the Fifth' (unpublished doctoral thesis, Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham, 1975). p. 160. The productions were by Robert Atkins, Regent's Park. August 1941 and Milton Rosmer, Memorial Theatre, April, 1943.

³¹⁰ See Steve Nicholson, 'Theatrical Pageants in the Second World War', Theatre Research International, 18 (1993), 186-96.

³² Quoted Brian Dobbs, Drury Lane: Three Centuries of the Theatre Royal 1663-1971 (London: Cassell, 1972), p. 194.

³³ John Casson, Lewis 6 Sybil: I Renoir (London: Collins, 1972), p. 205.

³⁴ Dobbs, p. 194.

³⁵ Production programme for revival at Royal Court Theatre during the Liverpool Music Festival, July 1951; quoted Audrey Williamson, Old Hie Drana 2 1947-1957 (London Rockliff, 1957), pp. 55-6.

³⁶ Stephen J. Phillips, ‘History in Men's Lives: A Study of Two Cycles of Shakespeare's Histories Produced at Stratford in the Nineteen Sixties and Nineteen Seventies' (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Exeter, 1988), p. 7.

³⁷ Ibid., p.11.

³⁸ Ibid., p.20.

³⁹ Quoted, Beauman, 'The Inheritance of Henry V’ in The RSC's Production of 'Henry IT, ed. by Beauman, p. 12.

⁴⁰ D.L.M., kthenaeun, 22 October 1920.

⁴¹ The Tines, 1 December, 1931.

⁴² A.E.Baughan, Hews Chronicle, 1 December, 1931.

⁴³ S.C., Birmnghan Evening Despatch, 21 April, 1934.

⁴⁴ W H.B., Birninghan Sazette, 21 April, 1934.

⁴⁵ Yorkshire Post, 29 January, 1934.

⁴⁶ 'Eric¹, Punch, 7 February. 1934, pp. 160-61.

⁴⁷⁰ All textual refereo:es will be from The Hew Penguin Shakespeare ed. by T.J B.Spencer and Stanley Wells (Harmondsworth: Penguin).

⁴⁸ Eugene M. Waith, Ideas of Greatness: Heroic draaa in England (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971), p. 94.

⁴⁹ Charles Edelman. Brawl Ridiculous: Swordfighting in Shakespeare's Plays (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992). p. 112.

⁵⁰ Edelman, p. 62.

⁵¹ Kean’s Acting edition: Shakespeare's Play of 'The Vinter's Tale', 1856, Preface, p. x.

⁵² Robert Withington, English Pageantry: kn Historical Outline, 2 vols (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918), I, p. xvi.

⁵³ Ibid., p. xix.

⁵⁴ David M. Bergeron, 'Introduction' in Pageantry in the Shakespearean Theater, ed. by David M. Bergeron (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1985), pp. 1-16 (p. 1).

⁵⁵ Withington, p. xvii. The other three are the 'body¹ (ie the wagons which nay have dropped away to leave the pageantic figures); the 'technique' or procession; and the 'popular' quality which he terms the 'spirit' of pageantry.

⁵⁶ Martha Hester Fleischer, The Iconography of the English History Play, Salzburg Studies in English Literature: Elizabethan & Renaissance Studies, 10 (Salzburg: Institut fr Englische Sprache und Literatur Universitt Salzburg, 1974), p. 3.

⁵⁷ David Bevington, iction is Eloquence (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), p. 135.

⁹⁰ Fleischer, Iconography, pp. 32-33.

⁵⁹ Barbara D. Palmer, '"Ciphers to This Great Accompt": Civic Pageantry in the Second Tetralogy' in Pageantry in the Shakespearean Theater, ed. by David M. Bergeron (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. 1985) pp. 114-29 (p. 127).

⁶⁰ Ibid., p. 114.

⁶¹ Stephen Orgel, 'Making Greatness Familiar' in Pageantry in the Shakespearean Theatre, ed. Bergeron, pp. 19-25 (p. 19).

⁶² Ibid., p. 23.

⁶³ Glynne Wickham, Early English Stages, 1300-1660, 3 vols (London: Routledge A Kegan Paul, 1959-72), I, pp. 51-2.

⁶⁴ David Cannadine, 'The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual: The British Monarchy and the "Invention of Tradition", c. 1820-1977' in The Invention of Tradition, ed. by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 101-64 (p. 101).

⁶⁵ Cannadine, 'The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual', p. 102.

⁶⁶ Bevington, Action Is Eloquence, p. 136.

⁶⁷ Gurr, 'The "State" of Shakespeare's Audiences', p. 174.

⁶⁸ Fleischer, Iconography, p. 51.

⁶⁹ Fleischer, Iconography, p. 52.

⁷⁰ Ibid..

⁷¹ n Notably the coronations of Edward VII (June, 1902), George V (June, 1911), George VI (May 1937) and Elizabeth (June, 1953); state funerals which included that of Sir Winston Churchill as well as those of deceased monarchs; Silver Jubilees (George V in May 1935 and Elizabeth in June, 1977); the Investiture of the Prince of Wales (July, 1969); royal marriages (Princess Margaret, I960; the Duke of Kent, 1961; Princess Alexandra, 1963; Princess Anne, 1973; Prince Charles, 1981).

⁷² Cannadine, 'The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual', p. 159.

⁷³ n The Tims, 8 September, 1997. The same edition, quoting figures released by the British Audience Research Bureau, records that 31.5 million people in Britain watched the funeral and that "millions more were listening on radios in cars and at work". These figures were compared with 28.4 million who watched the wedding of the Princess and Prince Charles in 1981 and 19 million viewers for Sir Winston Churchill's funeral in 1965.

⁷⁴ Crowning the King: The History, Synbolisn end Henning of the Coronation Ceremny (London: Syndicate, (1936]), p. 183.

⁷⁵ n BBC audience research reveals that 88% of the adult population experienced the coronation either on TV or radio: quoted Philip Ziegler, Crown and People, (Newton Abbot: Readers Union, 1979) p. 114.

⁷⁶ Cannadine, 'The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual', p. 159.

⁷⁷ n Information supplied by the BBC's Broadcasting Research Dept.; letter dated 30 April, 1996.

⁷⁰ Tom Nairn, The Enchanted Glass: Britain and its Monarchy {London: Century, 1988), p. 44.

⁷⁹ n The focus for debate, particularly in the tabloid press, was the 'popular' demand that a flag be flown at half-mast at Buckingham Palace while the Queen was still at Balmoral against the tradition that the Royal Standard alone is flown, and only when the monarch is in residence. The Sun carried the front page headline 'WHERE IS OUR QUEEN? WHERE IS HER FLAG?' and even provided two telephone numbers for readers to vote as 'Jury'; after all, "who gives a damn about the stuffy rules of protocol?": Sun, 4 September, 1997. Pressure was sufficiently sustained to force a concessionary Union flag to be flown.

⁸⁰ William Frost, 'Shakespeare's Rituals and the Opening of King Lear', Hudson Review, 10 (1957-58), 577-85 (p. 578),

⁸¹ Editorial, 'THE QUEEN IN POLAND: A welcome trip to a nervous nation', The Tims, 26 March, 1996.

⁸² n During a royal tour to Australia in February 1992 the Prime Minister, Bob Keating, caused controvesy when he placed an arm around the Queen.

⁰³ Cannadine, 'Rituals of Royalty', p. 6.

⁸⁴ Ian Gilmour, The Body Politic (London: Hutchinson, 1971), p. 313.

⁰⁵ Cannadine, 'The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual', p. 161.

⁸⁶ Giles Coran, 'The icon in a bun', The Tims. 26 March, 1996.

⁸⁷ W. Gordon Zeeveld, The Teuper of Shakespeare's Thought (New Haven: Yale U.P., 1974), p. 16.

⁸⁸ V.C.Clinton-Baddeley. Ml Right On The Right (London: Putnam, 1954), p. 117.

⁸⁹ Eric Salmon, ’Shakespeare on the Modern Stage', Modern Drana, 15 (1972-73), 305-19 (p. 313).

¹ a Sec. for exaaple. Karl Young. The Draia of tbe fkdieval Chnrch, 2 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933). H. Craia. English Rehgions Draiw of tbe Hiddle kges (Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1955).

² n See A.C.Cawley and otbers Tbe Revels history ot Draaa in English, I (London: Kethuen. 1983); E.K.Chambers. Tbe Medieval Stage. 2 vols (London: Oxford University Press, 1903): Glynne Vickhai. Early English Stages. 3 vols (London. Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1959-72); ölynne Vickhai. The Hedieval Theatre (London: Veidenfeld and Hicolson. 1974).

³ n See above ’By vay of mtroduction', 9n (p. 23).

⁴ Tbe Diary of Sattuel Pepys. ed. by Robert Lathan and Villiaa Matthews. 11 vols (London: Bell, 1971). V. p. 2.

⁵ Ibid.. IX. pp. 403-04

⁶ SaBuel Chappuzeau’s Le Theatre Franois (1674); referred to in George C.D. Odell. Shakespeare - Froa Betterton to Irving. 2 vols (New York: Scnbner, 1920). I, pp. 175-76.

⁷ Tate’s Epistle Dedicatory to bis adaptation of Richard lh quoted Odell. I. p. 57.

⁸ Details of tbese tvo episodes were given in the printed text of Ravenscroft’s version of tbe play. printed in 1687; facsmle edition: (London: Cornarket. 1969).

⁹ See Margaret I. Svayze. ’A History of the Literary Cnticisa and Stage Production of Henry VIII', (unpubllshed doctoral thesis. Shakespeare Institute. University of Biminghan. 1973) . p. 99.

¹⁰ ¥ R.Chetwood. i General History of the Stage, froe its Origin in Greece dovn to the present Tiae (London: Owen. 1749). p. 68.

¹¹ Ibid..

¹² Odeil, I. pp. 309-10

¹³ Thonas Davies, Oratatic HiceUames ’sicS Consistmg of Cntical Observations on Several Plays ot Shakespeare. 3 vols (London ‘n.pub.S. 1784), I. p. 124.

¹⁴ Odell. I. P 419

¹⁵ Cibber's Dedication 'To the Right Honourabie Philip. Ear! of Chesterfield' appended to the printed edition of Papa! Tyranny in tbe Reign of King John (London Watts. 17451.

¹⁶ Ibid.