THE POET, THE PLAYER, AND THE LITERARY AGENT
My Lord,
I have now submitted the plays which your lordship forwarded to me to seven publishers: Messrs. Butter, Mr. Blount, Mr. Thorpe, Mr. Waterson, Mr. Andrew Wise, Mr. Steevens, and Mr. G. Eld; and I very much regret to inform your lordship that I have not been able to persuade any of these publishers to make an offer for the publication of any of the plays, although Mr. Thorpe would be willing to print them at your lordship’s expense, provided that they appeared under your lordship’s name. The cost, however, would be very great. No one of these publishers is willing to publish the plays anonymously, and they agree in saying that while the plays contain passages ofexceptional merit, there is, unfortunately, at the present moment no demand in the market for the literary play. This form of literature is in fact at present a drug on the market; and they suggest that your lordship, whose anonymity I have of course respected, should convert these plays into essays, epics, masques, or any other form which is at present popular with the reading public. There is certainly very little chance at present of my being able to find a publisher for work of this description. Therefore I await your lordship’s instructions before sending them to any other publishers.
At the same time I would suggest, should your lordship not consider such a course to be derogatory, that I should submit the plays in question to one or two of the best known theatrical managers with a view to performance. I would of course keep the authorship of the plays a secret.
Awaiting your lordship’s commands in this matter,
I am,Your lordship’s most humble andobedient servant,J. J. Nichols.
My Lord,
I am in receipt of a communication from Mr. Fletcher, the chief of the Lord Chamberlain’s servants, now playing at the Globe Theatre. Mr. Fletcher informs me that he has read the plays with considerable interest. He considers that they are not only promising but contain passages of positive merit.
Mr. Fletcher, however, adds that your lordship is no doubt fully aware that such plays are totally unsuited to the stage; indeed it would be impossible to produce them for many reasons. With regard to the first batch, namely, the Biblical series, the David and Saul trilogy, Joseph and Potiphar, and King Nebuchadnezzar, there could of course be no question of their production, however much they might be altered or adapted for the stage; for it would be impossible to obtain a licence, not only on account of the religious subject matter, which of necessity must prove shocking to thegreater part of the audience, but also owing to the boldness of the treatment. Mr. Fletcher begs me to tell your lordship that he is far from suggesting that your lordship has handled these solemn themes in any but the most reverent manner; but at the same time he is anxious to point out that the public, being but insufficiently educated, is likely to misunderstand your lordship’s intentions, and to regard your lordship’s imaginative realization of these sacred figures as sacrilegious.
With regard to the second series, the tragedies, Mr. Fletcher states that the play entitled “Hamlet” might, if about three-quarters of the whole play were omitted, be made fit for stage presentation, but even then the matter would be extremely hazardous. Even if enough of the play were left in order to render the story coherent, the performance would still last several hours and be likely to try the patience of any but a special audience. Such a play would doubtless appeal to a limited and cultivated public, but as your lordship is aware, the public which frequents the Globe Theatre is neither chosen nor cultivated, and it is doubtful whether a public of this kind would sit through a play many of the speeches in which are over a hundred lines long. Mr. Fletcher adds that a play ofthis kind is far more suited for the closet than for the stage, and suggests that your lordship should publish it as a historical chronicle. With regard to these tragedies Mr. Fletcher further points out that there are already in existence several plays on the themes which your lordship has treated, which have not only been produced but enjoyed considerable success.
With regard to the third series, the comedies, Mr. Fletcher states that these plays, although not without considerable charm and while containing many passages of graceful and melodious writing, are far more in the nature of lyrical poems than of plays. Mr. Fletcher adds that if these were also considerably reduced in length and rendered even still more lyrical and accompanied by music, they might be performed as masques or else in dumb show.
Finally, Mr. Fletcher suggests, if the author of these plays is anxious that they should be performed, that your lordship should send the plays to an experienced actor who should alter and arrange them for stage presentation. Mr. Fletcher suggests that should your lordship see your way to agree to this, he has in his company a player named William Shakespeare who is admirably fitted forthe undertaking, and who has already had much experience in adapting and altering plays for the stage.
I am,Your lordship’s most obedientand humble servant,J. J. Nichols.
My Lord,
In accordance with your lordship’s instructions I submitted the plays to Mr. William Shakespeare. I am now in receipt of Mr. Shakespeare’s full report on the plays.
Mr. Shakespeare confirms Mr. Fletcher’s opinion that the plays in their present state are far too long for production. The religious series he does not discuss, as being by their nature precluded from performance. With regard to the historical tragedies, “Edward III,” “Mary Tudor,” “Lady Jane Grey,” and “Katherine Parr” Mr. Shakespeare points out that none of these plays would be passed by the Censor because they contain many allusions whichwould be considered to touch too nearly, and give possible offence to, certain exalted personages.
With regard to the tragedies, Mr. Shakespeare is quite willing to arrange “Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” for the stage. More than half of the play will have to be omitted: the whole of the first act, dealing with Hamlet’s student days at Wittenburg, Mr. Shakespeare considers to be totally irrelevant to the subsequent action of the play, although the long scene between the young prince and Dr. Faustus contains many passages which are not only poetical but dramatic. Mr. Shakespeare regrets to have to sacrifice these passages, but maintains that if this act be allowed to stand as it is at present, the play would be condemned to failure. Mr. Shakespeare is also anxious to cut out the whole of the penultimate act, which deals entirely with Ophelia’s love affair with Horatio. This act, though containing much that is subtle and original, would be likely, Mr. Shakespeare says, to confuse, and possibly to shock, the audience. As to the soliloquies, Mr. Shakespeare says that it is impossible to get an audience at the present day to listen to a soliloquy of one hundred lines. Mr. Shakespeare suggests that if possible they should all be cut down to a quarter of their present length.
Out of the remaining plays, Mr. Shakespeare selects the following as being fit for the stage: “Macbeth,” “Romeo and Juliet,” “Mephistopheles,” “Paris and Helen,” “Alexander the Great,” and “Titus Andronicus.” Of all these Mr. Shakespeare says that by far the finest from a stage point of view is the last. It is true that the action of this play is at present a little slow and lacking in incident, but Mr. Shakespeare says that he sees a way, by a few trifling additions, of increasing its vitality; and he is certain that, should this play be well produced and competently played, it would prove successful. The tragedy of “Macbeth” might also be adapted to the popular taste, but here again Mr. Shakespeare says the play is at least four times too long.
I would be glad if your lordship would inform me what reply I am to make to Mr. Shakespeare.
I am,Your lordship’s obedient and humbleservant,J. J. Nichols.
Sir,
I am quite willing that Mr. Shakespeare should try his hand on “Hamlet,” “Macbeth,” “Romeo and Juliet,” and “Titus Andronicus,” but I cannot consent to let him shorten my “Mephistopheles,” my “Alexander the Great,” or my “Paris and Helen.” I should of course wish to see a printed copy of the play as arranged by Mr. Shakespeare before it is produced.
I am,Your obedient servant,Bacon.
Sir,
I received the printed copies of my four plays as arranged by Mr. Shakespeare. I would be much obliged if you would communicate to him the following instructions: (1) “Hamlet” may standas it is. The whole nature of the play is altered, and the chief character is at present quite unintelligible, but if Mr. Shakespeare thinks that in its present form it will please an audience, he is at liberty to produce it, as it is not a piece of work for which I have any special regard, and it was written more as an exercise than anything else. (2) I cannot allow “Romeo and Juliet” to appear with the changed ending made by Mr. Shakespeare. Mr. Shakespeare is perhaps right in thinking that his version of the play, ending as it does with the marriage of Juliet and Paris and the reconciliation of Romeo and Rosaline, is more subtle and true to life, but in this matter I regard my knowledge of the public as being more sound than that of Mr. Shakespeare. As a member of the public myself, I am convinced that the public is sentimental, and would be better pleased by the more tragic and romantic ending which I originally wrote. (3) With regard to Mr. Shakespeare’s suggestion that in “Macbeth” the sleep-walking scene should fall to Macbeth, instead of to Lady Macbeth, I will not hear of any such change. (Confidential: The reason of my refusal is that this change seems to me merely dictated by the vanity of the actor, and his desire that the man’s part may predominate overthe woman’s.) (4) “Titus Andronicus.” I have no objection to Mr. Shakespeare’s alterations.
Your obedient servant,Bacon.
Sir,
I was present last night at the Globe Theatre at the performance of my play “Macbeth,” as produced by Mr. Shakespeare. I confess that I was much disgusted by the liberties which Mr. Shakespeare has taken with my work, which I am certain far exceed the changes and alterations which were originally presented to me, and which I myself revised and approved. For instance, Mr. Shakespeare has made a great many more omissions than he originally suggested. And at the end of many of the scenes he has introduced many totally unwarranted tags, such as, for instance:
I’ll see it done.What he hath lost noble Macbeth hath won.
I’ll see it done.What he hath lost noble Macbeth hath won.
I’ll see it done.What he hath lost noble Macbeth hath won.
I’ll see it done.
What he hath lost noble Macbeth hath won.
And, worst of all:
It is concluded:—Banquo, thy soul’s flight,If it find Heaven, must find it out to-night.
It is concluded:—Banquo, thy soul’s flight,If it find Heaven, must find it out to-night.
It is concluded:—Banquo, thy soul’s flight,If it find Heaven, must find it out to-night.
It is concluded:—Banquo, thy soul’s flight,
If it find Heaven, must find it out to-night.
The whole play is riddled with such additions, not to speak of several incidents of an altogether barbarous and outrageous character, and of certain other interpolations of coarse buffoonery, inserted in the most serious parts of the play to raise a laugh among the more ignorant portions of the rabble. Of course I cannot now withdraw them from the stage without risking the discovery of their authorship. Mr. Shakespeare is at liberty to produce and perform in any of the plays written by me which are now in his possession, provided that they appear under his name, and that the authorship is attributed to him.
Your obedient servant,Bacon.