Shakespeare\'s Ghost as a Character

Shakespeare's Ghost as a character

Shakespeare is perhaps the most famous playwright of all time. It is hard to imagine that in the seventeenth century, Shakespeare was just another playwright alongside others such as Marlowe and Webster, to name only two. In fact, his works were not truly appreciated until the nineteenth century when "the Bard" became worshipped not only in England, but throughout Europe. In the eighteenth century, Shakespeare was beginning to be awarded increasingly more recognition for his work. However, Britain's "national poet" also became a dramatic character in several of the adaptations of his plays in order to serve certain political goals.

The gap that existed between the new and the old theater was bridged by William Davenant, the first Restoration adapter of Shakespeare. However, Davenant's artistic nature which encouraged him to write poetry and drama was supported by the practical nature of a man who understood the way the theater functioned. The Lord Chamberlain appointed Davenant as "Governor of the King and Queen's company acting at the Cockpit in Drury Lane." Audiences responded well to the adaptations. A few of Shakespeare's plays held the stage in their original form, and several were very successful: Hamlet, Othello, and Julius Caesar.

Theaters were closed down in 1642 at the initiative of the Puritans. At that time, Shakespeare's plays were not officially divided between Sir William Davenant and Thomas Killigrew. Davenant ran Duke's Theater whereas Killigrew ran King's Theater. This official division took place much later, at the end of the 1660s with the arrival of the English Restoration. This is a very important aspect to consider because this formal division influenced the manner in which Shakespeare's plays were used and adapted during the following decades. However, because there was very little audience who was willing to come to the theater solely for the purpose of viewing one of Shakespeare's comedies come to life on stage, popular actors, new characters, music and dance were introduced into the plays in order to attract new audiences. In this sense, in the late seventeenth century there was very little concern with promoting Shakespeare's name or that of his creations (West Scheil 26). Instead, young writers such as Nahum Tate and William Davenant wanted to adapt Shakespeare's plays, but often times, the result did not have much in common with the original.

During the eighteenth century, there were two opposing attitudes as far as the work of William Shakespeare. The first group of scholars were interested in discovering and restoring Shakespeare's works as accurately as possible. Perhaps the most notable scholars who wanted to restore Shakespeare's original plays were Rowe and Malone. However they were opposed by Colley Cibber, John Dennis, and David Garrick who wanted to continue the practice of "improving" Shakespeare's works, a practice which had been very popular during the Restoration. There were also some who showed little reluctance at participating in both activities, i.e. editing and altering Shakespeare (Branam 2). Nonetheless, it is interesting to note here that Shakespeare was mostly adapted by scholars, and not theatrical men.

Changing Shakespeare's words in his plays becomes a way of establishing their true meaning (Dobson 134). From the 1730s onwards, his authority becomes widely accepted. The authorship of his plays is no longer questioned, and Shakespeare is placed at the core of English national culture. Furthermore, turning Shakespeare into a character represented the perfect manner in which to bring social and political commentaries onto the stage. Having virtually no freedom to do so in a direct fashion, Dryden uses Shakespeare's name, by turning him into a character in the prologue to his play, Troilus and Cressida, or, Truth Found Too Late (1679). This seventeenth century play provides the perfect example of the ways in which Shakespeare's persona allowed playwrights and adapters alike to express political views on stage. In this case, on the stage of the Duke Theater, Shakespeare is transformed into a Trojan horse. Also, in his play, the Enchanted Island, Dryden expands on the prologue from Troilus and Cressida. However, this time Shakespeare is a king whose poetic monologue unveils contemporary anxieties about royal succession (Dobson 74). In this sense, Shakespeare is depicted in this particular play as an old Hamlet (Ibid.), a royal ghost, and a direct reference to contemporary royal turmoil.

This was only the first of Shakespeare's many posthumous appearances on stage as a dramatic character. Shakespeare's metamorphosis into a character in one of his plays represents an endeavor with double meaning. On the one hand, Shakespeare's appearance is synonymous to authority as his direct involvement in his own writings brings a sense of realism and authenticity. On the other hand, by creating a dramatic character out of the writer, he also becomes involved in the process of reviving his works. However, there is more to this transformation. Shakespeare's authority could also be translated into political influence. Shakespeare was not only used as a voice who was able to speak openly about contemporary troubles, but also as a symbol of "fruitfull Britain" (Dobson 75). This is, in fact, a very interesting aspect because Shakespeare would become an important figure in the nationalist movement which was developed in the decades after Dryden's death.

Tate's revision of Coriolanus aims at unifying the audience around sentimental family issues. However, it goes beyond that. Tate's adaptation of Shakespeare's play is filled with political motivation. His revision cannot overlook the fact that Coriolanus is not a viable political leader. His Coriolanus cannot inspire the loyalty that the playwright advocates in his dedication to Lord Herbert because Tate is caught between his ideological allegiance to the monarch and his creative allegiance to the Bard. Relevant, too, is the prologue by Sir George Raynsford, which represents the adaptation of Shakespeare in the language of parliamentary politics: "Our Author do's with modesty submit, to all the Loyal Criticks of the Pit; Not to the Wit-dissenters of the Age, Who in a Civil War do still engage, the antient fundamental Laws o' th' stage: Such who have common Places got, by stealth, From the Sedition of Wits Common-Wealth. Yet he presumes we may be safe to Day, Since Shakespear gave foundation to the Play: 'Tis Altered - and his sacred Ghost appeas'd; I wish you All as easily were Pleas'd: He only ventures to make Gold from Oar, and turn to Money, what lay dead before." (lines 2-15 in Olsen 46) Both the dedication and prologue to the Ingratitude of a Common-Wealth enlist Shakespeare as a Tory partisan. His "sacred Ghost" is "appeas'd," we are told, by his being appropriated for the objectives of financial gain, dramatic improvement, and service to the royalist cause (Ibid).