Tag Archives: A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Oxford’s three audiences

Modern readers of Shakespeare come to the plays through the First Folio, the versions of the 36 plays published in 1623 by the patrons of his company, known by then as the King’s Men.  Publication then, and ever since, has performed a cleansing process on the plays, providing texts without any of the baggage, attitudes or complications that history attaches to important works of the past.

In Shakespeare’s case, partly because they were written so long ago (though, as it turns out, not entirely) it’s been next to impossible to place the plays in history in any meaningful way.  Roughly half had previous publication in quarto format, the other half were never published until the First Folio.  Some were registered with the stationers, others not.  Some were mentioned in letters or publications by contemporaries, most were not.

Although we have a few holographs (handwritten versions) of other plays from around that time, none are by Shakespeare.  Unlike their sister company, the Lord Admiral’s Men (later Prince Henry’s Men) documented by the diary of theater owner Philip Henslowe and other papers retained at Dulwich College by his stage manager Edward Alleyn, if anyone in Shakespeare’s company ever kept any records, they didn’t survive.  The only records to survive are mid-17th century court cases over ownership of the by then lucrative company shares.  Whoever or whatever we mean by Shakespeare, he or it created one of the most successful businesses of the period, at least for those who ran it in London.

One result of this has been that even those who should know better tend to approach the plays as though they were more or less all written under the same impulse, to make money for both the writer and his actors, and for the same public audience––the only issue being when.  Because the Stratford biography forces them all into a decades late 15-year time-frame, efforts to see genuine connections to current issues and events have failed, creating a Shakespeare who plucked his subjects more or less out of thin air, and all for the same audience, an amazingly well-read  public, with the Court little more than an adjunct, as it is today.

With Oxford as author, all of this changes; the process becomes at once much more complicated and also much more interesting.  The unspoken assumption that everything that Shakespeare wrote could have been seen by anyone in his time who came to London or who had a penny to spare falls by the wayside.  The fact is that different audiences saw very different kinds of plays, even in some cases, different versions of the same play.  The illusion given by the First Folio, that all the plays share a sort of equality of presence, fails as well.  As with the works of every other great artist, each play has a history of its own, and all are closely connected to events in the life of the author and of the communities, the nation, and the world in which he lived alongside his fellows.

With a solid historical framework in place, it shouldn’t be nearly so difficult to place each play within a relatively narrow and realistic time-frame, even in some cases down almost to the very day.  In attempting to set dates for a particular play, it helps to determine for which of his three audiences did he write it originally:  the Court, the Inns of Court, or the public?  Eventually all of his plays ended up as public entertainment, but few (if any) were written originally with only the public in mind.

His Court audience

As a member of the Court from probably around age 17 until he was banished at 31, Oxford’s energies were chiefly directed towards entertaining his own community.  He was not unique in this, or rather, he was unique only in the quality of his work, for all of the upwards of 40 or 50 individuals who formed the core of the permanent Court community, those who had suites of rooms at Court where they lived yearround, were expected to contribute their particular skills for the support and/or pleasure of the group.  As the crème de la crème of English society, they were expected to sight read music notation, to sing complicated vocal arrangements, play the lute or the virginals, and perform the latest dances.

Oxford’s dancing was obviously admired by the Queen; of the handful of his poems that come down to us, many, perhaps most, are song lyrics (madrigal lyrics often sound like complicated poems), while in later years he was praised by a fellow composer as being as accomplished musically as any professional.  So we can assume, based on what evidence remains, that he quickly rose in the Court’s estimation for his contributions to musical and dramatic events.

His writing for the Court may have begun with interludes, witty dialogues exchanged by two or three of the boy choristers, interspersed with musical offerings by the boys, the Court’s permanent staff of musicians, or courtiers with pretentions to expertise.  These interludes soon expanded into full length plays like Love’s Labor’s Lost, that were made up of a series of comic or romantic interludes interspersed with songs and sometimes dances, even, as in The Tempest, with the company taking time in the middle of the show for a feast served by the cast.  E.T. Clark has identified several of these from their early listings in the Revels records.

Most of the plays termed comedies in the First Folio began as entertainments for the Court community.  Over time, some of these became standard entertainments, revised every few years by adding new topical material and characters, or revising old material to fit new situations.  In this way a character like Armado in Love’s Labours Lost represented a different Court figure when the play was first written than he does in the 1623 version, in which he represents Antonio Perez, whose presence at Court can be easily assigned to a few years in the mid-90s.  This has confused scholars who would otherwise place the play as early as the late 1570s when Elizabeth was contemplating marriage to the duc d’Alençon.   It may be that the play was originally very early, but once it became a favorite at Court, he would update it every few years for the winter holidays.  How many versions survived, and what dicing and splicing the First Folio editors may have done with them we can only guess.

When writing for the Court Oxford was of course always aware that the core of his audience were the Queen and her entourage of ladies, the wives and daughters of leading Court officials.  In writing to please them he learned early that what entertains men is not always appreciated by women, particularly the sort of well-bred, educated women who were welcomed by Elizabeth into her private circle.  That this was Oxford’s primary Court audience can be seen from his early published works (attributed to Petti, Lyly or Greene) that were specifically targeted toward female readers.

Although there’s much to suggest that Oxford preferred to write for the West End, he never ceased to entertain his home community, providing plays for Court weddings until his final days.  Among his final revisions were those produced for the 1604 wedding of his youngest daughter, Susan Vere, to the Earl of Montgomery.  The Folio version of The Tempest comes largely from the 1595 version he wrote for the marriage of his oldest daughter, Elizabeth, to the Earl of Derby, which he further revised as The Spanish Maze for Susan’s wedding.  The Folio version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream was written for the wedding of his old flame, Mary Browne, Countess of Southampton, to Sir Thomas Heneage in 1594.  Taming of the Shrew was written originally as a wedding roast for the 1579 marriage of Lord Strange to Alice Spencer.

His West End audience

Outraged at his banishment from Court and by the way he and his men were being threatened by his lover’s relatives as Elizabeth sat by and did nothing, Oxford wrote nothing for the Court for the two years that he was ostracized (1581-’83), turning instead to his favorite audience, the “gentlemen of the Inns of Court.”  For them he could unfurl the full power of his rhetoric on the kind of issues that would never have passed the Court censors.  The West End (more accurately the city of Westminster) was where the legal colleges, the Inns of Court, were located.  Further west, between the Strand and the Thames, stood the great City mansions where the most prestigious courtiers and government officials lived.

For Oxford and his patrons, this was the most important audience in London, particularly during the relatively infrequent moments when Parliament gathered to vote on a subsidy for the Queen.  Once we can begin to focus on details, it will be helpful to use these times as moments when he was most intent on reaching this audience with plays relevant to current issues, for it was then that the most influential men in England gathered together at one time and in one place.  Plays that deal with national issues, like treason (Julius Caesar), colonization (The Tempest), or the Law (Merchant of Venice) are most likely to have been first written for this audience, and the only possible stage where they would have produced these plays was at the little stage in the chorister’s school at Blackfriars.   The big public theaters were located in suburbs far from Westminster, while the Blackfriars stage was a mere hop and a skip to the west along Fleet Street, or, if coming by water from one of the mansions on the Strand, just footsteps from the elegant old Blackfriars watergate.

Happy finally to be writing for adult actors (no more little eyeases!) I believe that it was for this audience that he produced the first version of  Timon of Athens, the first version of Troilus and Cressida (written before he discovered that Ann Vavasor was not the Cressida he had so unkindly assumed), of Romeo and Juliet (after discovering that she still loved him), of Julius Caesar and Coriolanus (written to explain his urge to desert England and fight for Spain), and of The Spanish Tragedy and Hamlet (written out of anguish at the death of his patron, the Earl of Sussex, and suspicion that he’d been poisoned by his enemy, the Earl of Leicester).  The only one of these that we have today in anywhere near the original version is The Spanish Tragedy (attributed to Thomas Kyd); all the others were rewritten for the Lord Chamberlain’s/King’s Men during Oxford’s final Shakespeare period (1593-1608).

The public plays

Last, and in many ways least, at least so far as his personal interest was concerned, there was the public audience that, through their far greater numbers would make his works “popular” as neither the Court nor the Inns of Court ever could, something that gave a great deal of power to the company that produced them.  When Oxford first began producing plays at Court in the late 1560s and early ’70s, the various children’s companies that performed them were allowed to supplement their sparce Court stipends by performing the plays they’d rehearsed for the Court a few times at the little theater at Paul’s Cathedral school for choristers.  These early comedies migrated rapidly to both the public and private theaters.  Because their subjects were popular and easily understood and no deep knowledge of history or philosophy was required to enjoy them, they pleased the public, and because any satires of known Court personalities would be lost on a public audience, there was no reason for the Privy Council to get in the way.

By 1583, with the creation of the Crown company known as the Queen’s Men, Oxford found himself writing for the provincial audiences that, as McMillin and Maclean show, were the new company’s primary focus.  It’s possible to see in these early plays, most of them termed as “apocryphal,” his attempts to deal with local or at least popular issues as in Arden of Faversham, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, The Birth of Merlin, James IV and Edmond Ironside.  Responding to Walsingham’s desire to teach the provincials something about their history, he also wrote the early versions of what, as Shakespeare, he would turn into the great history plays: The Famous Victiories turning into Henry V, the Contention between York and Lancaster into the Henry VI series, and so forth.

Early in James’s reign, towards the end of the Shakespeare period, perhaps in exchange for stewardship of the Forest of Waltham, Oxford consented as his share of the bargain to provide updated versions of what early Court plays remained for the now royally established King’s Men, versions that would make them one of the most successful commercial enterprises of the Stuart period.  It seems he was embarrassed about this.  Feeling called upon to explain to his community why he was turning plays that they regarded as theirs into public works,  he produced at a great welcoming get-together for King James at Wilton or Salisbury the summer of  1603 a new version of As You Like It in which, as Touchstone, he explains his need to marry the provincial and unpoetic public audience he personalizes as Audrey (audire, Latin for to listen).  A man must marry and a playwright must have an audience.

Of course many plays migrated across these boundaries and although not everyone could see a play at Court nor could a poor apprentice afford one of the expensive indoor private theaters, members of the first two audiences could always see a play at one of the public theaters should they wish, and probably did quite often––all but the Queen, that is. It’s so unlikely as to be impossible that she ever ventured outside her Court confines for any purpose; every venture from one arena to another was in the nature of a state occasion.  Her dignity could not be impeached by being seen in anything less, and her person had to be protected from the lunatics and drunks that were constantly threatening to do her in.  In Tudor and Stuart times, the theater came to the monarch, not the monarch to the theater.

This of course was a boon for Oxford and his patrons, for they could trust that some of the material would never reach her ears.  We know what happened a few times when that occurred.  She would never come to them, and no one in his or her right mind would tell her things that might stir her anger enough to allow the theater’s many and determined enemies to “pluck it down.”  It also made it easy for him to hide from her how much of what came from his literary circle came directly from him.  Those darn secretaries, always publishing things behind his back!

“Bringing in the May”

What inspired the works of Shakespeare? 

Academics who haven’t examined the authorship question blindly accept the idea that Shakespeare was a professional, writing for money.  That everything defies this interpretation, from the nature of the plays themselves to the obvious fact that the author paid very little attention, if any, to getting them published, doesn’t bother the “experts” because they don’t really care who wrote the plays.  They can’t state it openly, but all but a few of these belong to the camp of: “We have the plays, what does it matter who wrote them?”

If they really cared they’d object to the terrible job that the pop historians do with his biography.  If all the Directors of all their PhD committees were agreed that the author was Mickey Mouse, that were sufficient to have them equally convinced that Mickey was the Man, and any other suggestion “preposterous.”

But to those who’ve paid some attention to the matter, those who know that the idea that the plays were written by a theater professional is absurd because when the first versions of these plays were being written, there was no professional theater in England.  You can’t call the earliest of the Early Modern playwrights professionals any more than you can call the Wright brothers professional aviation engineers. 

It’s easy enough to understand what inspired the designs of the first airplanes, but, if not to make money, what was the purpose behind these early plays?  Were they all written simply to entertain, as the orthodox would have it, was there a different purpose for each play?  Or were there, perhaps, categories of purpose?

Following the dissolution of the monasteries in the 1530s by Henry VIII, a piece of royal presumption that emptied, almost at a stroke, the oldest and most beautiful buildings in England of their religious art and social functions, the Reformation ushered in by his son’s Protestant ministers removed whatever was left of all that was dramatic or entertaining in the Church Service. 

Is it any surprise that some of these buildings, or the lands on which they stood, metamorphosed into the theaters that took the place of the Church and its Service in the lives of their former parishoners?  Both of the first two commercial stages in London, built in 1576, were in Liberties, areas more or less under the jurisdiction of the Crown, not the City, areas that for centuries had been administered by the Church.  Blackfriars theater was in a section of the old Dominican monastery in the Liberty of Blackfriars, while Burbage’s public theater took the place of what was formerly the priory of Holywell in the Liberty of Norton Folgate. 

Just as the land and the buildings that were once religious in nature turned into theaters, so the plays performed in them took the place of what had been religious observances.  The winter holiday plays took place on Christmas, Innocent’s Day, Twelfth Night (Epiphany), February 2nd (Candlemas). The last taking place on or around February 6, “Fat Tuesday” (Shrovetide), the last big party before Ash Wednesday and the start of the 40-day period of Lenten abstinence.  The series of spring holidays associated in the Church calendar with Easter, banned by the Reformation, slipped back into the ancient May Day festivities, which ended with the summer solstice on June 24th, the day after Midsummer’s Eve (the Feast of St. John the Baptist).

The Reformation sweeps clean

As Oxford turned from boy to man, the great country festivals that formerly “brought in the May” with garlands of flowers, Maypoles, Church Ales, and lovers trysts in the woods were vanishing.  Gone were the solemn processionals that followed the priest bearing the cross through the newly ploughed fields and around the boundaries of the town, the clergy in their gold and white vestments tossing incense on the breeze and intoning prayers in the beautiful language that the Lord chose for His Word.  Gone were the pranksters, the minstrels, the Morris dancers, the St. George and the Dragons, the Robin Hood and Maid Marions, the Green Man and the Hobby Horse, the drinking, the feasting, and the noisy chivarees.

But luckily for literature, Oxford had spent the early years of his childhood in the upper Thames valley , one of the last areas where there is evidence that some of these ancient “merrymaking” rituals still held sway (Hutton 98-9).  Though condemned by Edward VI, during de Vere’s years in the Smith household at Ankerwyke, it seems the old ways had one final fling under Catholic Mary. 

As new green life began breaking through the dead wood of the old winter, Edward would have experienced the gradual buildup of excitement among the estate workers at Smith’s and in the rural community beyond as folk prepared for their own annual outpouring of Spring energies against the backdrop of the still great Forest of Windsor.  In the rush of events, most of the community that surrounded the town of Old Windsor taking part, the crowds that filled the streets moved in a single mind towards those peak moments, frightening or hilarious, that would serve for entertainment  at kitchen supper tables for months to come. 

For the boy it would have been the equivalent of what a kid from a small American town in the 19th century experienced when the circus came through in the spring, only in Edward’s case the circus was created by the townsfolk themselves, with maybe a few professional entertainers in to take advantage of the crowds and excitement.  If he did get to participate it would probably have been through the offices of one of the estate workers, since Smith was not one to enjoy such proceedings, at least so he claimed, nor would he have have approved  of anything that might threaten the health or morals of his young charge. If we’re right in our belief that Friar Lawrence was to Romeo as Smith was to Oxford, he may simply (remembering his own childhood) have looked the other way.

No more cakes and ale 

With Elizabeth on the throne and the Reformers again in control, these rituals began to dissappear. What had originally been an effort to insure the propagation of the species back in the days of the hunter-gatherers, many centuries later transformed by the Middle Ages into a Courtly Love ritual honoring the creational forces of Desire, was now seen by the Reformation as a licentious return to pagan demon worship. 

Other factors were involved as well.  During a period of financial stresses, funds must be spent on more immediate needs.  Anything that smacked of Catholic ritual came to be seen in an increasingly dark light.  The local patrons: merchants, squires and lords, who had formerly sponsored entertainments, withdrew their support.  As the Church calendar, the framework for the social lives of the people for centuries, shrank to a few half-hearted observances, a great vacuum developed in the lives of the English people. 

It was this vacuum that Oxford was born to fill.  Out of his childhood memories of these festivities came the grand chivaree that was Taming of the Shrew, came the antics of Autolycus inThe Winter’s Tale, the Spanish maze of The Tempest, the final “merry” act of Much Ado.  Out of time spent in the great forest of Windsor came Falstaff transformed into Herne the Hunter, the ponderings of Jaques on the sorrows of the wounded deer, the love poems tacked on trees by Orlando and Rosalind, and most beloved of all, the magical adventures of the lovers, the rude mechanicals, and the fairies of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

Most of Oxford’s early plays were “comedies” (early versions of today’s English pantomime) or wedding plays (most of the cast gets married at the end) written for the Court or for members of the Court.  Though less assiduously, following his banishment in 1581, and even less after his loss of status c.1589, still Oxford would continue to write for his community throughout his life, his last big production being the nine plays he rewrote for the festivities surrounding the marriage of his youngest daughter, Susan Vere, to the King’s favorite, the Earl of Montgomery, over the winter holidsays of 1604/05. (Yes, I know he was supposed to be dead, but I believe he was only taking one final retreat into the privacy that, as a writer, he had fought so hard to maintain all his life.)

All but a few of these Court plays were written for the winter holidays and for weddings of those members of the Court community that were his particular friends or patrons.  Taming of the Shrewwas written for the 1579 wedding of Lord Strange (Petruchio) to Alice Spencer (Kate).  A version ofThe Tempest was produced for the wedding of his daughter, Elizabeth Vere (Miranda), to the Earl of Derby (Ferdinand).  And A Midsummer Night’s Dream was written (or rewritten) for the wedding of his first love, Mary Browne, now the Countess of Southampton (Hippolyta) to the aging courtier, Sir Thomas Heneage (Theseus), May 2, 1594 (See Roger Stritmatter’s Dreame).    

Although the title of A Midsummer Night’s Dream would seem to place it on the 23rd or 24th of June, that title may come from a later production, for the text itself places it on May Day.  Either date works for the play, since both of these moments (plus Valentine’s Day) grew out of prehistoric fertility rituals that were bound to the seasonal turning points of the year.  May Day saw the first thrust of summer flowers woven into wreaths, hair dressings, and garlands, worn by youths as well as girls.  Girls, older boys, and unmarried women dressed all in white and festooned their garments with colorful ribbons (as in the costumes still worn today by Morris dancers).  Churches and graves were decorated with bouquets and wreaths. 

The ritual of circling the Maypole brought the young men and women of the village together, arbitrarily separating them into couples as in a modern circle dance mixer.  The King and Queen of the May, the prettiest village girl and most admired young man were festooned with flower garlands, carted around the village, and followed by all the village youth while their elders feasted, drank deep, and laughed long.  And if some of the couples slipped off into the woods, à la the lovers in Dreame, most looked the other way.  Everyone that is but their own particular Egeus andMalvolio whose Reformation principles would eventually overwhelm the natural human need for such outlets, at least on this community level.

“For O the Hobby Horse is forgot”

Whether Oxford had seen all of these lost elements of English medieval merrymaking is not the point.  Surely he saw some of them.  Shakespeare’s lament strongly suggests that this was something he knew from personal experience, for a description alone would not have called forth this heartfelt cry, not once, but twice, once in Love’s Labours Lost (Act III) and again in Hamlet (Act III Scene 2).

The role of the Hobby Horse, a man in the costume of a horse ––clearly a replacement for a real animal from an earlier ritual––was to lead the procession of costumed revelers, the mummers’ parade, and as he went, charging individuals in the crowd to send the watching herd of women and children shrieking.  

But beyond raising the excitement level, he was not interested in these innocents. For Hobby’s purpose was to single out and make a spectacle of persons who were in bad with their neighbors.  When he charged the local usurious money-lender, the drunken father, or the unfaithful wife, everyone who knew why he was attacking them (or their closed door), reacted with roars of approval, the worse the reputation, the louder the roars.  Shame is a powerful adjudicator.   His was a the kind of rough community justice that obviated the need for the expensive and time-consuming passion for Dickensian litigation that would come to replace it.  It may also have prevented arson, bloody street fights, and murders.

El Cinco de Mayo

Although the May games and the Hobby Horses of the centuries before the Reformation are lost in the mists of Time, the moment itself is not, for the early days of May are still the particular moment of the year when people will rise as one to protest the offenses of authority, though unhappily often not until aggravation has built to the point of rage, and rage to violence.  Even in Oxford’s time we see that this was often the moment when the authorities closed the theaters out of fear of riots by the apprentices. 

We have no way of knowing which of the many merry-making elements Oxford might have seen as a child, but details are less important than the atmosphere that they generated.  Lively, joyous, intense, rising from a dangerously shifting border between entertainment and riot, it was this energy that he sought to recapture in some small measure for his Court audience––by then so thoroughly tamed by the Reformation and therefore so desperately in need of fun––when he wrote his “golden”  holiday comedies.