In my notes and conclusions on “Henry VIII. and his Court,” I have been largely indebted to the guidance of the following books:—
Ernest Law’s “History of Hampton Court”; Strickland’s “Queens of England”; Taunton’s “Thomas Wolsey, Legate and Reformer”; and Cavendish’s “Life of Wolsey.”
AN APOLOGY AND A FOOTNOTE
AN APOLOGY AND A FOOTNOTE
Here I am tempted to hark back to the modern manner of producing Shakespeare, and to say a few words in extenuation of those methods, which have been assailed in a recent article with almost equal brilliancy and vehemence.
The writer tells us that there are two different kinds of plays, the realistic and the symbolic. Shakespeare’s plays, we are assured, belong to the latter category. “The scenery,” it is insisted, “not only may, but should be imperfect.” This seems an extraordinary doctrine, for if it be right that a play should be imperfectly mounted, it follows that it should be imperfectly acted, and further that it should be imperfectly written. The modern methods, we are assured, employed in the production of Shakespeare, do not properly illustrate the play, but are merely made for vulgar display, with the result of crushing the author and obscuring his meaning. In this assertion, I venture to think that our critic is mistaken; I claim that not the least important mission of the modern theatre is to give to the public representations of history which shall be at once an education and a delight. To do this, the manager should avail himself of the best archæological and artistic help his generation can afford him, while endeavouring to preserve what he believes to be the spirit and the intention of the author.