N giving the following Parodies on detached passages from the plays of Shakespeare, it must be stated, (though such a statement ought to be perfectly unnecessary,) that not the slightest disrespect is intended, either to the works themselves, or to that great author whose name, and fame, are dear to every Englishman.
Nearly every play written by Shakespeare has been burlesqued, and whenever one of the London theatrical managers produces a grand revival of a Shakespearian tragedy, a travestie of it is almost immediately produced, at one, or another, of the smaller houses, which provide fun for the laughter-loving public. There are many worthy people who take offence at this, and fail to see that such fun is of a very harmless description, and that no disrespect is intended to the immortal bard, who was not, himself, above introducing burlesques of his contemporaries, even in his most serious works.
This question was fully discussed in the London daily papers in August, 1883, àpropos of burlesques of The Tempest, and Hamlet, produced by Mr. John Hollingshead, at the Gaiety Theatre. Some of the letters then published throw considerable light on what had been previously done in the way of Shakespearian burlesques, and are also of interest as summing up the arguments, for and against, Parody and Burlesque in general.
Mr. Moy Thomas, the theatrical critic of the Daily News, thus introduced the subject in his weekly column, entitled—
THE THEATRES.
“We have received the following letter on the subject of the impending burlesques of ‘The Tempest,’ and ‘Hamlet,’ at the Gaiety Theatre. We may remind our readers that we described the project as ‘somewhat startling,’ while we called attention to the facts that the productions in question are to be avowedly ‘elaborate parodies,’ and that there is reason to believe that ‘if this experiment should be found to be suited to the tastes of the town Mr. Burnand’s process of adapting Shakespeare to “nineteenth century audiences” may be expected to continue.’ More than this, in the way of protest, it did not in the present stage of the project seem to us necessary to say in a column which is mainly devoted to dramatic news.”
“‘May I ask if it is possible that the dramatic critic of the Daily News means to pass over without a word of disapprobation the proposal to burlesque “Hamlet” and “The Tempest?” I think many people must have been as surprised as I was to read your intimation of it in last Monday’s issue uncoupled with any word of disapproval or disgust. Surely the English stage may well be thought by Englishmen to have reached its lowest point of degradation, and one strangely in contrast with the honour we profess to pay to it, when two of the finest plays and finest works in all literature are to be sacrificed to the passion for burlesque. We had better consider ourselves no longer the same nation, and cease to pride ourselves on having produced the foremost man in all literature when we descend to this without protest. I do not think any language can be too strong on such a subject from a lover of Shakespeare and of the stage, and one who cannot but contrast the present tastes of the public with the opinion formed of them by Milton two centuries ago;—“What wants there to such a towardly and pregnant soil but wise and faithful labourers to make a knowing people, a nation of prophets, of sages, and of worthies.’”—I am yours faithfully, W. Kennedy.—Hampstead, August 16.”
——:o:——
A few days later the following replies were published in The Daily News:—