Greek Tragedy and The British Theatre 16 PDF

G R E E K T R A G E D Y A N D T H E B R IT IS H T H E A T R E
1 6 6 0 -1 9 1 4
Engraving by W illiam S. Leney of Joseph G eorge H olm an in the role of
H ippolitus, in E dm und Sm ith’s Phcedra and Hippolitus
Greek Tragedy
and the British
Theatre
1660-1914
Edith Hall
and Fiona Macintosh
OXTORD
U N IV E R SITY PRESS
OXFORD
U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS
G reat Clarendon Street, O xford 0 X 2 6 d p
Oxford U niversity Press is a departm ent of the U niversity of Oxford.
It furthers the U niversity’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape T ow n D ar es Salaam Hong K ong K arachi
K uala L um pur M adrid M elbourne M exico City N airobi
New D elhi Shanghai T aipei T oronto
W ith offices in
A rgentina A ustria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
G uatem ala H ungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South K orea Switzerland Thailand T urkey U kraine Vietnam
O xford is a registered trade m ark of Oxford U niversity Press
in the U K and in certain other countries
Published in the U nited States
by Oxford U niversity Press Inc., New York
© Edith Hall and Fiona M acintosh 2005
T he m oral rights of the authors have been asserted
Database right Oxford U niversity Press (maker)
First published 2005
All rights reserved. N o part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transm itted, in any form or by any means,
w ithout the prior perm ission in w riting of Oxford U niversity Press,
or as expressly perm itted by law, or under term s agreed w ith the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights D epartm ent,
Oxford U niversity Press, at the address above
You m ust not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you m ust impose this same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
D ata available
Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India
Printed in G reat Britain
on acid-free paper by
Biddles L td., K ing’s Lynn, N orfolk
ISB N 0-19-815087-3 978-0-19-815087-9
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
F or
Josh and Sam
Sarah and G eorgie
Preface
G reek dram a is being perform ed on both the com m ercial and

am ateur stages of B ritain, as of the w orld, w ith greater frequency
than at any point since classical antiquity. A t tim es durin g the
1990s m ore plays by E uripides or Sophocles w ere available to the
L ondon theatre-goer than w orks by any o ther author, including
Shakespeare. T h e reasons for the late tw en tieth -cen tury revival of
interest in the ancient G reeks and th eir theatre are connected, as
we have argued in a previous volum e, not only w ith theatrical and
aesthetic tren ds b u t w ith the huge social and political shifts w hich
m arked the decades after the Second W orld W ar, especially the
1960s.1 Y et the cu rren t fascination w ith G reek dram a has an
aetiology, a genealogy, w hich benefits from being traced fu rth er
back into cultural history.
A ttem pts have been m ade by o ther scholars, w ith varying
degrees of success, to docum ent the perform ance history of
G reek tragedy in som e o ther countries.2 W e owe m uch to the
pioneering w ork of H ellm ut Flashar, w hose Inszenierung der
A n tike: das griechische D ram a a u f der Biihne der N euzeit
1585—1990 was published in 1991. B ut F lash ar’s volum e neglects
B ritain and the rest of E urope in favour of G erm any, and is
fundam entally different in that he is not very interested in the
practice of adaptation, perhaps our m ost central concern. O ur
book begins slightly later than F lash ar’s study, tracing the antece
dents of m odern perform ances in B ritain of G reek tragedy from
1660, w hen both the m onarchy and live theatre w ere restored after
the Interreg n u m , and it concludes on the eve of the F irst W orld
W ar, by w hich tim e G reek tragedy in general and certain plays in
p articular (Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus, E u rip id es’ M edea and
Trojan Women) had secured perm anent and hallow ed places in the
B ritish perform ance repertoire. O ur chronological boundaries
1 See Hall, M acintosh, and W rigley (2004).
2 Some recent studies include Rogers (1986), Foley (1999—2000), and H artigan
(1995) on Greek tragedy on the N orth American stage, M cDonald and W alton
(2002) for views of Greek theatre in Ireland, Srebrny (1984) for Poland, and
W etm ore (2002) for Africa.
Vlll Preface
have been chosen to dem arcate precisely the period durin g w hich
G reek tragedies w ere tentatively rediscovered and eventually cam e
fully of age as playscripts for perform ance, and assum ed roles in
public theatre sim ilar to those they fulfil today.
T h e book is authored by tw o enthusiastic theatregoers and has
sprung from a conviction that the perform ance history of all ‘clas
sic’ dram a— Shakespeare or Racine as m uch as the G reek plays— is
of academ ic interest in its own right, holding up a m irro r to the
shifting assum ptions and contingent historical perspectives w hich
have been b ro u gh t to bear on these texts in their m ost public arenas
of consum ption. But perform ance history also constitutes tim e
travel into a m uch m ore personal, individual arena of hum an
history. It offers privileged access to the private im aginative
w orlds of the m em bers of previous generations. T h eatre critics
have long been aware that there is som ething very special about
the im m anent presence of live perform ance in the m em ory. Far
from being an ephem eral art, w hich happens, com es to an end, and
vanishes w ithout trace, a com pelling theatrical experience can
leave a m uch deeper im pression on the m em ory even than the
p rin ted w ord or painted image.
F reu d never recovered from the experience of w atching Jean
M ounet-S ully perform the role of Sophocles’ O edipus in the
1885—6 season at the C om edie-Franpaise; M atthew A rnold was
so overw helm ed by the lovely H elen F aucit’s realization of the
role of Sophocles’ A ntigone in 1845 that he designed his tragedy
M erope along lines w hich he fervently hoped w ould m ake it su it
able for perform ance by this superb tragic actress.3 A couple of
years earlier, in 1843, Soren K ierkegaard had published E ither/O r,
in w hich theatre provides no less than a paradigm of the aesthetic
consciousness, a paradigm w hich has gone beyond notions of art to
enter the sphere of the existential. K ierkegaard’s rum inations lend
philosophical legitim acy to the notions of the selectivity of
m em ory, the aesthetic categories by w hich it prioritizes types of
experience, and in particular the cognitive and em otional pow er of
the experience of perform ed language and m usic (in his case,
M ozartian opera). H e believed that there is a difference in the
experience of theatre betw een physical and m ental tim e. For
3 Ernest Jones (1953), 194. See M acintosh (forthcoming); and on Arnold below,
pp. 330—1.
Preface IX
K ierkegaard, the im m ediacy of ‘the M om en t’ of apprehension of a

perform ance transcends tim e, for the im ages it leaves on the m ind
are uniquely pow erful and indelible. T h e m om ent of perform ance
ideally gains its em otive force from the ‘im m anent acceleration’ in
the representation as well as its sensual w holeness, grounded in the
m aterial instantiation of the characters and events. T h is m om ent is
in one sense lost forever, b u t it can also be held in rem arkable detail
in the consciousness until death.4 Ibsen was influenced by this
argum ent w hen he makes the eponym ous hero of his B rand
(1885) observe at the end of A ct IV th at ‘O nly w hat is lost can be
possessed for ever.’5
T h e other conviction underlying this book is less m ystical and
m ore pragm atic. O ne of the m ost dynam ic areas of research now
opening up w ithin the fast evolving discipline of Classics investi
gates the ‘bridges’ betw een ancient and m odern E uropean culture.
If Classics is to find a purpose and role in the th ird m illennium , it
needs to ask questions about its purpose and role in past centuries.
‘Classics’ needs to understan d the history of Classics as practised
and enjoyed both w ithin and outside the confines of academ ic
institutions and published scholarship. C hris S tray ’s brilliant
Classics Transformed (1998), a study of the som etim es insp ir
ational, usually elitist, and at tim es utterly disreputable history of
classical education in B ritain, has done m uch to illum inate the
pedagogical dim ension. E lizabeth Raw son, Philip A yres, N orm an
Vance, Y opie Prins, R ichard Jenkyns, F rank T u rn er, and others
have also show n the way forw ard w ith excellent, sophisticated
studies of the aristocratic and upper-m iddle-class B ritish reception
of ancient G reek and R om an political thought, philosophy, poetry,
art, and architecture.6 O ur book is intended to tell part of the story
of how a rather different B ritish public im agined G reek antiquity.
For am ongst ancient literary genres G reek tragedy has exerted a
particularly pow erful influence on later cultural life. It has been a
crucial m edium though w hich people u n train ed in G reek or L atin
could have access to classical m ythology. T ranslated, adapted,
4 See Kierkegaard (1987), 42, 68, 117-18, 239, 486-7, and the discussion of his
theatrical aesthetics in Pattison (1992), 95-124.
5 Translation taken from Ibsen (1972), 194.
6 O ther seminal contributions include Leppm ann (1968), Gillespie (1988),
Edwards (1996) and (1999), St. Clair (1998), K urtz (2000), and Beard (2002).
X Preface
interpreted, and enacted, it has also shaped our aesthetic sensibil
ities, our ethical categories, and our political thinking.
T h is project, along w ith the idea of a research centre w ith a m ore
international scope (an idea w hich eventually m aterialised as the
A rchive of Perform ances of G reek and R om an D ram a at O xford
U niversity), was conceived at about closing tim e on 27 July 1989,
w hen we w ere both tu to rs on a sum m er school for sixth-form
students ru n by the Joint A ssociation of Classical T eachers. T h is
was shortly after the publication of B ruce R. S m ith ’s A ncient
Scripts and M odern Experience on the English Stage, a study of
G reek and L atin plays in the Renaissance and Jacobean periods,
w hich shows that G reek tragedy has enjoyed a perform ed presence
in B ritain for h u n d red s of years. T h e early perform ances m ostly
featured in narrow ly academ ic circles, b u t not entirely: G eorge
G ascoigne and Francis K inw elm ershe’s Jocasta, a descendant of
E u rip ides’ Phoenissae through the Italian version of Lodovico
D olce, was acted during the C hristm as Revels at G ray ’s In n in
the w inter of 1566-7.7
G reek tragedy, for the A thenians of the fifth century BC an
exploration of their past, has had a long future. T h is book investi
gates a peculiarly form ative period w ithin that future, by focusing
on the two and a half centuries preceding the F irst W orld W ar.
D espite that 1566 Jocasta, by 1660 very few G reek tragedies had
actually been perform ed in B ritain except in L atin and in p ed a
gogical contexts.8 B ut by 1789 the m ajority of the Sophoclean and
E uripidean plays had been rew ritten (often radically) for p erfo rm
ance in the E nglish language. By the tu rn of the tw entieth century
m ost of the plays had been acted in unadapted G reek and, on a few
exceptional occasions, in English. B ut it was the E dw ardian stage
w hich finally saw the em ergence of G reek tragedy in a form w hich
adum brated the role it takes in the th ird -m illen n iu m theatre, its
uncut, authentic texts addressing the p u blic’s social and political
concerns in th eir ow n vernacular. By 1914 nearly all the th irty or so
7 Gascoigne and Kinwelm ershe (1566).

8 See Boas (1914), M oore Sm ith (1923), Bruce R. Sm ith (1987), Cowling (1993).
T here were occasional performances in English of plays deriving from Roman
comedy, for example the imitation of Plautus’ Amphitruo published in London
anonymously in 1562—3 under the title A New Enterlude fo r Chyldren to playe,
named Jack Jugeler, both wyttie, and very play sent Newly Imprentid. See also W arner
(1595).
Preface XI
surviving tragedies— even obscure A eschylean w orks— had been

reappraised in B ritain as perform ance texts, and the com edies of
A ristophanes had begun to attract com parable attention, especially
after A ristophanes’ Acharnians was p u t to political use in a p ro
duction at O xford in F ebruary 1914, w hich satirized French,
G erm an, and B ritish im perialist fantasies alike and explicitly p ro
claim ed the play to be ‘an unm istakable vindication of peace’.9
G reek tragedy’s obsession w ith the destructive effects of war,
especially as lam ented in E u rip id es’ Trojan W omen (see Fig. 0.1),
was subsequently to speak louder than ever before to B ritons— as
to other E uropeans and to N o rth A m ericans— struggling to com e
to term s w ith the carnage of the F irst W orld W ar.10
A nother w ar— the G reek W ar of Independence— occurred
during the period covered by this book, and had enorm ous ram ifi
cations for its contents. T h e experience of w atching ancient G reeks
on stage in B ritain could never be the sam e again after the 1821
uprising against the O ttom an E m pire and the creation of the
m odern G reek nation. T h e presence of G reece is always in the
background of ou r narrative, from the first G reek O rthodox
C hurch, b uilt in L ondon shortly after the R estoration. Significant
G reek individuals m ake appearances: Jo hn N ikolaidis was a refu
gee from T u rk ish prosecution, as well as nephew of the P atriarch
of C onstantinople, w hen he was involved in an extraordinary p ro
duction of Oedipus Tyrannus at Stanm ore School in 1776 (see
Ch. 8). T h e Phanariot Prince A lexandros M avrokordatos, who
tau gh t M ary Shelley G reek in Pisa, was to play an im p o rtan t role
in the B ritish identification of G reek tragic conflict w ith the
struggle against the T urcocracy in the 1820s w hen Percy Bysshe
Shelley dedicated his Hellas to him , a visionary poem based on
A eschylus’ Persians (see Ch. 10). W e are painfully aw are th at m uch
m ore could have been said on the relationship betw een the theatre
9 In the programm e, contained in a collection of papers related to Oxford

U niversity D ram atic Society 1884—1926, held in the Bodleian Library.
10 For the Trojan Women and the First W orld W ar, see M acintosh (1997), 302—4.
The Times of 13 Nov. 1918 published the ‘hubris’ chorus from Oedipus Tyrannus
(873 ff.), in G ilbert M urray’s translation, to illustrate the disastrous career of the
Kaiser; on the 22nd it published D arius’ speech from Persians (821 ff.): ‘For the
grain | O f overweening Pride, after full Flower | Beareth a sheaf of Doom , and
garners in | A harvest of all tears’. For an intense expression of the war as a Greek
tragedy see especially Osmaston (1928). Thanks to Clemence Schultze for pointing
this out.
Xll Preface
F i g u r e 0.1 Sybil T horndike as H ecuba and her daughter A nne Casson

as Astyanax in a production of G ilbert M urray’s translation of The Trojan
Women at the O ld Vic, L ondon, e.1919.
Preface xni
history we have begun to excavate and the m odern history of
G reece and its people.
O ver the years several people have asked us to describe our
m ethodology. T h e w ord im plies a greater degree of theoretical
self-consciousness at the coalface of research than either of us
possesses, b u t the sim ple answ er w ould be th at there are two
fundam ental questions underlying this book. T h e first is em p ir
ical: w hat exactly is the B ritish perform ance history of G reek
tragedy before 1914? W hich plays w ere perform ed, w here and
w hen, by w hom , in w hat types of adaptation and in whose tran sla
tions? T h ese apparently sim ple questions can be extrem ely diffi
cult to answ er, as is show n by the types of play used in an
extraordinary pageant on B ritish history perform ed m id-w ay
through our period at C ovent G arden on 12 F ebruary 1798. O ne
scene was from E dw ard the Black Prince by W illiam Shirley, a
dram atist who is im p ortan t in this book because his version of
Sophocles’ Electra had been proscribed three and a half decades
earlier. A nother scene drew on Jam es T h o m so n ’s E dw ard and
Eleonora, another once-censored play based on E u rip id es’ Alcestis;
a th ird scene was taken from W illiam M ason’s Caractacus, w hich
transplan ted the plot of Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus to R om an
W ales.11 Plays that never m ade it to the stage, w holly un-G reek
titles, historical contexts far from ancient G reece, and genres of
theatre such as patriotic pageant, can therefore all conceal p ro
found debts to G reek tragedy, and it is certain th at we have failed
to identify som e im portant exam ples. Y et som e answ ers to our
basic question are laid out in A m anda W rigley’s C hronological
A ppendix, w hich we hope lends precision and order to such m a
terial as we discovered.
W hen we first naively asked each other this question fifteen
years ago, we had no idea how m uch m aterial there was to excavate,
and we soon discovered that this was because no scholar had
concentrated on m ost of it before. T h e subject-m atter in w hich
we are interested had sim ply disappeared, slipping dow n a vast
chasm yaw ning betw een disciplines. W e m ade great use of research
tools and resources such as the index to the L ord C ham berlain’s
C ollection of Plays, the holdings of the T h eatre M useum at C ovent
11 For a detailed discussion see Gillian Russell (1995), 52—3. On the individual
plays and authors see below, Chs. 4, 6, and 7.
XIV Preface
G arden, the catalogues of the B ritish and Bodleian libraries, the
Dictionary o f N ational Biography and its successor the O xford
Dictionary o f N ational Biography, handlists of classical m y th
ology in literature such as D ouglas B ush’s M ythology and the
Rom antic Tradition in English Poetry (1937), and Jane D avidson
R eid’s m onum ental O xford Guide to Classical M ythology in the
A rts (1993). W e have consulted dozens of issues of eighteenth-,
nineteenth-, and early tw en tieth -cen tury journals, m agazines, and
new spapers, especially the Illustrated London News. B ut over
w helm ingly our greatest debts are to theatre historians, especially
the team responsible for the Biographical D ictionary o f Actors,
Actresses, M usicians, Dancers, M anagers and O ther Stage Personnel
in London, 1660—1800, the m eticulous researchers led by C harles
Beecher H ogan w ho produced the superbly reliable eleven-volum e
The London Stage (1960-8), and, outstandingly, the w ork of the
un disputed father of system atic theatre history, A llardyce N icoll.
W e sim ply could not have w ritten this book w ithout his m u lti
volum e A H istory o f English D ram a 1660—1900, on w hich he
laboured for decades until its com pletion in 1959. B ut few tw en ti
eth -cen tury theatre historians have know n enough about G raeco-
R om an m yth even to recognize m any literary archetypes in plays
w ritten by the m ore classically educated G eorgians and V ictorians.
U nfortunately the scholars w ho are indeed equipped to identify
a G reek tragedian’s influence— academ ic Classicists— have tra d
itionally disliked studying anything involving translation out of the
ancient languages, especially w hen it involves entertain m en t rather
than scholarship. E ven respectable specialists in the history of
classical education have tended to lose their bearings w hen it
com es to theatre history: M . L. C larke’s influential history of
G reek Studies in B ritain states that W illiam M ason’s two im p o rt
ant tragedies ‘on the G recian m odel’ in im itation of E uripides and
Sophocles w ere never perform ed;12 yet if he had know n how to
consult standard reference w orks in theatre history, he w ould have
discovered that they w ere both huge hits in the com m ercial theatre
of the later eighteenth century. Classicists have also only quite
recently begun to take seriously w hat is usually called the ‘recep
tio n ’ of Classical texts. M oreover, they usually take their cue as to
the p ro per content of the study of the ‘R eception of C lassics’ from
12 M . L. Clarke (1945), 164.
Preface xv
departm ents of C om parative L iteratu re, M odern Languages, and
E nglish L itera tu re.13 A nd these literary specialists have tended to
regard the ‘reception’ of G reek tragedy rath er narrow ly, as d en o t
ing the study of its im pact on m ajor canonical thinkers (Antigone
on H egel, Bacchae on N ietzsche), on im portant authors such as
G oethe (whose Iphigenie a u f Tauris has long been accepted into the
‘literary’ as well as the theatrical canon), and on authors w hose
im itations of G reek tragedy w ere designed to be read rath er than
staged, such as S w in bu rne’s Erechtheus and A ta la n ta in Calydon.
In departm ents of E nglish literature, even after the seism ic
questioning of the canon w hich has characterized the last two
decades, perform ance history is still not a central concern, and
often perceived as being excessively bound up w ith w hat is even
now som etim es dism issively called ‘popular cu ltu re’: although
som e of our authors (John D ryden and Jam es T hom son, for
exam ple) are still considered im portant poets, several of the plays
and perform ances discussed in this book, how ever popular and
influential in their ow n day, w ould still be dism issed by som e
conservative literary historians as aesthetically insignificant
ephem era. W e have been sustained throu g h o u t by the prophetic
voice of the incom parable A llardyce N icoll. M uch of our m aterial
was included in his ow n short selection of w orks requiring ‘atten
tion either intrinsically or historically’ as being ‘of prim e im p o rt
ance for an understanding of the audiences of various periods and
for an appreciation of dram atic developm ent’. T h e authors, the
significance of w hose dram atic w orks he noted, and som e of
w hich we have subsequently discovered m ake great use of G reek
tragedy, include C harles D avenant (notably his Circe); T hom as
R ym er; C harles G ildon; John D ennis (especially his Iphigenia);
T hom as H ull; W illiam M ason (both his Elfrida and Caractacus);
W illiam W hitehead (his Creusa); and the V ictorian playw rights
E. L. B lanchard, C harles M athew s, and H enry B yron.14
T h e second part of our project has involved trying to m ake som e
prelim inary interpretative sense of the factual perform ance history
we have tried to assem ble. A lthough the aesthetic dim ension of art
is of course never fully to be divorced from the political, it is
13 Am ongst ‘comparativists’ we have benefited greatly from M ueller (1980) and
Steiner (1961), (1984); Burian (1997), M acintosh (1997), and W alton (1987) are
earlier examples of reception study that engages with issues of performance.
14 Nicoll (1925), 507-12.
XVI Preface
undeniable that our personal tem peram ents and interests have
produced an em phasis on the way th a t the perform ance reception
of G reek tragedy throw s light on and is in tu rn illum inated by
social, legislative, and political changes. A fascination w ith trans-
gressive sexuality (incest, adultery) m arks the adaptations of G reek
tragedy— D ry d en ’s Oedipus, Jo yn er’s The Rom an Empress, and
D avenant’s Circe— staged betw een the R estoration and the new
m orality ushered in by the G lorious R evolution of 1688; the 1670s
interest in m ythical sexual deviants was p art of a generalized
theatrical articulation of the R estoration’s libertarian reaction
against the stringent m oral legislation passed durin g the In terreg
num , w hich had m ade incest and adultery capital offences. But it
was equally a continuation of an earlier, pre-C ivil W ar trope
com m on in political discourse linking problem s in the m onarchy
w ith sexual disorder. A nxieties about succession and the Jacobite
threat are obsessively exam ined on the B ritish stage betw een the
G lorious R evolution and the 1750s, w hich explains in large m eas
ure the ways in w hich G reek tragedy was adapted. A n outbreak of
M edea plays in the m id-1850s is im possible to u nderstand w ithout
acknow ledging the im portance of the 1857 D ivorce Act.
A ndrew D alzel, a distinguished professor of G reek at E dinburgh
from 1772 u ntil 1806, proposed to his students ‘that the G recian
spirit, w hich has always prevailed in E ngland, tended greatly to
counteract the encroachm ents of despotic pow er and to bring
about that republican m ixture in our constitution w hich has been
the subject of so m u ch adm iration’.15 It was thus to ‘the G recian
sp irit’ of the E nglish that, according to D alzel, the credit needed to
be given for no less an achievem ent than the G lorious R evolution.
H is w ords illum inate the particular status of G reek tragedy in the
B ritish psyche, apparent in the case of ou r authors. A lm ost all
of them (and even som e of our actors) are liberals and at least
m ildly progressive. Som e are controversial, oppositional, or even
republican.
T h e radical theatre critic W illiam H azlitt revealingly uses an
im age from a pagan G reek tragedy to describe how his father and
other D issenting m inisters preached serm ons in each o th er’s
churches, thus establishing a ‘line of com m unication .. . by w hich
the flame of civil and religious liberty is kept alive, and nourishes
15 Dalzel (1821), i. 7.
Preface xvii
its sm ouldering fire unquenchable, like the fires in the Agamemnon
of A eschylus, placed at different stations, that w aited for ten long
years to announce w ith their blazing pyram ids the destruction of
T ro y ’. In 1906, in ‘T h e A u th o r’s A pology’ to a selection of his
dram atic criticism , G eorge B ernard Shaw echoes both H azlitt’s
sentim ents and his im age, w hen he robustly defends the im p o rt
ance of the theatre in a godless world:
Only the ablest critics believe that the theatre is really im portant: in my
tim e none of them would claim for it, as I claim ed for it, that it is as
im portant as the C hurch was in the M iddle Ages and m uch m ore im port
ant than the C hurch was in L ondon in the years under review. A theatre to
me is a place ‘w here two or three are gathered together.’ T he apostolic
succession from Eschylus to m yself is as serious and as continuously
inspired as that younger institution, the apostolic succession of the C hris
tian C hurch.16
In H en ry F ielding’s Joseph Andrew s the A nglican Parson
A dam s is no D issenter, b u t still the distinguishing m ark of his
incorruptibility and insistence on the p u rsu it of liberty and virtue
is his attachm ent to the w orks of A eschylus. M ore than one of
our w riters is an idealistic and pious clergym an— w hat Parson
A dam s m ight have becom e if he had fallen in w ith som e friends
in the theatre, as his real-life m odel, the R evd W illiam Y oung,
fell in w ith H enry Fielding and in 1742 even persuaded him to
collaborate on a translation of A ristophanes’ Plutus. A lthough
there w ere a few R oyalist responses to ancient G reek dram a in
the seventeenth century (see p. 40), the m ajority of our high-
m inded eighteenth-century authors, as well as the radical M P
T hom as T alfourd in the 1830s, and, at the end of our era, G eorge
W arr and G ilb ert M urray, really did com e from progressive,
politically radical and/or nonconform ist backgrounds. T h e V ic
torians w ere correct w hen they saw the historical link betw een
radical religious m ovem ents in B ritain and a love of the ancient
G reek language and literatu re.17 W e are convinced that our
dram atists’ often very creative, passionate, original, and com m it
ted uses of G reek tragedy p u t the lie to the com m only held
stereotype of dry, stale, obsolete conservative neoclassical heroes
16 Hazlitt (1917), 2; Shaw (1908), i, pp. xxiif.

17 See e.g. Young (1862), 100.
XV111 Preface
keeping ‘real’, lively, contem porary hum ans from their rightful
place in trag ed y.18
O ur interest in socio-political history has been one factor behind
the broadly chronological arrangem ent of this book, especially
since we are, as far as we know , the first to study this m aterial
system atically. A fter the handful of R estoration experim ents w ith
turning G reek texts into ‘heroic tragedy’, and w ith various untidy
exceptions, we see our m aterial as falling into four basic m ove
m ents. G reek tragedy appears on the B ritish stage as patriotic,
em otive five-act variations on them es dear to W hig sensibilities
betw een the late 1690s u n til the 1780s. A fter (largely) retreating
from the R om antic stage it re-em erges as V ictorian burlesque from
the 1840s to 1870s, academ ic G reek plays in the late nineteenth
century, and avant-garde E dw ardian perform ances in the English
language. T h e structu re of the book reflects this conceptual shape.
H ow ever, som e plays (for exam ple, Sophocles’ Electro), play
w rights (T hom son), translators, directors (G eorge W arr) and
genres of perform ance (S he-T ragedy, burlesque) have required
w hole individual chapters in order to explain th eir im portance to
the overall history. O ur chapter headings have been selected b e
cause they seem to us to represent the m ore significant events, or
shifts in taste and purpose, in the history of G reek tragedy in the
B ritish theatre; they have also been designed to avoid excessive
reduplication of m aterial covered elsew here by ourselves, for
exam ple the im pact of G reek tragedy on the dram a of Ireland
before the creation of the R epublic, w hich has been analysed in
Fiona M acintosh’s D ying A cts: D eath in A ncient Greek and M odern
Irish Tragic Dram a, or the reception of the figure of the ancient
actor in E nglish literature, the subject of a prelim inary investi
gation by E dith H all.19 W e have also avoided detailed discussion of
topics already covered by o ther scholars, especially the early years
of the C am bridge G reek play, Jane H arriso n ’s 1887 perform ance
as A lcestis, and the im pact of the L ondon prem iere of S trauss’s
E lektra, w hich have been very well discussed by P at Easterling,
M ary Beard, and Sim on G oldhill respectively.20
18 Index s.v. John Dennis, Jam es Thom son, James Shirley, W illiam Mason,
Samuel Parr, W illiam M acready, Thom as Talfourd, and John Heraud.
19 M acintosh (1994), Hall (2002b).
20 Easterling (1999), Beard (2000), Goldhill (2002). See also W interer (2001).
Preface xix
W e are aware that m any fascinating topics— for exam ple, the
practice of transvestism , the chorus, or historical costum e and
scenery in relation to archaeological discoveries— w ould have
profited from a m ore them atic approach, b u t considerations of
space precluded this. W hile finding R oger Fiske’s English Theatre
M usic in the Eighteenth Century (1973, revised 1986) absolutely
invaluable, as m usical am ateurs we have left em barrassingly untold
the story of the m usical contribution m ade by com posers involved
in staged versions of G reek tragedy (a list w hich includes such
im portant nam es as Flenry and D aniel Purcell, H andel, A rne,
M endelssohn, and Parry). W e hope that the book as it stands will
offer a useful startin g-p o in t for research into these areas by
others. T h ere are several o ther lim itations to our study, or, rather,
directions in w hich we are painfully conscious that the argum ent
could have been m ore fully developed. M uch of the book studies
L ondon stages, rather than those in the provinces and in the
lively theatrical environm ent of G eorgian and V ictorian D ublin.
A lthough the n ature of theatre practice in the period u n der discus
sion, and the licensing system , m ean that a L ondon lens has not
p roduced the degree of distortion that w ould result from its use if
applied to the m odern theatre w orld, it rem ains true th at we have
left undone m uch fruitful w ork on G reek tragedy outside the
m etropolis.
M oreover, we are aw are that our narrative is som etim es too
narrow ly local w hen seen from a m ore international perspective.
T h e book tells a story w hich involves B ritish cu ltu re’s constant
revision of its idea of G reece, and this is especially apparent in the
w ay th at revivals of ancient G reek plays w ere influenced by literary
m odels in other languages, or indeed m anifestations of other types
of revivalism (there rem ains considerable scope for investigating
the cross-fertilization betw een the reception of G reek tragedy and
theatrical settings involving ancient Persia and E gypt, M ogul
India, A ztec or Inca M esoam erica). T h e influence of French liter
ary m odels, so pervasive at the R estoration, gave way durin g the
eighteenth century to an equation of the ancient G reeks w ith
ancient Britons; the O ttom an em pire and its relationship w ith
m odern G reece was crucial in the first three decades of the n in e
teenth century, u ntil a G erm an adaptation of Sophocles’ Antigone
introduced E urope— and indeed the U SA — to an innovative ap
proach to the ancient theatre (see Ch. 12). By the second h alf of the
XX Preface
nineteenth century, A m erican and A ustralian star actresses, not to
m ention Scandinavian authors, assum ed great im portance for the
B ritish reading of G reek tragedy.
T h e history of the B ritish stage is always inseparable from
C ontinental culture, especially from the giants of the French
stage and the Italian opera house. A lthough we have tried to
identify any C ontinental precursors of our B ritish plays, a task
w hich has been m ade m uch easier by Jane D avidson R eid’s indis
pensable w ork m entioned above, we are not experts on F rench or
Italian literature, ballet or opera, any m ore than G erm an ro m anti
cism or G erm an classical philology, and the picture is therefore
inevitably incom plete. Indeed, the history of classical scholar
ship— especially of editions, com m entaries and textbooks on
G reek tragedy— could also be m uch m ore closely tied to this p e r
form ance history. Schoolboys and university stu d en ts w ho used
certain editions of particular plays w ere m uch m ore likely in later
life to choose to adapt those they already knew ;21 m any m ore
scholarly books m ust have m ade a theatrical im pact than those
we have discussed, w hich include T hom as Stanley’s edition of
A eschylus, A ndre D acier’s of A ristotle’s Poetics, and C harlotte
L enn ox ’s 1758 English translation of the Greek Theatre o f Father
B rum oy. M oreover, there still exists no com prehensive discussion
of the history of translation of G reek tragedy into m odern lan
guages, w hich has presented us w ith a problem because the history
of translation is very intricately tied up w ith perform ance his
tory.22 T h is is dem onstrated above all by the im pact m ade by the
first entire English translation of A eschylus, published by R obert
P o tter as late as 1777, or by the case of Sophocles’ Electra, one of
the first G reek tragedies to be m ade w idely available in French and
E nglish, an availability w hich in large m easure explains the length
of the shadow w hich that archetypal play cast on the B ritish stage
(see Ch. 6).
W hen it com es to public exposure to G reek tragedy, our research
has repeatedly b ro u gh t us up against allied m edia in w hich this
genre and perform ances of it played an im portant role. W e regret
in particular n o t being equipped system atically to investigate the
21 For examples see below, pp. 279, 384.

22 For some useful pointers see Gillespie (1988), (1992); Julie Stone Peters
(2000), 316-17 n. 22.
Preface xxi
visual arts and fiction.23 W e decided early on to devote ourselves to
tragedy rather than attem p t to provide adequate coverage of the
perform ance reception of A ristophanes, w hich is equally im portant
b u t very different in nature, since before the late nineteenth century
m aterial from his plays was alm ost always heavily disguised by
E nglish-language dram atists. T h ere are also four particular types
of subject-m atter intim ately related to the reception of G reek tra
gedy, w hich crop up in our analysis b u t require fu rth er attention.
F irst, certain Shakespearean plays seem to have been conceptually
paired w ith specific G reek heroes and plots (H am let and O restes,
ancient T hebes and C oriolanus, Iphigenia in Tauris and The Tem
pest). Secondly, certain biblical narratives w ere always traditionally
com pared both popularly and academ ically w ith specific G reek
tragedies: Judas Iscariot w ith O edipus, Je p h th ah ’s daughter w ith
Iphigenia, the tem ple foundling Josiah w ith E u rip id es’ Ion, or Job
w ith Prom etheus. T h ird ly , ancient G reek and R om an history: from
N athaniel Lee onw ards, the m ajority of our authors also w rote
tragedies about subjects such as S ophonisba and C arthage, A lexan
der the G reat, the H oratii, Cato, B rutus, A ntony and C leopatra,
N ero and A grippina, or the E m peror C onstantine. F u rth er light
w ould u ndoubtedly be throw n on the perform ance history of G reek
tragedy by relating it to ancient M editerranean history in the
theatre. T h e reception of, for exam ple, H erodotus, Livy, T acitus,
Suetonius, and Julian the A postate is deeply connected w ith the
reception of A eschylus, Sophocles, and E uripides.
W e hope that our book will be read by Classicists as well as
cultural historians, since we think that this experim ent in excavat
ing an aspect of the afterlife of the ancient G reek tragedians will
help in the attem pt to u n derstan d and appreciate th eir archetypal
plays in the context of their original productions. T h e last few
centuries have added dense layers of m eaning to the texts of the
G reek tragedians, throu g h interpretation, criticism , translation
and perform ance. W e are convinced th at if Classicists are to p en e
trate to the authentic m eanings of A thenian tragedy in the h isto r
ical contexts in w hich it was originally perform ed, it is essential
that they raise to consciousness the ideas and interpretations that
have subsequently attached them selves to these archetypal texts—
23 On which see e.g. K estner (1988), Jenkyns (1991), Easterling (1991). On

theatrical portraiture in the 18th c. see Vince (1988), 63—8.
XXII Preface
racist and orientalizing views of A eschylus’ barbarians, psychoana
lytical readings of Sophocles’ T h eb an royal fam ily, patriarchal
h orro r at C lytem nestra and M edea, or pro-B oer responses in
1905 to E u rip ides’ incarcerated T ro jan w om en.24 Several chapters
in this book argue that perform ance history has pow erfully affected
scholarly opinion of ancient texts.
Finally, in explaining why G reek tragedy should have proved so
transhistorically useful and appealing, we have draw n inspiration
from various intellectual quarters. T h ey include Pierre V idal-
N aq u et’s historical relativism , w hich locates G reek tragedy’s
pow er to transcend history precisely in its susceptibility to radic
ally different interp retatio ns.23 A t tim es, especially w hen dealing
w ith the portrayal of w om en, we have felt the im portance of the
R ussian form alist M ikhail B akhtin, and his notion that a m easure
of the greatness of literature is the degree to w hich it aboriginally
holds ‘prefigurative’ m eanings that can only be released by re
assessm ents and revivals lying far away in w hat he calls ‘great
tim e’ in the fu tu re .26 Som etim es it has seem ed that a m ore dialect
ical, M arxist-derived perspective can provide significant illum in
ation by arguing w ith Jean-P ierre V ernant th at im p o rtan t artw orks
actively condition the shapes taken by fu ture artw orks, w hether the
conditioning takes the form of em ulation, m odification, or rejec
tio n .27 It has even been tem pting to see G reek tragedy as actively
conditioning not only later dram a b u t the actual shapes taken by
future society and its m oral discourses, a position argued persu a
sively in relation to Shakespearean theatre history by R obert W ei-
m ann .28 B ut beyond such high flights of theoretical fancy one
retu rn s tim e and again to the successive generations of ordinary
B ritish people w ho— often quite unintellectually— w atched an
cient G reek heroes and heroines perform great deeds in live
theatres, and reacted w ith pleasure and excitem ent to the ancient
texts, our ow n love of w hich originally inspired this book.
E .M .H .
F.M .
24 See below e.g. pp. 114, 508-11.
25 V idal-N aquet (1988), 361—80. For a fuller discussion of various theoretical
approaches to w riting the history of Classical reception in perform ed arts, see Flail
(2004a).
26 Bakhtin (1986).
27 See V ernant (1988).
28 W eimann (1976), especially 46—56.
Acknowledgements
T h e research w hich lies behind this volum e w ould not have been
possible w ithout the financial support, at different tim es and of
different types, from U niversity of Reading Research F und, G old
sm iths’ College, U niversity of L ondon, Som erville College, O xford,
Sw arthm ore College, Pennsylvania, the B ritish A cadem y, the L ever -
hum e T ru st and the AFIRB, to w hom we are extrem ely grateful.
T h e fifteen years it has taken to research and w rite have seen us
hold seven academ ic posts, endure eight household rem ovals, and
produce four children. T h e list of people who have helped us w ith
the project over this period of tim e has therefore grow n beyond
control. W e are particularly grateful to Pauline A dam s, C hris
Baldick, M ary Beard, C harles Benson, R ichard Bevis, John Birkin,
C lare B rant, P eter Brow n, M arilyn B utler, H elen C arr, Paul C ar-
tledge, D ebbie Challis, G ill Cookson, M ichael D iam ond, A lan
D ow nie, P at E asterling, H elene Foley, Ew en G reen, D ave
G ow en, L o rn a H ardw ick, T o n y H arrison, Isobel H u rst, Joanna
Innes, Eva Jacobs, M argaret K ean, John L um sden, M ichael
L urje, Bill M cC orm ack, E sther M cG ilvray, N orm a M acm anaw ay,
Jonathan M arcus, D avid M argolies, P eter M ason, Platon M avro-
m oustakos, Pantelis M ichelakis, Fergus M illar, Paul N aiditch,
H ilary O ’Shea, M ichelle Pauli, Susanna Phillippo, R ichard Poyn-
der, W alter Puchner, T essa Rajak, D avid Ricks, K athleen Riley,
C hristopher Rowe, M ichael Silk, Julia Sleeper, Fiona Stafford,
John Stokes, C hristopher Stray, O liver T ap lin , C olin T eevan,
T h eresa U rbainczyk, Jenny W agstaffe, A ndrew W allace-H adrill,
C hris W eaver, K atharine W orth, D avid W iles, and A m y W ygant.
T h e contribution m ade at copy-editing stage by Leofranc
H olford-S trevens, a true w it and polym ath, was incalculable; we
are m ore grateful to him than we can express for saving us from
innum erable errors and infelicities of expression. It also gives
us great pleasure that our m agnificent index was provided by
B renda H all. Finally, we rem ain indebted to A m anda W rigley
for all her extraordinary hard-w ork in com piling and checking
the inform ation in the A ppendix. H er diligence and precision
have been indispensable. Som e of the chapters are revised versions
XXIV Acknowledgements
of articles w hich have been published elsew here; we are grateful to
the editors of Greece and Rome w ith respect to Ch. 9 and parts of
Ch. 14, and to the editors of IjfC T w ith respect to Chs. 11 and 13.
Som e other passages draw on m aterial published in Cahiers du
G IT A , Classics Ireland, and Dialogos, and we w ould also like to
record our thanks to the editors of these journals.
Contents
List of Illustrations xxvii

Notes on N om enclature, Spelling, and Texts xxxvii
1. Regicide, R estoration, and the ‘E nglish’ O edipus 1
2. Iphigenia and the G lorious R evolution 30
3. G reek T ragedy as She-T ragedy 64
4. Jam es T h o m so n ’s T ragedies of O pposition 99
5. E u rip ides’ Ion, C oram ’s F oundlings, and L ord
H ardw icke’s M arriage A ct 128
6. E igh teen th-C en tury Electra 152
7. C aractacus at C olonus 183
8. R evolutionary O edipuses 215
9. G reek T ragedy in L ate G eorgian R eading 243
10. R uins and Rebels 264
11. T alfo u rd ’s A ncient G reeks in the T h eatre of R eform 282
12. Antigone w ith C onsequences 316
13. T h e Ideology of Classical B urlesque 350
14. M edea and M id-V ictorian M arriage Legislation 391
15. Page versus Stage: G reek T ragedy, the
A cadem y, and the Popular T h eatre 430
16. L o n d o n ’s G reek Plays in the 1880s: G eorge
W arr and Social Philhellenism 462
17. T h e Shavian E uripides and the E uripidean Shaw:
G reek T ragedy and the N ew D ram a 488
18. G reek T ragedy and the C osm opolitan Ideal 521
C hronological A ppendix by A m anda W rigley 555
Bibliography 591
Index 641
List of Illustrations
Frontispiece E ngraving by W illiam S. L eney of Joseph G eorge

H olm an in the role of H ippolitus, in E d m und
S m ith ’s Phcedra and Hippolitus, reproduced from
British Theatre, xxvi (1797) by courtesy of D urh am
U niversity L ibrary
0.1 Sybil T h ornd ik e as H ecuba and her daughter A nne
Casson as A styanax in a production of G ilbert
M u rray ’s translation of The Trojan W omen at the
O ld Vic, L ondon, c.1919. R eproduced by courtesy
of the A P G R D xii
1.1 W illiam H ogarth, Strolling Actresses Dressing in
a B arn (1738). R eproduced by courtesy of the
B ritish M useum 2
1.2 B urnet R eading, engraving of T hom as Sheridan in
the title role of Oedipus, by D ryden and Lee.
R eproduced from Bell’s B ritish T h eatre, xv (1797),
by courtesy of the Bodleian L ib rary 4
1.3 G erard van der G ucht, engraving after H u b ert
G ravelot depicting the suicide of Jocasta, reproduced
from The D ram atick W orks o f John D ryden (1735),
by courtesy of the B ritish L ibrary 19
2.1 M iss C hudleigh attends a m asquerade in the
character of Iphigenia (1749). R eproduced by
courtesy of the B ritish M useum 31
2.2 Louis du G uernier, frontispiece to Lew is T h eo b ald ’s
translation of Oedipus, K ing o f Thebes (1715).
R eproduced by courtesy of the Bodleian L ibrary 47
2.3 B enjam in W est, Pylades and Orestes Brought as Victims
before Iphigenia (1766). C opyright T ate, L ondon 2003 56
2.4 Frontispiece to Lew is T h eo b ald ’s translation of
A ristophanes’ Plutus: or, the W orld’s Idol (1715).
XXVU1 L ist o f Illustrations
2.5 T itle-page and frontispiece, engraved by Isaac T aylor,
to the 1771 L ondon edition of K ane O ’H ara’s
M idas. R eproduced by courtesy of the A P G R D 58
3.1 J. R oberts, engraving of M iss E lizabeth Y ounge
(later M rs Pope) in the role of H erm ione in
A m brose P h ilip s’s The Distrest M other
(published 1776). R eproduced by courtesy of
the A P G R D 68
3.2 J. T h ornthw aite, engraving of W illiam F arren
in the role of O restes in A m brose P hilips’s
The Distrest M other, from B e ll’s British Theatre,
vi (1797), reproduced by courtesy of the A P G R D 69
3.3 Jam es H eath, engraving of H ippolitus rescuing
Phaedra from a boar on the night of her w edding to
T heseus, from the edition of E dm und S m ith ’s
Phcedra and H ippolitus in B ritish Theatre, xxvi
(1797). R eproduced by courtesy of D urham
U niversity L ibrary 73
3.4 J. T h ornth w aite, engraving of M rs A nn Barry in
a revival of E d m und S m ith ’s Phcedra and
H ippolitus (1777), for B e ll’s British Theatre, x.
3.5 Frontispiece and title page from the earliest English
translation of Sophocles’ A ja x, published
anonym ously in 1714. T h e engraving, w hich depicts
one of the altercations over A jax’s corpse, was
designed and executed by L ouis du G uernier.
R eproduced by courtesy of the Bodleian L ib rary 76
3.6 J. T h ornth w aite, engraving of M rs H u n ter as
Penelope in N icholas R ow e’s Ulysses (published
1778). R eproduced by courtesy of the A P G R D 77
3.7 John G oldar, engraving of M rs Yates in the
Character o f M edea (1777). Frontispiece to the
N ew English Theatre E dition of R ichard G lover’s
M edea. P hotograph reproduced by courtesy of the
Bodleian L ib rary 81
3.8 G eorge R om ney, M edea Contemplating the
M urder o f her Children, chalk cartoon, c. 1782.
List o f Illustrations xxix
R eproduced by courtesy of the Board of
T ru stees of the N ational M useum s (W alker
A rt G allery, Liverpool) 96
4.1 T h e m onum ent to Jam es T hom son in W estm inster
A bbey. C opyright: D ean and C hapter of
W estm inster 100
4.2 Jam es H eath, frontispiece to Jam es T h o m so n ’s
Edw ard and Eleonora, in the edition in British
Theatre, xxvi (1795). R eproduced by courtesy
of D u rh am U niversity L ibrary 119
4.3 W illiam Blake, p rin t entitled Edw ard & Elenor.
Published 1793. R eproduced by courtesy of
the B ritish M useum 123
5.1 J. T h ornth w aite, engraving of M iss Elizabeth
Y ounge (later M rs Pope) in the character of
C reusa (1778), frontispiece to W illiam W hitehead’s
Creusa in B ell’s British Theatre, xx. R eproduced
by courtesy of the Bodleian L ibrary 131
5.2 H en ry Brooke, engraving of C aptain T hom as
C oram (1741) after a p o rtrait by B. N ebot.
R eproduced by courtesy of the A P G R D 136
5.3 H annah P ritch ard and D avid G arrick in Creusa,
Queen o f A thens (D ru ry L ane, 1754), by G eorge
G raham . R eproduced from the L ondon edition
of 1797 by courtesy of the A P G R D 145
6.1 Frontispiece, designed and engraved by L ouis du
G uernier, to Lewis T h eo b ald ’s translation of
Sophocles’ Electra (1714). R eproduced by
courtesy of the Bodleian L ibrary 156
6.2 M iss E lizabeth Y ounge (later M rs Pope) in the
role of Z ara in C ongreve’s The M ourning Bride.
E ngraving published 1776, reproduced by
courtesy of the A P G R D 158
6.3 T h e recognition scene in C ongreve’s The
M ourning Bride, engraving by C harles G rignion.
R eproduced from the 1753 edition of his W orks,
vol. ii, by courtesy of the A P G R D 160
xxx List o f Illustrations
6.4 T itle-page and frontispiece depicting the dedicatee
(Princess E lizabeth), in C h ristop h er W ase’s
translation of Sophocles’ Electra (1649).
6.5 T itle-page and frontispiece to Lew is T h eo b a ld ’s
translation of Sophocles’ Electra (1777), substituted
in B ell’s B ritish Theatre, xvi for T hom as
F ran ck lin ’s translation of V oltaire’s Oreste.
T h e engraving, by J. T h ornth w aite, depicts
M ary A nne Y ates in the role of Electra.
6.6 V alentine G reen, m ezzotint after Benjam in
W est’s lost painting JEgistus, Raising the Veil,
Discovers the B ody o f Clytem nestra: F rancklin’s
Sophocles (1780). R eproduced by courtesy of
the B ritish M useum 178
6.7 Sarah Siddons as E uphrasia in A rth u r
M u rp h y ’s The Grecian Daughter, c.1783.
E ngraving by J. Caldw ell after a painting by
W . H am ilton. E nthoven Collection, reproduced
by courtesy of the T h eatre M useum , L ondon 181
7.1 T hom as D avidson, Caractacus being Paraded
Before the Emperor Claudius, A D 50 (1891).
7.2 T itle-p age and frontispiece by B urnet R eading,
show ing T hom as C aulfield in the role of
A rviragus, to the 1796 B ritish Theatre edition
of W illiam M ason’s Caractacus. R eproduced by
7.3 G eorge R om ney, A to ssa ’s Dream, chalk cartoon,
1778—9, inspired by R obert P o tter’s 1777 translation
of A eschylus’ Persians. R eproduced by courtesy of
the Board of T ru stees of the N ational M useum s
(W alker A rt G allery, Liverpool) 210
7.4 T h e m onum ent to W illiam M ason in W estm inster
A bbey, L ondon, sculpted by J. Bacon (1799).
T h e grieving w om an probably depicts M elpom ene,
List o f Illustrations xxxi
the M use of T ragedy. C opyright: the D ean and
C hapter of W estm inster 212
8.1 Lucifer a ’s Procession. F airy Queen, engraving by
G . H um phrey, 12 M ay 1821, depicting Q ueen
C aroline as L ucifera in a coach draw n by her
supporters. R eproduced courtesy of the B ritish
M useum 229
8.2 The Como-cal Hobby, engraving by G . H um phrey,
20 A pril 1821. B artolom eo Pergam i astride a
she-goat w ith the head of Q ueen C aroline.
R eproduced courtesy of the B ritish M useum 232
9.1 A n unidentified scene (possibly the opening of
E u rip id es’ Heracles) from a perform ance of G reek
tragedy at R eading School. R eproduced from
‘O liver O ldfellow ’, O ur School (1857) by
9.2 M ary Russell M itford, c.1840. R eproduced by
9.3 D r V alpy prepares Benjam in Bockett for his
entrance as the distraught P hrygian m essenger
in an 1821 perform ance of E u rip id es’ Orestes at
R eading School. R eproduced from O liver
O ldfellow , O ur School (1857), by courtesy of
the Bodleian L ibrary 260
10.1 C ontem porary playbill for P eter Bayley’s
Orestes in Argos at C ovent G arden, 1825.
10.2 T hom as W oolnoth, M r. C. Kem ble as Orestes,
frontispiece to D olby’s B ritish Theatre edition
of P eter Bayley’s Orestes in Argos (1825).
R eproduced by courtesy of the Bodleian
L ibrary 278
10.3 T h e clim ax of P eter Bayley’s Orestes in Argos,
from D olby’s B ritish Theatre edition (1825).
E ngraving by H enry W hite, reproduced by
xxxii List o f Illustrations
11.1 M artha M acready, M acready as Ion (1836).
R eproduced from M artha Sarah M acready,
Dramatic Recollections (1839), by courtesy of
11.2 T hom as N oon T alfo urd by D aniel M aclise.
R eproduced from W illiam Bates, A G allery
o f Illustrious Literary Characters (1873), by
11.3 E llen T ree as C lem anthe in the original
production of T alfo u rd ’s Ion at Covent G arden
(1836). R eproduced by courtesy of the A P G R D 292
11.4 T h e Penshaw M onum ent, near Sunderland.
P hotograph reproduced by courtesy of
R ichard Poynder 307
11.5 C harlotte C ushm an as Ion, H aym arket T heatre.
R eproduced from I L N 8, no. 199 (1846), by
11.6 C ontem porary playbill for T alfo u rd ’s
Ion at C ovent G arden (1836), after H elen
F aucit took over the role of C lem anthe from
Ellen T ree. R eproduced courtesy of the A P G R D 313
12.1 Punch cartoon illustrating A ntigone u n der arrest
by guards, in ‘A ntigone analysed’, article
satirically review ing the ‘M endelssohn Antigone'
at C ovent G arden. R eproduced from Punch,
8 (18 January 1845), 43 by courtesy of the A P G R D 323
12.2 Punch cartoon illustrating the chorus of the
‘M endelssohn A ntigone’, in ‘A ntigone analysed’,
article satirically review ing the C ovent G arden
production. R eproduced from Punch, 8
(18 January 1845), 42 by courtesy of the A P G R D 323
12.3 A ntigone, arrested by guards, is brought
before C reon. Scene from Antigone at
C ovent G arden, January 1845. R eproduced
from I L N 6, no. 142 (18 January 1845), 45
by courtesy of the Bodleian L ibrary 325
L ist of Illustrations xxxiii
12.4 F rederick B u rton ’s p o rtrait of H elen Faucit
in the role of A ntigone (1845). R eproduced
by courtesy of the A P G R D 329
12.5 Punch cartoon show ing Sir R obert Peel
torn by the M aynooth controversy like ‘the
heroes in the G reek tragedies, w hose proceedings
were the subject of alternate abuse and praise
from the ch o rus’ (1845). R eproduced from ‘T h e
position of the P rem ier’ in Punch, 8 (3 M ay
1845), 191 by courtesy of the A P G R D 342
12.6 T ableau portraying Jason and M edea escaping
on the A rgo. C onclusion of p art 1 of P lanche’s
The Golden Fleece (H aym arket T h eatre, M arch
1845). R eproduced from I L N 6, no. 152
(29 M arch 1845), 200 by courtesy of the
Bodleian L ibrary 344
12.7 Scene from P lanche’s burlesque The Birds of
Aristophanes, H aym arket T h eatre, A pril 1846.
R eproduced from I L N 8, no. 207 (18 A pril
1846), 253 by courtesy of the Bodleian L ibrary 346
12.8 The Trium ph o f Clytem nestra, plate depicting
Becky Sharp dressed for a draw ing-room charade
inspired by A eschylus’ Agamemnon. R eproduced
from W illiam T hackeray, V anity F air, ii
(L ondon, 1867) by courtesy of the A P G R D 349
13.1 Scene from R obert B rough’s burlesque The
Siege of Troy, L yceum T h eatre 1858—9.
R eproduced from I L N 34, no. 954 (8 January
1859) by courtesy of the Bodleian L ib rary 352
13.2 Fanny Reeves in the title role of R obert
R eece’s extravaganza Prometheus; or the M an
on the R ock! (N ew R oyalty T h eatre, L ondon,
D ecem ber 1865). R eproduced by courtesy of
the A P G R D 360
13.3 A nnie B ourke as M ercury in R obert R eece’s
extravaganza Prometheus; or the M a n on the
R ock! (N ew R oyalty T h eatre, L ondon,
XX XIV List o f Illustrations
D ecem ber 1865). R eproduced by courtesy of
the A P G R D 368
13.4 A scene from the B rough b ro th ers’ extravaganza
The Sphinx (H aym arket T h eatre, A pril 1849).
R eproduced from I L N 14, no. 366 (14 A pril
1849) by courtesy of the Bodleian L ibrary 369
13.5 D om estic conflict in H en ry B yron’s burlesque
Orpheus and Eurydice (S trand T heatre,
January 1864). R eproduced from /L A T 44,
no. 1239 (2 January 1864), 19 by courtesy of
13.6 L andscape featuring the statue of Pan, in
H enry B yron’s extravaganza P an; or, the Loves
o f Echo and Narcissus, N ew A delphi T h eatre,
L ondon (A pril 1865). R eproduced from
I L N 46, no. 1313 (6 M ay 1865) by courtesy
of the Bodleian L ibrary 380
14.1 A delaide R istori as M edea w ith her children,
in E rnest L egouve’s adaptation, c.1856.
14.2 A delaide R istori as M edea striking an attitude,
in E rn est L egouve’s adaptation, c.1856.
14.3 Frederick R obson as M edea, in R obert
B rough’s M edea; or, the Best of M others with
a B rute o f a H usband, c.1856. R eproduced by
courtesy of the Society for T h eatre Research,
L ondon 411
14.4 Isabel B atem an as M edea, L yceum T h eatre,
July 1872. R eproduced from I L N 61,
no. 1715 (20 July 1872), 61 by courtesy of
14.5 G enevieve W ard, c.1875. R eproduced courtesy
of the A P G R D 428
15.1 Playbill for a revival of F rank T alfo u rd ’s Alcestis;
or, the Original Strong-M inded W om an (July
L ist o f Illustrations xxxv
1851) at the Royal Soho T h eatre. R eproduced
15.2 Playbill for H enry S picer’s Alcestis at
St. Jam es’s T h eatre, January 1855. R eproduced
by courtesy of the V&A Picture L ibrary,
L ondon 440
15.3 D raw ing by Fleem ing Jenkin illustrating
the correct draping of the ancient G reek fem ale
peplos (1874). R eproduced from his essay ‘O n the
A ntique D ress for w om en’ (originally published
in the A r t Journal, 1874), in Papers Literary,
Scientific & c. i (1887), by courtesy of the
APGRD 450
15.4 Final scene of the Agam emnon in Balliol H all,
O xford, 1880. E ngraving reproduced from
The Graphic, no. 552 (26 June 1880), by
15.5 Scene from Eumenides from F rank B enson’s
touring pro ductio n of the Oresteia (1905).
15.6 A perform ance of Alcestis at Q ueen’s
College, H arley S treet, L ondon (1886).
R eproduced from The Graphic for
18 D ecem ber 1886 by courtesy of the A P G R D 458
15.7 ‘Classic C ostum e Revived at O xford’, Punch
cartoon accom panying article ‘V ery O riginal
G reek at O xford’, ostensibly a review of
Alcestis, starring Jane Ellen H arrison, at the
N ew T h eatre, O xford. R eproduced from
Punch, 92 (28 M ay 1887), 264 by courtesy
of the A P G R D 460
16.1 Scene from John T o d h u n te r’s H elena in Troas,
perform ed in the ‘G reek-style’ theatre at
H engler’s C ircus, designed by E. W . G odw in.
R eproduced from The Graphic, 5 Ju ne 1886,
16.2 Scene depicting C lytem nestra aw akening
the Furies in G eorge W arr’s The Sto ry of
X XXVI List o f Illustrations
Orestes, at the P rince’s H all, Piccadilly (1886),
reproduced courtesy of the A P G R D 465
16.3 Fashion plate advertising ‘H ellenic’ couture
(1888). R eproduced by courtesy of the A P G R D 481
17.1 ‘T h e Salvation A rm y on the Stage’ at the Royal
C ourt T h eatre in Shaw ’s M ajor Barbara, from The
Sketch, 13 D ecem ber 1905. R eproduced by
courtesy of the V&A Picture L ibrary 501
17.2 E dyth Olive as M edea, Savoy T h eatre, 1907.
Photograph reproduced from I L N 131,
no. 3576 (2 N ovem ber 1907), by courtesy
of the Bodleian L ibrary 515
17.3 B anner of the A ctresses’ Franchise League,
c.1911. P hotograph reproduced by courtesy
of the M useum of L ondon 517
18.1 John M artin -H arv ey as O edipus in M ax
R ein h ard t’s Oedipus R ex, C ovent G arden,
January 1912. R eproduced by courtesy of
the A P G R D 523
18.2 E d m u nd D ulac, Lillah Borne by the Wings
o f Love from the Wings o f the Stage (c. 1921).
R eproduced courtesy of the A P G R D 525
18.3 Jean M ounet-S ully as O edipus in the
C om edie-Frangaise production of CEdipe Roi.
E ngraving by H . B ellery-D esfontaines,
reproduced by courtesy of the A P G R D 527
18.4 L illah M cC arthy as H ecuba in The Trojan
Women at the Stadium , N ew Y ork, in 1915.
18.5 Frontispiece to M a u d A lla n and H er A r t
([1911]). R eproduced by courtesy of A P G R D 550
18.6 P o rtrait of M aud A llen in M a u d A lla n and
H er A rt ([1911]). R eproduced courtesy of the
APG RD 552
Notes on Nomenclature, Spelling, and Texts
T h e spelling of prop er nam es varies enorm ously betw een different

translations and adaptations of ancient G reek dram as, even b e
tw een those in the E nglish language alone (M edea, M edeia,
M edaea). O ur policy has been to use the form s of the nam es as
they appear in each author, adaptor, or translator durin g the dis
cussion of th at individual w riter’s work. B ut elsew here, w hen
discussing the plays in m ore general term s, we have adopted trad
itional spellings, largely in line w ith those used in the th ird edition
of the O xford Classical D ictionary. W hen referring to ancient
G reek or L atin w orks in the original language, we have used the
m ost recent edition published in the O xford Classical T exts series.
I
Regicide, Restoration, and the

‘English’ Oedipus
’T is the contrivance, the new turn, the new characters, which

alter the property and make it ours.
John D ry den, The Preface to D on Sebastian (1690)
W riting in the Preface to John D ryden and N athaniel L ee’s O edi

pus in a collected edition of D ry d en ’s w orks in 1808, Sir W alter
Scott refers to a revival ‘som e th irty years ago’, w hich had so
offended the audience th at the boxes had been em ptied before
the end of the th ird act.1 T h a t D ryden and L ee’s play, first p e r
form ed at the D orset G ard en T h eatre in 1678, should have
rem ained w ithin the L ondon repertoire som e h u n d red years or
m ore after its prem iere (albeit now fading from it on grounds of
taste), is of no sm all note. A nd in m any ways this R estoration
Oedipus is unique am ongst the num erous late seventeenth- and
early eighteenth-century tragedies based u p on the ancient G reek
plays in enjoying such a long production history.
In the eighteenth century, D ry d en and L ee’s Oedipus was re
vived in the provinces as well as the capital, and H o g arth ’s
‘Strolling A ctresses D ressing in a B arn’ (1738) draw s on at least
one such provincial revival (Fig. 1.1).2 Even as early as 1730,
Oedipus is sufficiently fam iliar to a w ide audience to allow H enry
Fielding in the Preface to the second edition of his tragic burlesque
’ W. Scott (1808), vi. 121.
2 So Visser (1980), 107. Furtherm ore, the fact that H ogarth was interested in
D ryden’s theatrical works would lend credence to this. In 1732 he had engraved CA
perform ance of “T he Indian Em peror” and he seems to have been particularly
impressed by Gravelot van der G ucht’s engravings in the 1735 edition of Dryden,
especially the one illustrating D ryden’s Marriage a la Mode, which was an im portant
inspiration behind his own series of engravings under that title. H ogarth’s familiarity
with the 1735 edition makes it even more likely that van der G ucht’s striking
engraving of Jocasta’s deathbed scene in the D ryden and Lee Oedipus (reproduced
here as Fig. 1.3), with its attendant children, informed his ‘Strolling Actresses
Dressing in a Barn’, which appeared three years later in 1738. See Uglow (1997), 374.
2 Regicide, Restoration
F i g u r e 1.1 W illiam H ogarth, Strolling Actresses Dressing in a Barn

(1738).
Tom Thumb to assum e not only a broad fam iliarity w ith its plot,
bu t also details of the plot in perform ance that allow the play to
serve as a byw ord for the w ild histrionics of early eighteenth-
century tragic acting:
it is com m on in m odern T ragedy for the C haracters to drop, like the
Citizens in the first scene of Oedipus, as soon as they come upon the stage.
Indeed, the im portance of D ryden and L ee’s tragedy on account
of its longevity cannot be overstated; and its perform ance history,
like those of all great plays, provides a colourful (and often elabor
ately contrived) story in itself, involving not ju st deserted boxes
bu t also a near-fatal encounter, w hen a real dagger was m istakenly
issued by the prop m an in a 1692 revival;4 the first professional
3 Fielding (1730) in loan W illiams (1970), 4.
4 Cited by Novak in D ryden (1984), 446 from L uttrell (1857), ii. 593. But see too
Doran (1888), i. 349.
and the ‘English’ Oedipus 3
perform ance by a blind actor (w hen the recently blinded M ichael
C lancy appeared as T iresias in 1744);5 and m ost dram atically, in a
revival in D ublin, we learn that it allegedly elicited such a pow erful
perform ance from T hom as E lrin g ton ’s O edipus that incipient
m adness was triggered in one of the orchestral players.6
M oreover, like all ‘classic’ plays, D ryden and L ee’s tragedy
attracted star perform ers to the leading role: T hom as B etterton,
the m ost celebrated actor of the R estoration period, m ade O edipus
his role, earning w idespread respect for his interpretation and at
least one eulogy for his efforts in the p art w ith Francis M an nin g ’s
‘M r B etterton, A cting O edipus K ing of T h eb es’ (1701).7 T h e
eighteenth-century actor-m anager T hom as Sheridan (father of
the playw right R ichard B rinsley Sheridan, and son of D r T hom as
Sheridan, the pioneer of revivals of G reek tragedy in ancient G reek
in Ireland; see Ch. 9) him self took the p art of O edipus in a revival
of D ryden and L ee’s tragedy in 1755 (see Fig. 1.2); and tow ards the
end of the eighteenth century, som e tim e after the theatrical d e
bacle referred to by Scott in his Preface, John Philip K em ble also
appeared on at least one occasion in the p art of O edipus, and the
frontispiece to a 1791 edition of the play com m em orates that role.8
F rom the first night, it was hotly debated w hether the R estor
ation Oedipus owed too m uch or too little to its Sophoclean source.9
G erard L angbaine, the staunchest critic of the w idespread p rac
tice of plagiarism of the period, pointed out that D ryden and Lee
had looted ‘w hole Scenes’ from Sophocles, b u t he none the less
conceded that their play was ‘certainly one of the best T ragedies we
have’.10 W hilst the Preface to the printed edition of the play (1679)
and the epilogue both spell out the m ultiplicity of sources (S opho
clean, Senecan, Shakespearean, and C ornelian), the prologue d e
livered in the theatre m ight well have led the unsuspecting
spectators into believing that they w ere receiving Sophocles au
naturel:
5 Genest (1832), iv. 64-5.

6 Reed (1812) iii. 93. T he dating of this incident, however, is clearly wrong here:
Reed gives 1760, although Elrington died in 1732. See further Sum m ers (1932),
350.
7 Novak in D ryden (1984), 447.
8 T he volume (London, 1791) appeared in the series B ell’s British Theatre.
9 Kewes (1998), 157-8.
10 Langbaine (1691), 167.
O E D IFIIS o Seme*.
Ptiblipi'dfbrBrUj flriajh Thattre.funr -ri jjS
/ t if s / n //f,r r n r r A /tn s f/f/s n ,* em /tty * ia tr ts ?
F l G U R E 1.2 B urnet Reading, engraving of Thom as Sheridan in the title

role of Oedipus, by D ryden and Lee.
and the ‘English ’ Oedipus 5
W hen A thens all the Graecian state did guide,
A nd Greece gave laws to all the w orld beside,
T hen Sophocles w ith Socrates did s it. . .
T hen, O edipus, on crow ded theatres,
D rew all adm iring eyes and list’ning ears ...
Now should it fail, (as heav’n avert our fear!)
D am n it in silence, lest the W orld should hear.
For were it know n this poem did not please,
You m ight set up for perfect savages:
Y our neighbours would not look on you as men,
But think the nation all turned Piets again.11
W hilst rejecting this R estoration Oedipus is som ew hat deviously
presented here as a rejection of Sophocles him self (w ith the atten d
ant risk of appearing philistine to m ore sophisticated, neo-classic-
ally schooled, continental neighbours), D ryden and L ee’s play was
in reality very often perceived as the ‘E nglish’ Oedipus— in m arked
contrast to the num erous French Oedipuses of the sam e period
(notably Pierre C orneille’s Q£dipe of 1659, w hich was regularly
revived w ithin the repertoire of the Corned ie- Franyaise u ntil its
prom inence was eventually u surped by V oltaire’s CEdipe of 1718).
B ut there is also a sense in w hich this ‘E nglish’ Oedipus was to
becom e in the long run indistinguishable from the Sophoclean
original in the public im agination; and the prologue no doubt
co ntributed to this confusion in im p o rtan t ways.
T h e influence of the R estoration Oedipus extended way beyond
its one-h und red-y ear perform ance history, w ith D ryden and L ee’s
version shaping popular perceptions about Sophocles’ ow n text
and offending public taste well into the n ineteenth and early tw en
tieth centuries. In 1821, for exam ple, we see D ryden and L ee’s
Oedipus staunchly praised over the Sophoclean version on account
of its tragic ending, w hen Scott lauded Sophocles’ Oedipus at
Colonus for its ‘lofty tone of p o etry ’ yet expressed clear reserva
tions about his handling of the m yth. Scott insists that it is ‘m ore
n atu ral’ to the feelings of the m odern reader ‘ .. . th a t the life of the
hero, stained w ith unintentional incest and parricide, should be
term inated, as in D ry d en ’s play, upon the discovery of his com pli
cated guilt and w retchedness’. B ut S cott’s com m ents on the
11 D ryden (1984), 118. For the wider European reception of the play at this time,
see Lurje (2004).
m odern tragedy tu rn out to be, in reality, no m ore than m ere
dam nation w ith praise. For he continues:
the disagreeable nature of the plot [of D ryden and L ee’s play] form s an
objection now [in the early nineteenth century] to its success upon a
B ritish stage. D istress w hich turns upon the involutions of unnatural or
incestuous passion, carries w ith it som ething too disgusting for the sym
pathy of a refined age.
In this ‘refined’ R om antic age, the audience ‘retreats w ith ab h o r
rence even from a fiction tu rn in g upon such [incestuous] circum
stances’.13 A nd w hen T hom as Love Peacock tells Shelley in
1819 that his play The Cenci stands little chance of receiving
a public perform ance ow ing to its handling of the them es of
father—daughter incest and parricide, he invokes the increasing
reluctance to stage D ryden and L ee’s tragedy as p reced en t.14
T h e association of Oedipus w ith Shelley’s controversial play was
to becom e a m ajor d eterm inant in the L o rd C ham berlain’s refusal
to license Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus for public perform ance on
the professional stage in the late nineteenth and early tw entieth
centuries (see Ch. 18). T h e L ord C ham berlain’s E xam iner of Plays
denied Sophocles’ tragedy a licence ‘on the ground that it was
im possible to p u t on the stage in E ngland a play dealing w ith
incest.’15 By way of explanation and justification, the C om ptroller
of the L ord C ham berlain’s Office explained the ban:
T here was a precedent for the action w hich the L ord C ham berlain took on
this occasion in the refusal of successive L ord C ham berlains to license
‘T he Cenci’.16
Sophocles’ play rem ained victim of the vagaries of the L ord C ham
berlain’s blue pencil until N ovem ber 1910, b u t in m any ways this
was a ban on that non-Sophoclean Oedipus of D ryden and Lee,
w hich loom ed long and large in the B ritish theatrical m em ory, and
w hich placed a p ro u d and defiant, and by no m eans w holly contrite
incestuous parricide, centre stage.
H ow ever, it is not sim ply the play’s afterlife that makes Oedipus
w orthy of close scrutiny at the beginning of this history. D ryden
12 W. Scott (1808), vi. 121. 13 Ibid.
14 For details and comm ent, see W oodberry (1909), pp. xxxiii—xxxv.
15 Letter from Douglas Dawson to Sir Edward Carson, 11 Nov. 1910. Lord
Cham berlain’s Plavs’ Correspondence File: Oedipus Rex 1910/814 (British Library).
16 ib id .
and L ee’s play has received surprisingly little critical attention;
and w hilst the dom inant focus of that criticism has fallen on its
politics,17 it is, above all, its representative status as a tragedy of the
R estoration period, at a tim e of great innovation and restlessness in
the theatre, that m akes it so im portant. T h ere w ere exciting
changes attendan t on the m ove to larger inside theatre spaces in
R estoration L ondon; and the developm ent of new stage m achinery
was increasingly exploited to spectacular effect in the capacious
theatres of D orset G arden and D ru ry Lane from the 1670s. B ut if
the scenic innovations opened up new realm s of visual splendour,
there was also considerable debate about the kinds of plays in
w hich those effects should appear.
W hen the professional theatres opened after eighteen years of
closure d uring the Civil W ar and In terreg n u m (1642—60), the
retu rnin g Royalists b ro u gh t w ith them various (essentially
French) ideas about how plays should be w ritten. D ryden and
L ee’s Oedipus provides a fascinating engagem ent w ith the heated
theoretical discussion at this tim e, grafting elem ents from the
m odern E nglish (especially Shakespearean) and F rench (p rin ci
pally C ornelian) traditions onto the ancient (essentially G reek, b u t
partly R om an) paradigm . F u rth erm o re, D ryden and L ee’s play
m ay also be considered representative in its reflection of recurrent
political concerns and anxieties regarding the m onarchy, w hich
cam e to h au n t the S tu art dynasty in the last decades of the seven
teenth century alm ost as m uch as they had done in the years
leading up to the Civil W ar. Sophocles’ ancient tragedy w ith its
them es of incest, tyranny, and regicide lent itself m ost effectively
to com m ent upon the increasingly tu rb u len t political events of the
last three decades of the seventeenth century.
O E D IP U S IN E N G L A N D
Before D ryden and Lee there had been very few E nglish theatrical
engagem ents w ith Sophocles’ text. A lthough D ryden in his P ref
ace refers to C orneille’s version as the only m odern adaptation,
there had been a handful of earlier E nglish Oedipuses. T h ere w ere,
17 e.g. Bevis (1988), 62-3; Hughes (1996), 261-2.

for exam ple, at least tw o vernacular versions of Seneca’s Oedipus in
the sixteenth century, A lexander N eville’s Oedipus of 1560 and
another, anonym ous translation;18 and N eville’s Oedipus m ay
well have been staged (together w ith the Hecuba) at T rin ity C ol
lege, C am bridge in 1559-60. A lthough little is know n about the
production (except that it m ade a considerable drain on the col
lege’s finances), N eville’s adaptation is of interest as an exam ple of
how an ancient tragedy could be readily rew ritten in accordance
w ith the conventions of the m edieval m ystery play, in w hich O edi
p u s’ ‘horrible crim es’ could be fully atoned for w ith a chastened
O edipus at the end. T h e longstanding parallels betw een O edipus
and Judas, w ith the betrayer of C hrist being guilty of parricide and
incest and finally lam enting his sins, m ade N eville’s rew orking
im m ediately com prehensible to a Renaissance audience.19 But
N eville’s Oedipus is also of note because it was highly influential,
not least in setting the tren d for the E lizabethan and Jacobean
fascination w ith and condem nation of incest.20
C am bridge was not alone in taking an interest in the character of
O edipus in the sixteenth century. W illiam G ager, a S tu d en t of
C hrist C hurch, O xford, w rote a L atin playlet entitled Oedipus
around 1578. G ager was the leading n eo-L atin dram atist of the
day and C hrist C hurch was one of the O xford colleges m ost p ro m
inent in the prom otion of dram a in E nglish and L atin. It is not
clear w hether G ager’s 195-line playlet was intended for p erfo rm
ance as it stands, or w hether it is only a first attem p t at a larger
play.21 B ut despite the brevity of the text, the m ain details of
O edipus’ life are there and are placed w ithin a broad context that
includes the dispute betw een Polynices and Eteocles (sc. 3), re
cently m ade popular by its rendering in G eorge G ascoigne and
Francis K inw elm ershe’s Jocasta of 1566-7. It seem s th at in the
18 T he anonymous translation can be found in the Bodleian: M S Rawlinson poet.
76 (Sum m ary Cat. iii. 297, No. 14570). See further Bowers (1949), 141-2. Neville’s
translation was first published in 1563 under the title The Lamentable Tragedy of
Oedipus the Sonne of Laius K yng of Thebes out of Seneca; it was later heavily revised
and incorporated into Thos. N ewton (1581), where an editorial sleight of hand
passed it off as identical with the 1560 text, making Neville into a child prodigy.
For detailed com m ent, see M cCabe (1993), 108—9.
19 Bruce R. Sm ith (1988), 205-11. T he definitive narration of Judas’s life was
that in Jacobus de Voragine (1993), i. 167-9 = (1998), i. 277-81, in his account of St
M atthias (Legenda aurea, ch. 45). See Lurje (2004), 101-2 with n. 17.
20 M cCabe (1993), 109.
21 Binns (1981), 1-8.
Renaissance the exem plarity of O edipus is com pletely grasped
only through the full sweep of his life.
T h at the desire to see O edipus’ life diachronically is ju st as
strong in the early p art of the seventeenth century is well illus
trated by T hom as E vans’s som ew hat p ru rien t version published in
1615. E vans’s Oedipus is subtitled Three Cantoes wherein is con
tained: 1) H is unfortunate Infancy 2) H is execrable Actions 3) H is
Lamentable End. T h e question of w hen and how O edipus dies
(entailing as it does the neoclassical preoccupation w ith poetic
justice and the atten dan t concern w ith the edifying function of
tragedy) was to last throu g h o u t the seventeenth century in E n g
land, w ith D ryden and L ee’s hero m eeting his ‘lam entable en d ’,
albeit w ith spectacular defiance, in the final m om ents of their
play.22
W e have already seen how Scott privileges the D ry d en and Lee
plot over Sophocles’ handling of the sam e m aterial on the grounds
that poetic justice m ust be seen to be done; so here, in the R enais
sance and R estoration periods, there is a clear need to resist the
open-endedness of both Sophocles’ and Seneca’s endings. T h e
highly influential French version of 1659 by Pierre Corneille,
w ith its vacillating protagonist, had follow ed ancient precedent in
m aking O edipus blind him self rath er than com m it suicide. A nd in
the view of m any English com m entators and notably D ryden in his
Preface to his version, not only did the F ren ch O edipus fail to
atone properly for his unintentional crim es against nature, he also
tu rned out to be not kingly enough.
Indeed it was its handling of the question of kingship that was to
m ake Sophocles’ tragedy of particular interest to the R estoration.
T u d o r dram atists had used incest as a m etaphor for political cor
ru ption in general; and in the E lizabethan Homilies (as in the
ancient w orld and notably in Phoenician W omen), clear connections
are draw n betw een civil w ar and incest in their com m on disregard
of k in .23 In the afterm ath of the Civil W ar, those earlier links (as we
will see) are felt even m ore acutely. In political debate sexual m eta
phors that recall the Sophoclean paradigm are prevalent: w ith
the king as head of the fam ily of state, the regicide of C harles I
22 Palm er (1911), 100; M cCabe (1993), 111. Novak in D ryden (1984), 453^1
detects significant parallels between Evans’s version and D ryden and Lee’s Oedipus,
and infers that Lee m ust have read Evans’s text.
23 M cCabe (1993), 120-1.
is deem ed by royalists an act of parricide; and in republican
discourse, m onarchical rule is tainted w ith incest.24 W hen the
Eikon Basilike of 1649 proclaim s that the king alone can beget
authoritative laws, relegating Parliam ent to a m ere consenting
party, M ilton rails:
A nd if it hath bin anciently interpreted the presaging signe of a future
T yrant, but to dream of copulation w ith his M other, w hat can it be less
then actual T yranny to affirm e waking, that the Parlam ent, w hich is his
M other, can neither conceive or bring forth any autoritative Act w ithout
his M asculine coition.
W hen W illiam Jo yn er’s indirect engagem ent w ith Sophocles’
tragedy, The Rom an Empress, was perform ed by the K in g ’s C om
pany at L incoln’s In n Fields in the sum m er of 1670, m any of these
them es w ere em ployed in su pp o rt of the m onarchy during the
increasingly unsettled political clim ate at the start of the second
decade follow ing the R estoration. The Rom an Empress has a p ro t
agonist w ho appears to have been consciously draw n in m arked
opposition to C orneille’s ab errant king. In the Preface, Joyner
explains his choice of Oedipus Tyrannus as his prim ary source:
H aving consider’d, that of all the T ragedies the old O edipus, in the just
estim ation of the A ntients and m oderns carry’d the Crown; a Story as
yet untoucht by any English Pen, I thought, though defective in m y art,
I could not be but very fortunate in this m y subject.
Y et unlike D ryden and L ee’s tragedy som e eight years later, Joy
n er’s version is very far from being a faithful rendering of Sopho
cles’ text. Joyner goes on to outline the reasons behind the
num erous liberties he has taken w ith the G reek text in his creation
of the supposedly first ‘E nglish’ O edipus. H e makes a veiled allu
sion to the shortcom ings of the C ornelian m odel as he proudly
proclaim s his protagonist, V alentius, a great R om an E m peror
rather than a ‘p etty ’ G reek Prince; and in contrast to the F rench
version (and cocking a clear snook at French neo-A ristotelian
critics for w hom poetry is m ore ‘philosophical’ than history), Joy
ner defends his departure from the ancient G reek source on the
24 Boehrer (1992), 113-15.

25 ‘Eikonoklastes’ (6 Oct. 1649), in M ilton (1962), 467; and Boeher (1992), 113
for comment.
26 Joyner (1671), sig. A2r.
ground that his protagonist really existed (albeit w ith a different
nam e— V alentius is clearly based on C onstantius C hlorus, one of
the last pagan em perors of the w estern R om an em pire). B ut V alen
tius is nonetheless like O edipus because he
incurs those very m isfortunes, w hich w ith all im aginable care he shun’d;
condem ning his son [Constantine, who in reality w ent on to convert the
entire w estern w orld to C hristianity] w ithout knowing him ; and after
death knowing him w ith all benefit: w hich makes him the best, and
greatest of all T ragical subjects.27
W hilst O ed ipus’ blindness to the tru th is indeed his hallm ark, he
is of course not alone in being afflicted w ith this condition in the
G reek tragic corpus. Joyn er’s protagonist is closer in som e ways to
T heseus than O edipus, w ith unintentional filicide rath er than
parricide being his crim e. Indeed the play as a w hole owes m ore
than a passing debt to that other favourite ancient play of the
sixteenth and seventeenth century, E u rip id es’ H ippolytus,28 and
to other subsequent treatm ents of the H ipp o ly tu s-P h aedra m yth
by Seneca and Racine. H ere O edipal m o th er-so n incest is replaced
w ith the subjection of V alentius’ son F lorus to the unw anted
(Phaedra-like) advances of the E m p ero r’s second wife (unbeknow n
to him , his stepm other, and based on the historical em press T h e o
dora). H ow ever, the true R om an em press in this play turns out to
be not the rapacious stepm other, b u t the falsely accused and gen
erally unim peachable first wife (based on the R om an C atholic
saint, H elena, the discoverer of the T ru e Cross), w ho delivers the
terrible news of her son’s tru e identity to his father before killing
herself. In Joyn er’s version, the final w ord is significantly given to
his Jocasta figure after all.
Joyn er’s tragedy rem ains determ inedly Sophoclean in its focus
on the them e of parricide (threatened, presum ed or actual) and on
the m etaphorical blindness of its protagonist. In the last few
m om ents of the play, w hen V alentius realizes that he has not
sim ply lost a tru sted general b u t his ow n son as well w ith the
death of Florus, the allusion to Sophocles’ tragedy is m ade explicit
27 Ibid., sig. A3V.
28 M cCabe (1993), passim. T he play also draws on Euripides’ M edea : as Joyner
points out in the Preface, the Roman Em press escapes scot-free at the end like
Medea; and in its representation of women as the victims of male oppression and
especially in the lengthy speech bemoaning w om en’s lot (Joyner (1671), 23-4), there
are many echoes of M edea’s ‘W omen of C orinth’ speech.
w ith V alentius’ com plaint before killing him self in true R om an
fashion: ‘A re these m y eyes tho u g h t w orthy of the light?’29 B ut it
is, above all, in its concern w ith unw itting intergenerational chaos
that The Rom an Empress provides its m ost abiding point of refer
ence w ith Sophocles’ bleak ending in Oedipus Tyrannus. T h e focus
on the breakdow n in intra-fam ilial relations th at results from the
civil w ar in R om e allows Joyner to m ake an im plicit w arning of any
retu rn to pre-C ivil W ar schism s in E ngland. As a convert to
R om an C atholicism and alluding throu g h his defence of V alentius
to C onstantius C hlorus and C onstantine I and the dynastic
struggle that determ ined w hether the future of the w orld should
be C hristian or pagan, Joyner is offering his ow n contribution to
the hagiographical tradition in early C hurch history. B ut m ore
im portantly in 1670, Joyner w ould appear to be underlining the
fact that the glow ing m ythology surrounding the R estoration was
beginning to tarnish. W hen he w rites in the Preface that ‘by advice
of friends I have disguis’d the nam es’,30 we can only infer that overt
references to early C hurch history are now deem ed to signify C ath
olic allegiance; and that any public defence of C onstantine’s lineage
could be construed as explicit su p p o rt for C harles I I ’s C atholic
brother, Jam es, D uke of Y ork. If V alentius is show n to have been
sufficiently duped into believing his own son guilty of treason (an
event that could have denied the w orld C hristianity), so now in 1670
sim ilar accusations of treachery could be om inously about to deny
E ngland the continuity and stability prom ised by the R estoration.
If Jo y n er’s tragedy invokes O edipus in su pp o rt of the m onarchy,
M ilton’s allusions to the m yth in Sam son Agonistes (also published
in 1671 )31 could be said to serve broadly republican ends. H ere
throug h the character of Sam son we engage w ith the second p art of
O edipus’ life and w ith Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus in particular.
In the ‘E pistle’ to the play, M ilton invites com parison w ith the
G reek tragedians, referring prim arily to form al rath er than th e
m atic concerns. Indeed, M ilto n ’s use of a perm anently onstage and
participating chorus m akes his debt to the G reek exam ple obvious.
B ut his statem ent of deb t is not sim ply about aesthetic preference;
his deploym ent of a G reek-inspired interrogatory chorus in
Samson Agonistes is in m any ways a reflection of his unfailing
29 Joyner (1671), 66 . 30 Ibid., sig. A2r.
31 According to a num ber of critics, Joyner had read Samson Agonistes in M S. See
Sauer (2002), 88—110. Thanks to M argaret Kean for this reference.
republican sentim ents and his rejection of R oyalist neo-classical
strictures.
Form al and them atic parallels can be m ade w ith A eschylus’
Prometheus Bound, b u t the com parison w ith Oedipus at Colonus is
the m ost sustained. Sam son’s em bittered blindness and devastat
ing revenge on the Philistines recall not only M ilto n ’s ow n p er
sonal response to his straitened circum stances, b u t also allude to
the blinded O edipus, w hose fatal curse on his sons will ultim ately
w reak havoc on all the T h eb an s, w ho had form erly rejected him
and now cynically require his body. In this respect, the physically
m utilated and enchained Sam son shares w ith the elderly, stateless
O edipus the ability to draw for one last tim e upon the supra-
hum an energies that propelled him into greatness in the first
place. Like O edipus, he too has pre-sentim ents of this resurgence
of strength: ‘I begin to feel | Som e rousing m otions in m e, w hich
dispose | T o som ething extraordinary m y th o u g h ts’;32 and we infer
that Sam son also departs this w orld in the know ledge that his death
will rew ard those he loves and exact a devastating revenge upon his
enem ies.
M ilto n ’s verse dram a was not designed for perform ance, even
though recent stagings have show n ju st how intensely perform able
it is;33 and the pow er of the play derives in no sm all m easure from
its being deliberately cast in contradistinction to the ‘heroic’ plays
and to the perform ance conditions of the R estoration theatre.
From the m essenger speech at the end of the play, we learn that
the site of Sam son’s revenge was ‘a spacious th eatre’.34 In the
‘interm ission’35 d uring the gam es, w hen Sam son is seem ingly
seeking respite after the physical exertion dem anded of him by
the crow d, he leans on the pillars that su pp o rt the roof of the
theatre and proclaim s:
H itherto, lords, w hat your com m ands imposed
I have perform ed, as reason was, obeying,
N ot w ithout w onder or delight beheld.
Now, of m y own accord such other trial
I m ean to show you of m y strength, yet greater
As w ith am aze shall strike all who behold.36
32 M ilton (1997), 390, 11. 1382-3.
33 e.g. the N orthern Broadsides’ production in autum n 1998.
34 M ilton (1997), 40 8, 1. 160 5 . 35 Ibid. 409, 1. 1629.
36 Ibid. 409-10, 11. 1640-6.
W ith these w ords (w hich clearly allude to that other great m om ent
of self-revelation and revenge at the beginning of Odyssey 22), the
m essenger tells us th at Sam son bow ed and tugged dow n the pillars
forcing the entire theatre roof to com e crashing dow n over the
heads of ‘L ords, ladies, captains, counsellors, or p riests’37 and
over Sam son him self. W ith m ore than a touch of republican fer
vour, perhaps, M ilton ’s m essenger adds that only those ‘vulgar’38
m em bers of the audience, w ho could not afford the privileged seats
w ith a roof over their head, m anaged to escape the w idespread
destruction.
In m arked contrast to the ‘heroic dram a’ being perform ed at the
L incoln’s In n theatre, in w hich the aristocratic hero typically
engages in chivalric acts in order to w in the love of a princess,
M ilton ’s protagonist is deem ed too filthy for even the giant H ar-
apha to challenge to a fig h t.39 In the sam e year as the publication of
Samson Agonistes, the D u k e’s C om pany m oved to the D orset
G arden T h eatre, ushering in a new era of spectacular theatre.
Indeed, the theatre of the 1670s as a w hole is m arked by a signifi
cant increase in the use of sophisticated stage m achinery, and the
extensive use of stage spectacle m ay well be considered the defin
ing feature of English tragedy by the end of the decade.40 In
retu rn in g to G reek tragic form in Sam son Agonistes, M ilton was
deliberately eschew ing cu rren t aesthetic tastes; and in setting the
revenge of his decidedly ‘n o n-hero ic’ hero in a theatre, we see how
(as was the case in France) aesthetic and political preferences were
inextricably linked at the tim e.
RESTORATION OEDIPUSES:
A N C I E N T OR M O D E R N ?
T h at M ilton ’s engagem ent w ith G reek tragedy and w ith the O edi
pus m yth in particular had considerable influence on D ry d en ’s
own choice of subject-m atter som e years later is evidenced by the
considerable change detectable in D ry d en ’s theoretical stance
during the course of the 1670s. M ilton had included A ristotle’s
definition of tragedy in ch. 6 of the Poetics as ‘an im itation of an
action that is serious, of som e m agnitude and com plete in itse lf as
37 M ilton (1997), 4 10, 1. 165 3 . 38 Ibid., 1. 1659.

39 Ibid. 3 8 2, 1. 1107 . 40 Cannan (1994), 250.
the epigraph to Samson Agonistes. It was inevitable th at the play
w rights of the R estoration should tu rn to A ristotle for guidance in
how to w rite their plays. D ryden him self had already given the
m ost spirited account of the theoretical debate in E ngland w ith his
dram atic dialogue A n Essay o f D ram atic Poesie in 1668— reprinted
in 1684 and 1693 at the height of the ‘Battle of the Books’41— in
w hich the A ristotelian position advocated by C rites is hotly co n
tested by the advocates of o ther (F rench and E nglish) positions
w ithin the debate. W hat, how ever, was different w ith Samson
Agonistes, is that A ristotle and the ancients w ere now being p re
sented w itho u t the m ediation of the F ren ch theorists.
T h e Royalists who arrived in C ourt from the C ontinent in 1660
w ere well versed in French neo-A ristotelian theory, especially the
theoretical discussions of L a M esnardiere in L a Poetique (Paris,
1640) and m ore recently of the abbe d ’A ubignac in Pratique du
theatre (Paris, 1657).42 It was F rench theory, rath er than the d ra
m atic practice of either C orneille or Racine, that was to have the
greatest im pact on E nglish theatre in the last p art of the century. In
m any ways the French com m entators on A ristotle continued in
their m aster’s vein, advocating both a deep reverence for ancient
dram atic form and devising a strict set of prescriptions (the so-
called three ‘U n ities’) to w hich the m odern playw right was su p
posed to adhere. T h e row atten dan t on C orneille’s tragicom ic Le C id
in 1637, w hich had led to the codification of the neo-A ristotelian
rules, show ed exactly how aesthetic and political strictures w ere
inseparable in France. A nd in som e ways, the adoption and rejection
of French neoclassical theory at this tim e was closely bo un d up w ith
responses to m onarchical authority as it was enshrined in the au to
cratic court of L ouis X IV . W hat M ilton ’s Sam son Agonistes was
show ing D ryden and his contem poraries in 1671 was that generic
pu rity in practice need not involve a blind adherence to F ren ch neo-
classicism ; it dem anded, m oreover, o u trig h t rejection of that theory
and a retu rn to the G reek exam ple itself.
T h a t D ryden should have responded favourably to M ilto n ’s
exam ple was not surprising given his deep respect for both
41 For a lucid account of the theoretical debate during this period, see Levine
(1999).
42 D ’Aubignac’s treatise was not translated into English, however, until 1684,
when it was canonized for the English theatre under the title The Whole A rt of the
Stage.
M ilton’s w ork and his erudition (D ryden had already thought of
adapting Paradise Lost for the stage, w hich, though never p e r
form ed, was published in 1677). D ry d en ’s A n Essay o f D ramatic
Poesie is in m any ways a ro b u st defence of the E nglish theatrical
tradition against the claim s of French dram atic practice, w ith
L isideius, the advocate of F ren ch neo-classical rules and unities,
losing out to the w it and verve of the advocate of E nglish disorder
and vitality, N eander. B ut D ry d en ’s Essay is not m erely a defence
of the native tradition; it also, in line w ith French theoretical
debate, offers, throu g h the persuasive figure of E ugenius, a robust
defence of the prim acy of the ancient m odels as the best guides at
the outset of com position.
If M ilto n ’s exam ple was a m ajor reason for D ry d en to m ove
beyond his tentative espousal of N ean d er’s (English vernacular)
position w ithin the theoretical debate, there was another im portant
influence in 1674 w ith the publication of T hom as R ym er’s English
translation of the theoretical treatise by the Jesuit Pere R apin
entitled Reflections on A ristotle’s Treatise o f Poesie w ith Reflections
on the Whole o f the A ncient and M odern Poets and the Faults
N oted.43 A lthough D ryden was very m uch an im plicit (if not
explicit) opponent of R ym er (especially in politics),44 he was def
initely influenced by his interpretations of R apin. R ym er’s Preface
to his translation (published later in 1677 as The Tragedies of the
Last Age) explained the m oral and form al superiority of the ancient
m odels, even going so far as to advocate the adoption of an ancient
chorus, w hich w ith the exception of the late plays of Racine, had
barely been seen on the m odern stage.
D ryden m ay not have accepted all R ym er’s precepts (the chorus,
for one, was an ancient practice, w hose general abandonm ent in the
m odern w orld he felt sure was a m ark of progress rath er than
decline),45 b u t he did take heed of m uch of w hat b o th R ym er and
R apin said in defence of the ancient paradigm s. F rom 1674 on
w ards D ryden could be said to m ove far closer to his fictional
character, E ugenius (the advocate of ancient practice as the
m odel, w hich could, on occasions, be surpassed by certain m odern
43 R apin’s Les Reflexions sur lapo'etique was first published in Paris, also in 1674.
44 Levine (1991), 79-86; Silk (2001), 173-80.
45 See too D ryden’s 53 points of comm ent appended to his copy of Rym er’s
edition and published (1677) as ‘Heads of an Answer to R ym er’: D ryden (1970),
143-9.
and the ‘E nglish’ Oedipus 17
practices and a certain few practitioners). In the Preface to his
rew orking of Shakespeare’s A n to n y and Cleopatra, A ll fo r Love,
or the W orld W ell Lost (1678), D ryden explains:
... I have endeavoured in this play to follow the practice of the Ancients,
who, as M r R ym er has judiciously observ’d, are and ought to be our
M asters.46
A lthough D ryden goes on to express a preference for Shakespeare
over Sophocles because of his ‘larger com pass’, in his own
rew orking of Shakespeare here, he has clearly pared dow n the
original in accordance w ith A ristotelian dictates of plot. If R ym er’s
m ission had been to purge E nglish dram a and retu rn it to the
classical exempla in order to b ring about its reb irth, then D ryden
now w ith his next play, w ritten together w ith N athaniel L ee,47 was
poised to do ju st that.
W hen Oedipus was first perform ed at the D orset G arden
T h eatre in 1678, w ith its busy subplot and large crow d scenes
(recalling Julius Caesar and Coriolanus), it w ould on first ap p ear
ance seem far m ore Shakespearean than G reek. W ith Sam uel
Sandford, w ho was well know n to R estoration audiences as a
chillingly convincing R ichard III, now in the p art of the villainous
C reon conspiring his way to the thron e, and w ith the troubled
O edipus sleepw alking as if he w ere another M acbeth, the debts
to Shakespeare w ere legion and explicit. B ut if it was the Shake
spearean ‘larger com pass’ th a t attracted D ryden on the level of plot
in general, this was because it afforded his play visual splendours
th at the ancient dram a had eschew ed.
D ryden and L ee’s Oedipus was in m any ways the epitom e of the
tragedies of spectacle against w hich M ilton had cast his verse
dram a, Sam son Agonistes. A t D orset G arden— as at the new
D ru ry L ane theatre w hich opened in 1674— there w ere three sep
arate perform ance spaces. T h e first and m ost routinely used was
the forestage in front of the proscenium arch, w hich served as the
site of the rollicking R estoration com edies. W ith the select
m em bers of the audience now seated in the onstage boxes situated
to the sides of the forestage, this intim ate perform ance space was in
46 D ryden (1984), 18.
47 On the question of joint authorship, see Kewes (1998), 154—62. It is generally
accepted (following D ryden’s own claim) that Acts I and III are his, as was the
overall design, and that Lee is responsible for Acts II, IV, and V.
m any ways a vestige of the m edieval theatre, and rem iniscent of the
Renaissance perform ance spaces in college dining-halls, in w hich
the enactm ent of the play was prim arily a rhetorical event.48 H ere
in D ry den and L ee’s tragedy the scenes of intrigue and deception
that fuel the subplot take place upon the forestage.
N ew in the R estoration theatre w ere the tw o additional stage
spaces behind the proscenium — the scenic stage and beyond that
the vista stage— both of w hich w ere used for the m any scenes of
spectacle in the play. T h e scenic stage, for exam ple, was used in the
opening scene depicting the plague (that was to cause m uch m irth
to Fielding in 1730), durin g w hich ‘D ead bodies appear at a distance
in the Streets; some fa in tly go over the Stage, others drop’,49 and
w hen C reon’s lackeys conspiratorially occupy the forestage and
com m ent on the action beyond the proscenium arch (i. i). B ut in
the final scene of Jacobean carnage, after the lovers from the
subplot (together w ith the chief M achiavel, C reon) have been
slaughtered one after the other, the scenic stage can be seen to
serve a function akin to the opening of the doors of the ancient
G reek skene, w hen the ekkyklem a is rolled out to reveal a tableau
w ithin. W ith the arrival of the m essenger (H aem on in this case)
and T iresias to report the terrible off-stage (M edea-like) killing by
Jocasta of her two sons, the scenic stage is draw n back to reveal
‘J ocasta held by her W omen, and stabb’d in m any places of her bosom,
her hair dishevel’d, her Children slain upon the B ed’50 (see Fig. 1.3).
T h is tableau (w hich alludes very strongly to the stock R estoration
rape scene),51 w ith its reference to ‘dishevel’d ’ hair, disordered
clothing, and the phallic dagger, graphically re-enacts the consum
m ation of the incestuous union that is m erely im plicit in the
Sophoclean m essenger speech of Jocasta’s suicide.
If the R estoration scenic stage could function like the ekkyklem a,
the th ird perform ance space, the vista stage had a function analo
gous to the ancient G reek theatre’s theologeion /ro o f space. As w ith
the theologeion, the vista stage in the Oedipus is reserved for the
num erous supernatural events in the play. W hen the apparitional
figures of O edipus and Jocasta appear in the sky during the p o r
tentous storm in A ct II, and w hen the ghost of Laius and the
other ghosts loom out from the distance in Acts III and V, their
48 Bruce R. Sm ith (1988), esp. 51 ff. 49 D ryden (1984), 120.

50 Ibid. 211. 51 M arsden (2000), 181-9.
F i g u r e 1.3 G erard van der G ucht, engraving after H u bert G ravelot

depicting the suicide of Jocasta.
other-w orldly status is highlighted by their sym bolic position at
the back of the stage. W hen O edipus m akes his final suicidal leap
from the w estern tow er, he m ay well have plunged from a high
point on the vista stage,52 m aking of his departure from this w orld
a kind of apotheosis akin to the Sophoclean pro tago n ist’s hallow ed
exit in Oedipus at Colonus.
Indeed O edipus’ final defiant w ords, refusing to acknow ledge
any guilt, w ould im ply at least som e kind of supernatural strength:
M ay all the G ods too from their B attlem ents,
Behold, and w onder at a M ortal’s daring;
And, w hen I knock the Goal of dreadful death,
Shout and applaud me w ith a clap of T hunder.
Once m ore, thus w ing’d by horrid Fate, I come
Sw ift as a falling M eteor; lo, I flye,
A nd thus go dow nw ards, to the darker Sky.
[Thunder. He flings himself from the Window: The Thebans
gather about his Body.]*3
In O edipus’ last w ords we detect m ore than a note of Senecan
bom bast, and in a very im m ediate sense Seneca is D ry d en and
L ee’s m ain source here. B ut we can also discern m ore than a
passing nod at that other defiant O edipus of the sam e decade,
M ilton ’s Sam son, w ho had earlier challenged his all-too m ortal,
aristocratic, onlookers w ith sim ilarly histrionic disdain:
N ow of m y own accord such other trial
I m ean to show you of m y strength, yet greater
As w ith amaze shall strike all who behold.54
W ith the invitation from both these E nglish O edipuses for their
onlookers to ‘b ehold’ the m arvel they are about to w itness, and
w ith D ryden and L ee’s protagonist plunging to his death to the
accom panim ent of a th u n d er clap strongly evocative of the M il
tonic theatre roof collapsing ‘w ith b u rst of th u n d er’, D ry d en ’s
appropriation of M ilton is unequivocal.
W hilst it is not surprising that D ryden, now Poet L aureate, is
silent in the Preface about his debt to his form er republican col
league, his silence about Shakespeare is perhaps som ew hat
curious. H ow ever, by the follow ing year in the Preface to his
52 Bruce R. Sm ith (198 8), 2 5 6-7 . 53 D ryden (1984), 213.

54 M ilton (1997), 410, 11. 1643-45.
re-w orking of Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida, D ry d en is advo
cating the prim acy of the ancient over the m odern m odels; and it is
clearly his engagem ent w ith the Sophoclean m aterial that has led
him to that conclusion.
In the Preface to Troilus and Cressida (1679), D ryden includes a
section entitled ‘T h e G ro u nd s of C riticism in T rag ed y ’ in w hich
he answ ers the question ‘how far we ought to im itate Shakespeare
and F letcher in their p lo ts’ w ith the follow ing recom m endation:
... we ought to follow them so far only, as they have C opi’d the
excellencies of those who invented and brought to perfection D ram atic
Poetry.55
D ry d en ’s m ain m odels now , it seem s, even as he rew orks a Shake
spearean play, are the G reek ones. T h e shortcom ings he detects in
Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida are rem edied here by turnin g to
E uripides’ Iphigenia in A ulis, w hose quarrel betw een A gam em non
and M enelaus (317-542) provides D ryden w ith a m odel for the
final lengthy scene betw een T ro ilu s and H ector in A ct V. But
the m odel to w hich D ryden m ost regularly defers in this Preface
is the neo-A ristotelian paradigm and the source of his previous
play, Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus. W hen D ry d en speaks of ch ar
acter, it is clearly O edipus to w hom he is referring w hen he ex
plains the need for
such a m an, who has so m uch m ore in him of V irtue than of Vice, that he
may be left am iable to the A udience, w hich otherw ise cannot have any
concernm ent for his sufferings; and ’tis on this one character that the pity
and terror m ust be principally, if not wholly founded.56
A nd he goes on to explain his preference for an essentially m odern
hero-centred tragedy w ith reference to his ow n version of the
Sophoclean paradigm :
If C reon had been the chief character in Oedipus, there had neither been
terror nor com passion m ov’d; but only detestation of the m an and joy for
his punishm ent; if A drastus and Eurydice had been m ade m ore appealing
characters, then the pity had been divided, and lessen’d on the part of
Oedipus: but m aking O edipus the best and bravest person, and even
Jocasta but an und erpart to him ; his virtues and the punishm ent of his
fatall crim e, drew both the pity, and the terror to him self.57
55 D ryden (1984), 233. 56 Ibid. 236. 57 Ibid. 237.

In his Preface to the Oedipus, the only ‘m o d ern ’ source to w hich
D ryden had referred was C orneille’s CEdipe, w ith reference to its
vacillating king who is upstaged by the ‘greater h ero ’ T heseus and
against w hom (like Jo yn er’s before him ) D ryden and L ee’s p ro tag
onist is deliberately cast.5S A nd if he had been silent about
his very obvious debt to Shakespeare here, th a t is only because in
1678 D ryden is determ ined to m ake public his new ly revised, pro-
classical stance. Oedipus is D ry d en ’s attem pt to reconcile the
conflicts debated w ithin his Essay o f D ram atic Poesie (1668), and
to reproduce the ‘b est’ aspects of all his sources, both ancient and
m odern.
T h e deb t to Sophocles, by contrast, is both considerable and
acknow ledged in the Preface. W e have already seen how the P ro
logue could have led the unsuspecting spectator to infer that they
w ere going to w itness Sophocles pure and sim ple. In som e places
that is indeed w hat they get: the Sophoclean prologue (1—150), for
exam ple, is included alm ost verbatim , despite being relegated to
the second p art of A ct I; Sophocles’ pivotal scene betw een O edipus
and Jocasta (697-862), w hen the question of regicide is linked to
the fear of incest and parricide, is also adopted here in A ct II
follow ing O edipus’ dream ; and finally the recognition scene (IV .
1), w ith the C orinthian m essenger and the shepherd, reads m uch
like a close translation of the Sophoclean original.
W e have already seen that in som e circles the play was criticized
for being too dependent on its principal G reek source and p eril
ously close to being an act of pure plagiarism .59 T o the m odern
audience, how ever, such accusations m ight well appear to have
m issed the obvious point that D ryden is no less dependent on the
Senecan Oedipus. T h is is the case especially in regard to the u b i
quity of both the fear and reality of incest, and the perception of an
im placable fate as inextricably linked and controlling forces in the
play. Fate is felt externally throu g h both the supernatural events—
the storm s, the prodigies in the sky—-and (as in Sophocles) through
the coincidences in the plot (and so at the end of A ct I, w hen
Jocasta walks in im m ediately after O edipus’ curse, she unw ittingly
w ishes it upon both him and herself). B ut fate also makes itself
know n internally through the incest m otif, w hich (as in Seneca)
becom es the governing force in the play.
58 D ryden (1984), 115-16 . 59 Kewes (1998), 157-8.
H ere in D ryden and Lee, we get the sense that O edipus and
Jocasta are driven to incest; that O edipus, propelled to T hebes to
escape the w orkings of the oracle that prophesy incest w ith his
m other, is none the less governed by the oracle’s ordinance, w hich
is never far from his consciousness nor indeed from the conscious
ness of the o ther characters in the play. A t the very beginning, we
are rem inded of O edipus’ striking resem blance to L aius.60 As in
Corneille, this O edipus fears the m atch betw een C reon and E ury-
dice on grounds that uncle and niece ‘are too near . . . ’tis offence to
kind’; and in his excessive response: ‘N atu re w ould abhor | T o be
forced back again up on herself | A nd like a w hirlpool, swallow her
ow n stream s’, he confesses ‘ ... I know not w hy, it shakes m e, j
W hen I bu t think on incest.’61
In A ct II, before retiring to bed, O edipus alone confesses to an
‘unusual chillness’ in his sexual encounters w ith his wife:
An unknow n hand still check’d m y forw ard joy,
D ash’d me w ith blushes ...
T h at ev’n the A ct becam e a violation.62
O edipus then sleepwalks, w ith dagger in one hand and taper in the
other, clearly w itnessing the events that are soon to be played out
in the waking hours, and he later confesses to Jocasta that he
dream t of her as his m other. H ere, as w ith the tableau scene in
A ct V w hen Jocasta appears having stabbed herself and her chil
dren as if she herself had been violated, w hat is im plicit in S opho
cles is once again m agnified for the R estoration audience. B ut it is
in the penultim ate scene of the play (as in Seneca) w hen the
blinded O edipus m eets up w ith his m other/w ife that the incestu
ous nature of their relationship com es m ost obtrusively to the fore.
O edipus pronounces:
O, in my heart I feel the pangs of N ature;
It works w ith kindness o’re: Give me way;
I feel a m elting here, a tenderness,
T oo m ighty for the anger of the Gods!
D irect m e to thy knees: yet, oh forbear,
Lest the dead Em bers should revive.63
60 D ryden (1984), 123, 11. 61 ff. 61 Ibid. 140, 11. 546 ff.
62 Ibid. 150, 11. 29 2-5 . 63 Ibid. 204, 11. 206-11.
T h is is an O edipus for w hom n atu re’s com pulsions are too strong
to resist. D ryden and L ee’s Jocasta, as in Seneca, proclaim s their
innocence and blam es fate, declaring passionately ‘F or you are still
m y h usb an d ’.64 O edipus w ishes to believe her espousal of nature
over conventional taboo, and prom ises to
. .. steal into thy A rm s,
Renew endearm ents, think ’em no pollutions,
B ut chaste as Spirits joys: gently I ’ll come,
T hus weeping blind, like dewy N ight, upon thee,
A nd fold thee softly in m y A rm s to slum ber.65
B ut im m ediately L aius’ ghost appears from beneath in the vista
stage to p ro h ib it this ultim ate violation of taboo. Seneca’s Oedipus
in the final scene becom es a tragedy about a guilty incestuous
parricide; here in D ryden and L ee’s version, the final scene p ro f
fers a m editation on the prohibition of incest altogether.
OEDIPUS AND POLITICS

D u ring the C om m onw ealth incest was m ade a crim inal offence for
the first tim e and punishable by death u n der the A ct of Parliam ent
for M ay 165 0.66 H ith erto and follow ing the R estoration (and until
1908; see Ch. 18) the offence was not punishable by the civil
courts, only the ecclesiastical courts, w hich rarely exercised their
jurisdiction in this or any other m atter ow ing to the aggressive
stance of the com m on-law courts. T h e 1650 legislation collapsed in
1660 because it was in no sense a reflection of public opinion on the
subject, w hich considered the prohibition to be a repressive m eas
ure both fundam entally unenforceable and at odds w ith em otional
and sexual reality.67 F or this reason alone, D ryden and L ee’s play
was a bold espousal of R estoration values, as well as providing a
strong dose of titillating and risque sensationalism for the libertine
courtiers w ithin the audience.
It was not sim ply the exam ples of C orneille and M ilton that
w ould have attracted D ryden to the m yth of O edipus in the late
1670s; nor indeed could the neo-A ristotelian privileging of S opho
cles’ tragedy alone have provided him w ith his source. It was, m ore
64 D ryden (1984), 1. 220, 65 Ibid., 11. 221-5.
66 F irth and Rait (1911), 387. For comm ent, see M cCabe (1993), 265 ff.
67 M cCabe (1993), 265.
generally, the crisis over the question of succession in the late
1670s— better know n as the E xclusion crisis, w hen Parliam ent
sought to bar the C atholic Jam es, D uke of Y ork, from succeeding
his bro th er to the throne— th at m ade an ancient m yth dealing w ith
regicide and restoration so pertinent.
As early as the m id-1660s there had been w idespread dissatis
faction (even am ongst his supporters) w ith the king’s extravagance
and prom iscuity, and the Plague of 1665 and Fire of 1666 w ere
readily construed as divine retrib utio n for royal transgressions
(both dom estic and international in his unpo p u lar w ar against the
D utch). F rom 1670 onw ards, there is a notable shift, w ith the plays
of the period no longer celebrating the R estoration b u t offering
varying degrees of criticism of the m onarchy;68 and in the late
1670s, Exclusion is construed as another crisis of restoration, or
by som e, a form of regicide itself.69
B eaum ont and F letch er’s tragicom edy A K in g and N o K ing
(1611) is regularly revived at this tim e.70 W ith its plot concerning
the m iraculous restoration of the ‘legitim ate’ heir and its (albeit
averted) incestuous union betw een king and queen, it bore a
striking resem blance to Sophocles’ tragedy. D ryden him self praises
it for having ‘T h e best o f . . . designs, the m ost approaching to
a n tiq u ity .. . ’ and he identifies their probable source as ‘the story
of O edipus’;71 b u t his interest in the parallels had m ore to do w ith
the political resonances shared by both plays. W hilst the regular
revivals of the Jacobean tragicom edy w ere frequently m ounted
w ith a view to prom oting the continuity of the R estoration, w ider
resonances were generated w hen the title was adopted as a ‘political
catchw ord’ to describe the crisis in the m onarchy in general: in
1662, for exam ple, the com m itted royalist Sir R oger L ’E strange
had observed: ‘W e are now upon the very C risis, of K ing or no
K ing’; and in 1681 the E xclusionist law yer Sir Francis W innington
sim ilarly alludes in parliam entary debate to the Jacobean play in
relation to the possible accession of the D uke of Y ork: ‘if he be K ing
and have no pow er to govern, he is K ing and no K ing .’72
D ryden had already m odelled his protagonist A lm anzor in The
Conquest o f Granada (P art I 1670, P art II 1672) on B eaum ont and
68 Hughes (1996), 79. 69 Susan J. Owen (2000), 158.

70 M aguire (1992), 56-8. 71 D ryden (1984), 233.
72 Both these statem ents are cited by M aguire (2000), 99.
F letch er’s hero (w ho was in turn, according to D ryden, m odelled
on A lexander the G reat) in order to enhance w hat is D ry d en ’s
evident trib u te to Jam es, D uke of Y ork.73 W ith D ryden and
L ee’s Oedipus, the parallels w ith the Jacobean tragicom edy were
even stronger. H ere m uch play is m ade by C reon and his co
conspirators of the fact th at O edipus is ‘K ing and no K ing ’.
C reon’s lackey D io d es rouses his rabble thus:
W hile Lajus has a lawful Successor,
Your first O ath still m ust bind: Eurydice
Is H eir to Lajus; let her m arry Creon.
O ffended H eav’n will never be appeas’d,
W hile O edipus pollutes the T hrone of Lajus,
A stranger to his B lo o d /4
As the ‘K in g ’ who is ‘no K in g ’, the tyrannos/ou tsid er w ho comes
from w ithout and w ho has not inherited the throne by b irth rig h t,
O edipus of course tu rn s out to be ‘K ing ’ after all, the G reek
basileus, the ruler w ho has inherited the throne by b irth rig h t. For
D ryden the authority of the king (even of a deeply flaw ed king) is
p aram o un t and vital to avert the bloodshed of civil war. T h e
O edipus m yth, and its associations w ith the Jacobean tragicom edy,
tu rn out to be an especially p o tent w eapon in the royalist arm oury.
H ow ever, although D ryden and L ee’s Oedipus m ay well p ro
m ote the royalist cause, like m any plays of the late 1670s, it offers
royalism w ith a strong dose of scepticism .75 W ith O edipus as
protagonist, the play m ay well offer a m odel of kingship. B ut this
O edipus rem ains (albeit unintentionally) a deeply flawed king: he
is, of course, ‘K in g ’ b u t too m uch like the old ‘K in g ’ in relation to
his queen. If C harles II saw him self reflected in the G reek hero, he
w ould have been fully aw are th at this was a heavily qualified
m easure of praise. Indeed, O edipus m ay well be m oderate and
dignified in victory at the beginning of the play, b u t he is perceived
by the m ounting opposition to be aloof and out of touch w ith his
people.76 As we w ould expect from a royalist play of the period, the
G reek chorus is replaced by the in term itten t heckling crow d for
w hom the occasional interjection alone is p erm itted (Acts I and
II), and for O edipus they are m erely the ‘w ild h erd ’.77
73 M aguire (2000), 98. D ryden cites Alexander as Beaumont and Fletcher’s
model in the Preface to Troilus and Cressida: D ryden (1984), 233.
74 D ryden (1984), 131,11. 292-79. 75 Susan J. Owen (2000), 164.
76 D ryden (1984), 129, 11. 222ff. 77 Ibid. 149, 1. 253.
In this highly political play, w ith the recent m em ory of plague to
highlight the topicality of the opening scene, and regicide and the
prospect of descent once m ore into civil w ar now being discussed on
the stage, the parallels w ith contem porary figures are not hard to find.
Behind Laius clearly lurks Charles I, and behind O edipus we have
allusions to both Charles II and to Crom w ell him self; b u t the clearest
parallels are betw een Creon and the Earl of Shaftesbury, who regu
larly supplied the stock villain of royalist tragedy of the p e rio d /8 and
who w ould shortly instigate the M onm outh Rebellion (1685) in a bid
to rem ove Charles II and replace him w ith his illegitim ate son, the
Earl of M onm outh, in order to preserve P rotestant succession.
Follow ing the bloodbath of retrib utio n that floods the subplot in
the final act, and after the tableau of the dead children and the
suicides of Jocasta and O edipus, H aem on is left together w ith
T iresias, w ho first reassures, th en w arns the T h eb an s/E n glish
audience confronted w ith O edipus’ corpse:
T he dreadful sight will daunt the drooping T hebans,
W hom H eav’n decrees to raise w ith Peace and Glory.
Yet, by these terrible Exam ples w arn’d,
T he sacred F ury thus A larm s the W orld.
L et none, tho’ ne’re so V ertuous, great and H igh,
Be ju d g ’d entirely blest before they D y e /
L eft w ith the clerical authority of T iresias and the political and
m ilitary skills of H aem on (here C aptain of the G u ard and no m em ber
of the royal fam ily), there is none the less no indication to the
audience as to w hat m onarchical ‘au tho rity ’ will fill the vacuum
now the king is dead. W ith all O edipus’ legitim ate heirs killed by
Jocasta, the polluted dynasty is no m ore; and it m ay well be th at the
faction su rrounding the illegitim ate E arl of M onm outh w ould have
found som e covert support for their cause here too. L ee was a
notorious anti-C atholic and no d o ub t his sym pathies w ould have
been squarely behind the rum ours of the fictitious Popish plot
spread by T itu s O ates. Ju st as the conflicting view points w ithin
the theoretical debate are never resolved ou trig h t w ithin A n Essay
o f D ram atic Poesie, so here in the final scene of the play (m aybe
fuelled in som e ways by the dual perspectives arising from the two
authors) the conflicting political positions are not so m uch recon
ciled by the deaths as left in a state of suggestive tension.
78 Susan J. Owen (20 00), 163 . 79 D ryden (1984), 213, 11. 465-70.
T h e survival of D ryden and L ee’s Oedipus well into the eight
eenth century was in no small m easure due to the representative
status (traceable from at least the R enaissance) of Sophocles’ O edi
pus Tyrannus as the paradigm atic tragedy (see Chs. 8 and 10—11).
T h e publication in Paris in 1692 of A ndre D acier’s com m entary on
the Poetics reaffirm ed its suprem acy for the next half century in
both France and E ngland. In the sam e year as his com m entary,
D acier produced a translation of both the Oedipus Tyrannus and
Sophocles’ Electra as a com panion piece to his study of A ristotle.
In the Preface to his translations, D acier declared that now his
readers had heard the rules in the com m entary, he was now
offering them exam ples of how to w rite plays for the m odern
playhouse w ith his translations. A nd w hen D acier’s edition of the
Poetics was translated into E nglish in 1705, its im pact was no less
considerable, and it led to a flurry of vernacular translations of the
Electra (see Ch. 6). If this was not the case in relation to Oedipus
Tyrannus, this was due in large m easure to the fact th at the
‘E nglish’ Oedipus, w ith w hich this chapter began, was already
w idely know n in B ritain. Its status as representative ‘E nglish’
tragedy, m oreover, was n o t only acknow ledged by critics, it was
also truly celebrated throu g h its regular revivals in the repertoire.
In 1692, the sam e year in w hich D acier’s com m entary first
appeared in France, a L ondon production of D ryden and L ee’s
play benefited from the addition of incidental m usic by H enry
Purcell for the Senecan incantation scene. B oth D ryden and P u r
cell, who collaborated on a n u m b er of plays at the tu rn of the
century, believed m usic and poetry to be sister arts; and w hilst
D ryden m aintained that the m usic should always be subordinate to
the w ord, his collaboration w ith Purcell in the Oedipus m eant that
his play becam e an even m ore ‘au thentic’ attem p t to revive ancient
G reek tragedy for a m odern audience. Indeed, not only did the
m usic for the incantation scene prove sufficiently popular to act as
the source of the fam ous song ‘M usic for a w hile’,80 it was also used
in two early eighteenth-century m usical versions of the O edipus
m y th .81
80 Thom pson (1995), 41.
81 Both J. E. G alliard’s Oedipus Masque (prem iere c.1722 at Lincoln’s Inn Fields)
and Thom as A rne’s opera Oedipus King of Thebes (prem iere 19 Nov. 1740 at the
Theatre Royal) used D ryden and Lee’s version as libretti. See Grove 7, ix. 453, ii. 42
respectively.
If the m usical additions enhanced the play’s popularity well into
the eighteenth century, it was, above all, its sym pathetic portrayal
of a flawed b u t defiant leader w hich m ade the play sufficiently
open-ended to survive the ever-changing political circum stances
that w ere to unfold beyond the R estoration. A nd if the Renaissance
versions had resisted the open-endedness of the Sophoclean and
Senecan versions in their preoccupation w ith the question of poetic
justice, it could be said that it is ultim ately the failure of the
D ryden and Lee version (despite O ed ipu s’ suicide) to live up to
this particular neo-classical dictat th at led to its longevity. For in
som e senses, D ryden and L ee’s Oedipus presented a ‘K ing ’ and ‘no
K in g ’ according to one’s perspective: for the T ories, the play
enacted the restoration of the legitim ate heir; for the W higs, it
provided a tim ely rem inder of the need for constitutional m o n
archy; and for those w ith republican sentim ents (as was to be the
case in France during the second p art of the eighteenth century),
the character of O edipus here in D ryden and L ee’s version could
be construed as either the dangerous tyran t (of p art one of the play)
or the M iltonic m odel of liberationary defiance th at em erges in the
Senecan final speech.
2
Iphigenia and the Glorious Revolution
POPULAR IPHIGENIA
In 1749 the notorious E lizabeth C hudleigh, a m aid of honour at the
court of the Princess of W ales, appeared at a m asquerade alm ost
b are-breasted in the role of Iphigenia. ‘So naked was she’, w rote
L ady M ary W ortley M ontagu, ‘that the high p riest m ight easily
inspect the entrails of the victim ’; H orace W alpole tho u g h t she
m ight ju st as well have appeared, entirely unclothed, as A n d rom
eda.1 A lthough the apparel of G reek and R om an goddesses and
heroines was com m on currency at m asked balls,2 this particular
costum e exceeded all conventional bounds of decency; several
sem i-pornographic p rints of M iss C hudleigh’s exploit entered
circulation (see Fig. 2.1).
T h e V ictorians openly acknow ledged th at G reek tragic roles
offered potential for allow ing seductive glim pses of skin to appear
throu gh antique drapery. Som e of them also enjoyed the erotic art
of poses plastiques, or tableaux vivants, static spectacles in w hich
m inim ally clad m odels assum ed postures rem iniscent of classical
sculptures. B ut the relationship betw een ‘classical’ costum es and
perform ance arts designed to elicit an erotic reaction extends back
into the eighteenth century: the classical attitudes favoured by
Em m a, L ady H am ilton, w ho posed for G eorge R om ney, had in
cluded Calypso, M edea, and ‘a B acchante’.3 T h e m ost fam ous
dancer of the earlier p art of the century, M arie Salle, had stunned
the C ovent G arden audience in 1734 by appearing as the statue in
Pygmalion w earing only a diaphanous shift.4 A lthough her
1 M ontagu (1763), iii. 158; W alpole (1937), ii. 153. See also Castle (1995), 88—91.
2 See Ribeiro (1984).
3 On H am ilton’s classical attitudes see Ittershagen (1993) and Kidson (2002),
33—4. Emm a Ham ilton was probably the model for Rom ney’s chalk cartoon of
Medea, reproduced below as Fig. 3.8. On the developm ent of tableaux vivants and
poses plastiques from the 18th-c. ‘attitude’, see Altick (1978), 345—9, H olm strom
(1967), and George Taylor (1989), 47.
4 Beaumont (1934), 20—3.
Iphigenia and the Glorious Revolution 31
FIGURE 2.1 M iss C hudleigh attends a m asquerade in the character of

Iphigenia (1749).
professed intention was to free her lim bs from the restricting

conventional ballet costum e, the effect was exciting. As a result
H andel, who had joined forces w ith John Rich at C ovent G arden,
32 Iphigenia and the Glorious Revolution
interpolated ballet divertissem ents into all his subsequent p ro d u c
tions th at season, including Oreste, a pasticcio opera derived from
E u rip id es’ Iphigenia among the Taurians (hereafter I T ').5
A lthough the V ictorians displaced Iphigenia from the centre of
the G reek tragic stage,6 she m aintained her profile during the
eighteenth century; ‘Farew ell m y child’, a popular duet, was p u b
lished in 1745 w ith instructions that it was to be sung by a m an and
a w om an as A gam em non and Iphigenia respectively.7 Iphigenia
was prepared for sacrifice in A bel B oyer’s Achilles, perform ed at
L incoln’s In n Fields in 1699-1700 and revived at C ovent G arden
by T hom as H ull and M rs Barry, u n der the title Iphigenia, as late as
1778. T h e hero ine’s nam e was popular currency: w hen w ord cam e
the follow ing year that C aptain W illiam D ouglas had discovered a
new H aw aiian island, the ship in the headlines was H M S Iphige
nia. W hat was so exciting about this heroine seem s to have been the
th reat of cold steel to young fem ale flesh, for the sensational
sacrifice of a lovely m aiden was a favourite them e in popular
spectacles. Such displays w ere an indignity Iphigenia shared w ith
Jep h th ah ’s daughter, the biblical virgin sacrificed by her father,
w ith w hom Iphigenia had often been paired ever since the R enais
sance.8 Jeph tha h ’s Rash Vow; or, The Virgin Sacrific’d was p e r
form ed in a booth erected on the bow ling green in Southw ark
during a fair in S eptem ber 1750, and the sam e story was a standard
eighteenth-century them e at B artholom ew F air.9 Sim ilarly, The
Sacrifice o f Iphigenia, to D r A rn e’s m usic, was billed as an ‘en ter
tainm ent’ in C lerkenw ell in 1750. T h e cast consisted of A gam em
non, Calchas, Iphigenia, F irst Priest, and the goddess D ian a.10
A ballet of the sam e nam e, w ith m usic by Jam es H ook, was p e r
form ed at R ichm ond T h eatre in 1766.11
5 Keates (1992), 181-2.
6 T here were of course occasional exceptions: Helen Faucit starred in an
adaptation of I A in D ublin in 1846 (see Ch. 12); M adam e Rachel acted Racine’s
Iphigenie (along with his Phedre) at St Jam es’s Theatre several times between 1846
and 1853 (see Cole (1859), ii. 268—9); in 1894 I T was selected to be the Cam bridge
Greek play.
7 Highfill et al. xvi. 322.
8 T hus the only English academic play in Greek to have survived from the 16th
c. is John Christopherson’s elegant T€<f>dae, which was inspired by and modelled in
detail on one of the scenes in I A , as he explained in a letter to the Bishop of Durham .
See the detailed discussion in Boas (1914), 43-59.
9 See L S iv/1. 205; Rosenfeld (1960) 15, 94.
10 L S iv/1. 191.
11 Nicoll (1952-9), iii. 342. Only the overture was published.
T h e im m ediate precursor of these sensational Iphigenias was
the m ore serious heroine w ho had w alked all the m ajor L ondon
stages m ore than any other G reek tragic figure in the first seventy-
five years covered by this book (1660—1734). T h is was partly
a result of the attention paid to both Iphigenia plays in A ristotle’s
Poetics, and by D ryden to Iphigenia in A ulis (hereafter I A ) in
his 1679 Troilus and Cressida (see above, Ch. 1). M oreover,
in com parison w ith m ost of E u rip id es’ plays, IA was already
fam iliar.12 A fter being translated into L atin by E rasm us (1506),
it was the first G reek tragedy to be translated into E nglish,
by L ady Jane L um ley (1558);13 the play’s fam e in E ngland
had later been sealed by the instant success w ith w hich the first
perform ance of R acine’s Iphigenie en A ulide had m et at V ersailles
in 1674.
H U GUENOT IPHIGENIA
It is difficult to overestim ate R acine’s influence on the B ritish
stage in this period. T h e E nglish-language theatre of the eig ht
eenth century both loved and hated the plays of C orneille, Racine,
and subsequently V oltaire; dram atists w riting in English suffered
from a tension betw een artistic adm iration for French cultural
achievem ents and literary m odels (exhibited in their p ro u d ac
know ledgem ents of F rench sources in prologues and prefaces),14
and a profound an ti-F ren ch prejudice of a political and ideological
nature. T h e tension was neatly expressed at the end of an English
adaptation of a M oliere com edy in 1691, w hen the A nglo-F rench
conflict in Ireland was raging: ‘w ere it in m y Pow er, I w ould
advance | French w it in E ngland, E nglish arms in F rance’.15 E n g
lish dram atists could even achieve the feat of turnin g plays o rigin
ally w ritten in F rench into an ti-F ren ch propaganda (see below);
John D ennis is aw are that the theatre is a good place for n u rtu rin g
a sense of collective identity defined in opposition to a com m on
foe. T h e E nglish will feel m ore E nglish if the theatre fosters
12 See the detailed study of Gliksohn (1985).

13 See the recent edition by Purkiss (1998).
14 Lynch (1953), 218-19.
15 Caryl (1691), 68. For the im portance of Francophobia as a unifying factor in
the creation of an English and subsequently a British identity, see in general Colley
(1992) 17, 24-5, 33-5.
an ti-F ren ch sentim ent. ‘T h e Stage is useful to G overnm ent, by
having an influence over those w ho are govern’d, in relation to the
com m on enem y. ,16
R acine’s plays had been adapted for perform ance in L ondon
occasionally before B oyer’s A chilles, the first attem pt to im itate
R acine’s Iphigenie in E n glan d .17 O ne m uch-cited exam ple is John
C row ne’s lugubrious Androm ache (1675). B ut B oyer’s play throw s
m ore light on the bifurcated B ritish perception of French neoclas
sical tragedy: Boyer was an expatriate Frenchm an noted for the
fervour w ith w hich he hated France and w ith w hich he had em
braced life in W illiam and M ary ’s L ondon. Fie enthusiastically
claims R acine’s play as his source in the ‘Preface’; in the advertise
m ent to the 1714 edition of his play, Boyer describes Iphigenie as
R acine’s ‘M aster-P iece’, w hich he had him self b u t ‘translated into
English, w ith considerable A d d ition s’.18
Boyer is the first of several H uguenots and individuals of H u g u e
not descent to be encountered in the course of this book: D avid
G arrick ’s H u gueno t grandfather had fled to L o ndon in 1685 after
the revocation of the E dict of N an tes.19 H uguenots w ere fam ed for
their skills in crafts and design as well as their prom inence in
p rinting and publishing: the refugee L uc du G uernier, after collab
orating on a series of w orks com m em orating the D uke of M arlb o r
ough’s victories, engraved m ost of the frontispieces to G reek
tragedy published in B ritain durin g this period, several of w hich
are reproduced here (see Fig. 2.2) and in other chapters. H uguenots
w ere in touch w ith the ideological requirem ents of the L ondon stage
partly because of their loyalty to the H anoverian succession: the
disproportionate n u m b er of H uguenot volunteers in the English
arm ies fighting the S tu arts and the French in the early eighteenth
century has only recently been acknow ledged.20 B ut the H uguenot
refugees in L ondon also had privileged access to the F rench lan
guage and its literature, along w ith contacts in France, w hich m eant
16 Dennis (1698), 58.
17 Racine’s tragedy was occasionally perform ed, in French, at the Haymarket,
e.g. on 23 Jan. 1722 (though his authorship is not stated), coincidentally on the same
night as Terence’s Eunuchus was perform ed at W estm inster School (L S ii/2. 660).
18 Boyer (1714),‘A dvertisem ent’.
19 In the 19th c. the connection between the Huguenot heritage and the British
theatre would be represented by James Robinson Planche, John H eraud, and E. L.
Blanchard.
20 See e.g. Gwynn (2001), 102-3, 184-90.
that they constituted a living bridge o f a politically safe nature
betw een the w orks of the F rench theatre and the English-speaking
public. M oreover, the tw o greatest Classical scholars at the begin
ning of the seventeenth century had been Joseph Scaliger and Isaac
C asaubon, both P rotestan t refugees (one in H olland and one in
England), w hose erudition engendered enorm ous respect for the
H uguenot study of G reek Classics. T h e brilliant French scholars
of G reek dram a, A nne and A ndre D acier, had both been b orn and
raised in hum anist Protestantism , although they had publicly re
nounced it. It is therefore hardly surprising that the first m an to
b ring E uripides’ I A to the E nglish stage, via Racine, was a H u g u e
not refugee. A bel Boyer led a circle of H u g ueno t intellectuals
based in M arylebone, w here he earned his living by translating
French texts into E nglish. H e had m ade his nam e w ith his Com-
pleat French M aster, w hich ran into tw enty-three editions after its
publication in 1694. H e was also author of the French—English
R oyal D ictionary (w hich was to rem ain standard for a century),
and, revealingly, panegyrical histories of the reigns of W illiam and
A nne.21
B oyer’s version of Iphigenie reveals a F ren ch P rotestant, in
tensely loyal to the H anoverian dynasty, rew riting Racine in a
m anner calculated to accom m odate it to E nglish taste after the
G lorious R evolution. A n ti-F ren ch prejudice is always apparent
in the discussion of Racine from D ryden to H azlitt and M acaulay,
w ho dism issed Iphigenie by saying that it p u t the ‘sentim ents and
phrases of V ersailles’ in the C am p of A ulis.22 But Boyer used
idiom atic English, heightened the action and spectacle, added
racy stage directions, and broke up the longer speeches. H e thus
did a good job of taking the V ersailles out of A ulis altogether. H is
play was m ade even less austere and m ore in tun e w ith the indigen
ous B ritish trad itio n of spectacular theatre w hen it was plagiarized
by C harles Johnson u n d er the title The Victim , in a version p e r
form ed at D ru ry L ane in 1714 and occasionally revived at C ovent
G arden as late as 1778.23
21 Boyer has attracted a great deal of attention from H uguenot historians: see
G wynn (2001), 107, with bibliography in n. 20, and pi. 21.
22 Quoted in Eccles (1922), 26.
23 On the 1714 plagiarism see Boyer (1714); on the 1778 revival see L S v/1. 156
(23 M arch at Covent Garden).
T h ere w ere, how ever, m ore num erous E nglish-language adap
tations of E u rip id es’ other play about the sam e heroine, the ‘tragi
com edy’ IT . T h e list includes C harles D avenant’s Circe (1676-7,
b u t revived in 1682, 1689, 1690, 1701, 1704, 1706, and occasionally
thereafter), John D en n is’s Iphigenia (w hich com peted for the
pu blic’s attention w ith B oyer’s Achilles at the tu rn of the century),
and Lew is T h eo b ald ’s 1731 Orestes; it also includes H an d el’s
Oreste (1734), perform ed in Italian. T h e subterranean influence
of I T on the B ritish stage is also apparent in tragedies such as
C harles G ild o n ’s Phaeton (see Ch. 3). T h a t the interest in I T was
international is show n by the dozen or so Italian, F rench, and
G erm an operas and ballets (and occasional plays) em erging b e
tw een 1678 and 17 5 0 .24 B ut the B ritish versions w ere enacted
against a quite different historical background of fast-changing
revolutionary politics.
ROYALIST IPHIGENIA
T h e adaptability of E uripidean tragicom edy to diverse ideological
agendas is exem plified by the different E nglish-language versions
of I T of the R estoration and the first few decades after the G lorious
R evolution. T h e earliest E nglish-language version of IT , w hich
antedates the arrival of W illiam of O range in E ngland by m ore
than a decade, can actually be read as a legitim ation of authoritarian
m onarchy. T h e dram a was called Circe because it im ported the
fam ous O dyssean enchantress into the tragic plot by m arrying her
to T hoas, E u rip id es’ T au rian K ing. Circe was w ritten by the 19-
year-old C harles D avenant, the son of W illiam D avenant, a leading
cavalier dram atist w ho had been patronized by H en rietta M aria and
ended up in the T o w er of L ondon durin g the Interregnum . H e also
spent four years in France betw een 1645 and 1650, and m arried a
young F ren ch w idow , H en riette-M arie D u T rem blay, in 1655 (she
soon gave b irth to C harles). T h ereafter W illiam began to test the
boundaries of the P u ritan s’ proscription on theatre, introducing the
w ord opera into the E nglish language in order to avoid the offensive
term s theatre and play, and claim ing that his entertainm ents
(perform ed, for exam ple, at his hom e in R utland H ouse in
1656) com prised ‘D eclam ations and M usick; after the m anner of
24 See Gliksohn (1985), 229-30.
the A ncients’. H e w ent to France to join the soon-to-be-crow ned
C harles II in M arch 1660, and was rew arded upon the R estoration
by receiving, along w ith T hom as K illigrew , one of the tw o patents
allow ing him to m anage a new theatrical com pany, the D u k e’s at
D orset G ard en s.2^
W illiam D avenant was renow ned for innovations in scenic
effects, for the training of actresses, and for heroic dram as w ith a
royalist bias. O ne of his m ost popular productions was a version of
The Tempest (1667), on w hich he collaborated w ith Jo hn D ryden,
and w hich probably inform ed his son C harles’s choice of classical
archetype in Circe.2b For of all Shakespearean plays The Tempest
bears the strongest sim ilarity to I T , w ith w hich it shares its generic
hybridity, farflung exotic setting, encounter w ith ethnic and cu l
tural difference, and exploration of the colonial experience.
W illiam D avenant died in 1668, w hen his son C harles was 12
years old, leaving ‘L ady M ary ’ (as his form idable F ren ch w idow
was know n) to run his playhouse industry. She was involved in the
building of the new D orset G ard en T h eatre, and encouraged her
eldest son to follow in his fath er’s footsteps.27 H is Circe was
perform ed there on 12 M ay 1677, w ith M r and M rs B etterton as
O restes and Iphigenia. D ry d en w rote the prologue. T h is rew orked
G reek tragedy is dom inated by the them es of love and h orror; it is
in rhym ing couplets and occasionally, w hen the em otional tem
perature rises, even rhym ing triplets. It is described in its first
published edition of 1677, as in all subsequent editions, as a ‘tra
gedy’, although in tw o ‘m etatheatrical’ passages the term inology
suggests its spectacular qualities: T h o as’ u ncouth populace is des
perate to w atch the executions of Pylades and O restes, as if they
w ere in ‘b u t a Pageant T rag ed ie’, later described as a ‘T ragick
P o m p ’ (20, 29).28
T h e description ‘Pageant T rag ed y ’ illum inates the n ature of this
species of theatre, w hich fuses song (notably a long scene in A ct
IV , scene ii featuring a chorus of Bacchanals) w ith a plot and verse
form typical of R estoration heroic tragedy, and then adds tableaux
25 See Harbage (1935), 102, 120-39.

26 See D ryden and D avenant (1670); Harbage (1935), 259-67; Sum m ers (1934),
228-9.
27 Harbage (1935), 161.
28 T his and all further references to D avenant’s Circe are to the original edition of
1677.
LEED S UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

and processions characteristic of the m asque. Indeed, Circe seems
to pay hom age to W illiam D avenant’s w ork by harking back nos
talgically to the court m asques favoured by C harles I and his
F rench queen: it includes ascending and descending divinities
(Pluto, Iris, C upid), personifications of non-concrete ideas
(Sleep, D ream s), and spectacles alm ost unrelated to the plot,
such as O rpheus ‘discovered’ playing his lute on M ou n t P arnas
sus.29 T h e m usic was popular, especially after John B annister’s
original score was replaced in the early 1680s w ith songs by H enry
P u rcell.30 It is, indeed, not at all unlike the ‘operatic’ w orks from
the pen of the teenage d ram atist’s m ore fam ous father, w hich in
addition to The Tempest included a m usical version of M acbeth
com plete w ith flying w itches. Y et recently it has been argued that
the strong love interest in Circe is a new developm ent and paral
leled, rather, in the am orous com plexities of D ry d en ’s Aureng-
Zebe (1675), O tw ay’s Don Carlos (1676), and D urfey’s The Siege
o f M em phis (1676).31 N o r is Circe dissim ilar to D ry d en ’s The
Indian Queen (1664) in its portrayal of a com plicated p attern of
requited and u nreq u ited love, leading to disaster. Circe offers a
‘love heptagon’ out of w hich only Pylades and Iphigenia survive:
T hoas and his jealous wife C irce are both killed by O restes; Ithacus
(C irce’s son by U lysses) dies from a battle w ound, m otivating
O sm ida (T h o as’ daughter by a previous m arriage) to com m it su i
cide; O restes stabs him self.
T h e exotic setting is half-heartedly associated w ith the O ttom an
em pire, throug h the nam e of T h o a s’ daughter, O sm ida. T h e equa
tion of the T u rk s w ith the barbarian opponents of G reeks to be
found in ancient tragedy was facilitated by the grow ing aw areness,
in the later p art of the seventeenth century, of the continued
existence of the G reek nation, an aw areness fostered by M ilton ’s
interest in the state of affairs there and by the cultural prom inence
of the G reek visitors to E ngland, w ho w ere sponsored by Charles
II him self.32 Y et Circe reveals little evidence of the aw areness of
29 Rosenfeld (1981) 42; Sum m ers (1934), 232-3, 247. W hen the Very Revd
Rowland Davies went with two friends to watch a production of Circe in the very
year of the Glorious Revolution (13 Aug. 1689), he described its ‘extraordinary’
scenes in his diary. See Rowland Davies (1856), 24.
30 L S I 332.
31 Cannan (1994).
32 Spencer (1954), 110-26.
B ritain’s colonial destiny w hich perm eates the tw o later versions of
I T by D ennis and T heobald. T h is was probably a good thing,
since this royalist tragedy was perform ed on im p o rtan t state occa
sions before the am bassadors b o th of M orocco (at D orset G ardens)
and of B antam in Java.33
W hen the G reeks kidnap O sm ida they threaten her w ith sim ilar
brutality as they had them selves expected at the hands of the
T aurians. T h e m ost pleasant m ale character transcends the cul
tural divide: he is the m ixed race Ithacus, born of a barbarian
enchantress to the G reek hero U lysses. Indeed, one of the m ost
arresting features of Circe is its alm ost com plete absence of interest
in the interface betw een G reek and Scythian, relative to the jin g o
istic tenor of D ennis and T h eo b ald ’s later versions of the IT :
O restes in D ennis becom es a culture hero educating a barbarous
fantasy colony in civilized values and the ideology of liberty before
accepting colonial rule, installing a D eputy G overnor, and
return in g hom e, booty in hand, to his free and advanced m etro p o
lis. O nly tw enty-three years earlier, in D avenant’s account, the
central interest had been not L iberty b u t the way th at erotic
passion threatens the possession of absolute pow er. D avenant’s
O restes, far from being a culture hero, had been ju st one of several
psychologically to rtu red lovers w hose corpses littered the stage at
the end.
D avenant’s T hoas is a weak, vacillating king, em barrassingly
afraid of his ow n people. H e is aw are th at a m arriage betw een his
stepson Ithacus and his daughter O sm ida is desired by the T a u r
ians, ‘A nd their R ebellious fury threatens all’ (3). T h oas dislikes
the practice of hum an sacrifice, but not enough to use his royal
prerogative to abolish it. H e m ust tolerate even rebarbative p rac
tices if they are beloved by his restive populace: ‘I ’m forc’d by
C ustom , that u n w ritten Law , | By w hich the People keep even
K ings in aw e’ (17). T h e idea of the ‘lazy M on arch ’ w ho brings
destruction on him self and his country is recurrent. Pylades argues
th a t the gods m ete out justice appropriately: ‘T h in k not the G ods,
like lazy M onarchs, give | T o their bold Subjects th eir Prerogative’
(12). C irce is scornful of old m en and ‘lazy M onarchs’ w ho fail to
act decisively against suspected traitors (27). Indeed, C irce is
the m ost articulate political theorist in the play, an advocate of
33 L S i. 304, 309.
autocratic pragm atism . She cautions T hoas that he will need her
help to face an invasion by a foreign arm y, for his ‘C ow ard S tates
m en do all danger shun, | A nd from the E m p ire’s H elm in tem pests
ru n ’ (37). T h e T au rian Senate ‘p ro tracts’ its councils, and con
strains on his royal pow er to initiate policy: C irce argues th at they
have becom e ‘advising T y ra n ts’ to w hom he, the K ing, is h um ili
atingly forced to bow (38).
Circe, the first know n version of a G reek tragedy to be p er
form ed in R estoration E ngland, is rare because there are so few
exam ples of pre-V ictorian B ritish readings of G reek dram a w holly
unaffected by W hig ideals. D avenant is a residual representative of
the Cavalier Classicists w ho had briefly tried to appropriate G reek
dram a to the cause of the S tu art dynasty: they included C h risto
p her W ase, the author of a dissident Electra in 1649 (see Ch. 6),
H enry B urnell, the anti-C om m onw ealth translator of A ristopha
nes’ Plutus in 1659, and T hom as Stanley, w ho translated A ris
tophanes’ Clouds (1655) and edited A eschylus (1663, see C h. 4).
B ut after Circe the still youthful D avenant never attem pted to
w rite for the theatre again, instead becom ing Inspector of Plays
u n d er Jam es II. Subsequent to the G lorious R evolution he relin
quished all loyalty to his ancestral politics, entering parliam ent,
inveighing against France, and faithfully serving Q ueen A nne. As
her In spector-G eneral of E xport and Im ports he becam e respected
for his expertise on trade and econom ics, using his excellent G reek
in order to read X enophon’s W ays and M eans rather than E uripi-
dean tragedy.34
T h ere is one other way in w hich D av en an t’s boyish, exuberant,
m onarchist Circe bears w itness to the challenges facing the re
searcher into G reek tragedy’s perform ance reception. T h e play
has never featured in discussions of the Nachleben of I T , despite
its status in th at cultural narrative. M any experts have been u n
aware th at Circe uses the I T at all, because it has fallen betw een
disciplinary stools.35 Classicists have been uninterested in p e r
form ance reception, and scholars of literature in m odern languages
often do not recognize classical archetypes unless the title gives
them a clear indication of the source m aterial. W hy should anyone
34 See W hitw orth (1771), i, pp. v—vii; Harbage (1935), 162.
35 Both G liksohn’s excellent diachronic study and Robert H eitner’s m uch-cited
article on the I T in the 18th c., for example, are unaware of it, urging the influence,
rather, of M inato’s opera of a year later, Tempio di Diana in Taurica (1678).
suspect a E u ripidean ‘Iphigenia’ play of underlying an ‘O dyssean’
title like Circe? M usicologists have begun to pay Circe attention as
an im portant w ork in form al term s, for it adum brates the evolution
of distinctively B ritish theatrical perform ances, adorned w ith
songs, popular in the eighteenth century. B ut som e critics’ lack
of engagem ent w ith literary history have led them to see it as ‘a
w holly original com position’ w ith no obvious p recu rso r.36 T h ere
are, how ever, at least three know n w orks w hich m ight have in
spired the h alf-F ren ch D avenant, w hose father had n u rtu red such
close links w ith the C ontinental theatre that he had revisited
France after the R estoration in order to update his ideas about
scenic effects. G iovanni R ucellai’s sem inal Renaissance Oreste,
although it m ay not have been perform ed before 1726, had adapted
I T as early as 1525; C oqueteau de L a C lairiere’s Pylade et Oreste,
now lost, had been perform ed by M oliere’s com pany, en route to
R ouen, in 1659; and in 1666 Joost van den V ondel had published a
translation of I T into D u tc h .37
GREEK TRAGEDY AFTER THE

GLORIOUS REVOLUTION
W ithin little m ore than a decade of Circe C harles II was dead,
Jam es II had fled, and his son-in-law W illiam III had stepped onto
the E nglish sand dunes of T orbay. W hen he and M ary accepted
the Bill of R ights in 1689, the R evolution seem ed G lorious indeed.
B ut the new order of things felt fragile, and the theatre in the early
eighteenth century becam e explicitly political. T h e playhouses
som etim es becam e physical battlegrounds as audiences perceived
political subtexts everyw here. T h ey tu rn e d the first night of A d d i
son’s rousing Cato (1713) into a fray, both W hig and T o ry
claim ing the R om an R epublican patrio t for their own. T h e p o liti
cization of the theatre was m ost exactly described by the (con
36 Cannan (1994), 231.
37 Rucellai’s play was certainly perform ed at the Collegio Clem entino during the
Roman carnival (where plays were traditionally perform ed before the cardinals).
T he subtitle of the 1726 edition reads ‘tragedia... rappresentata nel Collegio Clem
entino nelle vacanze del Carnovale dell’anno 1726.’ On the M oliere production see
Gliksohn (1985), 70. T he im portant story of the D utch reception of Greek tragedy
at this tim e remains largely untold. M ichel Le Clerc and Jacques de Coras’s
Iphigenie (first perform ed Paris in 1675, a year before D avenant and published in
1678), is a version of IA .
sciously apolitical) Lew is T heobald (subsequently author of Ores
tes) in The Censor for 25 M ay 1717:
Party and Private S en tim ents... w rest an innocent A uthor to their own
C onstruction, and form to them selves an Idea of Faction from Passa
ges . .. a W ar of W hig and Tory is carried on by way of Clap and Hiss
upon the m eaning of a single Sentence, that, unless prophetically, could
never have any Relation to M odern Occurrences.
B ut this type of atm osphere had already prevailed at the tim e of
D enn is’s Iphigenia, w hen the R estoration heroic dram a was being
replaced by ‘a dram a of W hig self-fulfilm ent, w hich signally sim
plifies both the national and parliam entary perception of the K ing
and his policies’.38
T h e debate preceding the 1701 A ct of Settlem ent, w hich p ro
vided for the H anoverian succession in the teeth of French oppos
ition, had a lasting im pact on the theatre, especially on the fictional
w orlds created in tragedy. Paradoxically, tragedy was in closer
touch than the superficial realism of com edy w ith the currents of
political th o u g h t.39 By taking as its ostensible subject the affairs of
noblem en in rem ote tim es and exotic places, tragedy’s ‘self
b o u n d ed ’ w orld offered im agined contexts in w hich practical solu
tions to real problem s could be safely explored. A fam ous exam ple
is the dram atic legitim ation of the constitutional principles used to
justify the G lorious R evolution in N icholas R ow e’s Tamerlane
(1701). L oftis has show n how plays such as this set the tone of
B ritish tragedy for decades, w ith their ‘seem ingly endless series of
variations on Lockean political ideas’.40 By the tim e G eorge I
ascended the throne in 1714, dram atists w ere ransacking history
for acts of defiance against tyranny w hich could be adorned w ith
declam ations in su p p o rt of W hig ideals: ancient E gypt in E dw ard
Y oung’s Busiris (1719), ancient Ireland in W illiam P hillips’s
Hibernia Freed (1722), early E ngland in A m brose P h ilip s’s The
B riton (1722), ancient Spain in Philip F ro d e’s The F all of Sagun-
tum (1727), and classical A thens in Sam uel M ad den ’s Themistocles
(1729). Indeed, the first Prim e M inister W alpole’s desire to censor
the theatre in the 1730s, u n d er G eorge II, reflected the effective
ness of theatre as political propaganda (see Ch. 4).
38 Hughes (1996), 452. 39 Loftis (1963), 5. 40 Ibid. 34.

A ncient m yth offered fertile ground for those h u ntin g for exem
plary m ythical problem s of succession, in particular tyrants
ousted, like Jam es II, by their sons-in-law . T h e zeal w ith w hich
W illiam , A nne, and the first tw o G eorges w ere acclaim ed as legit
im ate m onarchs fails to obscure the anxieties about the dynastic
problem , w hich, along w ith its constitutional and ecclesiastical
im plications, failed to go away until after the second Jacobite
invasion of 1745. T h e security of the P rotestan t succession was
felt to be u n der perm anent threat from the exiled C atholic Stuarts,
w ho m ight at any tim e attem p t to reim pose an absolutist m o n
archy. In G reek m yth the A rgive D anaus (succeeded by his d augh
ter H yperm nestra and son-in-law L ynceus) offered a prototype for
Jam es II. R obert O w en’s tragedy, H yperm nestra, or, Love in Tears
(1703), is typical of several w orks on this them e durin g this
period.41 O w en’s tragedy tells how the ty ran t D anaus was expelled
by the virtuous new king, L ynceus. D anaus’ p enitent final w ords
ask the audience to ‘Behold the ju st effect of Pow ’r abus’d!’, and
p oint out that he m ust now im itate Jam es II and ‘w ander th ro ’ the
w orld a Royal Beggar’.42 S tu rm y ’s Love and D uty: or, The D istres’t
Bride (1722) rew orked the sam e m yth to identical political effect.43
E d m u n d Sm ith even redesigned E u rip id es’ H ippolytus so as to
m ake H ippolytus and his bride Ism ena, b o th outsiders in C rete,
candidates for the throne superior to the indigenous b u t despotic
royal fam ily; at the end this ‘heav’nly p air’, prototypes of W illiam
and M ary, leave the ‘C o n tin en t’ of C rete in order to preside over a
peaceful freedom -loving em pire in m ainland G reece.44
T h e T h eb an Polynices, w ho attacked his own country w ith a
foreign arm y, was a useful m odel for both the O ld and the Y oung
Pretenders. T h e first B ritish attem p t since 1566 to stage a play
derived from E u rip id es’ Phoenician Women, the archetypal civil
w ar tragedy, was conceived in the afterm ath of the 1715 Jacobite
41 So great was the influence of Aristotle’s Poetics that dram atists were inspired
to write plays going under the titles of ancient tragedies to be found in that treatise,
even though they were lost to posterity. In this case the lost model was A ristotle’s
discussion of Theodectes’ lost Lynceus in the Poetics (1455b29). See Gildon (1718),
241. On the impact of the debate around the Act of Settlem ent on literature in
general, see Downie (1994).
42 Robert Owen (1703), 68.
43 Sturm y (1722), 53—6. Love and Duty opened on 22 Jan. 1722, and ran for six
nights. See L S ii/2. 659—61.
44 Edm und Sm ith (1796), 91.
invasion. Jane R obe’s The F atal Legacy (L incoln’s In n Fields,
1723) blatantly adapts both R acine’s L a Thebaide and E u rip id es’
Phoenician Women in order to su pp o rt the anti-Jacobite cause.
Polynices is a despotic preten d er, and in the Epilogue a resurrected
Jocasta tells her audience th at the ‘State-A ffairs’ of the present day
have ‘tally’d p retty w ell’ w ith those of ancient G reece:
You see, they’d M en their C ountry w ould undo,
Rebellions, Plotters and Pretenders too.
A ncient T h ebes has becom e ancient B ritain, the T h eb an civil w ar
the Jacobite uprising, and E u rip id es’ m essage been identified as a
w arning against traitors and preten d ers.43
JOHN LOCKE AMONG THE TAURIANS

M ost successful playw rights of this era publicly espoused anti-
Jacobite sentim ents, even if they did not go as far as the fanatical
John D ennis, w hose first play, perform ed at D ru ry L ane in 1697,
was a propagandist com edy entitled A Plot and N o Plot, or, Jacob
ite Cruelty. D ennis argued at about the sam e date th at dram a
helped to keep people ‘from frequenting Jacobite Conventicles,
and con trib utin g to o u r non-sw earing Parsons . . . for as long as
the enem ies of the State are diverted by publick Spectacles’, they
will not have tim e to listen to seditious preachers.46 D ennis thus
actually perceived theatre as an im portant rival to the allure of
Jacobite politics and religion. T w o decades later he was still beat
ing the sam e d ru m in a rabidly anti-Jacobite Shakespearean adap
tation, Coriolanus, The Invader of his Country (D ru ry Lane, 1720).
T h is m ay seem absurdly extrem e, b u t the dark days of Charles
I I ’s m ovem ent into absolutism in the early 1680s w ere still a recent
m em ory. M any m em bers of the theatrical audiences had w itnessed
the dreadful persecution of religious dissenters, the expulsion of
legitim ately elected sheriffs, and the rigged treason trials and exe
cutions of influential W higs. M ost of them will have been over
joyed w hen Jam es II was expelled, and will have shared the
passionate allegiance to W illiam III w hich D ennis so loudly
45 After its prem iere on 23 Apr. 1723, however, Robe’s crude allegory ran for
only two m ore nights (L S ii/2. 720).
46 Dennis (1698), 66-7.
expressed in his panegyric, The M onum ent: A Poem Sacred to the
Im m ortal M em ory of the Best and Greatest o f Kings:*1
R enow n’d R estorer of L ost Freedom , hail!
G reat Patron of the C hristian W orld, all hail!
A t thy approach fierce A rbitrary Power,
A nd bloody Superstition disappear.
John D enn is’s adaptation of I T is not only the earliest b u t by far
the m ost blatant of all the B ritish W hig appropriations of G reek
tragedy (a category that can subsequently be traced to the 1770s
and briefly reappeared in the 1830s). F or D ennis was not only a
fanatical p atrio t and political zealot; he was also a keen disciple of
D ry d en ,48 stu den t of Locke, and a versatile m an of letters, al
though he was no great versifier and perhaps deserved his unkind
treatm en t in P o pe’s D unciad and Sw ift’s M iscellanies (1727).
In com m on w ith m any of the authors in this book, D ennis, the
son of a L ondon saddler, cam e from lowly origins. B ut he inherited
a fortune from a w ealthier uncle. H is origin and his acquired status
as a M an of P roperty explain his espousal of radical W hig ideas.
W hen his Iphigenia was perform ed at L incoln’s In n Fields in the
w inter of 1699 to 1700, the action was concluded by the G enius of
E ngland, who drew a parallel betw een ancient G reek and m odern
B ritish heroism :
W ith silent awe, my Britons, then attend,
View the great action of a G recian friend . . .
From G recian fire let English hearts take flame
A nd grow deserving of that noble name.
For not the boundless M ain w hich I controul
Can so delight my Eyes, or charm my soul,
As I am pleas’d w ith my brave Sons I see
W orthy of Godlike L iberty and m e.49
T h e ‘great action’ consisted of tw o ancient G reek m ales, O restes
and Pilades, asserting the superiority of G reek m aritim e skills,
m ercantile culture, religion, politics, intellect, valour, and sensibil
ity over those of the introverted, superstitious Scythians of the
47 Dennis (1702), 34.
48 O n D ennis’s correspondence with D ryden, see especially Levine (1999),
89-91.
49 T his and all subsequent references to D ennis’s Iphigenia refer to the text in
Dennis (1700).
Black Sea. B eneath the title D ennis inscribes fam ous w ords from
C icero’s De A m icitia (24) in w hich he praises the m an who helps
his friend in tim e of peril, a sentim ent w hich show s that D ennis
was less interested in the spinsterly Iphigenia than in the idealized
m asculinity and m utual loyalty of ‘Pilades’ and O restes.
T h is friendship seem s to have had a resonance for the eight
eenth-century B ritish m iddle class, illustrated by the A m erican
em igre B enjam in W est’s dignified painting of 1766 (see Fig. 2.3).
W est, w hom we shall m eet again in the chapter on Sophocles’
Electra (Ch. 6), was the forem ost history painter in E ngland in
the 1760s, and P resident of the Royal A cadem y. H e was inspired
by G ilb ert W est’s fine translation of IT , published originally in his
1749 collection Odes o f Pindar, with Several O ther Pieces in Prose
and Verse. T h is was one of the very few translations of any E uri-
pidean tragedy to have appeared in E nglish by this date. T h e artist
chose the m ost fam ous scene from I T , and paired its neo-Stoic
m oral— that m ale friendship m ay entail the U ltim ate Sacrifice—
w ith that of his R om an H istory painting, exhibited alongside it,
The Continence o f Scipio. Six decades previously Jo hn D ennis had
already carved out this terrain by using the sam e m yth to explore
som e of the m ost im p o rtan t ideological configurations of the new
bourgeois B ritish culture of enlightened, free, m ale citizens, ru n
ning a farflung colonial netw ork of global businesses.
D enn is’s play offers variations on them es associated w ith John
Locke, the ‘idol’ of the W hig settlem ent of 1689. In L ocke’s Two
Treatises o f Government (1689), especially the second, w ere found
the fundam ental concepts of the new dom inant B ritish ideology:
‘liberty’, ‘rig h ts’, constitutionalism , revolution, public spirit, p ri
vate property, natural law, social contract, and consent. Locke had
him self used G reek m yth in his allusion to U lysses’ defiance of
P olyphem us’ right to govern in the section on ‘dissolution of
governm ent’ in the second Treatise.50
A recent collection of source m aterials on the reception of
L ocke’s ideas assem bles w orks published betw een 1690 and 1704
in defence of the G lorious R evolution. A m ongst speeches,
serm ons, pam phlets and essays, only one dram a has been included,
and that is a 1704 tragedy by none other than John D ennis, Liberty
A sserted.51 Its C anadian setting and Indian characters provide a
50 Locke (‘1690’), 228 = (1993), 231. 51 Goldie (1999).
F i g u r e 2.2 Louis du G uernier, frontispiece to Lewis T heobald’s

translation of Oedipus, K ing o f Thebes (1715).
prim itivist locale in w hich to assert the governm ental principle of
liberty in opposition to (F rench) tyranny. In A ppius and Virginia
(1709) D ennis was to choose R om e to argue th a t a W hig perspec
tive is of universal m erit. B ut it had been in the T au ric (i.e.
C rim ean) peninsular, that D ennis had first experim ented w ith
this type of tragedy. Pilades’ reproof of the Scythian queen in
A ct IV of Iphigenia is typical of the L ockean rhetoric m arking
every scene: ‘against N atu re’s Law s we are your V ictim s, | A gainst
the R ight of N ations w e’re your C aptives’. H e argues th at it is
legitim ate to use any available m eans to secure ‘fair L iberty. |
W hich we w ere b orn for, and for w hich w e’ll die’ (34). T h is is
a poetic expression of L ocke’s account of the legitim ate resistance
to tyranny, com posed in the 1680s in the face of C harles I I ’s
repressions.
Insp ired by R acine’s Phedre, D ennis had flirted w ith the idea of
adapting E u rip id es’ H ippolytus, b u t his attention was draw n to I T
by L agrange-C hancel’s Oreste et Pilade, perform ed in Paris in
1697. T h is French play m ust have been attractive to D ennis,
because its one rem arkable feature, and the one w hich m ost d istin
guishes it from the providential piety of R ucellai’s sem inal R enais
sance reading of IT ,* 2 is the extent to w hich the action has been
hum anized: the dea ex machina and m ost references to divine
intervention have been replaced by a plot close to E uripides b u t
far less d ependent upon supernatural causation. D en n is’s play also
shows a ‘m o d ern ’ intolerance of supernatural paraphernalia. T h is
is striking w hen contrasted w ith the divine and supernatural beings
w ho thronged D avenant’s earlier ‘pageant tragedy’: dem onic
spirits, Pluto, Furies, Iris, ‘Syrens’, nym phs, airborne dragons,
C upid, M orpheus, P hobetor, personifications of pleasant dream s
and nightm ares, and the ghost of C lytem nestra.
In contrast, D en n is’s Iphigenia is a hum ane, serious b u t o p ti
m istic, dram a concerned w ith social anthropology, in particular
the stages of political evolution. H is barbarous Scythians, forced
by custom to sacrifice strangers, learn from their G recian visitors
to transcend their prim itive superstitions and learn the ways of the
E nlightenm ent gentlem an. T h e play accords w ith D en n is’s
pam phlet polem ics against C atholicism and priestcraft, in w hich
he denounces priestly p ride as the m ainstay of all tyrannies,
52 O n which see Di M aria (1996), especially n. 24.
declares the essence of religion to be the hum anistic virtues of
charity and fellow ship, and pronounces pagan G reece to have
achieved greater virtue than any C hristian society.53 H is upbeat
Iphigenia is a proto-im perial fantasy in w hich even savages can
abandon superstition and behave like th eir G recian/B ritish over
lords, thus im plicating them selves in the burgeoning colonial
ideals of the early eighteenth century. T h e G reeks are gallant and
virtuous: even A gam em non is exonerated— he did not sacrifice his
daughter b u t sm uggled her off to safety in exile in a m erchant
vessel. D ennis’s W hig agenda becom es especially clear if his lively
reading of I T is com pared w ith the drearily apolitical H ellenism of
the tw o French m odels he used, w hich included Q u in au lt’s P hae
ton in addition to L agrange-C hancel’s Oreste et Pilade.
D enn is’s concept of the educable savage contrasts w ith the
T hoas of every other version of this period perform ed in E ngland.
In E uripides T hoas finally obeys both the will of both the G reeks
and of A thena, and survives on his Pontic throne. In both D ave-
n a n t’s Circe and H an d el’s Oreste, he dies.54 B ut D ennis om its
T hoas altogether in favour of a Scythian queen, a beautiful, silly,
and superstitious w om an, w ho yet learns to em ulate B ritish virtues
throug h the redem ptive pow er of love. She is taught a series of
L ockean lessons on contracts, consent, and the subordinate role of
religion in diplom acy and politics. She then releases all her
G recian captives and voluntarily hands over colonial rule of the
T au rian E m pire to O restes. F or good m easure she throw s in his
right to select his ow n bride, for, like a progressive W hig, she
has learnt that m arriage needs to be grounded in love (see below,
Ch. 5):
T h y souls surpassing greatness I admire!
W hich H eaven that form ’d it sure design’d for Em pire;
A ccept of m ine, thy wiser nobler Sway
W ill polish these Barbarians into M en.
T hine are the vast extended plains of T auris.
M y self, m y Subjects, M en and W om en, all
Shall govern’d be by thy unbounded Sway. (53-4)
It w ould not be possible to find a clearer exam ple of G reek tragedy
adapted to justify W hig principles and the early eighteenth-
century expansion of the B ritish em pire.
53 Hughes (1996), 442. 54 On H andel’s piece see below, p. 62.
W HIG IPHIGENIA
W hig adaptations of G reek tragedy also absorbed languages de
rived from B ritish political traditions going fu rth er back than
Locke, especially A ncient C onstitutionalism , w hich had antici
pated W hig historiography’s em phases on history, law, and prece
dent. A n idealistic variant was seventeenth-century Classical
R epublicanism ,53 w hich had stressed the freedom and m oral virtue
believed to have been enjoyed u n der som e of the ancient consti
tutions in G reek and R om an history. T h e quest for classical
m odels of free nation-states was articulated in tw o non-dram atic
poem s by authors w ho subsequently attem pted to adapt G reek
tragedy for the L ondon stage. Jam es T h o m so n ’s Agam emnon was
preceded by his didactic poem Liberty (published betw een 1734
and 1736), w hich traces L iberty back to classical G reece, like the
serial tem ples in the ‘m oral gardens’ at Stow e, b uilt from 1711
onw ards by ‘the greatest W hig in the arm y’, M arlbo ro u g h ’s gen
eral R ichard T em p le;55 R ichard G lover’s M edea was a later w ork
than his fam ous epic Leonidas (1734), w hich idealizes ancient
G reece (especially the Spartans w ho fell at T herm opylae under
L eonidas, their ‘P atriot K in g ’), w hile covertly assaulting R obert
W alpole and the K ing, accused of being no P atrio t at all.37
In the theatre, indeed, w here a W hig perspective was dom inant,
A thens was offered as an object of em ulation several decades
before it becam e an approved ideal am ongst politicians or political
theorists. T h e discovery of classical A thens as a legitim ate m odel
for m ainstream tho u g h t is often traced to the ancient historian
G eorge G rote in the first half of the n in eteenth cen tu ry .58 B ut in
1774 D o m in g R asbotham ’s tragedy Codrus portrayed a m ythical
w ar betw een S parta and A thens (the source for w hich was p ro b
ably Pausanias, Description o f Greece, 1.19. 6), and explicitly urged
the superiority of the A thenian ‘rep u b lic’ (this term , rather than
S5 Fink (1945). 56 On Stowe see above all Dickinson (1977).
57 Stern (1940), 119, 124.
58 Jenkyns (1980), 14-15 argues that it was only in the Victorian era that Peri-
clean Athens had become respectable in m ainstream circles, even though it is
possible to find enthusiasm for Athenian democracy amongst radicals at the end
of the 18th c. T urner (1981), 11, acknowledges that the political parallel between
ancient democracy and modern democracy had been established in English writing
‘by 1790’. T he Athenian democracy was also praised by Bulwer: see Bulwer (2004),
and the discussion of G rote and Bulwer in the introduction to Bridges, Hall, and
Rhodes (forthcoming).
‘dem ocracy’, was the one usually deployed at this tim e). T h e play’s
A dvertisem ent describes it as containing ‘sentim ents w hich will
not be displeasing in a land w hich prides itself on being a peculiar
residence of F reed o m ’ and as an attem p t ‘at a display of P A T R I
O T IC V IR T U E ’.19 T h ree decades previously Jam es R alph,
a theatrical com m entator and advocate of the A thenian ‘R epublic’,
had expressed his adm iration of the political fervour of the earlier
A thenian plays;60 as early as the tu rn of the eighteenth century
Jo hn D ennis had offered the relationship betw een A thens and her
tragic theatre as an ideal. B ritons needed to be inspired by the
theatre to defend their L ib erty against the tyrannical F rench (L ord
M arlborough was about to wage w ar against them u n der Q ueen
A nne); they should rem em ber th at the A thenians had been able to
becom e the scourge of Asia and the ‘T e rro r of the great K in g ’ (of
Persia) because th eir tragic poets ‘anim ated th eir A rm ies and fir’d
the souls of those brave m en, w ho co n q uer’d at once and dy’d for
their co u n try ’.61
Y et the m ost im portant feature of D ennis’s Iphigenia is his
attem pt to m arry generic questions to those of contem porary pol
itics. P erform ed ju st before the A ct of Settlem ent (1701), w hich
instituted the H anoverian succession, D ennis recasts his m odel as
a celebration of B ritish spiritual values u n der threat from co n tin
ental counter-reform ation C atholicism . G reekness sym bolizes
E nglish valour, w hile the barbarous T au rian s initially represent
C ontinental (and especially French) despotism . B ut D ennis sug
gests that the country about to be called B ritain (the A ct of U nion
was passed in 1707) requires a new , hum ane, sophisticated form of
theatre all of its own. H e tu rn s to G reek tragedy for inspiration at
the historical point w hen dram atists w ere searching for new , dis
tinctively B ritish form s in w hich to affirm the identity of their
post-revolutionary and new ly expanded nation-state. B ritish th e
orists at this tim e w restled w ith the question of w hich elem ents of
N eoclassicism — the A ristotelian ‘R ules’, for exam ple— w ere to be
59 Rasbotham (1774), p. v. Rasbotham (High Sheriff of Lancashire in 1769), was
an am ateurish playwright, but did get his politically charged Codrus perform ed in
M anchester in 1777 and again in 1778, with actors of the distinction of Kem ble and
Siddons (see O D N B xlvi. 46). T he Prologue draws parallels between the ancient
Athenian struggle for freedom and the contem porary plight of Greece, ruled by ‘the
turband tyrant’.
60 Ralph (1743), 16.
61 Dennis (1698), 59, citing the Athenian successes at Salamis and M arathon.
rejected as reactionary C ontinental restrictions on creativity, and
w hich needed to be reform ulated as w hat have (often confusingly)
been labelled ‘A ugustan’ aesthetic principles.
C ritics of the W hig literature of this era used to dism iss it
as com placent and closed off, suffering from a ‘fallacy of p rem a
tu re teleology’ w hich m isleadingly suggested that the triu m p h
of L iberty in 1689 m eant that B ritish history had achieved its
ultim ate p u rp ose.62 B ut recently it has been countered that the
W hig project was interrogative and restless, incorporating
a vigorous quest for new literary form s, including form s of tra
gedy, inseparable from the exploratory affirm ation of the new
political and ideological form ations. T h ere was a conviction that
only liberty could create inspiration, b u t also that the B ritons’
national achievem ents in the political and social spheres had, at
least so far, o utstripp ed their achievem ents in the arts. L o ng in u s’
On Sublim ity, m uch studied in B ritain after its translation into
F ren ch in 1674 by Boileau, concludes that sublim e art can only
flourish un d er conditions of political liberty (On the Sublim e, ch.
44). D ennis him self, nicknam ed ‘Sir L o ng in u s’ by his contem por
aries,63 appealed to this L onginian notion of the relationship b e
tw een freedom and inspiration in The Grounds o f Criticism in
Poetry (1704). A fter the E arl of Shaftesbury’s discussion in his
influential Characteristicks (1711), it was to surface in the w ork of
alm ost every m an of letters in the eighteenth century. A bove all it
encouraged W hig w riters to attem p t to m ake art for their new
B ritain truly great.
T h e inseparability of th eir aesthetic and their political projects is
illustrated by D en n is’s account, in the preface to The M onum ent
(see above), of the conceptual contiguity of political and poetic
freedom . H e had decided to abandon rhym e and w rite in blank
verse because he it w ould give him ‘m ore L ib erty ’, and w ould
allow him ‘to shew the H arm ony of our M other T ongue . . . above
that of our N eighbours the F ren ch ’ (pp. ix-x, xiii). T h e question
was not only one of rhym e versus blank verse, or the desirability of
the A ristotelian ‘R ules’ identified w ith the m ost reactionary N eo-
classicism of the F ren ch academ y, or even of the preferability of
private, dom estic stories over heroic tales of siege and conquest
62 See the subtle analysis of this kind of criticism in the preface to M eehan (1986).
63 Bosker(1930), 27.
(see Ch. 3): the debate was inflam ed by the arrival in B ritain, at the
end of the seventeenth century, of C ontinental opera.
T h e opera craze was deplored by scholars and W hig dram atists
alike. W hen O xford’s first Professor of Poetry, Joseph T rap p ,
delivered his lectures on poetry betw een 1708 and 1718, he fu l
m inated against C ontinental opera, ‘in tro d u c’d am ong us from
foreign Parts, by the m ercenary T raffic of E unuchs and C o u rte
zans’. T h e problem w ith opera, besides its castrato singers and
sexually profligate fem ale perform ers, was the ‘m o nstrous’ idea
that ‘the w hole D ram a should be S ing-S ong’. T ra p p upbraids his
fellow citizens: ‘B roken and u n nerv ’d Britainsl Into w hat sham eful
Effem inacy are we sunk?’64
T rap p was responding to the sam e situation th at had m ade John
D ennis so anxious to distinguish his ow n serious E nglish-language
dram a from the fashionable all-sung im ported opera of Italy and
France. T h e Prologue to Iphigenia opposes opera and tragedy by
linking them w ith the self-definition of the E nglishm an. T h e T ra-
gick M use has left ‘the enslav’d Italian’ and ‘servile G allia’, hoping
th at in E ngland, w here L ib erty flourishes, she can once m ore
‘inspire A thenian flights, | A nd once m ore tow ’r to Sophoclean
heights’. B ut she finds E ngland in love w ith foreign opera. T h e
G enius of E ngland, in turn, lam ents th at even m ale audiences are
now ‘D issolv’d and dying by an E u n u ch ’s Song’; he urges them to
prefer the ‘w holesom e’ and ‘severe’ tragedy by D en n is.65 B ritish
ness, m anliness, and political liberty are thus sym bolized by spoken
tragedy; M editerranean effem inacy and slavishness, on the other
hand, are represented by the singing eunuchs and spectacle of the
opera house.
Y et the cheerful tone of D ennis’s dram a confused everyone,
even though contem porary taste tolerated w holesale alterations to
the plots of Shakespearean tragedy, and dram atic theorists had
recently been discussing the constitution and legitim acy of trag i
com edy.66 C harles G ildon, w hose own experim ents w ith adapting
E uripides w ere gloom ier (see Ch. 3), was u n su re w hether Iphigenia
64 These lectures were delivered in Latin, and are quoted from the English
translation published later: T rapp (1742), 240-2. On the history of the arrival of
Italian opera in London see especially N albach (1972), and Grove 7, xv. 114—16,
bibliography 129—30.
65 Dennis (1700), ‘Prologue’.
66 See M aguire (2000).
was a tragedy.67 D ennis adopts precisely the lieto fin e that was a
staple convention of the opera so irritating to W higs, by m aking
even happier the ‘happy en ding’ to be found in E uripides (and
w hich D avenant had replaced w ith the huge body count of his
heroic clim ax). In D ennis nobody im portant dies, the G reeks
escape victorious, love trium phs, and the Scythians are b etter off
than before they w ere colonized. T h is is sim ilar in overall th ru st to
the version of I A invariably used in the eighteenth century, in
w hich Iphigenia escapes sacrifice, to general rejoicing. H ere, p e r
haps, lies a clue to the persistent appeal of the Iphigenia plays in
the theatre after the G lorious R evolution: both of them enacted
h um an sacrifice joyfully averted. T h ey offered perform ed affirm
ations of the possibility not only of surviving traum a b u t also of
em erging from it trium phantly. T h is plot-shape resonated at a
deep psychological level w ith the experience of the B ritish after
the trau m a of the seventeenth century and the glorious new daw n
of 1689.
COMIC IPHIGENIA
T h e jolly dim ension of I T is clearest in Lew is T h eo b ald ’s Orestes,
first perform ed at L incoln’s In n Fields on 3 A pril 1731, w ith Q uin
as T hoas, R yan as O restes, and M rs B uchanan as Iphigenia. It is
described in its published edition as a ‘dram atic opera’, b u t it was
perform ed in E nglish. A lthough it features several choral songs,
one solo aria by Pallas, and incidental m usic accom panied by
dancers including M arie Salle, its long spoken episodes m ake it
seem m ore dram atic than operatic.68 In one sense it belongs to the
genre of light entertain m en t on them es from m yth exem plified by
Elkanah S ettle’s w ildly successful 1707 extravaganza (w hich Settle
him self described as a ‘tragicom edy’), The Siege o f T roy.69 T h eo
bald him self had m ade m oney w ith spectacular rew orkings of
classical m yths, especially his O vidian A pollo and D aphne and
Rape o f Proserpine at L in co ln ’s In n Fields in 1726 and 1727 re
spectively.70 T h is type of entertain m en t persisted even during
decades w hen G reek tragedy was absent from the stage: there
was a show perform ed at S adler’s W ells betw een A pril and July
67 Gildon (1702), 37. 68 Richard Foster Jones (1919), 151.

69 Settle (1708). 70 Rosenfeld (1981), 16-18, 32, 51-2.
1792, for exam ple, to the delight of the D uke of C larence, w hich
was based on the fourth book of the A eneid and entitled Queen
D ido, or the Trojan Ramblers. It was com plem ented by the h arle
quinade M edea’s K ettle (not based on the tragedy), w hich included
a scene in w hich the sorceress aroused w itches w ho ranged ‘abroad
in the shape of anim als’.71
Orestes, how ever, was rath er m ore than a classical spectacular.
T heobald was an accom plished G reek scholar. In addition to his
im portant translations of Sophocles (see Chs. 6 and 8; Fig. 2.2), he
published translations of A ristophanes’ Clouds and Plutus in 1715
(fig. 2.4). H e also w orked for years on a translation of A eschylus
w hich rem ained unpublished and has disappeared.72 T h e unique
status of T h eo b ald ’s Orestes as an eighteenth-century com ic b u r
lesque of a specific G reek tragedy results from its au th o r’s engage
m ent w ith both the contem porary theatre (he was not only an
inveterate playgoer, b u t a significant dram atic critic) and w ith
G reek theatrical texts in the original. T h e burlesque elem ent is a
sign of T h eo b ald ’s tim es, for this genre was largely created in
B ritain d uring the first half of the eighteenth cen tu ry .73 Parodying
elevated classical texts cam e easily to E nglish-language authors; a
large proportion of the texts listed in R ichm ond B ond’s register of
B ritish burlesque poem s published betw een 1700 and 1750 are
responses to G reek or L atin epics.74 It was also com m onplace to
defend burlesque by pointing to the ancient A thenians’ taste for
parody, as exhibited, for exam ple, in A ristophanes.75 B ut G reek
tragedy was still too unfam iliar a form to generate a tradition of
b urlesque at this stage, w hich m akes T h eo b ald ’s hum orous experi
m ent all the m ore exceptional.
71 British Library, Collections Relating to Sadler's Wells, ii: 1787—1795, nos. 102,
105, 109.
72 Orestes, m ost unusually, shows knowledge of Aeschylus’ Eumenides, above all
in the dialogue between Orestes and Clytem nestra’s ghost in Act II; like Aeschylus’
spectre at the Delphic oracle, Theobald’s ghost of Clytem nestra arises and talks of
how she, her Furies, ‘and my w ound’ shall persecute her son, a clear reminiscence of
Eumenides 103. Although Clytm enestra’s ghost had also appeared in Circe, the
verbal reminiscences of Aeschylus are clearer in the Theobald version. T heobald’s
Persian Princess (perform ed 1708, published 1715) also has echoes of Aeschylus’
Persians. H is personal collection of books contained the editions of Aeschylus by
both T urnebus and Stephanus: see C orbett (1744), 6, 12.
/3 Bond (1932), p. ix. On the im portance of Theobald’s dram atic criticism in the
Censor, see Charles Harold G ray (1931), 53-4.
74 Bond (1932), 237-153.
75 Ibid. 52.
F i g u r e 2.3 Benjam in W est, Pylad.es and Orestes Brought as Victims

before Iphigenia (1766).
T h is is interesting given the direction in w hich B ritish adapta
tion of G reek tragedy was to m ove in the early V ictorian era, w hen
com ic, m usical burlesques of Antigone or M edea w ere to becom e
staples of the popular theatre (see Chs. 12—14). L ike T h eo b ald ’s
Orestes, w hich is saturated w ith the texts of Shakespeare w hich he
had edited, the V ictorian burlesques w ere to specialize in com bin
ing Shakespearean and G reek tragic elem ents.76 T h ere was an
interm ediate phase in the second half of the eighteenth century,
w hen parodic m usical entertainm ents on m ythical them es w ere
popularized throu g h the classical ‘b u rlettas’ of the Irish playw right
K ane O ’H ara. T hese had juxtaposed dem otic Irish jigs w ith ele
vated arias from operas, and m ocked conventional reverence for
76 Theobald’s m onum ental critical edition of Shakespeare was first published in
1733 in seven volumes. For an evaluation of his m ethods and achievement as a
scholar and editor, see Richard Foster Jones (1919).
F i g u r e 2.4 Frontispiece to Lewis T heobald’s translation of A ristopha

nes’ Plutus: or, the W orld’s Idol (1715).
Iphigenia and the Glorious Revolution
M I D A
A N
Englifh Burletta,
As it i> pcrforsaed a: tie
T H E A T R E-R O Y A L
1K
COVENT-GARDEN.
LONDON:
» PtfKtid far" T , Lowndes, in Fletf-Sttetst
* in, L'-fthMHie-Siftttj ^nd- ■
W. 14i cot L, in Si. Pistil’.- Chatci-Yard. i j j s ,
( Price j/. )
F i g u r e 2.5 T itle-page and frontispiece, engraved by Isaac T aylor, to

the 1771 L ondon edition of K ane O ’H ara’s M idas.
the G reeks and R om ans. O ’H ara’s M idas, first perform ed in

L ondon in 1764, up dated the m yth of M idas and the ass’s ears
(see Fig. 2.5), and The Golden Pippin (C ovent G arden, 1773)
burlesqued the story of Paris and O enone. C ontem porary review
ers objected th a t O ’H ara’s ‘gods and goddesses frequently speak
the language of a W apping landlady’.77 T h eo b ald ’s Orestes antici
pates these burlettas, b u t it rem ains the only eighteenth-century
English burlesque of G reek tragedy.
T heobald had collaborated on John R ich’s revival of D avenant’s
Circe at L incoln’s In n Fields in A pril 1719, and this m ust have
inspired his ow n Orestes, a decade and a half later.78 D espite
playing sim ultaneously w ith Fielding’s D ru ry L ane h it The T ra
gedy o f Tragedies (w hich parodies an earlier w ork by T heobald,
The Persian Princess), large audiences cam e to see Orestes, and it
enjoyed the favour of the Prince of W ales.79 Y et T h eo bald disliked
" The Westminster M agazine no. 1, February 1773, p. 165, quoted in the discus
sion of the tone of O ’H ara’s burlettas by Maxwell (1963), 135.
78 Richard Foster Jones (1919), 151.
79 W oods (1949), 419-24.
politics, and at the tim e of Orestes was distancing him self from the
W hig ‘patrio t opposition’ to the unpo p u lar Prim e M inister R obert
W alpole, a group w hich clustered around the Prince; Orestes is
actually dedicated to W alpole, in thanks for a recent favour. But
despite its avow edly apolitical (and arguably T ory) author, if Ores
tes is com pared w ith Circe, it exem plifies the p enetration of W hig
ideology into B ritish thought.
W hen T hoas confronts O restes and Pylades, Pylades answ ers
him by telling him to stick to ‘lording it over’ his ow n people, and
stop trying
to stretch C ontroul o’er those,
W ho are not subject to your Scepter’s Sway.
K ings, who im pose C om m ands that are unjust
Forfeit that nam e to wear the B rand of T yrants. (10)80
Y et radical politics are a subject of m irth in this reading of IT . T h e
th ird act of Orestes has one deeply A ristophanic sequence, w here
the G reek sailors discuss setting up a new colonial state in Scythia.
T h is send-up of a constitutional debate, w hich draw s on ideas in
both Birds and Assemblywomen, is com ically larded w ith the lan
guage of earlier E nglish revolutions than the G lorious one of 1689:
‘W e are to be a C om m onw ealth, and every M an shall have an equal
V ote’ says the first sailor (42), com m ended by his th ird colleague,
w ho tu rn s out to be a Leveller: ‘Ay, ay, all upon a Level. I ’ll suffer
no M an to be greater than m y se lf.
T h e chief im portance of this play, how ever, is generic. T h e o
bald ’s prologue discusses the relationship of this w ork to D ave-
n an t’s Circe, a tragedy w hich used rhym ing couplets ‘your F ath ers’
E ars to ch arm ’. In place of rhym e, T heobald says his version offers
song, dance, and ‘the P ain ter’s A rt’, for Orestes was scenically
beautiful. T h e m usical num bers, w hich owe m uch to D avenant’s
play, included a song-and-dance in h onour of M ithra in T h o a s’
palace at the end of A ct I, and a lam plit song to ‘H arsh M usick’ by
the three Furies p ursuing O restes in A ct II. A ct III boasts a song
by Pallas, descending in a chariot of C louds, an epiphany of Circe
in a dragon-draw n chariot, and an erotic n u m b er in her bow er as
she tries to seduce O restes. In this A ct three m agicians sing an
80 T his and all subsequent references to Theobald’s Orestes are to the text in
T heobald (1731).
invocation to H ecate, draw ing on M acbeth. T h e clim ax is the
rescue of the statue of Pallas, follow ed by the fight betw een the
Scythians and the G reeks, led by T hoas and O restes respectively.
T h is was displayed by clever m achinery as ‘A W heeling F ight seen
th ro ’ the W ood’.
Som e of the best m om ents are provided by the ‘S hakespearean’
diversion of w orking-class G reek m ariners, w hose com ic b an ter in
prose im itates The Tem pest’s sailors. Y et T heobald regarded Ores
tes as less trivial than m uch indigenous theatrical entertainm ent,
typified (allegedly) by F ielding’s The Tragedy o f Tragedies. T h e
prologue to Orestes, curiously w ritten by Fielding, argues that
there is a place for a form of E nglish dram a that Orestes exem pli
fies. T h e quest seem s to be for an elegant yet cheerful theatre
w hich avoided coarseness and could offer an alternative to the
Italian opera house on the one hand and to uproarious satire
on the other: M rs Y ounger (who played H erm ione) asked the
audience,
Once in an Age, at least, your Smiles dispense
T o English Sounds, and T ragedy th a t’s Sense.
T hese are V ariety to you, who come
From the Italian O pera, and T om T hum b. (77)
Like D ennis before him , T heobald thus tu rn ed to the ‘h y b rid ’
tragicom edy of E u rip id es’ I T w hen trying to develop a new form
of theatre. Y et ultim ately his p roto-burlesque, how ever expertly
w ritten, rem ains a rew orking of D avenant’s m eaty ‘pageant tra
gedy’, m inus D avenant’s fatalities. T h e ideological flexibility of
E uripidean tragicom edy is b etter dem onstrated by com paring the
adaptations of D avenant and D ennis, w hich show that w ithin
tw enty-three years the sam e text could be used to defend the
ideology of royal prerogative or to dism antle it and replace it
w ith a passionate defence of the B ritish businessm an’s right to
rule the global waves.
TH E IN V E ST IG A T IO N OF IPH IG EN IA
T h is chapter has taken the versions of E u rip id es’ Iphigenia plays
perform ed betw een the R estoration and the early 1730s as a case
study in the B ritish perform ance of G reek tragedy at this tim e.
A fter the G lorious R evolution, and for the first few decades of the
eighteenth century, the appeal of both plays was related to their
affirm ation of escape from suffering into a brave new w orld, a
positive m essage w hich resonated in the early years of the W hig
settlem ent. I T had other attractions, especially the scope it offered
for exploring issues related to an expanding em pire and its m er
cantile culture. B ut the m ost im portant result has been the revela
tion of the tran sparen t m ethods by w hich G reek tragedy was
adapted in o rd er to fit the ideological im peratives of the tim e.
T h is was in a period durin g w hich the em ergence of journalism ,
through the m edia of the political pam phlet, the periodical essay
and above all the new spaper, produced an inform ed L ondon
m iddle class, fascinated by public affairs, and expecting to see
them discussed in serious theatre. T h e generic and ideological
elasticity of I T , the sole exam ple of E uripidean tragicom edy to
be revived in this period (Ion was not discovered in B ritain until
1754, w hile H elen and Electra scarcely featured at all), produced
exceptionally heterogeneous theatrical reactions. In D avenant,
D ennis, and T heobald, the play inspired an extrem e m onarchist,
an extrem e W hig, and a lapsed T ory; they respectively w rote a
rhym ed heroic tragedy, a redem ptive adventure story in blank
verse, and a m usical burlesque w ith com ic dialogue.
F rom this perspective, the variegated story of E u rip id es’ Ip h i
genia is atypical of the experience of G reek tragedy on the eig ht
eenth -cen tury B ritish stage, b u t in other ways it exem plifies
certain general features of the reception of G reek tragedy in this
era. Investigating the experience of the Iphigenia plays has show n
that there is a relationship betw een the theatrical revival of ancient
G reece and several other m odish types of setting and revivalism
(R om an, T u rk ish , ancient E gypt and Persia, N o rth A m erican
Indian). A dapting a G reek tragedy for perform ance, as opposed
to m erely translating it, seem s to have been seen as a rite of passage
for aspiring m en of letters. T hose w ho did it only once include
D avenant, Boyer, D ennis, and T heobald: others w hom we shall
m eet in subsequent chapters include C harles Johnson, R ichard
W est, E dm und Sm ith, and W illiam W hitehead. T h is can not be
explained solely by the lim ited success w ith w hich som e (though
by no m eans all) of these experim ents in G reek tragedy m et in the
com m ercial theatre. It is as significant that their versions are sites
for practical experim entation w ith dram atic form and aesthetics,
signposted in the prefaces and prologues, and related to their m ore
theoretical m editations, published in treatise and pam phlet. D en
nis and T heobald, for exam ple, b o th w rote extensively on the
nature and function of dram a. T h is A ugustan and early H anover
ian phenom enon— the ‘initiatory’ G reek tragedy— m ust partly
have been a response to the D ryden—L ee Oedipus, seen in relation
to D ry d en ’s theoretical discussions of tragic form , translation, and
adaptation (see Ch. 1).
T h ree years after T h eo b ald ’s Orestes, the first of m any operas
based on I T was perform ed in L ondon, w ith M adam e Salle (again)
as one of the dancers: the w ork was H an d el’s Oreste H andel used
. 8 1
an anonym ous libretto adapted from G iangualberto Barlocci’s

L ’Oreste, w hich had been w ritten for B enedetto M ichaeli’s opera
of that nam e (first produced in Rom e in 1723), and its m ono
chrom e politics have little to say about the B ritish scene: T hoas
is both wicked tyran t and sexual predator, b u t he is killed w hen the
G reeks restore liberty to his rebellious people. H an d el’s text d i
m inished even fu rth er the political im pact of Barlocci’s play by
cutting som e recitative discussing T h o a s’ tyranny in the first act.8“
H and el’s Oreste heralds the fate of I T for the next century and a
half, during w hich it was rediscovered as an elevated text for
serious adaptation in opera, in particular T om m aso T ra e tta ’s Ip h i
genia in Tauride (1763, first perform ed in L ondon at M rs B laire’s
private house in L ondon in 1789), and subsequently G luck’s Ip h i
genie en Tauride (of w hich the first perform ance in E ngland took
place at the K ing ’s T h eatre in 1790). T h e sam e destiny aw aited the
A ulic Iphigenia. D espite the occasional revival of revised versions
of B oyer’s play, the continuing presence of the sacrificed m aiden at
m asquerades and fairground spectacles, and by the 1790s in Italian
opera (C herubini) and French ballet (N overre),83 from quite early
in the century onw ards she was not pro m in en t as a serious tragic
heroine. W hat had m ade Iphigenia so appealing during the p o lit
ical and aesthetic upheavals of the late seventeenth and early eig ht
eenth centuries was her generic versatility. B ut it was not m any
years into the eighteenth century before a new type of tragic
81 In 2000 H andel’s Oreste was given its first revival in England for over two and
a half centuries, during the English Bach Festival, in the Linbury Studio Theatre at
Covent Garden.
82 See Hicks (2000), 10.
83 N overre’s Iphiginia [sic] in Auliede [sic] (K ing’s Theatre, 23 Apr. 1793 and
repeatedly thereafter) was very m agnificent indeed: see L S v/3. 1540.
heroine, m odelled on m uch less flexible lines, was to oust alm ost all
others from the paten t theatres. T h e eighteenth century developed
an insatiable appetite for distressed m others facing m oral q u an d ar
ies. T h e tim e had com e for E u rip id es’ virginal Iphigenia to give
way to his suffering m atrons— Phaedra, Alcestis, A ndrom ache,
H ecuba, C reusa, and M edea. It is to these distressed m others
that the next chapter turns.
3
Greek Tragedy as She-Tragedy
‘T H E W R O N G S O F W E E P I N G B E A U T Y ’
T ow ards the beginning of Beryl B ainbridge’s novel According to
Queeney (2001), the hypochondriacal D r Johnson suffers a terrible
turn. U nshaven, distracted, convinced he is on the threshold of
death or m adness, he locks him self in his bedroom . H e will not
u n b o lt the door until the w ell-m eaning R evd Jo hn D elap, paying a
chance visit, is persuaded to go to him . D r Johnson gabbles wildly;
D elap declaim s the L o rd ’s Prayer. In a crisis w itnessed by Jo h n
son’s servants and new ly arrived visitors, the T hrales, Johnson
falls to his knees and w restles w ith the good clergym an. D elap
flees from the house, his w hite stockings falling round his ankles.
It is an em otional— indeed hysterical— scene, full of pain and
terror, passions in the delineation of w hich the real D elap, a keen
tragedian, saw him self as a specialist.1
It is not clear from B ainbridge’s novel w hether she had sensed
the com ic potential of this clergym an from studying his fascination
w ith the m ore sensational scenes in E uripides. F or tw o of D elap’s
plays w ere em otional adaptations of G reek tragedy, and his choice
of subject m atter illustrates the eighteenth cen tu ry ’s prodigious
attraction to virgins facing sacrifice. T h e appeal of the sacrifice of
Iphigenia at all levels of public entertain m en t was illustrated in the
previous chapter; this one begins w ith the o ther tw o E uripidean
virgins who palpitated on the altar, Polyxena and M acaria. D elap
scored only a m odest success w ith Hecuba (1761), and blam ed M rs
P ritch ard for identifying herself so m uch w ith the T ro jan queen’s
role that she had suffered fits and ‘spoilt his Hecuba by sobbing so
m u ch ’.2 B ut he was not to be deterred from his E uripidean project,
and in the prologue to his turgid adaptation of Heraclidae, w hich
1 Bainbridge (2001), 16-20.

2 See Highfill et al. (1979—93), xii. 185. T he anecdote was related by Thom as
G ray to W illiam M ason (see Ch. 7).
Greek Tragedy as She-Tragedy 65
he confusingly titled The R oyal Suppliants, he prom ised ‘to m ake
soft bosom s sigh’ again.3
T h e play enjoyed a prologue by H ester T h rale (Q ueeney’s
m other and D r Jo h n so n ’s m use), w ho recorded in her diary after
the first night that the perform ance ‘swim s delightfully’;4 it subse
quently enjoyed a fairly long ru n , and found its way to the p ro v
inces, including the T h eatre Royal in B ath.3 T h e opening reflects
the E uripidean original— H eracles’ fam ily is gathered at an altar on
A thenian territory, taking refuge from ‘E u ry sth eu s’ im pious rage’.
Y et D elap ’s prim ary focus is the sacrifice of M acaria, a them e
w hich is stretched all the way from A ct II, w hen M acaria is told
of the oracle dem anding either her life or her m o th er’s, to the final
act, w hen she reappears, rescued, to a reunion w ith her m other and
betrothal to her beloved, Prince A cam as of A thens.
T h is tale of m o th er-ch ild devotion entails dem anding roles for
two actresses. M iss Elizabeth F arren was ravishing as M acaria and
M rs A nn C raw ford (the incom parable A nn B arry, w ho had taken
her new h u sb an d ’s surnam e) was regal as her m other D eianira,
im ported from Pausanias, Description o f Greece 1. 32. 5 rath er than
Sophocles’ Trachiniae. M acaria is all ‘lovely tears’; A cam as re
sponds to her ‘filial sighs, | T h e w rongs of w eeping beauty, that
m ight m ove | T h e w orld to arm s’. T h e audience w atches her
m ysterious calm in A ct II, her terro r as she prepares to die in
A ct III (‘w hence are these | L oud throbs? W hy rush m y spirits
throug h m y breast?’), her advance across the stage in A ct IV, ‘drest
like a V ictim , attended by P riests’, culm inating in her apparent last
w ords ‘M y full heart m ust not— oh, it cannot speak | T h is tum u lt
of em otion.’ A ct V offers a titillating description of her walk to the
altar, her ‘bosom b are’ and h er head ‘uplifted for the stroke’. T h e
role w ritten for D eianira is no less em otive: she lam ents her dead
husband, says farew ell to her son H yllus as he goes into battle, and
gushes throu g h o u t her scenes w ith her daughter, culm inating in a
physical fight as they vie for the privilege of being slaughtered.
Like H ecuba in E u rip id es’ Hecuba, D eianira refuses to release her
beloved child: ‘thus entw ined, | W e’ll die together in each o th er’s
arm s, | M oth er and d au g h ter.’ G reek tragedy has been refashioned
3 Delap (1781). Euripides’ Helen more remotely inform s a third Delap drama,
The Captives (1786).
4 See Balderston (1942), i. 484-5; K napp (1961), 12, 13.
5 L S v/1. 409-23; H are (1977), 77.
66 Greek Tragedy as She-Tragedy
as a concatenation of pathetic ‘situations’ exploiting m aternal pain
and persecuted loveliness.6
D elap’s The R oyal Suppliants is the last and m ost sensational
exam ple of a m inor b u t persistent genre in the 1700s— the ancient
G reek tragedy transform ed into a ‘S h e-T rag ed y ’, the label
bestow ed early in the century on a type of dram a focused on a
w om an in pain. T h e m ajority of G reek tragedies adapted for the
eighteenth-century B ritish stage w ere by E uripides, and m ost of
them w ere dom inated by a suffering heroine. T h is tren d began
eight decades before D elap’s The R oyal Suppliants w ith C harles
G ild o n ’s adaptations of M edea as Phaeton (1698), and Alcestis as
L o ve’s Victim (1701). In addition to D elap’s plays and those in
volving Iphigenia discussed in the previous chapter, the subse
q uent E uripidean S he-T ragedies included E d m u n d S m ith ’s
Phaedra and H ippolitus (1707), Jane R obe’s The F atal Legacy
(1723, an anti-Jacobite play, also discussed in Ch. 2, related to
E u rip id es’ Phoenician W omen), R ichard W est’s Hecuba (1726),
C harles Jo hn so n ’s The Tragedy o f Medcea (1730), Jam es T h o m
son’s 1739 E dw ard and Eleonora (based on Alcestis, see Ch. 4),
W illiam W hitehead’s 1754 Creusa (based on Ion, see Ch. 5), and
above all R ichard G lover’s M edea (1767). T h e fem inized, em o
tional adaptation of E uripides, m ore than any other phenom enon
discussed in this book, casts d o ub t on the long-standing academ ic
assum ption that betw een the R estoration and the late eighteenth
century it was R om an m odels, rath er than G reek, w hich dom in
ated m anifestations of E nglish classicism .7
D I S T R E S ’T M O T H E R S I N T H E R E S T O R A T I O N
T h is is not to say th a t the influence of Seneca was not still palpable.
A significant forerunner of the fem ale-focused adaptation of G reek
tragedy was The Destruction o f Troy (1678) by John Bankes (or
Banks), w hich drew heavily on Seneca’s Troades. O stensibly in the
longstanding tradition of the m ale-dom inated ‘siege-and-con-
q u est’ heroic play (e.g. D ry d en ’s Conquest of G ranada, w hich
appeared in two parts in 1670 and 1672 respectively), this tragedy
6 Delap (1781), 14, 26, 44-5, 69-73.
7 See e.g. the absence of Greek tragedy from James Johnson (1972), and note also
the underlying assumption that the Victorians rejected the longstanding prim acy of
Roman influence, in Frank T urner (1989).
nevertheless focuses m ore closely than the L atin play on the psy
chological effects of the siege on C assandra, an erotic H elen, a
tragic D eianira, and a tender A ndrom ache. M oreover, it challenges
the heroic play’s perspective on em pire and violence by seeing
them from a fem ale perspective w hich casts them as m ale cruelty:
A chilles urges his m en, ‘A gainst the W om en sh ut your Eyes, and
E ars, | Be deaf to their loud Cries, and blind to all their T e a rs’.8 In
the sam e year the Oedipus of D ryden and Lee, of w hich Seneca is
one source, had significantly increased the role of Jocasta to extend
from her appearance at the end of the first act until her sensational
expiry near the close of the fifth (see Ch. I).9 In accordance w ith
R estoration tragedy’s fondness for presenting the traum atized
fem ale body as spectacle, the im pact of her death-scene can be
surm ised from the stage direction (v. i), ‘Scene draws, and discovers
Jocasta held by her W omen, and stabb’d in m any places o f her bosom,
her hair dishevel’d, her Children slain upon the B ed’ (see Fig. 1.3).10
Jocasta’s m aternal love for her children is stressed by the addition
to the plot of her crazed infanticide, and her conjugal love for
O edipus is upgraded to a passionate attachm ent.
D ryden and Lee, of course, drew on a F rench tradition of
adaptation in w hich Senecan tragedy had been im portant. A nd
despite one or two R estoration experim ents w ith u p datin g Senecan
plays, notably John C row ne’s Thyestes (1681), the Senecan influ
ence on E nglish-language tragedy at this tim e was usually m edi
ated throug h F ren ch dram as, above all those of Racine. T h e
sources of his m asterpiece Androm aque (1667), an account of
A ndrom ache’s experiences as captive in E pirus after the fall of
T ro y, include several passages from Seneca as well as E u rip id es’
Andromache. M ore form ative than either, how ever, is A eneas’
account of his encounter w ith the heroine in A eneid III. T h e
crucial point is that the success of Androm aque drew E nglish
au tho rs’ attention to E u rip id es’ lovelorn and m aternal heroines,
and eventually inspired one of the m ost durable of all eighteenth-
century E nglish-language She-T ragedies, A m brose P h ilip s’s The
Distrest M other (1712, see Figs. 3.1 and 3.2).
8 Bankes (1679), 50. On Bankes’s plays as the forerunners of ‘She-Tragedy’ see

W aith (1971), 267-9.
9 Ashby (1927), 8-9 a n d n .l.
10 See Howe (1992), 39-43.
F i g u r e 3.1 J. R oberts, engraving of M iss Elizabeth Younge (later M rs

Pope) in the role of H erm ione in A m brose Philips’s The Distrest M other
(published 1776).
-,r The O i l t r e s t M o t h e k .
J fy P j F 'j&M MJBJS as O r M S T B S .
<2 <£&mc ;^.<xcr &r*U-r* a-r* eh*
JS/u> /t&t a/ear*.
ioiutull -!': ! <xl i ’o t J . 11 llrittltl S.iiU FB S 'V S te e i.id A . £»«<}.i- m •
FIGURE 3.2 J. T hornthw aite, engraving of W illiam Farren in the role of

O restes in A m brose Philips’s The Distrest M other (published 1797).
A new perception that the heroines of the original G reek trag ed
ies m ight be m ore im p o rtan t than Seneca’s underlies the critical
practice of the influential theorist T hom as R ym er, w ho in the same
70 Greek Tragedy as She- Tragedy
year as D ryden and L ee’s Oedipus com pares Senecan tragedy w ith
its G reek prototypes. Insp ired by the success of R acine’s Phedre in
France the year before (1677), he dwells on the figure of Phaedra.
H is sensitive discussion of E u rip id es’ portrayal of this heroine
com m ends her m odesty, her virtue in not nam ing H ippolytus to
the nurse, and especially her restrain t in not ‘solliciting her Son
face to face’. R ym er is im pressed by P h aedra’s first scene in E u
ripides, because her derangem ent is a believable result of her
physical state:
A nd now for three days had she neither eat nor sle p t. .. N o w onder then if
she talks very m adly, she is in an hundred m inds all at once, she tries all
places and postures, and is always unesie ... H ere is a Scene of M adness,
but not of Bedlam -m adness, here is N ature but not the obscenities, not the
blindsides of N ature.
E uripides, says R ym er, is superior to Seneca in probability, in
occasioning ‘p itty ’, and in ethical exam ple. H e also argues that
women w ould ‘p itty ’ E u rip id es’ Phaedra m ore, because they know
no w om an resem bling Seneca’s heroine, ‘N or can they allow her
m ore com passion than to a Bitch or Polecat’ u H ere R ym er is
laying the theoretical groundw ork for the B ritish theatrical d ebut
of G reek tragic heroines, im personated by fam ous actresses for an
audience w ith an influential fem ale com ponent, and designed to
elicit em otional identification and sym pathy.
TH E INVENTION OF SHE-TRAGEDY
R ym er’s preoccupations prefigure the changes shortly to take place
in the content and em otional im pact of tragedy. In the 1690s the
L ondon stage underw ent a transform ation, culm inating in Jerem y
C ollier’s polem ic against the raucous and often near-obscene con
ten t of R estoration dram a, A Short View o f the Im m orality and
Profaneness of the English Stage (L ondon, 1698). T h e rising gener
ation of theatre-goers preferred a m ore dom estic and pathetic
dram a; causes for this shift in taste have been sought in the m o n
archy’s declining interest in the theatre u n der M ary and A nne, the
greater decorousness and fam ilial culture of the aristocratic court
circles, and the m iddle class’s increasing access to the th eatre.12
11 Rym er (1678), 79-98. 12 See Ballaster (1996), 279-80.

E nglish-speaking dram atic authors w ere consciously looking
around for stories about suffering (but fundam entally decent)
w om en at exactly the sam e tim e as E uripides, quite suddenly,
becom e m ore accessible to them . In 1694 there was published in
C am bridge the first com plete edition of E uripides by an E nglish
m an, Joshua Barnes; his Euripidis quae extant omnia is an intelli
gent piece of scholarship and a spectacularly beautiful volum e.
W ithin seven years of his edition the L ondon stage w itnessed the
two earliest heroine-dom inated tragedies based on G reek m odels,
w hich w ere also the first ever E nglish-language adaptations of
E u rip id es’ M edea and Alcestis. T h e author was the fem inist and
deist C harles G ildon. H is Phaeton owes details to Q u in au lt’s Phae
ton and E u rip id es’ I T , b u t m ost of its speeches and situations to
E u ripides’ M edea, in particular in its em otive use of ch ild ren .13
T h e author com m ended Frances M ary K n ig h t for her striking
delivery of dem anding ‘ran ts’ in the role of the M edea-figure
A lthea, especially after her tw o sm all sons have been torn to pieces
off stage.14 In G ild o n ’s L o ve’s Victim , or the Queen of W ales of
three years later, the heroine, Q ueen G uinoenda, is persuaded to
drink poison in order to save the life of her h u sband (who boasts
the nam e R hesus, the title of a play attrib u ted — although probably
w rongly— to E uripides), b u t only expires after a long death scene
featuring the loving couple and th eir children. T h e dom inant
m odel is Alcestis, although in his Preface G ildon says th a t he
also used ‘incidents’ and ‘sentim ents’ from E u rip id es’ Helen and
A ndrom ache,15
T h e rediscovery of E u rip id es’ ow n m others, com bined w ith the
o utstanding success of R acine’s Phedre (1677), inevitably p ro
duced an interest in E u rip id es’ H ippolytus. E d m u n d S m ith ’s Phce-
dra and H ippolitus of 1707 has often, quite w rongly, been
dism issed as a pale im itation of the F ren ch adaptation. It is actually
quite different— far m ore E uripidean, far less Senecan, and w ith a
m uch m ore tender heroine; she fell passionately in love w ith H ip
politus w hen he m anfully rescued her from an attack by a w ild boar
13 See Rothstein (1967), 153. On G ildon’s religious radicalism, and progressive

views on gender and even race, see H ughes (1996), 442—3.
14 See John H arold W ilson (1958), 55—6.
15 See R obert D. H um e (1976), 451. Love’s Victim prem iered on an unknown
date in the spring of 1701. Betterton played Rhesus to M rs Bracegirdle’s G ui
noenda. See L S ii/1. 10.
(see Fig. 3.3), and has developed a chaste and affectionate frien d
ship w ith him , b u t never acts on her desire until she believes she is
a widow. H er loving nature is fu rth er dem onstrated in her ten d e r
ness tow ards her ow n baby son by T heseus. As the epilogue puts it,
the topic of the play is love. Its author is
A n O xford m an, extrem ely read in Greek,
W ho from E u-ripides makes Phaedra speak;
A nd comes to tow n to let us know
H ow w om en lov’d two thousand years ago.
T h e play prem iered at w hat was then know n as T h e Q ueen’s
T h eatre (after Q ueen A n n e’s death the K in g ’s T h eatre) on 21
A pril 1707, w ith a stellar cast including B etterton as T heseus and
Booth as H ippolitus, in addition to the incom parable E lizabeth
Barry. It ran for several nights. But, m ore im portantly, it was not
only held in high critical esteem throu g h o u t the century (see
Fig. 3.4), b u t actually revived u ntil as late as 1785, including
exciting perform ances by M rs Bohem e in 1723, M rs P o rter in
1726-7, and in three separate seasons in the 1750s by H annah
P ritchard at D ru ry L an e.16
T h e tren d tow ards plots based on a nuclear fam ily including
young children had m ade M edea, Alcestis, and H ippolytus attract
ive. It w ent in tandem w ith the innovative delicacy of feeling
w hich, in his Iphigenia (1699-1700), John D ennis ascribes to his
G reek m odel. In his Preface he says that w hen the Iphigeneia in
Tauris was first perform ed, ‘the A thenians, w ho w ere certainly the
m ost ingenious, and m ost delicate people that ever w ere in the
w orld, w ere not only ch arm ’d, b u t ravish’d w ith it’. T h e language
of ‘ingenuity’, ‘delicacy’, and ‘ch arm ’ signals the new aesthetics of
tragedy, replacing heroic dram a’s associated concepts of terro r and
awe. T h is is apparent in the virtue of the young fem ales. Iphigenia
m isses G reece, and ‘the sw eet society of L adys’ w hose souls w ere
‘w ith ev’ry G race and V irtue frau g h t’; she thus incarnates the taste
for ‘virtue in distress’ w hich was to condition the fiction and dram a
of the entire eighteenth cen tu ry .17
16 It was also perform ed at the T heatre Royal, Bath, in 1754: see H are (1977), 7.
An operatic version, with m usic by the Irish organist and com poser Thom as
Roseingrave, was produced at Smock Alley, D ublin on 6 M ar. 1753: see Nicoll
(1952-9), iii. 339. For the esteem in which the play was held in the second half of the
18th c. see Charles H arold Gray (1931), 126—7.
17 Dennis (1700), 2-4.
F i g u r e 3.3 Jam es H eath, engraving of H ippolitus rescuing Phaedra

from a boar on the night of her w edding to T heseus (published 1797).
JL ctW . JPttSJD R A andllllPP'O JLlT lIJS o Scene
rhcatrcShmh r/tppp -
fJJ L d J t/t i~Ter //le'C /u i’imZe'r et^JPjXJEJHLtl.

, itf< /’, a / / y < / • / ? / < / > ? * / / w / ' < /> a t/f a > t< / .tft’
>'€ jru y e '\y » a ,a m /m ê e ^c m J ^ i e e / t a i
F i g u r e 3.4 J. T hornthw aite, engraving of M rs A nn Barry in a revival

of E dm und S m ith’s Phcedra and Hippolitus (1777).
T h e sym bolic figure of the distressed m aiden expressed the
com plex relationship betw een the belief that hum ans w ere fu n d a
m entally benevolent, and the realization that the w orld was often
inim ical to the achievem ent of happiness: as has been argued in
relation to eighteenth-century fiction, the ‘sentim ental trib u te of a
tear exacted at the spectacle of virtue in distress was an acknow
ledgem ent at once of m an ’s inh eren t goodness and of the im possi
bility of his ever being able to dem onstrate his goodness
effectively’.18 Iphigenia has survived a rape attem p t and a sh ip
w reck, undergoes num erous harrow ing em otional vicissitudes, and
spends m uch of the play in chains, aw aiting sacrifice.
T h e increasing availability of French and E nglish translations of
G reek tragedy durin g the early eighteenth century, especially
the translation of Sophocles’ Electra by A ndre D acier (1693, see
Ch. 6), was an im portant factor in the invention of ‘S h e-T rag ed y ’.
It was perhaps inspired by the distinction m ade in A ristophanes’
Women at the Thesmophoria betw een a tragic plot w ith a m an at the
centre of the action (andreion drama) and one revolving around a
w om an (gunaikeion drama, Thesm. 151—5). T h e term ‘S h e -T ra
gedy’ seem s to have been coined in the first few years of the
eighteenth century by the dram atist N icholas Rowe; it is to be
found, for exam ple, in the telling context of the epilogue to his
‘p athetic’ tragedy Jane Shore (1714), featuring a distressed heroine
from English history. Rowe profoundly influenced the eighteenth-
century stage, including its response to G reek tragedy, b u t the
reverse influence, G reek tragedy’s im pact on Rowe, has been
underestim ated. A fine classical scholar, he w rote an im portant
translation of L u can ’s Pharsalia. B ut he also studied G reek dram a
closely, and alm ost certainly collaborated w ith Lew is T heobald on
a translation of Sophocles’ A ja x published anonym ously
(Fig. 3.5).19
Rowe had begun to dep art from heroic them es in The Am bitious
Stepm other (1700), w hen he first announced that he was seeking to
elicit pity and tears. By the tim e he w rote the prologue to The F air
Penitent (1703), he was form ulating his aim as the su bstitu tio n of
‘A m elancholy tale of private w oes’ for the now obsolete m aterial of
heroic tragedy, w hich he describes as ‘T h e Fate of K ings and
18 Brissenden (1974), 29.

19 Anon. (17146). On the question of its authorship see Ingram (1965).
AJ AX
SOPHOCLfS-
Tranflated from the Greek,
w ith N otes.
.—Vos ExempUria Grsca

NoCiurna verfite manu, ver/ste Auras.
H o t.
LONDON:
Printed for BemardUntott at the Cro/s-Krys
between the Twe TempU-Gates in Pleet-
firn t. 1714.
F i g u r e 3.5 Frontispiece (designed and engraved by Louis du G uer-

nier, showing one of the altercations over Ajax’ corpse) and title page from
the earliest English translation of Sophocles’ A ja x (1714).
E m p ires’.20 Row e used one G reek heroine, Penelope, w hen experi
m entally developing the ‘S h e-T rag ed y ’ (see Fig. 3.6). In Ulysses
(D ru ry Lane 1705), the prologue prom ises th at the h ero ’s wife is a
m odel of dutiful wifehood:
T o N ight, in H onour of the m arry’d Life,
O ur A uthor treats you w ith a V irtuous W ife;
A Lady, who for T w enty years, w ithstood
T he pressing Instances of Flesh and Blood.
B ut Penelope is also confronted w ith the kind of fem inine m oral
conflict w hich enthralled R ow e’s audience. She m ust choose b e
tw een sacrificing her son, thus betraying her duty as a m other, and
20 Burns (1974), 68,77-8.
FIGURE 3.6 J. T hornthw aite, engraving of M rs H u nter as Penelope in

Nicholas Rowe’s Ulysses (published 1778).
yielding to the suitor E urym achus, thus betraying her husband.
Rowe prolongs the pathetic scene in A ct III in w hich she explores
this fem inine d ile m m a /1 Row e did not him self attem pt to m od
ernize a G reek tragedy for the stage, b u t his w ork so conditioned
the theatrical clim ate that it helped to determ ine w hich particular
G reek tragedies w ould appeal to eighteenth-century dram atists
looking for heroines; the m ajority w ere to choose E uripides.22
A TH EATRE FOR THE LADIES

T h e fem inization of dram a at this tim e is partly a result of the
n u m b er of w om en now attending the theatre. T h e diverse au d i
ence in the R estoration playhouse included the wives of M em bers
of Parliam ent, craftsm en, and m erchants, num erous fem ale aristo
crats and servants, as well as the notorious orange-sellers.23 D ry
d en ’s prologue to D avenant’s am orous Circe (1677) presents the
youthful author as a young m an looking for love from w om en: it
argues th at ‘T h e Sex th at best does pleasure u n d e rstan d ’, will be
tolerant of this inexperienced young playw right, because ‘T h e re ’s
such a stock of love w ithin his V eins. | T hese A rgum ents the
W om en m ay persu ad e.’24 T h e audiences of the late seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, tho u g h increasingly m iddle-class, w ere
to retain a sizeable fem ale contingent w hose reaction to a play
m ight determ ine w hether it succeeded or failed. M oreover, play
w rights often dedicated th eir w orks to fem ale patrons, w ho exerted
an influence on the types of play that w ere p ro d uced .25 Bankes
dedicated The Destruction o f Troy to L ady K atherine Ross, im ply
ing that his choice of subject-m atter was connected w ith the sex of
his patron: ‘the history of H eroick W om en shall henceforth own
you to be the Greatest and Noblest P attern of ’em all’. Boyer
dedicates his Achilles to ‘T h e Beautiful and Ingenious D ian a’,
pointing out the coincidence of the dedicatee’s nam e w ith th a t of
the tragedy’s goddess. H e com forts him self for the play’s lack of
21 Burns (1974), 138-40.
22 T he exceptions were James T hom son’s Agamemnon, which comes close to
making a She-Tragedy out of Aeschylus’ and Seneca’s prototypes, and Thom as
Francklin’s version of V oltaire’s Oreste, itself based on Sophocles’ Electra. See
below, Chs. 4 and 6.
23 David Roberts (1989), 94.
24 D avenant (1677), ‘Prologue’.
25 See David Roberts (1989), 95-126.
success by rem em bering that it had ‘pleas’d the fairest P art of the
T ow n, I m ean the L adies’.
T h e m ost im portant agent in the ‘fem inine’ transform ation of
tragedy was, how ever, the fem ale actor. T h e increasing cult of
individual star perform ers of both sexes is apparent from B oyer’s
observation in 1702 that ‘Form erly Poets m ade Players, b u t now
adays ’tis generally the Player that m akes the Poet’, yet the p o p u
larity of actresses m eant that the fem ale roles created by the
dram atists were of relatively greater im portance.26 T h e ‘typ e-cast
ing’ of the m ost fam ous actresses such as M rs B racegirdle (G il-
d o n’s G uinoenda) and E lizabeth Barry shaped the way in w hich
m any tragedies were w ritten .2/ D ram a’s increased interest in h e t
erosexual love was also a result of w om en’s arrival on the R esto r
ation stage, w hen theatregoers like Sam uel Pepys could appreciate
their sexual allure, even w hen the play was tedious.28 D ennis, who
defended the stage against the m oral criticism s of Collier, co n
ceded th at the theatre’s profound sexual charge encouraged
w om anizing, b u t argued that this offered protection against the
‘u nnatural sin ’ of hom osexual love. D ennis also described the two
greatest innovations of the R estoration stage as ‘Scenes and
W om en; w hich added probability to the D ram atick A ctions and
m ade everything look m ore naturally’.29
T h e reputation of the actresses of the period interacted radically
w ith the p u blic’s perception of the roles they played. T h e prem iere
of The Distres’t M other, a play about fem ale rivalry, was n o to ri
ously jeopardized by a riot protesting against M rs O ldfield’s real
ization of the character of A ndrom ache; the claque had been
organized by O ldfield’s vindictive rival M rs Rogers, because she
felt the role was rightfully hers. Som e of these colourful w om en
acted several ‘G reek tragic’ roles. E lizabeth Barry played both the
Scythian Q ueen in D en n is’s Iphigenia, and Phaedra in S m ith ’s
Phcedra and H ippolitus. In tw o successive years M ary B etterton
played Iphigenia in D avenant’s Circe and Jocasta in the D ry d en -
Lee O edipus . 3 0 A fter her m agnificent perform ance as G ild o n ’s
26 See Gay (1967 [1711]), 18 with John Harold W ilson (1958), 19-20, 55, 88.
27 Rothstein (1967), 141-4.
28 See Payne (1995).
29 Dennis (1698), 26; id., ‘T he Causes of the Decay and Defects of Dram atick
Poetry’, in Dennis (1939-43), i. 275—99 at 277—8.
30 O n M rs Rogers and M rs Oldfield see L S ii/1. 271-2; on M ary Betterton see
G ilder (1931), 151-60.
M edea-based A lthea, M rs K n ig h t created the role of C lytem nestra
in B oyer’s Achilles, a G reek tragic queen to w hom she retu rn ed in
Jo hn so n ’s Iphigenia in 1714. T h e role of the actresses, including
the specialists in G reek heroines, later becam e even m ore im p o rt
ant. T h e fam ous M rs P o rter attem pted both W est’s H ecuba and
Jo hn so n ’s M edaea, b u t it was her C lytem nestra in T h o m so n ’s
Agamemnon (1738) of w hich her audience ‘expressed the highest
approbation by loud and reiterated applause.’31 M rs P o rter was
particularly com m ended for the em otional effects she produced
both in her ‘spirited P rop riety in all C haracters of R age’, and also
‘w hen G rief and T enderness possessed h e r’, w hen ‘she subsided
into the m ost affecting S oftness’.32
By the m iddle of the century, w hen M rs P o rter was follow ed as
the dom inant exponent of G reek tragic heroines by M rs P ritchard
(W hitehead’s Creusa, D elap ’s Hecuba), D avid G arrick, the actor-
m anager of D ru ry L ane, was taking acting to new heights of
sophistication. A ctors’ skills w ere assessed according to their
representation of em otions, categorized by Sam uel Foote as ‘the
Passions of D esire, such as Pleasure, Pain, Love, H atred &c. and
the irascible ones, nam ely, C ourage, A nger, D espair & c.’33 E m
phasis was laid on m om ents of em otional change-. ‘T h e transition
from one Passion to another, by the Suddenness of the C ontrast,
throw s a stronger L ight on the E xecution of the A cto r.’34 A ny
actress playing C reusa had to represent rem arkable em otional
transitions in her struggle betw een tenderness tow ards Ilyssus-
Ion and anger against X uthus, assisted by stage directions such
as ‘She tu rn s away disordered’, and by Ilyssus’ description, ‘now,
now she softens, | I can see it in her eyes’.35 In A ct II I of G lover’s
M edea, an even clearer exam ple, M rs Y ates represented a tran si
tion from tearful dialogue w ith her child into a furious rant. H ere
her C olchian atten dan t gave a running com m entary on h er em o
tional vicissitudes: ‘H eart-breaking sorrow now succeeds to
rage.’36 A gain, in the ‘banish m en t’ scene she un derw en t a tran si
tion from terrifying anger w ith C reon to pitiful lam entation, cu l
m inating in a fainting fit w hen the stage directions instructed her
to be supported by her w om en (Fig. 3.7).
31 Thom as Davies (1784), iii. 467—9 . 32 Victor (1761), ii. 56—8.

33 Foote (1747), 10. See also George Taylor (1972); Barnett (1987).
34 Foote (1747), 18. 35 W hitehead (177 8), 36-7 . 36 Glover (1777), 27.
-derm. M edea. <&c.x.
. Vr/TilTJSS in f/u - T Aa*ac/tr aTeMEJOS^H.
A T f ia t y u il/ c i>y in m y v rca d A / rrm iim ^ ?
////i.t a c/ tn y u it/ u / / A rle ___ G A / , ' ^ n . x m
I lender k farmerr.
F ig u r e 3.7 John G oldar, engraving of Mrs Yates in the Character of

Medea (1777).
U nsurprisingly, M rs Y ates was concerned about excessive exer
tion w hen scheduled to act M edea and another tragic heroine on tw o
successive n ig hts.37 By m id -cen tu ry audiences w ere deeply
absorbed in tragic scenes, in response to the em otional investm ent
of the star actors. A G erm an com m entator on the B ritish theatre
contrasted the low attention-levels in France and Italy, and
reported that in E ngland, conversely, w hen M rs Bellam y becam e
so overcom e in playing Jocasta in the D ry d en -L ee Oedipus as to lose
consciousness, the audience left the theatre d istrau g h t.38 W hen
A nn Barry acted the ‘A lcestis’ role in T h o m so n ’s Edw ard and
Eleonora in the sam e year, the M orning Chronicle com m ented w ith
approval th at ‘the audience . . . confessed their sensibility, and w ept
applause.’39 T h e cult of tears in the theatre, although m ore easily
docum entable in F ren ch audiences than B ritish, nevertheless held
sway in L o ndo n theatres throu g h o u t the eighteenth century.40
A ctresses had a co u n terpart in fem ale dram atists. O ne anonym
ous w om an produced The U nnatural M other, w hich has echoes of
E u ripides’ M edea, at L incoln’s In n Fields in 1697: the oriental
Callapia poisons her hu sb an d and kills her son, before announcing
in A ct V that ‘Ceres will send her w inged D ragons for m e, and bear
m e throu g h the air’. She threatens the apparition of her m urdered
h usband w ith a visit to a friend: T ie send thee to M edea to be new
boil’d, and w hen thou art young again I will be fond of thee’.41 The
F atal Legacy of Jane Robe, another ‘S h e-A u th o r’, was perform ed
at L in co ln ’s Inn Fields in 1723 after being puffed by no less a
w riter than A lexander P ope.42 T h is adaptation of R acine’s La
Thebaide (1664), itself based on E u rip id es’ Phoenician W omen,
offered strong roles for both M rs Bohem e as the distu rb ed m other
Jocasta and M rs Bullock as the victim ized A ntigona. T h e audience
was encouraged to consider the differences betw een R obe’s play
and its E uripidean archetype by the publication of a com panion
piece. Its author adm ires the ending of E u rip id es’ Phoenician
W omen (i.e. from the death of M enoeceus), w hich he calls ‘the
m ost tragical of all’.43
37 Oulton (1796), ii. 204-9 . 38 Cited in Kelly (1936), 54-5.

39 Cited in Clifford (1947), 119. 40 See Vincent-Buffault (1991), 54-76.
41 ‘A Young Lady’ (1698), 49, 52.
42 For the term ‘She-A uthor’ see Gildon (1702), 27. For Pope’s (incognito)
prom otion of The Fatal Legacy see Charles Harold Gray (1931), 60.
43 Anon. (1723).
R obe’s ending differed from both E uripides and Racine in em
phasizing rom antic love and the psychological trau m a of Jocasta.
In particular, it highlighted the fatal outcom e of the love of Phocias
(E uripides’ H aem on) for A ntigona. In both E uripides and Racine
Jocasta kills herself off stage, b u t in R obe she enters ‘R aving and
Bloody’, raves, stabs herself again because her blood ‘seem s loth to
leave m y canker’d veins’, raves again, and finally dies. M oreover,
M rs Bohem e, m inutes earlier im personating a bloody corpse, was
resurrected to deliver the epilogue.
R obe’s production had precedents am ongst the plays by other
fem ale authors in having a F rench m odel and ancient subject-
m atter (K atherine P h ilip s’s Horace (1671) was translated from
C orneille), and the form ulaic nature of its title (cf. C atherine
T ro tte r’s The F atal Friendship of 1698). B ut generally w om en
authors, even as caricatured in dram a,44 did not favour G reek
tragic m odels, perhaps because they were excluded from education
in the G reek language.
S O F T P I T Y ’S P R I E S T
E uripides was seen as the G reek tragedian best at delineating
different em otional states— w hat the R estoration audience w ould
have described as ‘the several passions’. T h e prologue to G ild o n ’s
Phaeton proclaim s th at ‘Euripides to N igh t adorns our Stage, |
F or T ragic Passions fam ’d in every A ge.’ In the preface, G ildon
enum erated the ‘tragic passions’ he adopted from E uripides,
and w hich he felt m arked out this tragedian as superior to Sopho
cles:
I have closely follow’d the D ivine Euripides, in the grief, despair, rage,
dissimulation, and resentment of Althea ; as I have in her several Passions in
the fourth A c t. . . All ju st C ritics have agreed in prefering Euripides to
Sophocles him self, in his lively draught of the Passions.
Y et by the tu rn of the century, discussions of tragedy begin to be
concerned less w ith its ‘lively d rau g h t’ of extrem e passion, and
m ore w ith the intensity of the compassion it arouses in the specta
tor. In 1701 D ennis opines,
44 See Fidelis M organ (1981); Ballaster (1996), 273-83. On learned ladies as both
authors and as characters in the dramas of this period, see Gagen (1954), 32—54.
84 Greek Tragedy as She- Tragedy
I am no further pleas’d by any Tragedy, than as it excites passions in
m e .. . the greater the Resem blance betw een him who suffers, and him
who com m iserates, the stronger will the A pprehension, and consequently,
the Com passion, be.45
A few years later Johnson described the ideal spectators as those
w ho enjoy
the Distress of a well w rought scene, who ... behold the C onduct of our
Passions on the Stage, and w ith a generous Sym pathy feel alternate Joy
and Pain, w hen V irtue either conquers, or is contending w ith adverse
Fate.46
Jo h n so n ’s form ula is sym ptom atic of the early eighteenth-century
developm ent of w hat has been called an ‘affective theory of em ula
tio n ’. T h is entailed the audience not only identifying w ith the
distress of virtuous characters, b u t consequently m odifying their
ow n behaviour.47
T h is notion of tragedy belongs to a contem porary debate about
the relations betw een passion, reason, and sym pathy, m ost fam
ously instanced in D avid H u m e’s A Treatise o f H um an N ature
(1739-40). By 1728 Frances H utcheson had argued in A n Essay
on the N ature and Conduct o f the Passions and A ffections (1728) that
sym pathy m akes people aw are of the need to discipline th eir pas
sions: it restrains and educates th eir influence.48 As the prologue of
W est’s Hecuba p u t it, the audience should feel free to shed tears at
the play, because,
Pity’s the generous Feeling of the Soul,
A nd ought less gentle Passions to controul.49
T h e audience, it is im plied, could learn how to control their ow n
passions by feeling pity for the characters in the tragedy. Indeed,
throu g h ou t the eighteenth century, the m ovem ent for reform of
theatre assum ed th at it was an instru m ent for m oral education.
T racts argued th at the stage was an effective m edium for training
the sentim ents in a sim ilar way to serm ons, because of its psycho
logical im m ediacy.50
45 Dennis (1939^13), i. 128.

46 Charles Johnson (1710), ‘Dedication’. See Zim bardo (1986), 216-17.
47 Zim bardo (1986), 206. 48 See M ullan (1988), 18-19, 31.
49 Richard W est (1726),‘Prologue’. 50 Discussed in W inton (1974).
Sym pathy was seen as the elem ent in h u m an nature w hich both
m ade society possible and offered the hope of a good society. T h is
optim istic conception inform ed the em ergent bourgeois ideal of
the ‘greatest happiness for the greatest n u m b er’, a phrase invented
in the eighteenth cen tu ry .51 T h e im portance of ‘sym pathy’ fu rth er
illum inates E u rip id es’ popularity, for the discourse around him
stresses his pre-em inence at producing pity and tears. Boyer was
inspired to stage a play about Iphigenia by the effectiveness w ith
w hich this heroine ‘drew tears’ in the F rench th eatre.52 It has often
been claim ed that E lizabeth B arrett was heralding a new , tender,
V ictorian appreciation of E uripides w hen in W ine o f Cyprus (1844)
she praised ‘E uripides, the hum an, | W ith his droppings of w arm
tears’. B ut by then this was an absolutely conventional B ritish
view: exactly a h u nd red years earlier Joseph W arton had entitled
E uripides, ‘soft P ity ’s priest, | W ho m elts in useful woes the
bleeding b reast’.53 D elap ’s Hecuba was typically described in its
Prologue as a ‘m odern ancient piece’ designed to im itate a ‘G recian
B ard’ who ‘W akenen’d each soft em otion of the Breast | A nd call’d
forth T ears, that w ould not be S u p p rest’.54
Y et often the eighteenth-century dram atists needed to help E u
ripides to call forth those insuppressible tears. O ne strategy was to
identify the ‘situations’ in his tragedies w ith affective possibilities,
and to subject them to prolongation and repetition, the tw o dis
tinctive techniques of E nglish sentim ental dram a defined by
A rth u r Sherbo in a sem inal stu d y .55 C ertain scenes in E uripides,
for exam ple M edea’s parting from her children, H ecu b a’s from
Polyxena, or C reusa’s recognition of her son Ion, w ere instantly
arresting to eig hteenth-century sensibility, and in the plays u n der
discussion are always extended and som etim es repeated later in the
play. A nother way of im proving upon E uripidean pathos was to
guide the audience’s reactions tow ards ‘hum an e’ sym pathy. In
Jo hn so n ’s Medcea C reusa, the heroine’s rival, says that her ‘reflect
ing Soul | W ill feel the Sufferings of poor M edcea’ ( I . ii); in D elap ’s
51 Brissenden (1974), 31—4.

52 Abel Boyer (1700), ‘Preface’.
53 Joseph W arton, ‘Ode to M r W est on his Translation of P indar’, st. 5 (1744), in
Chalmers (1810), xviii. 169.
54 Delap (1762), ‘Prologue’.
55 Sherbo (1957), especially ch. 3, 32—71.
Hecuba a G reek pities H ecuba after D eianira has been led off to her
death, because,
nature in my heart
A spark hath lighted of hum anity
T h at shines for every m ortal in distress.56
T h e prevalent ideology perceived hum an beings as good, or at
least as having the capacity to act benevolently rath er than m alevo
lently if given the chance. E xpressions of this conviction are so
pervasive that it has been called both an eighteenth-century col
lective ‘fantasy’ and ‘the propaganda of benevolence and tender
feeling’.57 T h e ‘dram a of sensibility’ w hich dom inated this period
was confident in the goodness of average hum an nature; at its m ost
extrem e this confidence was expressed in R ousseau’s conceptual
ization of virtue itself as a vehem ent and voluptuous passion.58
E ig h teenth-century tragedy often articulates its understan d in g of
virtue throug h giving its fem ale protagonists such ‘interiorized’
speeches in reaction to th eir distress: like E u rip id es’ ow n M edea
and Phaedra, they explore the conflicts raging in their m inds,
betw een virtue and passion or counterpoised fam ilial loyalties;
S m ith ’s Phaedra certainly exhibits a m ore com plex and protracted
internal battle than R acine’s P h ed re.59
T h e plays also stress the virtue, delicacy of feeling, and ‘h u m an
ity’ of the dram atis personae. In Jo hn so n ’s Medcea /E geus an
nounces th at ‘T h e love of V irtue | N ow fires m y Soul, uplifting it
to H eaven’ ( i l l . i), and that his heart is sw ollen by ‘H um anity, the
pride of doing good’. In this play the w ord ‘v irtu e’ occurs no few er
than tw enty-eight tim es (a record subsequently broken by T h o m
son’s Agam em non) , 6 0 T h e discussion of G lover’s M edea below will
56 Delap (1762), 38.

57 See the discussion of ‘sentim entalism ’ in Brissenden (1974), 27-9.
ss Bernbaum (1958), 2; Babbitt (1919), 132.
59 See the adm iration expressed by ‘M r. O ldisworth’, the author of Sm ith’s
biographical notice, prefixed to his collected Works, for the way in which this
poverty-stricken near-orphan had not only improved the Phaedra of Euripides
and Seneca, b ut surpassed her characterization in Racine (Edm und Sm ith (1719),
‘A character of the A uthor’, n.p.) T he author of this notice also writes that Smith
was interested enough in She-Tragedy to draw up detailed plans for a play about
Jane Shore. T he frontispiece engraving to the Works, the work of Charles du Puis,
portrays an altercation in the play, probably at the m om ent of the return of Theseus
to the court.
60 Ashby (1927), 171-2.
reveal the extent to w hich a plot could be altered in order to excise
or am eliorate the (usually fem inine) crim es found in the G reek
texts. S m ith ’s Phaedra is also exculpated to an unprecedented
degree. S m ith so surgically enhances his heroine that she is guilty
of alm ost nothing except a tem porary loss of tem per. H e makes tw o
m om entous changes in her behaviour. F irst, she does absolutely
nothing about her love for H ippolitus u ntil she believes that she is
a w idow and free to rem arry; secondly, far from accusing H ip p o
litus of rape, she defends him to T heseus and assum es all responsi
bility for the situation w hich has developed. T h is Phaedra is
entirely a victim of m ale evil: Sm ith has added to the plot a corrupt
M inister of State nam ed L ycon, who m anipulates her and lies to
her in his am bition to destroy H ippolitus and secure the throne for
him self.61
O ther exam ples include C reusa in W hitehead’s Creusa, who,
rath er than exposing her baby son, en tru sted him to the safekeep
ing of her nurse. T h is surgical enhancem ent of the plot was neces
sary on account of the ‘natural antipathy, w hich the m ore refined
system of cultivated society, in the present aera of m ankind, will
inevitably raise against’ E u rip id es’ authentic heroine, because ‘the
M other of an Infant, exposed by her ow n hand, could [not]
b e . . .tolerated on a m odern theatre of enlightened E u ro pean s’.62
E ven m ore radically, in D elap’s Hecuba the plot is engineered so
th at the delicate queen, w hose ‘weak b rain ’ is afflicted,63 does
nothing im m oral w hatsoever. Instead of blinding Polym estor and
having his children slaughtered, she concludes the play, raving,
betw een her ow n ch ild ren ’s corpses.
W hen the eighteenth-century playw rights adapted G reek tra
gedy, therefore, they intrusively em phasized the virtue of the
characters, regarded as necessary to the eliciting of sym pathy.
T h e earlier plays tended to rew ard virtue, punish turpitu de, and
draw an explicit m oral. T h is tendency is shared w ith m uch of the
polite literature of the tim e and is indigenous: the authors influ
enced by a F rench adaptation of G reek tragedy did not find the
m oralizing habit in them . B oyer’s Achilles replaces b o th the E u r
ipidean and R acinean endings w ith Calchas helpfully draw ing a
61 This and all subsequent references to Sm ith’s Phcedra and Hippolitus refer to
the text in Edm und Sm ith (1796).
62 Jodrell (1781), i. 247, 230-1.
63 Delap (1962), 35.
m oral inference for posterity: the gods ‘are just, and ever recom
pense, | T ru e piety, and spotless Innocence.’64 A sim ilarly u n p re
cedented m oral is draw n by S m ith ’s H ippolitus (for w hom see the
engraving reproduced as frontispiece to this volum e), w ho (unlike
R acine’s) does not die. H e is rew arded for his resistance to his
am orous stepm other and fidelity to his fiancee by surviving the
end of the play, up on w hich he opines that ‘the righteous gods’
always protect ‘G oodness’ and ‘unguarded V irtu e’.65 T h is ten
dency tow ards disposing the fortunes of characters according to
‘poetical justice’ was later superseded by a luxuriant pleasure in the
contem plation of unalloyed sorrow s: neither C reusa nor Medaea,
b oth portrayed as innocent victim s of circum stance, survives the
end of John son ’s The Tragedy o f Medcea (1730). P art of the reason
for this transform ation lay in the dram atists’ aw areness of ancient
G reek tragedy, w hich the dram atist R ichard Steele argued was
superior to m odern tragedy precisely because it eschew ed ‘poetical
ju stice’ in favour of a sterner contem plation of unm itigated distress:
the wise A thenians in their theatrical perform ances laid before the eyes of
the people the greatest affliction w hich could befall hum an life, and
insensibly polished their tem pers by such representations.66
S E N T IM E N T A N D S O C IE T Y
Betw een the late 1730s and the 1760s tragedy becam e increasingly
m aw kish and sentim ental, as highly actable poetic tragedies w ere
produced w ith an unabashed interest in the em otional frailty of a
traum atized m other, wife, sister, or d au g hter.67 It is this type of
m id -cen tu ry ‘sentim ental’ tragedy w hich p ro m p ted a paternal
w riter of ‘C o n d u ct’ L iteratu re to advise his daughters to avoid
com edy as ‘offensive to delicacy’, b u t to attend tragedy enthusias
tically, for its ‘sorrow s will soften and ennoble your h earts’.68
S m ith ’s Phcedra and H ippolitus, along w ith R ow e’s S he-T ragedies,
was revived,69 b u t the repertory was dom inated by new plays; the
64 See Ashby (1927), 170-1.
63 On this im portant English interpretation of the Phaedra m yth (which John
Dennis also once planned to dramatize), see Eccles (1922), 9-10.
66 Tatler no. 82; see Bernbaum (1958), 111.
67 Lynch (1953), 21, 38.
68 Gregory (1774), cited in Vivien Jones (1990).
69 See Lynch (1953), 38.
outstanding ‘G reek’ exam ples are W hitehead’s Creusa, and G lo
v er’s M edea. T h e w ord ‘sentim ental’ m ade its first appearance in
any dram atic context in the prologue to W hitehead’s The Rom an
F ather (D ru ry Lane 1749),70 for G reek and R om an settings were
voguish, ju st as society ladies had them selves painted in classical
disguise as H ebe, or in classical drapery, perform ing a pagan
sacrifice.71 T h e fem ale interest in G reek tragedy in the eighteenth
century can be no better illustrated than by L ady Sarah B unbury,
w ho m odelled for R eynolds’s fam ous L a d y Sarah Bunbury Sa cri
ficing to the Graces (1765) only a couple of years after perform ing
the role of W hiteh ead’s ill-starred m other in private perform ances
of Creusa (see Ch. 5).
T h e theatre’s fusion of fashionable G raeco-R om an contexts
w ith suffering heroines also finds a parallel in contem porary clas
sical-subject painting. G avin H am ilton ’s Androm ache M ourning
the D eath o f Hector (com m issioned 1759) and The D eath o f Lucre-
tia (1767) both focus on fem ale heroism , b u t are also ‘sentim ental’
in the sense th at feeling is their subject.72 T h is artistic view of the
role of the im agination in creating sym pathy m ust be associated
w ith the philosophy of A dam Sm ith, w ho in Theory of M oral
Sentim ents (1759) argued that w hile ‘p ity ’ signifies fellow -feeling
w ith an o th er’s sorrows, ‘sym pathy’ can denote ‘our fellow-
feeling w ith any passion w hatever’.73 T h e audiences of the tim e
cam e to feel everything— L u cretia’s patriotic fervour and outrage,
M edea’s love and anger— along w ith th eir antique heroines.
T h e popularity of the E uripidean heroine is consonant w ith the
preference in sentim ental tragedy for the central figure to be a
suffering fem ale. W om en in love, torm en ted m others, and victim
ized virgins w ere central vehicles for the eighteenth cen tu ry ’s
exploration of its contradictory ideology of gender. T h is encom
passed sim ultaneously the ideal of passive fem ale asexuality, a
superficially contradictory conviction that w om en w ere m ore vul
nerable to love, an increasing cult of conjugal passion, and a
veritable sanctification of m otherhood. T h e ideals expressed in
70 See Sherbo (1957), 2.

71 See Perry (1994), 21 on Reynolds’s Lady Sarah Bunbury Sacrificing to the
Graces (1765) and M rs. Masters as Hebe (1785), 21. On Greek and Roman revivalism
in general see Sambrook (1993), 195—209.
72 See M acM illan (1994), 88.
73 H eilbroner (1986), 108.
the popular genre of ‘conduct literatu re’ aim ed at unm arried
w om en equated ‘n atu ral’ fem ininity w ith asexual virtue. Y et
other texts offer explanations for w om en’s potentially ram pant
sexuality. ‘Love, and the Effects of it, is the darling and pred o m in
ant Passion of the Sex’, as a treatise on m arital infidelity opined in
1739./4 Fem ale sexuality was thus sim ultaneously constructed as
both natural and unnatural, ‘its potentially anarchic pow er con
tained by reducing it to the socially sanctioned duty of m o th er
hood’.73
C harlotte L ennox, w ho p u t several G reek plays into English
w hile translating Pierre B rum oy’s Le Theatre des Grecs of 1730,
is far m ore fam ous for her novels about traum atized w om en,
including Euphem ia, H enriette, and The Female Quixote. T h e rela
tionship betw een the eighteenth-century heroines of fiction and of
G reek tragedy also w orked in the other direction, for by the tim e of
the last significant eighteenth-century adaptation of G reek tra
gedy, D elap’s The R oyal Suppliants (1781), G reek tragic heroines
had been transform ed into the theatrical equivalents of Sam uel
R ichardson’s Pam ela and Clarissa. D elap ’s M acaria is an exem plar
of affected and persecuted fem inine sensibility, in w hom ‘virtue is
articulated in the capacity to feel and display sentim ents, the
capacity called “ sensibility” ’. T h e instru m ent of sensibility is ‘a
m assively sensitized, fem inine body; its vocabulary is th at of ges
tures and palpitations, sighs and tears.’76 T h is notion of the tragic
heroine also finds a parallel in m edical w ritings, w here w om en
possess a ‘sensibility’ based in physiology. Sensibility could easily
veer into excess or out of control, and, in both R ichardson’s novels
and theatrical texts, fem ale delirium and suicidal despair figure
large. T h ese states are played out in sw oons and sighs; like the
subjects of m edical treatises, fictional and dram atic heroines suffer
from em otional turns articulated in a com m on vocabulary of n e r
vous disorders, m arked by the voguish lexical item s ‘sym pathy’,
‘delicacy’, and ‘passion’.77
T h e eighteenth-century G reek tragic heroines swoon, rave, or
announce im pending suicide w ith exhausting frequency. G lover’s
M edea, in her spectacular first delirium , reenacts her spells over
the dragon guarding the golden fleece, fantasizes that she is cling
74 ‘Philogam us’ (1739), quoted from Vivien Jones (1990), 77.

75 Ibid. 57-8 . 76 M ullan (1988), 61. 77 Ibid. 216-19, 230.
ing to a desert cliff w ith her infants, and receives a visitation from a
personified figure of Revenge. A fter her child ren ’s death she raves
again, passes out, revives, sees the blood on her hand, gradually
regains her senses, and becom es suicidal— a scene both typically
eighteenth-century, and clearly dependent on H eracles’ ‘recovery’
in E u rip id es’ Heracles and A gaue’s in his Bacchae.
T h is specifically eighteenth-century construction of fem ininity
tho u g ht it found a reflection of itself in E uripidean tragedy’s
com plex fem ale protagonists. Y et certain features of the w om en
in the ancient G reek texts repelled eig hteenth-century sensibility,
in particular their frankness about erotic love. G ildon, whose
tragedies had draw n on several E uripidean wives, argued that the
m odesty appropriate to unm arried w om en m ust inhibit play
w rights. H e com m ends the G reek tragedians for th eir treatm ent
of love ‘as E uripides in his Alcestis and H elen, b u t then it is
betw een M an and W ife’. B ut it is not consistent ‘w ith that C h ar
acter of M odesty, w hich is essential to the Sex, to fly out into those
T ran sp orts and F ondnesses’ before m atrim ony.78 D ennis, sim i
larly, describes the difficulty posed by Sophocles’ A ntigone, b e
cause ‘the thing that lay m ost heavy up on her H eart was that she
was to go to H ell w ith her M aid en -h ead ’. D ennis says that the
A thenians had a worse view of w om en, and ascribed to them a
m ore dom inant ‘Passion’. If a ‘m aid’ had expressed A ntigone’s
view in D en nis’s day, it ‘w ould have ap p ear’d a frailty particular
and surprizing’.79
E uripidean tragedy, then, appealed to the eighteenth-century
dram atists because of its passionate heroines and pathetic ‘situ
ations’. But his tragedies then had to be shaped to fit contem porary
ideals of pre-m arital m odesty, conjugal affection, and sanctified
m otherhood. H is heroines w ere conceptualized in term s of a spe
cifically eighteenth-century vocabulary of sensibility. T rag ed y was
certainly designed to provide the large fem ale sector in the au d i
ence w ith positive paradigm s of w om anhood. Y et it is im portant to
rem em ber that tragedy’s consum ers included m en. It has recently
been argued that the eighteenth cen tu ry ’s dom inant ideal of fem i
ninity, w ith its em phasis on feeling and m orality, was one of the
78 G ildon (1718), i. 200.

79 John Dennis, The Impartial Critick (1693), in Springarn (1909), iii. 148—97 at
150.
m ost pow erful factors in establishing a general m iddle-class iden
tity. It has plausibly been urged th at the em ergence of fem ale-
dom inated sentim ental literature really dem onstrates ‘an evolution
of a particular ideological construction of a new class identity,
displaced into a discussion of fem ale v irtu e’.80 E ven the rising
cult of m otherhood was related to the expansionist ideology of an
upw ardly m obile m iddle class.81 A n exam ination of the m ost im
p o rtan t ‘G recian’ S h e-T ragedy will clarify the way in w hich E u r-
ipidean heroines w ere contorted to suit this audience and its
ideological requirem ents.
C A S E -S T U D Y : T H E E X C U L P A T IO N O F M E D E A
E u ripides’ deliberately infanticidal M edea presented a nearly im
possible challenge to eig hteenth-century sentim ent. O ne critic
specified her crim e as one of the m ost deplorable in dram a, com
m itted by ‘such m onsters th a t degrade the w hole h u m an system ’.82
A revealing account of the problem is expressed in G ild o n ’s p ref
ace to Phaeton. H e explains th at w hile his play owes ‘a great m any
of its Beauties to the Im m ortal E U R IP ID E S ’, he was com pelled to
alter the heroine’s character,
in consideration of the different T em per and Sentim ent of our several
Audience. F irst I was A pprehensive, that M edea, as Euripides represents
her, w ou’d shock us. W hen we hear o f ... the m urdering of her own
C hildren, contrary to all the D ictates of H um anity and M other-hood, we
shou’d have been too im patient for her Punishm ent, to have expected the
happy Event of her barbarous Revenge; nay, perhaps, not have allow’d the
C haracter w ithin the Com pass of N ature.83
G ildon therefore exculpated his heroine by transferring the child-
killing to the hands of the local people, causing their bereaved
m other to go m ad and com m it suicide.
Johnson’s The Tragedy o f Medcea (1730) is influenced by C o r
neille’s M edee, b u t depends closely on E uripides. H is preface
articulates his aim: since M edea ‘had never, th a t I have heard,
80 See Ballaster (1996), 280 and n. 28.

81 Vivien Jones (1990), 11, 59.
82 He also cites the m urder of Clytemnestra by Orestes in Sophocles on the
ground that it is encouraged by Electra, who is female: Hiffernan (1770), book 2, 57.
83 G ildon (1698).
been in English, I have v e n tu r’d it on our Stage, and in som e Places
alter’d the (Econom y from the original’.84 T h ose alterations self
consciously im proved the m orality of the characters. E ven C reon
abdicates in sham e at the w rongs he has done Medaea, M ore
startling still is John so n ’s decision n o t to have the children killed
at all. Medaea sends them to safety in A thens before stabbing
herself out of despair at the grief she has caused her beloved
Jason.85
Y et Jo h n so n ’s play was still an outstanding failure. T h e author
blam ed the orchestrated interrup tion s of ‘C riticks .. . not only in
feeble H isses, b u t in H ootings, horse L aughs, squalings, Catcalls,
and other m echanical and judicious vociferations’. T h is was des
pite ‘M rs P o rter’s w onderful Perform ance, and the glorious Spirit,
w ith w hich she rose in her A ction’.86 T h e cause of the play’s
failure, despite the ethical im provem ents, was its fidelity to the
original, resulting in a som bre tone and lack of love scenes (al
thou g h Aegaeus is m otivated by attraction to Medaea rather than
infertility). It faithfully replicates m any speeches and situations—
M edea’s plotting of her revenge, her confrontations w ith Jason,
her encounter w ith Aegaeus, the ode in praise of A thens, M edea’s
tears over the children, and the m essenger speech. Johnson is
aw are that his play failed on account of its ‘severe M orality’: he
regretfully notes that the strongest disapproval was expressed in
the passages lifted directly from E uripides.
A lthough there w ere popular low brow entertainm ents on the
M edea them e d uring the eighteenth century, such as the m asque
Jason and Medcea perform ed at the N ew W ells T h eatre in G o o d
m an ’s Fields in A ugust 1747, there was only one successful a t
tem pt by a serious B ritish dram atist. R ichard G lover’s M edea
succeeded precisely because of the reciprocal love interest (Jason
still loves his wife) and pathetic deaths of the children. B ut since it
was ideologically im possible to present a m other killing her ch il
dren in cold blood, G lover exonerates M edea by allow ing her to
kill her children u n der the influence of m adness. H is heroine
w ould probably have been acquitted of m u rd er in the eighteenth
century, w hich engaged in a heated discussion of w hether ‘tem
porary ph renzy ’ absolved child-killing m others of guilt; in reality
such cases (w here the deaths w ere usually perinatal) frequently
84 Charles Johnson (1731), p. viii. 88 Ibid. 62 , 66—7 . 86 Ibid., pp. i—ii.
revolved around the issue of intent, and the courts adm itted evi
dence about state of m in d .87 T h e w ord ‘ph ren zy ’ is used of
M edea’s m adness in G lover’s play.
T h e audience m ust have gathered excitedly to see this tragedy,
on w hich G lover was reputed to have expended m eticulous care.88
T h is fam ous p atrio t had already used antiquity in a popular play
(.Boadicea, D ru ry L ane, 1753) and a w ell-know n epic (Leonidas,
1737). Som e regarded Leonidas as superior to Paradise Lost, al
though in tim e it was forgotten save as a fo reru n n er of rom antic
H ellenism .89 M oreover, since the death of M rs C ibber in 1766,
G lover’s leading actress M rs Yates had becom e the unchallenged
queen of tragedy in E ngland. She did not disappoint: she ‘m elted
every audience that has seen her inim itable M edea’,90 and the
p roduction inspired revivals into the 1790s by several actresses,
perhaps including M rs S iddons.91 M edea encouraged M rs Y ates to
choose another G reek tragic heroine for her benefit perform ance at
C ovent G arden (1769) in F rancklin’s Orestes, a play she subse
quently revived at D ru ry L ane as Electra (see C h. 6). She also
flirted w ith G lover’s sequel to M edea, an elaborate Jason, w hich
was, how ever, rejected by the m anagers of b o th theatres, who
objected to ‘the grandeur of the scenery, and the expense required
to bring it forw ard’.92
In M edea M rs Yates was required to look dazzlingly beautiful,
her eye surpassing ‘th a t refulgent star, | W hich first adorns the
evening’ (Act I). M oreover, M edea is exceedingly intelligent,
having a ‘soaring m in d ’ and ‘the sublim est know ledge’. But
M edea’s supernatural w isdom cannot save her from the d estruc
tive pow er of love. T h e prologue prom ised that G lover had
rew orked ‘M edea’s m ournful strain ’ so as to prove th at ‘W here
87 M ark Jackson (1996), 40, 120-3, 142-3.

88 See D oddington (1809), 192.
89 See e.g. S tem (1940), 123-6.
90 Thom as Davies (1780), i. 132.
91 It was revived by M rs Yates at D rury Lane in 1775, 1776, and 1779, and by
M rs Pope (formerly Miss Younge) at Covent G arden in M arch 1792: see L S iv/3.
1533, 1877, 1959; v/1. 30, 243; v/2. 1440. Although M rs Siddons is not otherwise
known to have played Medea, the cast list for an edition published in 1790 suggests
that she had appeared in the role at D rury Lane, and an engraving held at Yale (Yale
D .H .3.12, 011) portrays her as M edea, wearing a leopard-skin sash and a striped
shawl.
92 Glover (1799),‘Preface’, 3
love and fury, grief and m adness’ are joined, they ‘O ’ertu rn the
stru ctu re’ even ‘of a godlike m in d ’.93
In com m on w ith all the actresses w ho attem pted the heroines
of G reek tragedy, M rs Y ates had to deliver com plex rhetoric
m arked by heavy anaphora, the self-dram atizing use of the
th ird person in soliloquy, and especially the cataloguing of
em otions, often in asyndeton. A bove all M rs Y ates had to
express M edea’s struggle betw een em otion and virtue; in A ct I
she bewails
T h at anguish, want, despair, contem pt and sham e
Are heap’d together by the hands of fate,
W helm ’d in one mass of ruin on m y head,
A nd dash m y struggling virtue to the ground.94
M edea’s m oral struggle is engendered by conjugal love. E ven her
Senecan sorcery scene in A ct IV (w ith a transvestite H ecate played
by M r Bransby) em phasizes her grief for her loss of Jason. H er
m aternal love also rem ains fundam entally unchallenged. A lthough
she stabs her children to death, it is ‘m adness’ that ‘m ingled sm iles
w ith h o rro r’ (see the frightening expression on her face in Fig. 3.8,
G eorge R om ney’s picture of M edea contem plating her children, a
scene specifically inspired by G lover’s play).99 H er last entrance
was adm ired, ‘w hen, still raving and distracted, she com es upon
the stage, her hands dripping w ith the blood of her ch ild ren ’, for,
as one critic expressed it, ‘her w ords and appearance perfectly
harrow up the soul’.96 Like W hitehead’s C reusa, G lover’s M edea
becom es suicidal w hen she finds out w hat has really happened, b u t
she is saved by divine intervention. T h e tragedy ends w ith her
departing into exile in the dragon-draw n chariot of her ‘B right
forefather’. B ut this is only after a touching dialogue w ith the
husband she still adores. G lover’s M edea, although a sorceress,
rem ains a m odel eighteenth-century m atron. H er virtues as wife
and m other, astonishingly, em erge intact.
93 Glover (1777), 12, 3.

94 Ibid. 12.
95 See Pressly (1979), 121-2; and Kidson (2002), 128, who also notes that the
translator Robert Potter had sat for Romney in 1778, and indeed had corresponded
with him about possible ideas for Jason and Medea subjects.
96 Robert Anderson, ‘T he Life of Glover’, in Anderson (1795), 467—82, 471.
F ig u r e 3.8 G eorge Rom ney, M edea Contemplating the M urder o f her

Children, chalk cartoon, c.1782.
E U R I P I D E S I M P R O V ’D
E uripidean tragedies presented a paradox to the eighteenth cen
tury. T h eir gallery of m em orable fem ale protagonists, em phasis on
m others and virgins, use of children, representation of em otion,
tear-jerking situations, and interiorized m onologues, guaranteed
that they w ere m uch m ore attractive to this era than has previously
been realized. Y et these heroines w ere profoundly unsuited to
contem porary notions of fem ininity and sentim ent. Instead of
rom antic love, the tragedians found in E uripides visceral sexual
politics. Instead of eroticism expressed in the coded language of
sensibility, they found plays w ithout love interest and M edea
talking about her insulted m arriage-bed. In particular, they
w anted idealized m aternal love, and instead found in Phaedra a
stepm other w ith adulterous and quasi-incestuous urges, in M edea
a cold-blooded m aternal infanticide, in H ecuba a grandm other
w ho kills her enem y’s sons, and in C reusa a wife w ho had sex
before m arriage, abandoned her child, plots his death, and survives
the end of the play.
T h u s the eighteenth-century audience could only cope w ith
E u ripides’ heroines after subjecting them to the extensive plastic
surgery requ ired to m ake them fit its social im peratives. T h ere was
no sham e attached to this project: contem porary critics frequently
praised the strategies the playw rights devised for ‘correcting’ the
ethical or affective m aterial they found in their ancient archetypes.
In the preface to the second edition of his Iphigenia play, Boyer
said th at the neo-classical adapter of E uripides was ‘T h e O ne
Im proving w hat the other W rit’.97
T h is dem onstration of the tension betw een the attractiveness of
the G reek tragic heroines to the eighteenth century, and the p ro b
lem s they presented, can be concluded by m using on the ignom ini
ous fate of the only com m ercial attem p t to stage a G reek tragedy in
translation rather than adaptation, W est’s Hecuba (D ru ry Lane,
1726). W est recalled th at he had tho u g h t th at E u rip id es’ Hecuba
w ould prove ‘an elegant E n tertain m ent for a polite A ssem bly’.
C ontem ptuous of the em otional tragedies then popular, he w rites,
‘I vainly im agin’d som e R egulation of o u r Stage m ight not u n su c
cessfully be attem pted, u n d er the A uthority of so great a M aster as
E u rip id es’.98 W est’s only significant alteration was to replace the
E uripidean prologue, delivered by the ghost of Polydorus, w ith a
scene in w hich the sam e inform ation is presented by Polym estor.
O therw ise the order and content of the translated scenes replicate
the G reek m odel, adding no love interest, presenting the blinding
of Polym estor and the m u rd er of his children w ithout sentim ent or
am elioration, and even retaining m ost of the choral m aterial, ex
pressed throu gh the m outh of Iphis, H ecuba’s servant. T h e
97 Boyer (1714), ‘T o the Plagiary of M r Boyer’s Iphigenia’.

98 Richard W est (1726), pp. iii—iv. Hecuba continued to attract the attention of
learned gentlemen, who wistfully fantasized about reviving Greek tragedy un
adapted. T he Revd T . M orell, the author of a libretto for Handel, wrote a faithful
translation of Hecuba, in the preface to which he too reveals his view that ‘were some
of these ancient plays judiciously translated, and the Choric-songs reduced to a
proper M easure, and masterly set and perform ’d, a more engaging and rational
Entertainm ent could not be desired by the most polite audience.’ M orell (1749),
‘Preface’. O n yet another plan to perform Hecuba see below, p. 195.
rem arkably faithful blank-verse translation certainly m erits the
account in the Epilogue, w hich claim s of the author that,
Instead of the prevailing, pow erful Arts,
By w hich, perhaps his Play m ight move your H earts,
H e boasts, that from E u-ri-pi-des ’tis writ!
B ut this epilogue was never heard. ‘A R out of V andals in the
G alleries intim idated the young A ctresses, d istu rb ’d the A udience,
and prevented all A tten tion ’.99
A critic w ho claim s to have attended rehearsals published a
pam phlet in w hich he explicitly complains th at W est’s Hecuba
was ‘not only a close T ranslation, b u t a very bare one too’. P re
dictably, the critic concedes the pow er of the ‘situ atio n ’ w here
H ecuba is parted from the Polyxena of M rs C ibber (later C assan
dra in T h o m so n ’s Agam emnon), w hich he finds ‘greatly m oving,
and truly tragical’. B ut he cites as an exam ple of extrem e tedium
the faithfully translated stichom ythia betw een A gam em non and
Plecuba, and the plethora of H ecu b a’s lam entations p rom pts him
w ittily to suggest th a t the play be renam ed The D istres’t G rand
mother, in im itation of P h ilip s’s hugely successful The D istres’t
M other.
M ost revealing of all are the critic’s half-serious suggestions for
the rew riting of the play to m ake it accord w ith contem porary taste.
In E uripid es’ tragedy there is no love interest and the death of
Polyxena is not seen by the audience. T h e critic proposes correct
ing these defects by staging the exciting ‘situation’ of Polyxena’s
sacrifice, and m aking P yrrhus (and by im plication the audience)
actually see her pull dow n her robe. P y rrh u s’ soul should then
‘have been w holly captivated w ith the V irgin’s C harm s’. As a
result, ‘violently agitated by the Passions com bating against each
o th er’, he w ould have delayed the Sacrifice.100 A n erotic response
to virtue in visible, half-naked distress is thus an absolute req u ire
m ent for the ‘im prover’ of E uripides. W est had been tem pting
fate in refusing to recognize the painful tru th articulated by his
critic:
there is not one D ram a of A ntiquity, that in a m eer T ranslation, would not
suffer Persecution on the present Stage.101
99 Richard W est (1726), p. iv. 100 Anon. (1726), 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-16.

101 Ibid. 12.
James T hom son’s Tragedies of Opposition
IN T R O D U C T IO N
In a quiet corner of W estm inster A bbey, above C harlotte B ronte’s
m em orial, the sculpted im age of Jam es T h om so n still leans on a
pedestal decorated w ith rural figures sym bolizing his m ost fam ous
poem , The Seasons (see Fig. 4.1). T h is delicate cycle, w ith its
innovative experim ents in the description of nature, inform ed
critical debates of the R om antic period and is now regarded as an
im portant forerunner of R om antic aesthetics and sensibility.1 It
im pressed the critic Lessing, influenced the poets Coleridge and
W ordsw orth and the painter T u rn er, and, translated into G erm an,
provided the libretto for H ay d n ’s secular oratorio D ie Jahreszeiten
(1801). B ut T h om son left other, m ore controversial legacies, espe
cially through his dram as, represented on his m o num ent by an
austere tragic m ask beside the G reek cithara. N o t only did this
low land Scot in 1740 pen the m asque A lfred, w hose oppositionist
patriotism is encapsulated in the chorus ‘R ule B ritannia’, but w ith
his Edw ard and Eleonora, another story from earlier E nglish h is
tory, this tim e grafted onto E u rip id es’ Alcestis, he becam e only the
second dram atist to have a play banned u n d er the provisions of the
1737 L icensing Act.
T h om so n is significant in the story of G reek tragedy’s relation
ship to the B ritish stage for tw o other reasons. H e was the first poet
to stage a consciously ‘oppositional’ G reek tragedy attacking the
ruling pow er of his day, the governm ent of the first Prim e
M inister, R obert W alpole. F or T h o m so n ’s proscribed Edw ard
and Eleonora was actually his second attem pt at adapting G reek
tragedy for the contem porary stage: his equally political A gam em
non of 1738 had ju st escaped the censor. Since Agam emnon draw s
on both A eschylus and Seneca, a fu rth er accolade therefore
deserved by T hom son is that he was the first dram atist to attem pt
1 See Strachan (2000).
100 Jam es Thomson’s Tragedies o f Opposition
FIGURE 4.1 T h e m onum ent to Jam es T hom son in W estm inster Abbey.
to dom esticate A eschylus to the B ritish stage. D ryden and Lee

chose Sophocles, G ildon, D ennis, and Sm ith preferred E uripides,
b u t before 1738 A eschylus had m ade no overt im pact on dram a in
the E nglish language. W hile his obscure plays m ay, via L atin
translations, have affected E nglish R enaissance dram a in su b terra
Jam es Thom son’s Tragedies o f Opposition 101
nean w ays,2 it is not u ntil after 1663 that A eschylus begins to make
his presence felt, and that is for a specific reason: the publication of
T hom as Stanley’s edition.
Stanley offered his readership a text, com m entary, and an easy
L atin translation. T h is finally allow ed m en w ith a m oderate educa
tion access to this m ost recalcitrant of G reek tragedians. T h e late-
seventeenth-century theatrical taste for im perial settings and
elevated diction occasionally seem s to have echoed scenes at least
from Persians, for exam ple the ghost scene in John C row ne’s
D arius, K ing o f Persia (1688), w hich, how ever, is set at the tim e of
A lexander the G reat and has nothing to do w ith A eschylus’ D arius;
clearer A eschylean influence is apparent in the adm onitory ghost of
H erod and the crow d of lam enting Jew s in his earlier siege-and-
conquest play The Destruction o f Jerusalem by Titus Vespasian
(1677). B ut generally A eschylus’ w orks w ere felt to be bizarre,
and alien: T hom as R ym er’s plan to relocate Persians to the court
of Spain at the tim e of the defeat of the Spanish A rm ada is p u r
posely com ical.3 A eschylean dram a was inim ical to the taste for
fem ale-dom inated pathetic plays u shered in by the new sensibilities
of the 1690s (see Ch. 3), b u t the political stance of Stanley,
A eschylus’ first E nglish editor, m ust also have deterred the
W hig-dom inated theatre. Stanley was an ard en t and u n rep en tant
R oyalist, first adm itted to the degree of M aster of A rts at O xford in
M arch 1641/2, coincidentally in com pany w ith the young Prince
C harles. H e had spent m uch of the Civil W ar in France, and on his
retu rn w ent into a literary retirem ent until the R estoration, p ro d u
cing am ongst other things the first E nglish translation of A ris
tophanes, am ounting to about tw o-thirds of Clouds. H e took the
pledge alongside D ryden in 1660; he presented his A eschylus to
the K ing. O n 2 July 1663 C harles II endorsed it from W hitehall
as ‘m uch tending to the advancem ent of learning’, and rew arded
his ‘T ru sty and W ell-B eloved’ servant w ith a tw enty-one year
privilege.4
2 See Ewbank (forthcoming). 3 Rym er (1693), 11-17.

4 Stanley (1663), ‘Preface’; on Stanley’s politics, see C rum p (1962), pp. xii-xxxiv.
H is blank-verse translation of Clouds, issued as part of a biography of Socrates, is
included in his 1655 A History of Philosophy. See Langbaine (1691) and Hines
(1966), 9-40.
G R E E K T R A G E D Y A N D T H E B R IT IS H C E N S O R
T h o m so n ’s politics could not have been m ore different from those
of Stanley. Besides The Seasons and his dram as, his m ost im p o rt
ant w ork is his W hig epic Liberty (1735-6, the text of w hich he is
reading on his m onum ent). T h is is a m assive poetic disquisition on
the history of L ib erty from ancient G reece via Rom e and A nglo-
Saxon freedom s to eighteenth-century Britain, inspired by w atch
ing V oltaire’s B rutus declaim on liberty to a F rench audience on a
visit to Paris in 1730, followed by a visit to the ruins of R om e.5 An
advocate of the B ritish U nion (his fam ily w ere com m itted Scottish
W higs) and opponent of W alpole, T hom son designed his A g a
memnon to be a m anifesto of W hig ideals. It is strong political
m eat, as was his E dw ard and Eleonora. O ne reason w hy T hom son
turned to G reek tragedy was th a t he and other opposition w riters
w ere beginning to look to classical A thens for the m odel of a state-
subsidized theatre w hich educated its citizen audience,6 exactly the
type of m odel of w hich E dw ard Bulw er and T hom as T alfourd
w ere to dream a century later (see Ch. 11).
T h o m so n ’s m entor A aron H ill shared his dream of a reform ed
stage w hich could break the pow er of the pro fit-d riv en m anagers,
b u t w ithout p u tting their theatres u n d er any n eo -p u ritan or (w orst
of all) governm ental restrictions.7 H ill, w ho had travelled in the
N ear East, was an expert on the O ttom an E m pire, and regretted
‘the present C ondition of Subverted Greece, that A ncient Theatre
of Power and Learning, and N urse of the m ost Illustrious Propaga
tors of Wisdom and M o rality’ H e encouraged T hom son to ideal
. 8
ize the A thenian stage, w here em otion, ‘moving E nthusiasm ’, was

joined to m oral edification; young people, directed by the state-
funded poets, grew ‘to love liberty, and hate tyranny, and acquired
a propensity to arm s and eloquence’.9 T hom son agreed, and w rote
to H ill in term s w hich adum brate m uch m ore recent debates about
5 Stern (1940), 119.

6 By late 1736, when Thom son began to plan a new tragedy, he was inspired by
the visit to England in 1735—6 of the M archese Francesco Scipione Maffei, author of
a three-volume collection of early Italian tragedies which Thom son owned (Teatro
Italiano, Verona, 1723-5), and advocate of the establishm ent of a national theatre in
Italy.
7 Sam brook (1991), 139.
8 Hill (1709).
9 Hill (1731), pp. xiif.
Jam es Thomson ’s Tragedies o f Opposition 103
the desirability of state subsidy for the theatrical arts, arguing that
p u tting ‘such an im portant public D iversion, the School w hich
form s the M anners of the A ge’ into the hands of profit-driven
private individuals inevitably leads to art designed to please ‘the
m ost profligate, tasteless, and ignorant of M ankind!’10
T h e idea of a socially responsible dram a had already inform ed
T h o m so n ’s first tragedy Sophonisba, a patriotic tale based on an
cient C arthaginian history, w hich has recently been rehabilitated
by scholars as an excellent stage play.11 B ut it also affected T h o m
son’s less fam iliar attem pts to rew rite Agam emnon and subse
quently Alcestis for the G eorgian stage, a decision w hich b rought
him into conflict w ith W alpole. F rom our cu rren t standpoint it m ay
be astonishing to discover that audiences in the past w ere ever
prevented from seeing versions of G reek tragedy in B ritain. But
even a b rief look into the annals of the L ord C ham berlain’s Office
will reveal how G reek tragedy in adaptation and translation has
fallen foul of the censor on a nu m b er of occasions subsequent to
T hom son, including the proscription of W illiam Shirley’s Electra
(see Ch. 6). In the early stages, in w hich T hom son plays a leading
role, the objections to the plays w ere broadly political; b u t by the
m iddle of the n in eteenth century, there was a m arked shift in
taste and the grounds for refusing a licence w ere largely m oral. As
late as 1910 audiences w ere unable to w atch a professional p ro d u c
tion of Oedipus Tyrannus because, in the w ords of a leading actor-
m anager of the day, it m ight ‘prove injurious’ and ‘lead to a great
n u m b er of plays being w ritte n . . . appealing to a vitiated public
taste solely in the cause of indecency’12 (see fu rth er Ch. 18).
T h e L icensing A ct of 1737 provided the basis for the law
su rrounding theatrical censorship that survived, substantially
unchanged, until the 1968 T h eatre A ct w hen the B ritish stage
was finally freed from the clutches of the censor.13 U n d er the A ct
of 24 June 1737, the L ord C ham berlain was granted the pow er
to refuse a licence to any play acted ‘for hire, gain, or rew ard ’
10 Letter of 23 Aug. 1735, in M cKillop (1957), 98.
11 See e.g. H am m ond (2000), with further bibliography.
12 Sir John H are, M em ber of the Advisory Board on Stage Plays, in a letter to the
Lord Chamberlain, Novem ber 1910. Lord Cham berlain’s Plays’ Correspondence
File: Oedipus Rex 1910/814 (British Library).
13 On stage censorship in Britain generally, see Fowell and Palm er (1913),
Findlater (1967), and Johnston (1990). On the 1737 Act see Vince (1988), 14—15,
25-6.
anyw here in G reat B ritain ‘as often as he shall think fit’. All
theatres w ere ‘u n der the im m ediate D irections of a C o u rt O fficer’.
T h e m ain th ru st of the legislation was political, having been draw n
up by W alpole in order to curb political attacks on him in the
theatre, especially the satires of H en ry Fielding that w ere playing
to packed houses at the L ittle T h eatre in the H aym arket: they
included Historical Register fo r the Year 1736 in M arch 1737, and
Eurydice H iss’d (whose katabatic them e drew on A ristophanes’
Frogs) in A pril. T h e im m ediate effect— besides driving Fielding
into attacking W alpole throu g h translations of A ristophanes in
stead of directly from the stage14— was to reduce to two the
n u m b er of L ondon theatres and thus to cut the n u m b er of new
plays acted each season. T h e survivors w ere the old patented
houses C ovent G arden and D ru ry L ane, plus the K ing ’s O pera
H ouse, w hich did not perform new stage plays.
T H O M S O N ’S O P P O S I T I O N A L A G A M E M N O N
By the m id-1730s, u n d er G eorge II, B ritain was riven w ith the
conflict betw een the W hig m inistry, ru n by the Prim e M inister
R obert W alpole, and the so-called ‘C o u n try ’, or ‘P atrio t’ oppos
ition, whose ranks included (besides T hom son), Jonathan Swift,
John G ay, A lexander Pope, G eorge Lillo, and R ichard G lover (the
au thor of the m ost im p o rtan t E nglish-language M edea of the
eighteenth century, discussed in Ch. 3). E arly in 1737 Frederick,
Prince of W ales, w ent officially into opposition, lending the anti-
W alpole elem ents a new focus (he is represented by the young
patrio t O restes in T h o m so n ’s Agamemnon). T h eir view was that
W alpole was exploiting G eorge I I ’s freq u en t absences, and Q ueen
C aroline’s dependence upon his chief m inisters, in order to u n d e r
m ine fundam ental B ritish liberties.15 T hey presented them selves
as the true ‘p atrio ts’ in a land w hich had sold its soul to a corrupt
tyrant. T h ey opposed W alpole’s peace policies, and his arrogance
tow ards the m erchant classes, by advocating energetic m ilitary
cam paigns and com m ercial ventures: it is in this bellicose context
14 See pp. 57 and 86 of Fielding and Young’s translation of Plutus (1742), w ith
Hines (1966), 158-231.
15 See Speck (1983), 14—35. G errard (1994) p. vii, writes that ‘Politics and
poetry were more closely intertwined in this period than they were (arguably) ever
to be again.’
that T h o m so n ’s ‘Rule, B ritannia’ in A lfred, produced for F red
erick in 1740, needs to be understood.
H is Agamemnon has ties w ith contem porary plays on them es
from ancient history, such as Sam uel M ad den ’s oppositional The-
mistocles, the Lover of his Country (1729), and plays on episodes
from the R om an republic such as W illiam B ond’s The Tuscan
Treaty; or, Tarquin’s O verthrow (C ovent G arden 1733) and
W illiam D u ncom be’s Junius Brutus (D ru ry Lane 1734). T hese
w ere thinly veiled defences of the constitutional principles of the
G lorious R evolution against their perceived betrayal. T hey
certainly helped to create the atm osphere w hich eventually
precipitated the L icensing Act. Such was the clim ate of hostility
to the K ing and W alpole am ongst m ost pro m in en t literary m en
that even John G ay’s Achilles (C ovent G arden 1733), a light
hearted burlesque of a classical m yth, was read politically.16
By the tim e T h om so n was w riting Agam emnon the m ood was
m utinous. T h e K ing was absent from M ay 1736 and did not retu rn
u ntil January 1737, an absence durin g w hich it was felt th at W al
pole’s hold on pow er had becom e uncontrollable. T h o m so n ’s
hatred of W alpole was increased even before the L icensing A ct,
in A pril 1737, w hen the governm ent introduced a Bill of Pains and
Penalties to punish the people of E d in b u rg h on account of the
P orteous riot there the previous S eptem b er.17 H ow ever en th u si
astic a su pp o rter of the B ritish U nion, no Scot educated at E d in
b urgh U niversity can have enjoyed w atching W alpole’s
authoritarian treatm en t of that city. By S eptem ber 1737 the rift
betw een Frederick and the K ing becam e incendiary, w ith the
Prince of W ales, his wife A ugusta, and their new born daughter
expelled from St. Jam es’s Palace. T h ere was fear th at the L icens
ing A ct w ould lead to w holesale censorship of the press, and in
January 1738 (on the 14th of w hich m onth Agam emnon was su b
m itted to the L ord C ham berlain’s E xam iner of Plays), the p u b
lisher A ndrew M illar rep rin ted M ilton ’s Areopagitica, w ith a new
preface by T hom son. Probably out of concern for the safe passage
of Agam emnon through the licensing office, T h om so n decided to
rem ain anonym ous, w riting sim ply as ‘another h an d ’. B ut his
preface thu n d ered in defence of ‘the best hum an R ights’, and the
‘U se of o u r noblest F aculties’. As in Liberty, G reek and Saxon
16 Loftis (1963), 111. 17 Boyer (1737), 360-2, 400-4.
freedom s are paired, for freedom of tho u g ht was treasured by
ancient G reeks and by A lfred the G reat. T hom son w arns every
‘T ru e B riton’ against being deceived by those who argued for
control of publishing.
Y et all that was censored of Agam emnon w ere the last six lines of
a prologue w ritten by another opposition playw right, T h o m so n ’s
Scottish friend D avid M allet. T h is did contain a contentious ref
erence to the L icensing A c t.18 T h e play opened at D ru ry L ane on
6 A pril, w ith Pope honouring his friend by attending, and T h o m
son him self, sw eating profusely in the u p per gallery, reciting the
speeches along w ith the actors. D espite the difficulties attending
upon any b ran d new play so late in the season, it ran for nine nights
(a satisfactory perform ance in the eighteenth century), and m ade a
com fortable profit. T h e last tw o acts w ere, how ever, not success
ful, and T h om son rew rote them m id-w ay d uring the run, excising
a whole sub-plot, inspired by Sophocles’ A ntigone, involving a love
affair betw een H em on (a son of E gisthus) and E lectra.19 T h e first
edition of this revised version, printed in three thousand copies
and one h und red royal copies, was sold out alm ost im m ediately,
leading to a second edition of fifteen h u n d red ordinary copies
being prin ted three days later.20
Loftis has argued th a t the play escaped censorship because W al
pole was deliberately slow to use his new prerogative and chose not
to ban any play for tw o years, u ntil incensed by H enry B rooke’s
Gustavus Vasa (1739), an allegory set in an only nom inally id en ti
fied Sw eden.21 It was m ore surprising w hen in M arch of the same
year a second play fell foul of the new censorship, Jam es T h o m
son’s Edw ard and Eleonora. Perhaps W alpole was taking belated
18 An allusion to the British stage ‘unbias’d yet by party rage’, and pleas for the
audience to supply ‘our last best licence’, were both to be om itted from the stage
production.
1} Kern (1966) com pared in detail the m anuscript version of Agamemnon in the
L arpent collection with the first printed edition, and is able to chart extensive early
revisions. T he play was notoriously catcalled and hissed on its first night, especially
the last two acts, as Benjamin Victor, present on the first night, later recalled: Victor
(1776), iii. 27-8.
20 G rant (1951), 186. For details of 18th-c. editions, see Feather (1988), 94. T he
majority appear to have been of 1,000 to 1,500 copies, so that Thom son’s first
edition of 3,000 was well above average. T he popularity of his play m ust have
been assisted by the applause with which the m ost obviously anti-W alpole speeches
were greeted in the theatre: see Thom as Davies (1780), ii. 32.
21 Loftis (1963), 151.
Jam es Thomson’s Tragedies o f Opposition 107
vengeance for the political im plications of T h o m so n ’s earlier
Agamemnon, im plications w hich he m ay sim ply have not seen, or
to w hich he did not w ant to call attention. B ut it is m ore likely that
Agam em non’s failure to get itself banned resulted from the death of
Q ueen C aroline on 20 N ovem ber 1737, early in the w inter p reced
ing its production. She had been W alpole’s de facto w orking p a rt
ner, represented in the play by C lytem nestra. T h is m ay have
rem oved its sting, b u t it m ay also have m ade any criticism of
C aroline look tasteless and redundant. D espite the recent rum ours
about her relationship w ith W alpole, C aroline had rem ained
popular well into her m iddle age. She bore her husband eight
children, tolerated his affairs, and never lost his affection. H er
only real m istake was to have left her son Frederick behind in
H anover at the age of seven, an abandonm ent for w hich he never
forgave her. It is tem pting to ask w hether T hom son m odified his
C lytem nestra, w hose final delineation is unusually virtuous, after
C aroline died.
Perhaps the picture of A gam em non (played by Jam es Q uin, the
deep-voiced star actor of the 1730s) was far enough rem oved from
the ‘p atrio ts” caricature of G eorge II to deter W alpole from in te r
vening. Indeed, an intensification of the parallels betw een G eorge
and A gam em non was actually the change w hich A aron H ill urged
T hom son to m ake in the last two acts of the play.22 F or the real
dram atic conflict is betw een A gam em non and E gisthus, and this
ru p tu re did not square w ith the p ictu re T h o m so n ’s public had of
the relationship betw een their K ing and his Prim e M inister. T h e
first encounter betw een A gam em non and E gisthus (II. iii) estab
lishes their differences. E gisthus indulges in nauseating flattery;
A gam em non, the patrio t king, lectures E gisthus on the rule of law
versus corruption (i I . iii). Y et although the play was not seen as an
overw helm ing indictm ent of A gam em non-G eorge, it does not
w holly excuse him , either. T h e sage M elisander thinks th at al
though A gam em non’s crim es are m ore of om ission than com m is
sion, absentee m onarchs w ith poor choices of regent are asking for
trouble ( i l l . i):
I think that Agamemnon
Deserves some touch of blame. T o p u t the power,
22 Hill (1754), ii. 49. See further H am m ond (2000), 19-20. On H ill’s relationship
with Thom son see Sambrook (1991), 38—14.
T he pow er of blessing or oppressing millions,
O f doing or great good or equal mischief,
Even into doubtful hands, is worse than careless.
B ut nobody lays any other political charge against A gam em non,
w hich is m ore than can be said for W alpole-E gisthus, one of
those dust-licking, reptile, close
Insinuating, speckled, sm ooth court-serpents,
T h at make it so unsafe, chiefly for kings,
T o walk this weedy world.
T h e language is so close to the opposition’s criticism s of W alpole’s
circle as to be indistinguishable. So is the loyal A reas’ description
of w hat has happened in A gam em non’s ten-year absence: the state
sw arm s w ith villains. E gisthus has bought off the citizens w ith
luxury ( i l l . ii), ‘H e tau gh t them w ants, beyond their private
m eans: | A nd strait, in b o u n ty ’s pleasing chains involv’d, | T h ey
grew his slaves.’
T h o m so n ’s tragedy, w hich first established the C lytem nestra—
A egisthus-A gam em non story as a stageable them e for the eig ht
eenth century internationally, was originally called The D eath of
Agamemnon (it is so titled in the L arp en t m anuscript). T h is is only
significant because C lytem nestra is excluded from the planning
and execution of the m urder. T h e play is fundam entally not about
her b u t about conflict betw een m en. T h e sole vice of the retu rn in g
king, A gam em non, has been physical absence; tow ards Cassandra,
w ho rem inds him of E lectra, he has only fatherly feelings (IV. ii, a
detail culled from the m ythographer H yginus). E gisthus is an
irredeem able opportunist, a co rru p t palace official, exclusively
responsible for organizing his cousin’s death. T h ere is a political
triangle, b u t it is not C lytem nestra w ho com pletes it. T h e third
im po rtan t political individual is a m ale type of ideal civic responsi
bility, a heroic, freethinking (A thenian) sage, M elisander (played
by no less an actor than T h eo ph ilus C ibber), w ho has developed
his innate w isdom into enlightened politics after an encounter w ith
N ature on a deserted A egean island. C lytem nestra’s only role is to
have becom e the weak link in the A rgive political chain: it is only
by seducing her th at E gisthus could destroy the previous settle
m ent betw een citizens and king. T h is settlem ent closely resem bles
that m ade by the G lorious R evolution, and its im portance is only
understood by the proto-W hig M elisander.
Jam es Thom son’s Tragedies of Opposition 109
A G A M E M N O N A N D IT S S O U R C E S
A letter from Bishop R undle to M rs Sandys of D ecem ber 1736
reports that subsequent to his freedom -loving Sophonisba, T h o m
son was bringing ‘another untow ard H eroine on the sta g e . . . H is
present story is the death of A G A M E M N O N . A n adultress w ho
m u rth ers her husband, is b u t an odd exam ple to be presented
before, and adm onish the beauties of G reat B rita in ,’23 B ut T h o m
son’s C lytem nestra is no m urderess, and her alienation from
E gisthus is so intense that she scarcely even qualifies as an ad u lter
ess. T h o m so n ’s C lytem nestra is broadly based on her Senecan
prototype (she an em otionally vulnerable and erotically interesting
figure), b u t is m ore innocent and virtuous than in any o ther version
of Agam emnon ever w ritten; not only is she a m odel m other and
forgiving wife, b u t she absolutely refuses to condone the m u rd er of
her husband, and declines into near-insanity because of psycho
logical pressure.
T h is is the C lytem nestra beloved of the eighteenth century, a
w om an of little m oral autonom y, caught betw een com peting loyal
ties, and beset by a tendency to sw oon. As the play opens she is
quivering w ith anxiety because the beacon signal was seen som e
nights ago, and A gam em non will retu rn any m inute. T h ro u g h a
sum m ary of the plot of Iphigenia in A ulis supplied by her ow n old
(Senecan) nurse ( I . i), the audience learns how the afflicted queen
suffered the loss of her daughter, and was abandoned by her
husband to a ‘soothing lover’s pow er’, the attentions of a skilful
and charm ing swain. B ut the m ost im portant piece of inform ation
is that C lytem nestra resisted his advances for years. F or at the
heart of T h o m so n ’s conception of the A gam em non story lies N es
to r’s version in the th ird book of the Odyssey w here A gam em non
leaves C lytem nestra u n der the supervision of a bard, and does
not renounce her wifely loyalty until A egisthus disposes of this
guardian of her m orals. ‘M elisander’ in T h om so n is a sage from
A thens (IV . v), the birthplace of w hat progressive people in the
eighteenth century already regarded as the first tru e republic (a
view point w hich had perm eated the G reek section of T h o m so n ’s
epic Liberty). T h e nurse says of A egisthus,
23 See M cKillop (1958), 108-9.

110 Jam es Thom son’s Tragedies o f Opposition
yet could he not,
W ith all his arts, his love, subm ission, charms,
O ’ercom e the struggling purpose of your soul;
T ill M elisander, to a desart isle,
H e banish’d from your ear (I. i).
C lytem nestra’s unstable fem inine psyche was m eant to be supervised
by this sage, ‘W hom every science, every m use adorn’d, | W hile the
good honest heart enrich’d them all’ ( I . i). She stresses that she would
never have departed from the road of virtue, w hatever the pressure,
had M elisander been present to protect her ( i . i).
M elisander’s genius for political theory was perfected w hile he
com m uned w ith N ature w hen confined on a C ycladic isle. W hen in
Agamemnon T alth y b iu s arrives to rep o rt the storm , he tells C lytem
nestra that A gam em non’s ship p u t in at one of the Cyclades, hailed
by ‘A m iserable figure . . . | H o rrid and w ild, w ith fam ine w orn
away’, who called u p on the passing ship plaintively ‘in G reek’,
begging it ‘T o bear him thence, from savage solitude’ ( i . vii). T h e
eighteenth-century reader will have tho u g h t at once of the castaw ay
A chaem enides in the th ird book of the A eneid as well as the adven
tures of R obinson C rusoe, the hero of the subtly political, utopian
novel by T h o m so n ’s fellow W hig D aniel D efoe, published in 1719
and an instant success; b u t this p art of the play is also inform ed by
Sophocles’ Philoctetes, from w hich is derived m uch of M elisander’s
poetry: his descriptions, during his lyrical scene w ith his old friend
A reas, of his m ossy cave, his quests for food, his hu ntin g snares, and
his lonely m eals ( ii. i). T hom son m ay have acquired a text of the
first E nglish translation of Philoctetes, w ritten and published in
1725 by T hom as Sheridan to accom pany a G reek-language p e r
form ance by boys at his School in D u b lin (see Ch. 9).
Indeed, T hom so n has used a variety of sources. A eschylus’
terrifying C lytem nestra m ay have been avoided, b u t Aeschylean
poetry is certainly present: there are several indisputable signs of
the G reek Agamemnon, for exam ple in the w atchm an’s description
of the beacon relay ( i . ii), and in a large proportion of C assandra’s
lines, especially her lines about the song of the nightingale (IV . iii),
the ghosts of T h yestes’ children, and the offstage m u rd er of
A gam em non, ‘the L io n ’ and ‘the V ictim B ull’.24 T h e delivery
24 For a detailed illustration of the similarities between the Cassandra scenes of
Aeschylus and Thom son see Ingram (1966), 150-5.
of this poetry was m uch enhanced by the vocal talents of the actress
Susannah M aria C ibber, aged 24, an excellent oratorio singer (she
was T hom as A rn e’s sister as well as T heophilus C ib b er’s wife).
C assandra’s poetry certainly struck its audience as ‘well calculated
to fill the audience w ith alarm , astonishm ent, and suspense, at an
awful event, obscurely hin ted at in very strong im agery’.25 T h is is
im portant because rare: there are very few traces of A eschylean
influence on the eig hteenth-century stage in B ritain, at least until
after the appearance of the first com plete E nglish translation, by
R obert P otter, in 1777.26
A eschylus was sim ply too forbidding to m ost contem porary
authors. H is G reek was far too difficult— in F ielding’s Joseph
Andrew s (1742) Parson A dam s’s taste for A eschylus is a sign of
eccentricity21— and his dram as lacked the distressed heroines re
quired by the early G eorgian theatre. T h e only developed character
in all of A eschylus who m ust have seem ed prom ising was C lytem
nestra, since she is a w om an w ith interesting m aternal and erotic
feelings, and it is no accident, therefore, that the only A eschylean
tragedy w hich was adapted for the eighteenth-century B ritish stage
was ‘h er’ play, Agamemnon. T h e adapter, T h om so n, was fluent in
L atin, and certainly used T hom as Stanley’s 1663 edition, w ith its
L atin crib. B ut T h o m so n ’s education prepared him unusually well
to un derstan d A eschylus’ G reek itself; his friends later recalled his
‘learned’ talk on the subject of G reek tragedy.28
H e had studied at Jed b urgh G ram m ar School in the Scottish
low lands, w here pupils w ere required to speak exclusively in L atin
durin g school hours. H e studied V irgil, H orace, O vid, T erence,
Sallust, L ucan, and the w orks of the Scottish L atin scholar G eorge
25 See W arton in Pope (1797), iv. 10 n.

26 T his was despite the persistent and eventually unrealized rum ours in the
second and third decades of the century that Lewis Theobald, a translator of both
Sophocles and Aristophanes, was working on Aeschylus. T here are docum entable
echoes of Eumenides in T heobald’s light-hearted spectacular Orestes of 1731. Pro
metheus Bound was the one Aeschylean play to have been published in English
translation before 1777 (see M orell (1773)), and the only one besides Agamemnon
which can be associated with a performance; an anonymous pantom im e entitled
Prometheus was perform ed at Covent G arden on 26 Dec. 1775, two years after
M orell’s translation appeared. See Nicoll (1952—9), 340.
27 On the Revd W illiam Young, the impecunious curate of G illingham be
friended by Fielding and on whom he based his Aeschylus-loving Parson Adams,
see D udden (1952), i. 157-9, 357-63, and 398^100.
28 W arton in Pope (1797), iv. 10 n.
B uchanan, w hose Tragoediae as well as his Psalms and H istoria
Scotorum w ere on the cu rricu lum .29 H e m u st have been involved in
productions of plays in L atin, w hich w ere im portant in border
gram m ar schools; he also certainly studied arithm etic and G reek.
A t the U niversity of E d in b u rg h he entered Professor W illiam
S cott’s G reek class, in w hich he spent tw o w hole years, and p ro b
ably attended C harles M ackie’s class on G reek and R om an an
tiquities. H e was sw ept away w ith the enthusiasm of the Scottish
E nlightenm ent for N ew tonian philosophy and science, and was
m em ber of an ‘A thenian Society’ w hich published poetry.
T h e m ajor source of his Agam emnon, despite the unusual A es
chylean inpu t, is certainly Seneca: exam ples are the first dialogue
w ith the nurse, C lytem nestra’s scenes w ith E gisthus (in the first of
w hich she cites the Senecan m otive of pride in her descent from
Jove, I. iv), her castigation of the m align affect of ‘debasing,
thoughtless, blind blind love’, fear, and sham e (i. iv), and the
fantasy of flight into exile ( i . iv). F rom Seneca T h om so n has also
absorbed the chorus of T ro jan captives atten dan t upon C assandra,
their lam ent for T ro y (iv . iii), and above all the cynical m anner in
w hich his E gisthus plays on C lytem nestra’s em otions.30 T h is is a
challenge, how ever, because T h o m so n ’s C lytem nestra is so
asham ed of herself, and so in love w ith A gam em non, that she
fears she will not be able even to m eet his gaze ( i . iv: ‘H ow shall
I bear an in ju r’d h u sb an d ’s eye? | T h e fiercest foe bears not a look so
dreadful | As does the m an we w rong’). E gisthus uses both w heed
ling and em otional violence, often in quick succession; on one
occasion he rebukes h er for w eeping w hen he has ju st deliberately
distressed her w ith a description of Iphigenia’s death-throes ( i . iv).
T H O M S O N ’S T R A G I C F A M I L Y
In the final interview betw een these form er lovers, their relationship
descends into open conflict. C lytem nestra refuses to countenance
the m u rd er of A gam em non. If E gisthus does not drop his m u rd e r
ous plan, she will expose him and com m it suicide (V. i). E gisthus
tries h ard to dissuade her, b u t, ultim ately, it does not m atter, since
he has already arranged the killings of both A gam em non, w ho will
29 Mary Jane W. Scott (1988), 24-5.

30 See Seneca, Agamemnon, 162, 131-8, 123, 589-658.
be assassinated in the bath, and of C assandra (v. i). C lytem nestra
goes into psychological m eltdow n, incapable of intervention to
stop the im m inent m urders, and expressing a death-w ish for all
four of them — A gam em non, C assandra, herself and E gisthus.
W hen the back-scene opens at the beginning of V. vi, E gisthus
stands crow ing over the corpse, E lectra throw s herself upon it, and
C lytem nestra enters, half-crazed, and drops into a dead faint after
accusing E gisthus of destroying her ‘happy fam ily’, her virtue and
her honour (v. viii).
F or T h o m so n ’s C lytem nestra is an unim peachable m other. She
has kept O restes close, adores E lectra, and is to rtu red by the
thou g h t that her besm irched sexual rep u tatio n m ight adversely
affect her ‘poor blam eless child ren ’ (i. i). She w ould like also to
have been a loving spouse: the reunion betw een A gam em non and
C lytem nestra could not be m ore different from the tense form ality
of A eschylus. It begins w ith a passionate em brace, A gam em non
charging on to the stage dem anding to know ‘W here is m y life! m y
love! m y Clytemnestra\ \ O let m e press thee to m y fluttering soul’
(i I . ii). She tearfully reproaches him w ith Iphigenia’s death and his
prolonged absence; the w hole encounter is entirely T h o m so n ’s, and
suggests w hy Lessing adm ired his w arm em otionalism (see below).
T h e im pact of this virtuous C lytem nestra m ust have been en
hanced by its perform ance, by an actress fam ous for both the
passionate conviction of her delivery and her ow n respectable private
life, M ary A nne Porter. H orace W alpole, far from being offended by
the parallels betw een Egisthus and his father R obert, was so im
pressed by P o rter’s perform ance as C lytem nestra that he bored his
friends and w rote an essay on the subject (which, unfortunately, has
been lost).31 She had previously attem pted tw o E uripidean heroines,
both R ichard W est’s H ecuba and Charles Johnson’s Medaea, b u t it
was her C lytem nestra in T h om so n ’s Agamemnon of w hich her audi
ence m ost approved. ’2 M rs P orter was thought to be a plain but
particularly intelligent actress, w ith an excellent ear for poetry. She
was com m ended for her ‘spirited P ropriety’ even w hen delineating
rage, and also for her portrayal of grief, w hen ‘she subsided into the
m ost affecting Softness’.33
31 Sambrook (1991), 177. See also K etton-Crem er (1940), 50-1.

32 Thom as Davies (1784), iii. 467—9 . 33 Victor (1761), ii. 56—8.
F or w hat P o rter’s acting helped T hom son achieve was the tran s
form ation of an ancient tragedy into an excellent exam ple of the
popular eighteenth-century B ritish genre of pathetic dram a, dom
inated by a suffering, virtuous heroine, w hich, as we have seen in
the previous chapter, w ent u n der the title ‘S h e-T rag ed y ’. H is
tender C lytem nestra is engaged in a constant struggle w ith her
desire to be virtuous, w ith her conscience, and w ith em otional
vulnerability. She is a w om an of w hom audiences sharing an
eighteenth-century notion of ideal, subm issive fem ininity could
approve. A perceptive theatrical critic later in the century actually
praised T h om son for dim inishing the A eschylean C lytem nestra’s
personal authority: ‘the author has varied from the idea of A es
chylus; and, I think w ith great p ro p rie ty . . . gives som e shades of
tenderness to this princess, and m akes her yield w ith reluctance to
the persuasions of A egisthus’.34
T h e degree of T h o m so n ’s distance from A eschylus, despite his
know ledge of the G reek play, em erges n o t only in his w hitew ash
ing of C lytem nestra b u t in the concom itant redem ption of A ga
m em non. T hom son gives him the best speech in defence of the
sacrifice of Iphigenia he has ever been given (i I . ii), and the reason
for this is the W hig neo-Stoic ideology of private sacrifice for the
public good (C ato was the W higs’ favourite hero, a predilection
confirm ed for ever by A ddison’s Cato of 1713). T h e w orld cannot
be sustained by ‘indulging private inclinations, | T h e selfish pas
sions’. Even if T h o m so n ’s audience was not persuaded that ‘T he
public good, the good of o th ers’ m ust take precedence if you are a
leader, w hatever the personal cost, A gam em non m ust have struck
them as genuinely convinced of this principle, and as a m an who
had given political ideals a great deal of responsible thought. T h e
o ther notes he sounds w ould have also sounded at least plausible in
1738: he was doing the constitutional will of the people w ho had
ordained him , ‘By com m on voice, the general of the Greeks’. T h e
m ilitary operations have been against a land of unquestionably
enem y status, ‘faithless A sia ’; m ost telling of all, how could he
pull rank and refuse b u t one life ‘to those generous th o u
sands . . . | . . . stood all | P rep ar’d to die?’ T aking into account the
good W hig principles of ‘honour, duty, glory, public good’ he
actually had no choice at all; he could not b u t p u t his duties as
34 Thom as Davies (1784), iii. 418.
‘T h e Greek, the chief, the patriot, and the king’ above his rights as
a father. H e says that C lytem nestra could not have continued to
love him if he had proved so selfish and dishonourable, and, for a
few m inutes at least, it is possible to believe him .
A gam em non has never been so convincing, and the persuasive
force is heightened by his uxorial tenderness. T h is is an A gam em
non as P atriot K ing (popular W hig political term inology in T h o m
son’s tim e),35 entirely reconfigured to fit the eighteenth-century
B ritish m odel of ideal m ale sensibility. H e and C lytem nestra are
both inherently virtuous h u m an beings, on w hose capacity for
beneficent action have been placed intolerable strains. A t the heart
of the play C lytem nestra relents tow ards him , ju st before the arrival
of E lectra and O restes (i I . iii), and parents and children together
engage in a group em brace and an effusive affirm ation of m utual
regard. T h e A rgive royal fam ily, astonishingly, is rew ritten as the
new bourgeois ideal nuclear fam ily of the m id-eighteenth century,
destroyed by the m align am bition of an interloping politician.
EDW ARD AND ELEONORA AND EURIPIDES’

ALC ESTIS
T h o m so n ’s Agam emnon ensured that its ancient G reek m ythical
figures becam e, if only briefly, popular currency in L ondon cu l
ture. It was this play that gave W alpole the nicknam e ‘E gisthus’ in
P o p e’s opposition satire of later the sam e year, One Thousand Seven
H undred and T hirty Eight, a Dialogue, Som ething L ike Horace
(i. 51). T h e tragedy’s elevated, heroic subject-m atter had alm ost
instantly been seen to have com ic potential; a m ock prologue to
Agamemnon published in The Literary Courier of Grub Street on
27 A pril, only two days after the last perform ance and the original
publication of T h om so n ’s text, com pares C lytem nestra w ith
C atherine H ayes (a notorious m urderess w ho had been hanged at
T y b u rn in 1726), E gisthus w ith Francis C harteris (a versatile
villain and a convicted rapist), M elisander w ith R obinson Crusoe,
and C assandra w ith the apocryphal prophetess M oth er S h ip to n .36
P erhaps it was this type of m ockery that m ade T h om so n, w hen
next adapting G reek tragedy, consciously w rite a play less heroic
ally vulnerable to com ic deflation, and m ore em otionally affecting.
35 See Hugh Cunningham (1989). 36 See Sambrook (1991), 185-6.
116 Jam es Thomson’s Tragedies of Opposition
E dw ard and Eleonora is not only set in the E nglish (rather than
ancient G reek) past, b u t is by far the m ost em otive and sentim ental
of T h o m so n ’s dram as. T h e prologue actually invites the audieijce
to weep in response: ‘If these best Passions p rom pt the pleasing
W oe | Indulge it Freely— N atu re bids it flow .’ T hom son carefully
provides not one b u t tw o appealing roles for w om en: Eleonora wks
to be played by C hristiana H orton, adm ired as Shakespearej’s
C ordelia and R ow e’s Jane Shore; the role for D araxa was assigned
to A nne H allam , a fam ous L ady M acbeth. T h e slim line play is
consciously m odelled on the G reek p attern, for it contains only
three other characters, and at only about 1,500 lines is relatively
short.
T h e subject-m atter is partially derived, along w ith the context,
from a story about the last crusade. A t the siege of Jaffa in 1272,
Prince E dw ard (later E dw ard I) was injured by a poisoned blade
and was only saved because his wife E leonora sucked the poison
from the w ound, thus jeopardizing her ow n life. T h o m so n ’s
sources probably included Sir R ichard B aker’s Chronicle o f the
Kings o f England (1643) and the fourth volum e of R apin de T h o y r-
as’s H istory o f England (1724—31), b u t T h om so n has filled out their
narratives w ith the idea that the self-sacrificing wife becom es
m ortally ill, before having her life restored by an exotic hero.
T h is idea is taken from E u rip id es’ Alcestis. A lcestis is restored to
her h usband A dm etus after H eracles vanquishes D eath; Eleonora
is cured by the hum ane Sultan Selim of Jaffa, tem porarily dis
guised as a dervish.
A lcestis had lurked behind the scenes rather than taking centre
stage before the eighteenth century in B ritain, appearing in h a n d
books or poetry as a sym bol of constancy, devotion, and (fre
quently false) hope in h er good fortune to have defied the bounds
of m ortality. It is this restored A lcestis w ho had been fam ously
recalled by M ilton in S onnet 23 (e.1658), w ritten upon the death of
his wife:
M ethought I saw m y late espoused Saint
B rought to me like Alcestis from the grave,
W hom Joves great son to her glad H usband gave,
R escue’d from death by force though pale and faint.37
37 M ilton (1952-5), ii. 156-7.

Jam es Thomson’s Tragedies of Opposition 117
In his treatise O f Education (1644), M ilton had previously cited
E u rip id es’ Alcestis as the ideal play for study by young boys (see
Chs. 8—9); and the pedagogical value of the dram a seem s to have
been acknow ledged from at least the 1540s, w hen there is evidence
to suggest that the pupils of W estm inster perform ed it in the L atin
version of G eorge B uchanan.38 It should also be rem em bered that
in the original sketches for Paradise Lost, w hich M ilton had con
sidered designing as a tragedy, D eath was intended to be a stage
character as he is in the opening scene of Alcestis 29
H ow ever, the final scene of Shakespeare’s The W inter’s Tale
(1609) is probably the nearest we can get today to gauging the
presence of A lcestis on the E nglish R enaissance stage. T h e p aral
lels betw een this late Shakespearean play and the E uripidean
dram a of death and reb irth have long been detected on account
of both their broadly sim ilar m ood and content. Shakespeare’s
L eontes is the far-from -perfect husband, w ho, like A dm etus,
only becom es chastened after the death of his m odel wife; and,
like A dm etus, the reform ed w idow er is rew arded in the final
m om ents of the play by the ‘re tu rn ’ of his wife, in silent, statuesque
form . W ith the increasing evidence that G reek tragedy was m ore
w idely know n in Shakespeare’s day, especially through L atin
translations like B uchanan’s, than has h ith erto been allow ed,40 it
becom es necessary to acknow ledge the possibility of som e direct
E uripidean influence on Shakespeare’s last scene.
Alcestis also lies behind the plot of C harles G ild o n ’s L o ve’s Victim
(L incoln’s In n Fields, 1701), in w hich Q ueen G uinoenda is p e r
suaded to drink poison in order to save the life of her husband, and
enacts a long death scene w ith her husband, and th eir children (see
above, C h. 3).41 T h is inaugurated the eighteenth-century p erfo rm
ance history of Alcestis in B ritain, w hen the selfless wife makes
several appearances on stage, b u t either heavily disguised or in the
opera house.42 In 1718 G ildon also singled out E u rip id es’ Alcestis
38 Bruce R. Sm ith (1988), 201.
39 See Jodrell (1789), 318-20, who also argues that Euripides’ figure of Death,
Thanatos, probably inform ed W illiam A labaster’s Roxana, acted at T rinity College,
Cam bridge in 1632.
40 Schleiner (1990), K errigan (1996), Ewbank (forthcoming).
41 Cf. Robert D. H um e (1976), 451.
42 It is surprising that in his book about Alcestis, published in 1789, the E ur
ipidean scholar Paul Jodrell, who is norm ally well versed in the performance
reception of Greek tragedy (see below on W hitehead’s Creusa), does not include
(together w ith Helen) for its treatm ent of conjugal love;43 his in ter
est in the play is no d o ub t inextricably linked w ith the popularity of
L ully’s operatic version, Alceste, ou le triomphe d ’A lcide of 1674,
w ith its libretto by Philippe Q uinault. G ildon had previously en
gaged w ith G reek tragedy throu g h the m ediation of Q uinault, m ost
notably in his tragedy Phaeton (1698), w hich, as was seen in Ch. 3,
draw s on both Q u in au lt’s Phaeton and E u rip id es’ M edea.
H andel tu rn ed to the m yth of A lcestis at least tw ice in his career.
H e com posed m usic in 1750 for the (now lost) m asque by the
novelist T obias Sm ollett, b u t had previously enjoyed im m ediate
success w ith his full opera A dm eto, re di Tessaglia w hen it was
perform ed at the K ing ’s T h eatre in 1727. It m ay well have been
H an d el’s feisty operatic A lcestis, w ho retu rn s to test A dm etus’
fidelity, that inspired Jam es T hom son to w rite the first full E nglish
adaptation of the G reek tragedy; certainly on his arrival in L ondon
in 1725 he had becom e com pletely stage-struck. 4
T h o m so n ’s play draw s heavily on E uripides, even though this is
not im m ediately obvious because of the C rusade setting. T h e
m edieval tale is fleshed out, how ever, w ith details and (very
often) verbatim translations from E u rip id es’ play concerning A l
cestis’ sim ilarly altruistic act to save her own h u sb an d ’s life. In A ct
III, for exam ple, the A rab princess, D araxa, gives an account of
E leonora’s death taken from E u rip id es’ Alcestis (152 ff.):
W hen this pride of women,
T his best of wives, which in his radiant course,
T he sun beholds, w hen first she, sickening felt
T h ’ im perious sum m ons of approaching fate,
All rob’d in spotless w hite she sought her Altars;
And, prostrate there, for her departing so u l. . .
L ater in A ct III, w hen E leonora lies dying on her couch (see
Fig. 4.2), the scene is closely m odelled on Alcestis 2 4 4 ff.; in
T hom son’s Edward and Eleonora among the numerous adaptations (mostly French
and Italian) discussed in his lengthy ‘Final Essay’ devoted to this play’s afterlife
(312—65). He does, however, include some interesting observations on the difficul
ties presented by the resurrection m otif (‘a heathen fiction’, p. 365) to the 18th-c.
British m ind, which was at once devout and profoundly rationalizing.
43 See above, Ch. 3, p. 91.
44 Sambrook (1991), 28. In 2000, the English Bach Festival m ounted the pre
m iere staging of H andel’s Alceste in the Linbury Studio, Covent Garden, drawing
on various sources in an attem pt to reconstruct Sm ollett’s lost masque.
Jam es Thomson’s Tragedies of Opposition 119
F i g u r e 4.2 Jam es H eath, frontispiece to Jam es T hom son’s Edward and

Eleonora (1795).
A ct V, w hen the A rabian prince (who is both D eath and H eracles
here), protesting his innocence, calls in a w itness w ho tu rn s out to
be Eleonora, the m odel is Alcestis 1006 ff.
UNDER THE BLUE PENCIL

T h o m so n ’s play, how ever, had to w ait u ntil 1775 for its first
production. T h e L o rd C ham berlain’s office had no problem w ith
decoding this particular political allegory; by transposing the A l
cestis m yth to a m om ent in B ritish history, T hom son had arguably
given him self rather less freedom to articulate contem porary p o lit
ical dissatisfaction th an if he had exploited the distance afforded by
adopting the ancient m yth tout court. In F ebruary 1739 T h o m so n ’s
E dw ard and Eleonora was in rehearsal at C ovent G arden, and a
tran script was sent to the Stage L icenser, w ho took u ntil 27 M arch,
two days before the play was due to open, to forbid its p erfo rm
ance. T h is was only a fo rtn ig h t after G ustavus Vasa was p ro
scribed, and the tim ing seem s to have been designed to be
‘adm onitory and vindictive’.45
Sam uel Johnson, w riting som e forty years later, had difficulty
understan d in g the censor’s objections,46 b u t the parallels betw een
E dw ard (the A dm etus figure) and T h o m so n ’s patron, Frederick
Prince of W ales, are obvious. T hom son was eulogizing the Prince
and thereby advancing the cause of the O pposition once again. A t
the beginning of the play, E dw ard is urged by G loster to abandon
w ar in the H oly L and and to retu rn to affairs of state at hom e,
w here his aged father has fallen prey to evil counsellors (A ct I).
T ow ards the end of the play (after the death of Eleonora) com es the
news o f the death of the K ing, and E dw ard is roused into taking
revenge. O nce the S ultan has rescued E leonora from death w ith a
m iraculous cure, E dw ard is set to retu rn to E ngland, realizing th a t
is was m isplaced zeal th at led him to go to w ar against the Sultan in
the first place.
W hile the parallels w ith Alcestis serve to dignify the Princess of
W ales, A ugusta of Saxe-G otha (to w hom the first p rin ted edition is
dedicated), it is the deviations from E u rip id es’ play, above all, that
serve to ennoble the Prince. In T h o m so n ’s version, E dw ard
(unlike A dm etus) does not endorse his w ife’s self-sacrifice at any
45 See Sambrook (1991), 194. 46 Samuel Johnson (1794), iv. 242.
point, b u t actively seeks to oppose it once he discovers the identity
of the w illing substitute. T h e m ost notable deviation, how ever, is
the absence of a confrontation betw een father and son, w hich
w ould have m irrored contem porary events rath er too sharply. O f
course, topography precludes any such encounter in T h o m so n ’s
version, b u t by suppressing this scene in particular— w here A dm e-
tu s’ m oral duplicity is exposed no less than the o p portunism of his
father— T hom son guarantees that Prince E dw ard’s conduct
rem ains unim peachable. A few m arks on the censored m anuscript
indicate w hich lines offended the L icenser, including A rchdeacon
T h eald ’s assurance in A ct IV, Scene ii th at he was prom oted
w ithout any form of corruption, and E d w ard ’s denunciation in
A ct IV , Scene viii of his fath er’s ‘servile V erm in’ at court, his
‘C o rrupt, co rrupting M inisters and F avourites’.47 B ut there are
several other passages about m inisterial greed and co rruption that
m ust have been equally inflam m atory. T h e scandal su rrounding
the banning of the play increased its sales: 4,500 copies w ere
printed , and T hom son m ade a handsom e profit. H is political
m essage m ust have been enhanced by the explicit parallel draw n
in the dedication betw een the virtues of the Princess of W ales and
those of E leonora, and by the ‘Saxon’ type of the lettering of the
date on w hich the play was prohibited, suggestive of the ancient
Saxon liberties that the L icensing A ct had p u t in jeopardy.48
E D W AR D A N D E LEO N O RA REVIVED
T h e play was adm ired throu g h o u t the m iddle of the eighteenth
century, and in 1772 John W esley w rote in his fam ous Journal that
not only are the sentim ents ju st and noble, b u t that the diction is
‘strong, sm ooth and elegant, and the plot conducted w ith the
utm ost art and w rought off in a m ost surprizing m anner. It is
quite his m asterpiece, and I really think m ight vie w ith any m odern
perform ance of the k in d .’49 Sure enough, in M arch 1775 at the
T h eatre Royal, C ovent G arden, T h o m so n ’s play was finally
enjoyed by L ondon audiences (albeit w ith slight changes from
the 1739 edition on account of the indisposition of the celebrated
actor and rival of D avid G arrick, Spranger Barry, who had been
47 Sambrook (1991), 195 . 48 Ibid. (1991), 196.

49 W esley (1906), iii. 488.
intended for the p art of the Sultan). T h e actor-m anager T hom as
H ull m ounted a production of Edw ard and Eleonora at the sugges
tion of B arry’s wife A nn, one of the m ost distinguished actresses of
her day, w ho w ent on to play E leonora in H u ll’s production. H ull
him self took the p art of G loster; and in the Preface to the p rinted
edition of the 1775 production of the play, H ull is circum spect
about the earlier problem s w ith the censor, although he makes it
clear that T h o m so n ’s w ork ought to be m ore w idely know n than it
is. H ow ever, against the background of the early stages of the
A m erican W ar of Independence, H ull is able to vindicate the
radical playw right in his prologue to the play th at he delivered in
his theatre:
’T is your own Thom son— he whose lib’ral M ind
B reath’d love to all the friends of H um an K ind!50
H ull, in the p art of G loster, denounces religion and racial bigotry
(Act I, p. 3); and after the death of E leonora, he urges the young
king to assum e his regal responsibilities, w hich include guarding
the arts and securing the sacred rights of ind u stry and freedom
(Act IV , p. 43). In 1775 at C ovent G arden, these sentim ents w ould
have m et w ith an attentive, if not w holly sym pathetic, audience
w ith an increasingly liberal outlook (on w hich see Ch. 6).
T h e aesthetic clim ate of the period both accom m odated and
even prom oted sentim ent of the kind generated in the first p art
of E u rip id es’ play; and the fulsom e praise for the production in
The M orning Chronicle on 20 M arch 1775 is no d o ub t due in large
m easure to that coincidence of m ood. T h e production, the re
view er averred, had been received
w ith that best test of excellence, w here the tender passions are attem pted
to be excited— gushing tears. T he audience, w hich was m ore brilliant and
more num erous than ever yet seen in this theatre, confessed their sensibil
ity, and w ept applause.
B ut it was, above all, the fact that in the new ly liberal clim ate of
1775, the voices of tolerance and reason could prevail; and the final
w ords of w isdom in the play are significantly spoken by the for
m erly dem onized ‘o th er’, Sultan Selim:
50 Thom son (1775), 1.

L et holy rage, let persecution cease,
L et the head argue, but the heart be peace.
L et all m ankind in love of w hat is right,
In virtue and hum anity unite. (Act V, p. 59)
T h e resurrection of this eighteenth-century A lcestis affords not
ju st m arital b u t political unity as well; and T h o m so n ’s play not
surprisingly rem ained in the repertoire until at least the end of the
century. A picture by A ngelica K auffm an (who later painted the
dying A lcestis) of the scene in w hich E leonora sucks the venom
from her husband was exhibited at the Royal A cadem y in 1776, the
year after the play’s 1775 revival; and W illiam Blake engraved a
m ore elaborate p ictu re of the scene in 1793, w hich is not only
extrem ely theatrical but also suggestive of the ancient roots of the
fable (see Fig. 4.3).51 In 1796 at D ru ry L ane the leading tragedi-
FlGURE 4.3 W illiam Blake, print entitled Edward & Elenor, 1793.
51 For K auffm an’s oil painting and the popularity of the prints of it, see Roworth
(1992), 62, 164—6, with figs. 43 and 140; for her Death of Alcestis see p. 189. T he
striking Blake engraving is also reproduced as fig. 6 in Essick (1983), with discussion
on pp. 14—17.
enne Sarah Siddons took the p art of Eleonora in a production w ith
her b ro th er John K em ble. O n this occasion, how ever, the arrival of
the children in the farewell speech was greeted w ith m irth rather
than em pathy.52 W hilst the political sentim ents of this adaptation
still rem ained urgent, the affective scene of farew ell now seem ed
cloyingly sentim ental at a tim e w hen the age of sensibility had
finally ru n its course.
T H O M S O N ’S I N F L U E N C E
T h o m so n ’s dram as w ere aesthetically prefigurative. H is A gam em
non helped draw the precursors of the English R om antic poets’
attention to the poetry of its A eschylean original, quoted, for
exam ple, in the epigraph to T hom as G ray ’s Ode to A dversity, a
poem deeply im bued w ith G reek tragic im agery (com posed 1742,
published 1753).33 Edw ard and Eleonora, on the o ther hand, ad u m
brated the literary w atershed that coincided w ith the fall of W alpole
three years later, in 1742. T h ereafter progressive and critical poets
adopted a new agenda w hich rejected obvious allegory and the type
of satire identified w ith Pope in favour of a rom antic engagem ent
w ith the explicitly B ritish, and often very distant B ritish, past. T h is
type of engagem ent was, in the second half of the century, to com e
to fruition in the plays of W illiam M ason (see Ch. 7).
B ut T h o m so n ’s im pact is rather m ore international than this,
even extending to N o rth A m erica.54 Agam emnon was certainly
adm ired on the C ontinent. It influenced A lfieri, w hose tw in verse
tragedies Agamennone and Oreste w ere popular in B ritain after they
appeared in E nglish translation in 1815. A lfieri was desperate to
build up an Italian theatrical literature to rival those in English and
F rench, spent m uch tim e in L ondon, and also w rote a Sophonisba
(the title of T h o m so n ’s m ost fam ous play).55 T h o m so n ’s Agam em
non, unusually for an E nglish-language tragedy in the eighteenth
52 L S v/3. 1907. T he play was also perform ed outside London, for example on 21
Nov. 1788 at the Assembly Rooms in Snargate, Dover. See Rosenfeld (1978), 137.
53 On G ray’s use of Agamemnon see further Gleckner (1997), 44-5 and 145. He
sees it as m arking a stage in G ray’s intense relationship w ith his beloved (and
recently deceased) Richard West. In their intense correspondence ancient Greek
quotations had been significant.
54 H ilbert H. Campbell (1976), 104.
35 See Alfieri (1810), ii. 33—8, and Edith Hall (forthcoming a).
century, was also translated into F rench and perform ed in Paris in
1780;56 T h o m so n ’s other w orks attracted interest in France around
the tim e of the R evolution,57 and this revival of Agam emnon m ay lie
behind C itizen L ouis Jean N epom ucene L em ercier’s attraction to
the political potential of the story. H is Agam emnon show s the influ
ence of Seneca (A egisthus is m uch troubled by the ghost of T hyes-
tes, I . i), b u t also of T hom son, for exam ple in the handling of the
sacrifice of Iphigenia ( i . iii). L em ercier’s adaptation was perform ed
on 5 floreal year V (24 A pril 1797) at the T h eatre de la R epublique,
then considered the finest theatre in Paris. It had been form ed in
1792 after the C om edie-Frangaise was split by political differences
and the actors sym pathetic to the R evolution, including C itizen
T alm a, joined actors from the V arietes A m usantes to form the
new theatre of the new republic. Agam emnon is a five-act verse
tragedy, in w hich C litem nestre (F ranfoise V estris) owes m uch to
T h o m so n ’s conception; she is a devoted m other, fearful that A ga
m em non, w ith his filicidal record, m ay sacrifice O restes ( i . iii). Y et
she is vain and silly (not unlike popular stereotypes of M arie-A n-
toinette), sw ooning her way throu g h o u t an ideologically charged
vision of the assassination of the co rru p t head of a decadent dynasty,
fast becom ing obsolete.
B ut T h o m so n ’s greatest im pact was in G erm any. T h e influen
tial critic and playw right G otthold E phraim L essing was an ad
m irer, bestow ing praise on T h o m so n ’s pow ers of expression, his
innovative brilliance in the description of landscape, and for his
painterly qualities, especially in The Seasons.58 Lessing, w hose
sem inal essay Laocoon (1766) explored the differences betw een
poetry and visual art, had becom e interested in T hom son because
of th eir shared fascination w ith ancient statuary: T hom son him self
ow ned a collection of draw ings of w hat w ere believed to be G reek
sculptures, and, in P art F o u r of Liberty, he had included set-piece
descriptions of eight of them — not only the L aocoon b u t others
including the Farnese H ercules, the V atican M eleager, the D ying
G ladiator, the Apollo Belvedere, and the Farnese Flora. T he
sculptural parallels in T h o m so n ’s Seasons reveal the extent of his
56 See Thom son (1780) and W artelle (1978), 24.
57 Barrell and G uest (2000), 231-2.
58 Lessing (1968), iv. 205, 218, v. 97, 227, 235. T his poetic cycle, repeatedly
reprinted both in and after James T hom son’s lifetime, was first translated into
G erm an in 1758.
126 Jam es Thomson’s Tragedies of Opposition
fascination w ith the sentim ental possibilities of expressing em o
tional agitation throu g h classical form ,59 a fascination w hich finds
an analogy in his theatrical synthesis of classical literary form w ith
eighteenth-century em otional w arm th and sensibility. T h is com
bination led to his tragedies being translated into G erm an no fewer
than three tim es in the m id-eighteenth century; Lessing was so
im pressed by Agam emnon that he began to translate it him self, as
he also translated R obert Shiels’s Life of Thomson for a G erm an
readership.60
In L essing’s Laocoon, w idely regarded as the foundation text of
m odern aesthetics, a passage in T h o m so n ’s Agam emnon is singled
out. It is one of the sage M elisander’s speeches describing his
confinem ent on an A egean island, beginning ‘C ast in the w ildst
of Cyclad Isles’; L essing provides the speech both in English and
in the G erm an verse translation of Johann D avid M ichaelis (1750).
W hat Lessing adm ires in T hom son is not only his ‘classical’ poetic
art, b u t the p roto-R om antic m anner in w hich M elisander’s com
m union w ith the beauties of N atu re is connected w ith his spiritual
and m oral grow th.61 T h ro u g h Laocoon T hom son thus entered the
canon of poets universally recognized as forerunners of R om anti
cism. B ut L essing also saw T h o m so n ’s dram atic w orks as p art of
an im portant breakthrough w hich had taken place in B ritish so
cially sensitive dram a in the 1730s (he pairs his plays on m ore than
one occasion w ith L illo’s 1731 D ru ry L ane ‘dom estic tragedy’ The
London M erchant, or The H istory of George Barnwell). In 1756
Lessing w rote a flattering introduction to a G erm an prose tran sla
tion of T h o m so n ’s tragedies, adm iring his know ledge of the
hum an h eart as well as his m agical art, and com paring him w ith
Corneille in his brilliance in updating G reek tragedy.62 L essing
argued that T h om so n took tragedy beyond the ru le-b o un d form
prescribed by antiquity and into new realm s of feeling. T h ro u g h
Lessing, T h o m so n ’s Agam emnon m ade a lasting im pression on
G erm an dram atic thought, and m ust have co n tributed to the
interest in T h o m so n ’s ow n A eschylean archetype w hich in due
59 Sambrook (1991), 1144.

60 See James (1750), (1756), and (1771); Lessing (1968), iii. 734, 732; Shiels
(1753).
61 Lessing (1968), v. 35—6.
62 Lessing, ‘V orrede’ to Thom son (1756), 3-4, reprinted in Lessing (1968), iii.
699-705.
course produced W ilhelm von H u m b o ld t’s 1816 translation. T h is
in tu rn lies behind the operas of W agner.63 Such is the im pact that
an intelligent stage adaptation can have on the reception of an
ancient tragedy.
63 For W agner’s use of H um boldt’s translation, see the discussion of W agner’s

study of Aeschylus in Ewans (forthcoming).
5
Euripides’ Ion , Coram ’s Foundlings, and
Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act
INTRODUCTION
F oundling heroes are perennially fascinating. F ro m the A kkadian
m yth of Sargon, discovered in a basket on the river E u p h rates,1
throug h M oses and N im rod to C yrus, R om ulus and R em us, the
Japanese hero H iruko, the Indian K am a of the M ahabharata—
alm ost every ancient m ythical system features an abandoned baby
at its centre. T h e tw entieth century produced C lark K ent, S u p er
m an, w hose b irth narrative was invented in 1939;2 the tw enty-first
has already created the touching story of D avid, the robot fo u n d
ling in search of parental love, in Steven Spielberg’s m ovie A I
(.A rtificial Intelligence, 2001). Foundling tales w ere already a staple
of the ancient theatre, appearing in num erous (now lost) E u rip i
dean tragedies, and in m any of M en an der’s H ellenistic N ew C om
edies. But, besides O edipus, the only G reek tragic foundling to
have survived exposure to the intervening centuries is E u rip id es’
Ion. T h is chapter tells the story of the E nglish-language recovery
of this charm ing hero, and offers explanations for the particular
date at w hich he was rediscovered.
It is Saturday, 20 A pril 1754. A n excited L ondon audience has
gathered at D ru ry L ane to w atch the prem iere of a new play by the
fashionable author W illiam W hitehead. Based on E uripides’ Ion, it
has been retitled Creusa, Queen o f Athens. It stars D avid G arrick, the
incom parable actor-m anager. T h is will be his only significant role in
a play based on a G reek tragedy, despite his interest in that genre.3
1 For the m yth of Sargon and its texts see Brian Lewis (1980).
2 See Bridwell (1971), 20—1, Redford (1967), G aster (1969), 224—6. Brian Lewis
(1980), 149—95, lists 72 different examples of foundling heroes, from the 13th c. B C
until the 20th c. A D . On the ubiquity of this type of m yth see also Binder (1964) and
Huys (1995), 377-94.
3 See further below, Ch. 7. G arrick was fascinated by ancient costumes, and
reputed to have a large personal collection. See Price (1975), 57.
and Lord H ardw icke’s M arriage A c t 129
H is co-star is the anim ated H annah P ritchard, now established as
his leading lady.4 T h eir glam orous partn ersh ip in Shakespearean
tragedy, especially M acbeth, is already legendary; Jo hn Zoffany and
H enry Fuseli will paint fam ous pictures of them in the leading roles
of this Shakespearean classic.5 W hitehead has already m ade his
nam e, in 1750, w ith a tragedy on an antique them e; The Rom an
Father was an adaptation from C orneille’s Horace, in w hich G arrick
had played the R om an republican patrio t of the title to M ary A nne
Y ates’ sw ooning H o ratia.6
H annah P ritch ard has also already distinguished herself as the
fem ale lead in a revival of S m ith ’s Phaedra and H ippolitus (1751—2)
and in R ichard G lover’s patriotic Boadicia (D ru ry L ane 1753).7
B ut Creusa, the new ‘G recian ’ production, prom ises m ore than one
beautiful w om an. Also perform ing, in breeches, are the legendary
legs of M iss M aria M acklin, a 21-year-old expert transvestite, w ho
plays the D elphic foundling.8 M acklin, the daughter of the fam ous
actor C harles M acklin, was b orn like W hitehead’s young hero into
a m arriage of am biguous validity; b u t her piety and refinem ent
suited her casting as the self-possessed young priest at D elp hi.9
A lthough not a sm ash hit, Creusa proved popular, especially
w ith w om en in the audience: W hitehead was no political radical,
bu t the em otional tenor of his dram as was perceived to be sym pa
thetic, and progressive. H is up dated and m odish G reek tragedy
ran into M ay, was revived at D ru ry L ane in 1755, and was
4 Hiffernan (1770), 98.
5 See Vaughan (1979), pis. 1 and 6. Fuseli’s powerful picture of M rs Pritchard as
Lady M acbeth is regarded as one of his m asterpieces. For details see also V aughan’s
cover and Fuseli (1975), 58—9.
6 Lynch (1953), 187, notes that W hitehead considerably altered his French
model in order to bring The Roman Father ‘as near as possible to the form of
Greek tragedy’. The Roman Father was a huge hit, one of the seven most popular
tragedies of the m id-18th c., enjoying seven seasons at D rury Lane and four at
Covent G arden by 1777.
7 T he same was not so true of her perform ance in Samuel Johnson’s Irene, a
tragic story of Sultan M ahom et IF s love for the freedom-loving Grecian heroine set
against the backdrop of the fall of Constantinople to the T urks; this had failed at
D rury Lane in 1749, when Johnson had unfairly blamed Pritchard for the debacle.
On Johnson’s play and its sources see Spencer (1954), 250-6.
8 As a critic wrote in The Gray's Inn Journal for 16 Feb. 1754, ‘I do not rem em ber
to have seen any Actress wear the breeches with so good a grace.’ See Highfill et al.
(1973-93), x. 34.
9 M acklin’s ambitious father put her on the stage at a tender age; as a child her
repertoire had included the little D uke of York in Richard I I I , and T om T hum b
(another foundling) in The Tragedy of Tragedies.
130 E uripides’ Ion, C oram ’s Foundlings
perform ed there tw ice in each of the years 1757, 1758, and 1759;
this was in an era w hen a ru n of only nine nights m eant a tragedy
was accounted a success.10 T h e play was a staple of private th e atri
cals for years after its prem iere; L ady Sarah L ennox starred in it at
H olland H ouse, w here as H en ry Fox’s sister-in-law she was
staying, on 20 A pril 1762.11 T h e role of C reusa was one of those
in w hich actresses liked to pose for publicity purposes (see Fig. 5.1).
Creusa was m uch adm ired in its day for the econom y of its plot
construction and adherence to the U nities; it certainly helped
W hitehead beat his friend W illiam M ason to the poet laureateship
three years after its prem iere, in 1757, w hen T hom as G ray (a b etter
poet than either of them ) declined the ap p o in tm en t.12
T H E R E C O V E R Y O F IO N
M any of the adaptations of G reek tragedy th at appeared on the
B ritish stage in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries w ere
inspired by an earlier Italian or F rench version. T h e C ontinental
adapters usually selected ancient G reek texts w hich had been
praised by A ristotle (Oedipus, Iphigeneia in Tauris), retold by
O vid (Agam emnon), dram atized by Seneca (M edea, Phoenissae),
or translated into R enaissance L atin (Alcestis, Hecuba, Iphigenia
in A ulis). B ut not one of these criteria applies to W hitehead’s
Creusa, before w hich the perform ance history of E uripides’ Ion
had been slight. A lthough Sophocles w rote both a lost Ion and a
lost Creusa, and E u rip id es’ play itself was certainly perform ed in
later antiquity (D em etrius, On S tyle 195), nobody besides the
R om an republican tragedian A ccius and the ancient w riters of
pantom im e libretti produced a version of the story after the fifth
century B C .13 M oreover, both A ccius’ tragedy and those libretti
10 L S iv/1. 421-7, 471, 479; iv/ii. 595-6, 641, 643, 711; Lynch (1953), 11, 25.
11 Rosenfeld (1978), 124; Tillyard (1995), 153, 160. Less than two m onths later
Sarah Lennox became Lady Sarah Bunbury, under which name she was to model
for Reynolds’a famous painting Lady Sarah Bunbury Sacrificing to the Graces
(1765), discussed above, Ch. 3, p. 89.
12 For praise of C rew e’s construction see e.g. Anderson (1795), xi. 895. T he award
of the laureateship may have had something to do with W hitehead’s connection,
through the Earl of Jersey (whose son he had tutored), to the then Prince of Wales.
W hitehead’s tenure was undistinguished, but he was held to have succeeded in
avoiding ‘fawning’ in his odes for either George II or George III. See Broadus
(1921), 135-7.
13 See Simon (1990), 702-5.
A c tV . VREFS A , S tm t S .
MslteMrutfh rtiMtr.Jpn! tjyS._____________7h>-»,!h*>:uir.Wu
JH JS S y o r m o jc / / / /A - ( /’u r iftr /r r tA C M X P ’S A »
• ____________________ . / / / .) . 7 / y ,t ~ > r.,----------
* A A y r A tm , AAy * A<rn / -— — -------------
FIGURE 5.1 J. T hornthw aite, engraving of M iss Elizabeth Youn

(later M rs Pope) in the character of Creusa (1778).
132 Euripides’ Ion, C oram ’s Foundlings
are lost, w hich m eant th a t no L atin version of the story was
bequeathed to later E urope.
E ven after the Renaissance rediscovery of E uripides there are
few signs of any theatrical interest in this tragicom edy. N o know n
Italian operas had appeared on the them e, in France no Corneille,
Racine, or V oltaire attem pted to adapt it for the stage, and in his
influential edition o f A ristotle’s Poetics, published in 1692, D acier
actually asserted that the subject of Ion could not succeed on the
m odern stage.14 Perhaps W hitehead had noted the rare praise
bestow ed in 1718 by C harles G ildon, w ho had read m ore E uripides
than m ost E nglishm en, on the recognition scene of Io n } s W h ite
head could also have heard of the one obscure F rench opera on the
them e, by L ouis L acoste (1712, see below ),16 b u t this is not likely.
A late eig hteenth-century classical scholar called Paul Jodrell, a
Fellow of H ertfo rd College, O xford w hose Illustrations of E uripi
des on the Ion and the Bacchae (1781) reveals a keen aw areness of
perform ance history and of W hitehead’s play, show s no evidence
even of know ing of the existence of L acoste’s Creiise.
Jodrell was surely correct, how ever, in suggesting th at W h ite
head was influenced by R acine’s A thalie, w hose young hero Joas
bears ‘a strong resem blance to the royal F oundling of A thens. Both
are Princes of the last surviving b ranch of the m ost illustrious royal
fam ilies.’17 R acine’s tragedy is based on the story of A thaliah and
Josiah, narrated in 2 K ings 11 and 2 C hronicles 22—3, w hich also
inspired an opera by A postolo Z eno and M etastasio’s Gioas, R e di
Giuda (1735).18
R acine’s Josiah play, A thalie, first perform ed in 1691, was the
first of his tragedies to use a biblical story. It was w ritten for
perform ance at the girls’ boarding school of Saint-C yr, and the
role of the child Joas (Josiah), although out of line w ith contem
porary stage practice, was suited to this co n text.19 Racine had read
(and even w ritten a m arginal com m ent on) a text of E u rip id es’
14 Dacier (1692), 222. 15 G ildon (1718), i. 257.

16 Lacoste (1712). 17 Jodrell (1781), i. 245.
18 Ibid. 246. In an example of cross-fertilization between biblical and Greek
tragic narratives, M etastasio had probably im itated Euripides’ Ion by introducing
the figure of Sebia, the m other of the young prince, and writing an ‘interesting
scene’ for the m other and the child before they are m ade known to one another.
19 France (1966), 24, 163. T he story of Joas had been used in at least one French
school play previously; for bibliography see ibid. 15 n. 2.
and Lord H ardw icke’s M arriage A ct 133
Ion.20 A thalie is also the only R acinian tragedy to use a chorus, and
it is infused w ith the tho u g h t and tone of G reek tragedy.21 T h e
tem ple setting in the quarters of the resident high priest at Jeru sa
lem , and the innocence of the foundling boy-priest, are both
inform ed by E uripid es’ D elphic dram a. O ne scene in particular
im itates Ion: w hen A thalie encounters the boy Joas, and is affected
by his responses to her interrogation (A ct II, Scene vii), Racine
com es close to repeating w hole lines from C reusa’s first scene w ith
Io n .22 T h e psychological tension in R acine’s brilliant dram a, how
ever, centres on the foundling, the priest, and the queen. W h ite
head, although superficially adhering m ore closely to the G reek
m odel, actually departs fu rth er away from it by introducing a love
story as the central focus.
As an educated m an looking for plays to adapt for D ru ry Lane, it
is virtually im possible th at W hitehead did not know A thalie, even if
he did not know it had actually been perform ed in L ondon (in
French), in 1735 (H aym arket).23 As we have seen in Chs. 2 and 3,
other plays by R acine had already been adapted to the E nglish stage
in the earlier 1700s. M oreover, S m ith ’s Phaedra and H ippolitus had
been revived very recently indeed (see above). B ut there is actually
little correspondence betw een R acine’s A thalie and W h iteh ead ’s
Creusa besides the basic ‘situ atio n ’ of the tem ple foundling.
T h ere is even less correspondence betw een the first E nglish Ion
and L acoste’s spectacular opera Creiise I’Athenienne (1712), w hich
involves a sensational scene in w hich the Pythia perform s a p ro p h
ecy ( i I . iv). T h ere is a conspicuous difference betw een W h ite
head’s freedom -conscious W hig B ritish vision of the plot and
L acoste’s F rench m onarch-centred conservatism . Lacoste has
altered E uripides so th at Creiise thinks for m ost of the opera that
her son is her brother. T h e m ost im portant thing about the G reek
play for L acoste was its interest in authenticating a royal ‘divine’
bloodline and in defusing anxieties about royal succession. T h e
m onarchical political environm ent in w hich he was w riting m akes
L acoste keep no few er than three generations of the royal fam ily
20 K night (1950), 425.

21 See France (1966), 35, 38—9, and his note to Athalie Act II, Scene vii; on
similarities with the Oresteia and other Greek tragedies see E. E. W illiams (1937)
and especially M ueller (1980), 182—93.
22 For a detailed comparison see K night (1950), 386-92.
23 L S iii/1. 480 (W ednesday, 16 Apr. 1735).
alive— C reiise’s father E rectee is reassured at the end not by
A thena b u t by Apollo the Sun G od, loyal allusion to the Roi Soleil
and divine father of the new heir apparent him self, th at only true
A thenian and divine blood runs in Idas’ (the renam ed Io n ’s) veins.
T h e royal fam ily’s u ntainted succession is therefore guaranteed.
N or will there even, apparently, be any em barrassing intervening
period in w hich governm ent is assum ed by Creiise and her foreign
husband. E rectee will be succeeded directly by his grandson, a
m ixture of his d au g hter’s blood and th at of the G od of the Sun.
W hat a difference, therefore, betw een this version and the Creusa
of W hitehead, w ho was a near-agnostic. H is ancient A thens is a
constitutional, popular m onarchy, from w hose bloodline A pollo is
ousted altogether. T h e su bstitu te offered by the E nglish eig ht
eenth -cen tury im agination for E u rip id es’ divine rapist of a father
is a virtuous, ardent, low er-class, and em phatically hum an lover.
D E L P H I AS F O U N D L I N G H O S P I T A L
W hitehead had personal reasons for an attraction to Ion, since the
love of his life was his w idow ed m other and yet he regarded him self
as suffering from the disadvantages of an orphan. H e had lost his
father (a C am bridge baker) at an early age, and was only enabled to
study at W inchester and from 1735 at C lare H all (now C lare C ol
lege), C am bridge, because he was granted a scholarship open to
‘orp h an s’ of tradesm en of the tow n. B ut this gentle, fatherless
outsider, on a scholarship to W inchester, had fallen in love w ith
the ancient theatre w hen he acted a fem ale role in T eren ce’s A ndria
and M arcia in A ddison’s Cato. H e had also learnt sufficient G reek
to read it w ith ease.24 Interestingly, W hitehead also attem pted to
adapt the other fam ous ancient ‘foundling’ play, Sophocles’ Oedipus
Tyrannus (see Ch. 8); the text, unfinished on his death, was com
pleted by his friend W illiam M ason, w hose own experim ents w ith
tu rn in g G reek tragedy into topical theatre are discussed in Ch. 7.23
W hitehead was led to Ion by contem porary cultural taste. In
1751 R ichard D alton had begun to publish a series of engravings of
G reek antiquities, the first im pression m ost B ritons had received
24 See M ason (1788a), 6, and cf. D N B xxi. 106.
25 For a description of the W hitehead—M ason version of Oedipus, and a com pari
son with the plays on that them e by Corneille and D ryden and Lee, see M ason
(1788a), 123 and n.
of G reek tem ples and m o n u m ents.26 But it was m ore im portant
that the earlier and m iddle p art of the eighteenth century saw an
explosion of foundling literature. N otable exam ples include both
H en ry F ielding’s classic novels, Joseph Andrew s (1742), w hich
features not one b u t tw o foundling tales,27 and The H istory of
Tom Jones, A Foundling (1749). Fielding him self m uch adm ired
E dw ard M oo re’s affecting com edy The Foundling (1748, b u t ru n
ning into num erous editions), in w hich the lovely orphan Fidelia
provides an affirm ation of the possibility of such a child exhibiting
virtue and com m on sense. M oore’s play becam e perhaps the m ost
fam ous dram atic treatm ent of the them e of unknow n parentage so
beloved by all the ‘sentim entalist’ playw rights w orking during the
fifty years betw een R ichard Steele’s The Conscious Lovers (1722)
and R ichard C u m b erlan d ’s The W est Indian (1771).
For the literary foundling, how ever voguish, was nevertheless an
expression of a shocking social reality. T h ere was a sudden p o p u
lation increase in the early eighteenth century; the inhabitants of
B irm ingham , for exam ple, m ultiplied sevenfold betw een 1658 and
1725. T h e reasons w ere com plicated, b u t they included better food
supplies and less censorious attitudes tow ards sexual activity.
Since the responsibility for su pporting illegitim ate and abandoned
children fell on parishes, m any of them faced sudden financial
crisis. A parliam entary A ct of 1733 had sought to protect parishes
against such financial pressure, b u t the issue w ould not go away.
T hom as C oram , a retired sea-captain (see Fig. 5.2), was appalled
by the dozens of new born babies abandoned on L ondon dunghills.
H e w orked for seventeen years w ith philanthropic aristocrats,
especially w om en, to get his vision of a Foundling H ospital
brought into existence by A ct of Parliam ent in 1740; the Bloom s
bury Fields site was com pleted in 1747.28 N o few er than six
h u nd red children were being raised there by the tim e that W h ite
head’s Creusa was perform ed in 1754. T h e enterprise proved so
oversubscribed that by the 1750s additional branches w ere opened
in Shrew sbury, A ylesbury, B arnet, and C hester.
W h itehead ’s Creusa im plicitly supports the notion th a t a p ro p
erly loved and n u rtu red child can thrive in the absence of its
natural fam ily. T h is was a new enough idea in the eighteenth
26 See Spencer (1954), 159-60. 27 See D udden (1952), i. 352.

28 See Nichols and W ray (1935), 2-4.
136 Euripides’ Ion, Coram ’s Foundlings
Figure 5.2 H enry Brooke, engraving of C aptain T hom as Coram

(1741) after a portrait by B. N ebot.
century, and of course the fundam ental prem ise of the brand-new
F oundling H ospital. O pponents argued that the hospital’s exist
ence encouraged fornication in young fem ales, th eir seduction by
m ales, and parents of illegitim ate children to neglect their resp o n
sibilities.29 Its supporters, on the o ther hand, insisted that ab an
doned children needed n u rtu re and that w om en should not be
punished throu g ho u t their lives for indiscretion or ‘loving im
pulses’ in their youth; a hospital was regarded as necessary ‘to
prevent the D estruction of illegitim ate infants, and to preserve
from F orfeiture the Lives of m any w retched M others w hom a
strong Sense of Sham e m ight otherw ise precipitate into capital
O ffences’.30 W hitehead exam ines E u rip id es’ C reusa and her
child from exactly the perspective held by liberal eighteen th -cen
tury supporters of C oram ’s vision. T h e play never judges C reusa
for her teenage pregnancy, show s how the exposure of her baby
was alm ost inevitable, and dem onstrates that the care given her
baby, as a foundling raised in the adoptive com m unity ru n by
responsible officials at the D elphic oracle, had produced a w ell-
balanced, intelligent, and healthy youth.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries foundling hospitals
had been established in Spain and France, b u t far from being state-
supported cultural centres, they operated as religious hostels asso
ciated w ith C atholic convents.31 T h e F oundling H ospital in B rit
ain was a m uch m ore p ro m in en t and secular response to child
abandonm ent, an em blem of civic philanthropy. It sw iftly becam e
a tourist attraction, visited by large num bers, especially L o n d o n
ers. As a consequence there had never been a b etter tim e for
foundlings in the B ritish arts. H andel raised m oney for the hospital
by perform ing in the chapel, and he also donated an organ; popular
painters such as H aym an, H ogarth, G ainsborough, and Reynolds
all w orked to beautify and su pp o rt the institution. T h e F oundling
H ospital itself provided the venue for b o th concerts and displays of
paintings; m any of them depicted notable biblical foundlings such
as Josiah and M oses, for exam ple Francis H aym an’s The Finding of
29 See e.g. Anon. (1760), 9, 13-19, and 27: the hospital ‘does not only kindle...
Carnalities but inflames them , pushing the before tim id, hesitating youth now
fearlessly on, first to Fornication, afterwards to Adultery, to Incest,— and, in that
way, to w hat not?’
3'° Massie (1759), 1.
31 See Pullan (1989).
the In fan t Moses in the Bulrushes (1746).32 T h e search was seriously
on for literary and m ythical archetypes of the children in care.
It was therefore only a m atter of tim e before som eone discovered
the m ost appealing ancient G reek story of a hero discovered
in a basket, dram atized in the upbeat and charm ing Ion of
E uripides.
In W hiteh ead’s Creusa, Ion (know n for m ost of the play by his
adoptive nam e Ilyssus) had been discovered in an osier basket
lined w ith leaves eighteen years previously ‘in the tem ple’s
p o r ta l... A sleeping infan t’ (13).33 T h e play engages w ith the
contem porary debate about the n ature of the foundling child and
the im pact of n u rtu re by surrogate parents. M ore traditional
thinkers believed that adoptive parents could never offer their
children sufficient love; they w ere opposed by advocates of the
‘m o d ern ’ position, that proper education and role m odels could
not only be a substitute for biological parenting, b u t actually
produce a super-child. (T his was the p recursor of the R om antic
notion th a t bastards, conceived in the heat of sexual passion, w ere
m ore able than legitim ate offspring of w edlock.)34 T h e play re
flects the m id-century view of the children at the F oundling H o s
pital as objects in a social experim ent as m uch as recipients of
charity. O ne pam phleteer pointed out in 1761 that, since the hos
pital had only been open for tw o decades, few of the foundlings had
yet reached 20 years of age, and so nobody could be sure into w hat
kind of adults they w ould develop.35 A t the tim e of W h iteh ead ’s
Creusa m ost of the children at the hospital w ere n o t even yet 13.
T h e play therefore asks w hether a foundling can be b ro u gh t up
virtuous; the answ er is slightly am biguous. Ilyssus affirm s to
C reusa that he has received a ‘gen’rous education’ partly because
the D elphic oracle has proved to be an efficient Foundling
H ospital (14):
32 T he collection is housed at the Foundling M useum in Brunswick Square,

London, which was opened to the public in 2004. On the close involvement of the
hospital with high culture in the 1740s and 1750s see Nichols and W ray (1935),
249-53; M cClure (1981), 61-75.
33 This and subsequent references to W hitehead’s Creusa refer to the Bell’s
British T heatre text in W hitehead (1778).
34 Pullan (1989), 8, 17.
35 Anon. (1761), 38-9.
T he good priests
A nd pious priestess, who w ith care sustain’d
M y helpless infancy, left not m y youth
W ithout instruction.
But he is equally em phatic that the p riests’ influence was o u t
w eighed by the ethical, spiritual, and physical education w hich
the sage A letes had bestow ed on him — and A letes is, of course,
the y o u th ’s ow n biological father (and knows it). T h e w ords Ion
uses to describe the difference betw een the training given him by
the other priests and that he received from A letes signify the
degree of ‘energy’ and ‘conviction’— term s w hich echo the type
of contem porary argum ents used by those w ho believed that chil
dren should be raised by their natural parents.
T h e destiny of m ost boys b rought up at the F oundling hospitals
was to enter m ilitary or naval service. Ion has been trained by
A letes in w ielding shield and javelin (15). Y et here W hitehead is
thinking less of the upbringing of foundlings than of the 1745
Jacobite rebellion and the exigencies of his plot: Ion has briefly
to be a plausible enough Y oung P retend er for C reusa, as a B riton
disguised as a dem ocratic A thenian, to plan to kill him . E ven m ore
im portant is an im age of ideal m asculinity. Io n ’s training at his
incognito fath er’s hands has been designed to inculcate into him
som e identifiably eighteenth-century m ale virtues (15): although
he has been advised to ‘adore high H eaven’, his religion has a
distinctly secular character— he m ust strive to ‘venerate on earth
H eaven’s im age, T ru th ’. H e m ust also ‘feel for o th ers’ w oes’ and
bear his ow n w ith ‘m anly resignation’. A letes has been an ideal
father figure to em ulate— and yet A letes, as the play reveals, once
had a love affair w ith a girl of higher status, m arried her clandes
tinely, and im pregnated her. T h e play as a w hole argues w ith som e
em otional force that virtue is not incom patible w ith clandestine
love n o r w ith love children: clandestine lovers, even cross-class
lovers, should be allowed to becom e publicly recognized spouses
and co-parents.
C R E U S A ’S C L A N D E S T I N E M A R R I A G E
In his Creusa the near-agnostic W hitehead dispenses w ith Apollo
altogether. F or an irresponsible divine father to Ion he substitutes
a socially responsible m ortal. Indeed, W hitehead’s biggest
problem in choosing to adapt E u rip id es’ Ion for D ru ry L ane was
th at there was no role for D avid G arrick, w ho was too old even to
consider playing the youthful hero. G arrick needed a pow erful role
for a m ature m ale, offering em otional range and big scenes w ith the
leading lady. So W hitehead invented A letes, ‘a G recian sage’, who
is actually N icander, C reusa’s long-lost lover, and father of her
exposed baby son. T h is m assive piece of surgery is defended in
W hitehead ’s advertisem ent to the first published edition as ju sti
fied because the subject of the play is ‘so ancient, so slightly
m entioned by historians, and so fabulously treated by E uripides
in his T ragedy of Io n ’A
B ut the m ost im portant contem porary issue w hich W hitehead’s
reading of E uripid es’ tragedy allows it to explore is the im portance
of love betw een spouses and the legality of clandestine m arriage.
T h ere had ju st been a seism ic shift in the m arriage law, the so-
called M arriage A ct, m asterm inded by the L o rd C hancellor, Philip
Y orke, first E arl of H ardw icke. It was passed in 1753 b u t only
b ro u gh t into effect in 1754, the year of the prem iere of Creusa. T h e
A ct was designed to create desperately needed clarity in the m arital
status of B ritons. It is now regarded by social and legal historians
as the m ost im portant piece of m atrim onial legislation ever passed
in B ritain, w ith the sole exception of the 1857 D ivorce A ct, dis
cussed below in Ch. 14. L o rd H ardw icke, quite sim ply, laid the
foundations for our m odern notion of legally recognized m arriage.
Part of his reasoning was that it w ould help reduce the foundling
problem by deterring w om en from conceiving children w ithout
the nam e of a father already inscribed in the parish register.37
Before L o rd H ardw icke’s A ct there had been several ways of
getting m arried. T h ese ranged from sim ply being recognized by
your com m unity as a cohabiting couple, through ‘contract m ar
riages’ m ade m erely by verbal or w ritten contract (or even by the
exchange of tokens), to m arriages by easily forged and m islaid
special licences, and clandestine m arriages w ith a hired parson
(w hich required cash b u t no inscription in a register). It was
difficult to prove the validity of a m arriage, and virtually im pos
sible to disprove it. Law yers and clergy som etim es still insisted
that legal m atrim ony could consist of habit, repute, cohabitation,
36 W hitehead (1754). 37 M ark Jackson (1996), 4.

and consent, how ever inform ally given. T h is had produced social
and legal chaos.
B ut from 1754 onw ards all m arriages w ere at last to be m ade null
and void unless preceded by banns or an official licence, carried
out in a ch urch or chapel by a regular clergym an in prescribed
daylight hours, and recorded in the parish register w ith signatures
of the bride, groom , tw o w itnesses, and the officiating clergym an.
L ord H ardw icke’s A ct also outlaw ed juvenile clandestine m ar
riages by nullifying all m arriages m ade by people u n d er the age
of m ajority (21) w ithout th eir p aren ts’ consent. T h is was partly to
prevent teenage elopem ents (like that of W hitehead’s C reusa and
N icander) and the clandestine em otional pressure p u t up on very
young w om en by avaricious or lascivious m en. Y et it was also
intended to endorse free choice of p artn er for all adults over 21.
M oreover, although this m easure seem s as though it w ere designed
to strengthen patriarchal authority, in fact w hat L aw rence Stone
calls ‘the ideology of affective individualism ’ was becom ing so
dom inant that the A ct served to encourage love m arriages even
for younger lovers, since now only the m ost extrem e parents could
bring them selves to invoke a legal right and to refuse consent.
Fathers who w ould not let their daughters m arry for love w ere
m ade m uch m ore conspicuous by L ord H ardw icke’s A ct and as a
result were increasingly vilified in public ideology.38
T h e social tensions w hich had produced this landm ark legisla
tion also dictated that the rival m erits of m arriages based on love
and expediency, and the legitim acy of clandestine unions, w ere tw o
of the h o ttest issues in m id-eighteenth century B ritish dram a,
literature, and art. W h iteh ead ’s Creusa is one of several plays on
the them e. T hey also included his ow n The Rom an Father (1750),
in w hich H oratia com m its suicide after the death of the C uriatius
b ro th er she calls her ‘h u sb an d ’, an enem y of Rom e and of her
fam ily; although her father has forbidden the union, she im plies
that she was secretly w ed.39 A nother im p o rtan t exam ple was a
D ru ry L ane play by G arrick him self, in collaboration w ith G eorge
Colm an, actually entitled The Clandestine M arriage (17 66).40 T h is
play had in tu rn been inspired by H o g arth ’s series of engravings
38 Stone (1995), 58. 39 W hitehead (1777), 41.
40 Recently republished in an edition by Chevalier (1995). In 1994 Nigel
Haw thorne directed and starred as Lord Ogleby in a revival of The Clandestine
Marriage at the Queen’s Theatre in London.
M arriage d-la-M ode (1745), and especially by John Shebbeare’s
satirical novel, The M arriage A ct (1754, the sam e year as Creusa).
Shebbeare had directly responded to L ord H ardw icke’s legislation
by attacking parents w ho contracted loveless m arriages for their
children in order to m ake m oney.41
A lthough in W hitehead’s play C reusa feels no passion for her
husband X uthus, it is clear from the outset that he is her lawful
w edded husband, the ‘p artn er of her b ed ’ (8), w ith w hom her
‘hands w ere jo in ’d ’ fifteen years ago (9). B ut it is equally clear
th at she once was in love w ith a com m oner, N icander, w hom she
should have been allow ed to m arry. C ontem porary ideology was
beginning to see the prevention of a love m atch as an action open to
m oral criticism . T h u s w hen C reusa’s father K ing E rectheus (now
deceased) had banished her lover, it was seen as his life’s only
‘unkind act’ (10). T h e relationship betw een the ill-starred pair
was certainly an em otionally com m itted one— C reusa com m em or
ates N icander w ith ‘annual rites to parted love’, and her ‘h eart is
buried w ith N ican d er’ (11).
W hitehead deliberately develops the issue of the huge status gap
betw een C reusa and N icander. N icander was ‘A thenian born, but
not of royal blood’ (10). C reusa’s present husband X uthus, how
ever, him self of a royal line, is suspicious of love relationships
betw een people of different social classes. In reaction to C reusa’s
hostility tow ards him w hen she im agines Ilyssus (Ion) to be his
son by another w om an, he says th at w hile he had hoped that
C reusa and he m ight have enjoyed at least a peaceful m arriage,
he knew that she had never loved him because she loved a m ere
com m oner (42):
T h y ten d’rer thoughts,
T he w ife’s best ornam ent, I knew were buried
In a plebeian grave.
As th eir quarrel gets m ore acrim onious, X u th u s’ characterization
of N icander reduces him to an even low er status, contrasting his
ow n regal ‘scepter’d arm ’ w ith C reusa’s supposedly dead lover,
w ho had been b u t an ‘infam ous slave’ (43). Y et the opposite point
of view had already been m ost articulately expressed by A letes to
41 Chevalier (1995), 23. In tim e, as memory of the Act receded, new editions of
the novel were published under the title Matrimony.
Ion w hen the youth feared that an ignom inious b irth w ould harm
his prospects at A thens (22):
T hy birth!
D id I not teach thee early to despise
A casual good? T hou art thyself, Ilyssus,
Inform me, youth, w ould’st thou be w hat thou art,
T his fair, thus brave, thus sensibly alive
T o glory’s finest feel, or give up all,
T o be descended from a line of Kings,
T he ten th perhaps from Jove?42
W hitehead’s ow n hum ble background m ay well be one explanation
for the play’s insistence on the unim portance of social hierarchy.
T h ere is no h in t at first th at N icander and C reusa had actually
been m arried— w hich is of crucial im portance to C reusa’s respect
ability in the eyes of the audience and, m ore im portantly, to
Ily ssu s/Ion ’s eligibility for the A thenian throne. T h is revelation
is saved for the clim ax of the second act. C reusa is grappling w ith
the notion that the youth w ho has so im pressed her— w ho rem inds
her of N icander, and who she has briefly hoped is her long-lost
son— m ust be killed in order to preserve A thens from being ruled
by a foreign interloper. She sw ears both her m ale atten dan t P hor-
bas and her fem ale servant Lycea to secrecy, and then divulges the
astounding new s that she once had a baby son. A lm ost im m edi
ately, to alleviate the shock, she reassures them that the baby was
not illegitim ate (32).
. .. yes,
I had a son; but witness every God
W hose genial pow er presides o’er nuptial leagues,
N icander was m y w edded lord.
T h e news that a clandestine or contract m arriage had taken place is
of the utm ost im portance since it had produced a legitim ate baby
w ho should be heir to the A thenian throne. Phorbas declares that if
he had know n C reusa and N icander w ere m arried, and that in
the baby they had produced a ‘dear pledge’ of their ‘unspotted
42 These scathing sentim ents were originally followed with m ore in similar vein
in W hitehead’s text— there follow lines about all the greatest hum an heroes and
philanthropists stem ming from unknown families— but Garrick om itted them in
performance, clearly feeling that his audience could only take so much preaching on
the subject of the unim portance of high birth.
loves’, he w ould have raised a pan-A thenian rebellion in N ican-
d er’s cause (32-3) rath er than letting him be banished. F rom this
point on in the play N icander is referred to as C reusa’s ‘lord ’ or
‘w edded lord ’ (66), not as her ‘lover’. Y et W hitehead does not
exonerate N icander completely throu g h the strategy of m aking
sure th at he and C reusa w ere m arried. W hen he finally has his
scene w ith C reusa he adm its th a t he ‘w rong’d ’ her by m arrying her
secretly w hen she was still so young (53)— thus im plicitly vindi
cating every detail of L o rd H ardw icke’s legislation.
It is not until the clim actic closing scene of the fourth act th at the
star-crossed lovers and parents of the young hero are finally
b ro u gh t alone together (see Fig. 5.3). T h e audience’s long-aw aited
encounter betw een the golden partnership of the L ondon stage,
G arrick and P ritch ard , finally begins, and it is all the m ore tan tal
izing on account of its w hiff of transgression— C reusa, after all, is
also ‘m arried to ’, and indeed has sexual relations w ith, another
living m an. O nly a few lines into the encounter A letes declares that
he is actually N icander, causing C reusa to pass out in a dead faint.
T h is allows her long-lost h usband to initiate an em brace w hich, if
she had been conscious, m ight have been alm ost too shocking to be
enacted (54):
— Yes, yes, Creusa, thy N icander lives,
A nd he will catch at least this dear em brace,
T hough now thou art another’s.
C reusa regains consciousness, and in a passionate o utpouring of
em otion gazes upon her long-lost beloved’s appearance: ‘M y lord,
m y life, m y husband!’ In the ensuing dialogue she learns that her
baby son lives, and th at he was called ‘Io n ’ by her old nurse, who
gave him to N icander (55). A t this point C reusa rem em bers, w ith
despair, that she has recently arranged to have the youth poisoned.
B ut Io n ’s story is com pletely upstaged by the passionate reunion of
his clandestinely m arried parents. T h e play is an overw helm ing
affirm ation of the im portance of love in m arriage, even if that love
crosses social boundaries, and of L o rd H ardw icke’s M arriage Act.
C reusa’s father E rectheus was entirely responsible for the m ar
riage of state convenience betw een C reusa and X u th u s, and this
m arriage descends into vicious squabbling as soon as there is the
slightest conflict of interests. T h a t love m atches are preferable is
fu rth er underscored by the fact th at the separated lovers C reusa
F i g u r e 5.3 H annah Pritchard and D avid G arrick in Creusa, Queen of

Athens (D rury Lane, 1754), by G eorge G raham .
and N icander have, independently of each other, evolved into
altruistic parents. B oth of them die in the final act, C reusa sw al
low ing the poison destined for Ion in order to pro tect him , and
N icander receiving a m ortal w ound w hen he saves Ion from the
m istaken patriotic zeal of Phorbas. T h e play closes w ith a poignant
double anagnorisis or recognition scene, as Ion discovers both his
parents before they die, one after another, in his em brace. H e is
then left alone, now truly orphaned, b u t poised to ascend the
im perial A thenian throne.
Poor C reusa, in W hiteh ead ’s play, has been a com plete victim of
her society’s inadequate m arriage law. T h e terro r w hich leads her
to attem p t m u rd er is a result of the fear that X u th u s had som e
previous secret m arriage w hose legitim acy can be proved. She
believes th at ‘Ilyssus’ has been raised secretly at D elphi to be
foisted on the A thenian throne, and is (36-7)
perhaps the son
O f X u thus’ self, plac’d here at first, to hide
T he guilt and sham e of some dishonest m other,
T hough now applied to m ore pernicious ends.
In order to un derstan d C reusa’s anxiety it is crucial to u nderstand
her position u n der E nglish law before L ord H ardw icke’s legisla
tion. T h e potential problem facing C reusa is there was som e kind
of clandestine or contractual m arriage betw een X u th u s and the
boy’s m other, antedating her ow n m arriage to X uthus. T his
w ould cancel her ow n m arriage, m ake her relationship w ith
X uthus technically adulterous, and render illegitim ate any chil
d ren she m ight ever bear to him . Before 1753, even longstanding
m arriages w ith num erous offspring w ere vulnerable to sudden
claims from pre-existing ‘husb an d s’ and (m ore com m only)
‘w ives’, claim s w hich could prove catastrophic to relationships,
succession, and the inheritance of p ro p erty .43
In W h itehead ’s version C reusa com m its suicide because she has
to face her ow n status as bigam ist, a status w hich brings w ith it
such deep sexual sham e th a t she cannot live w ith herself. As
W hitehead’s advocate Jodrell bluntly p u t it, ‘H ow could the
Lady, in the singular predicam ent of beholding two living
husbands at once, be suffered on the stage w ithout dying to save
43 See the fascinating case studies in Stone (1992) and (1993).

h er decorum ?’44 A fter she has drunk the lethal poison, N icander
protests that she m ight have found a way to live ‘w ith h o n o u r’ (63).
H ow , she responds, could he possibly think throu g h her situation
w ithout perceiving that ‘death was m y only refuge? |— A m I not
X u th u s’ wife, and w hat art thou?’ In her torm ent, she tells him , she
‘Saw X uthus, thee, Ilyssus, A thens bleed | In one conspicuous
carnage’. C reusa’s unintentional bigam y jeopardizes not only her
fam ily m em bers b u t even m ore im portantly the A thenian state
itself.
A T H E N S A N D A N T IC L E R IC A L IS M
A lthough w hat is now m ost striking about W hitehead’s Creusa is
its noble foundling and its ringing endorsem ent of love as the basis
for m arriage, w hat m ost contem porary critics noticed and indeed
praised was its religious (or irreligious) dim ension. Som e aspects
of the religious practices in G reek tragedy have always posed a
challenge not only to E nlightenm ent opponents of religion b u t also
to C hristians; perhaps the m ost strenuous attem pt to reconcile the
ro bu st W hig C hristianity of the early eighteenth century w ith
G reek tragic m etaphysics was m ade by the devout A nglican
churchm an G eorge A dam s, in the Preface to his first full tran sla
tion of all seven Sophoclean tragedies in 1729. B ut the particular
form of rational, pragm atic, and w orldly A nglicanism espoused by
m any in W h iteh ead’s circle found the religion they encountered in
G reek tragedy at best silly and at w orst repugnant. T h e m ost
execrable play of all was tho u g h t to be Bacchae, w hich sim ply
could not be perform ed, ‘because the R eligion of M odern E urope
revolts against the extravagant idea of so incredible a story, w hich
was entirely supported on the basis of Pagan T heology’.46 Ion,
w ith its am oral Apollo and sem i-divine hero, was not at all attract
ive to the eighteenth-century audience for w hich W hitehead was
w riting: as the sam e critic w ho so disliked Bacchae p u t it, ‘T h e
m ost superficial reader of the rom antick fables of Pagan antiquity
m ust often have been shocked w ith those terrestrial crim es, w hich
credulous m en have im puted to their visionary gods’.46 T hom as
Francklin, a classicist w ho w rote for the com m ercial stage,
observed in his 1758 translation of Sophocles that the greatest
44 Jodrell (1781), i. 1247 . 45 Ibid. ii. 5 64. 46 Ibid. i. 1.
advantage of m odern tragedy over the ancient is its ‘judicious
descent from the adventures of dem i-gods, kings and heroes, into
the h u m b ler walk of private life, w hich is m uch m ore interesting to
the generality of m ank in d .’47 W hitehead prided him self on the
reduction of the ‘fabulous’ elem ent he found in his E uripidean
m odel, and indeed the erasure of A pollo from both action and
theodicy, the rem oval of all that was ‘m iraculous and im probable’
was a stratagem m uch adm ired by his contem poraries.48 O f all
eig hteenth-century readings of G reek tragedy, W hitehead’s
Creusa is the m ost secular and hum ane. H is transform ation of
perhaps the m ost num inously devout of all E u rip id es’ plays into
a sentim ental dom estic tragedy entails a bleak and w holly un-
G reek picture of ancient religion, b u t W hitehead certainly does
not even im plicitly advocate the alternative of C hristianity.
Indeed, som e of the play’s earlier critics, in reaction to its p ro
nounced secular tenor, even w ent so far as to deem it ‘anticlerical’.
Creusa is certainly an ti-Catholic. T h e over-religious foreigner
X u thu s, who is so respectful of centres of fraudulent priestcraft
beyond the borders of A thens, becom es, in the im agination of
Phorbas and C reusa, a kind of Jacobite. H e and his supposed
son are seen as foreign ‘p reten d ers’ to the A thenian throne,
‘T hese vile usurpers on the rights of A thens’ (46). In the early
1750s, in the wake of the Jacobite invasion of 1745, the B ritish
public was still suffering from one of its periodic waves of
heightened anti-P opery. Creusa is particularly critical of priests
w hose pow er depended upon the superstitious practices rife in
C atholic countries— veneration of relics, belief in m iracles,
pilgrim ages to saintly shrines.49
P horbas, the loyal A thenian patriot, regards X u th u s as ‘perhaps
too pious’ (11), and it is this excessive religiosity w hich, it is
im plied, sends X u th u s to the D elphic shrine to address the god.
F or Phorbas, w ho often sounds like a som ew hat lapsed A nglican
W hig, ‘the gods of A thens w ould suffice’ (12). It is through the
character of Phorbas, indeed, that A thens and even its dem ocracy
have becom e identified, how ever loosely, w ith eighteenth-century
Britain. Fearing that C reusa will not oppose a takeover by the
47 Francklin (1758), i. 57 n. 48 M ason (1788a), 73-4.

49 Haydon (1993), 3—6. On the strong British W hig tradition of hostility to
clerical interference in politics, see Strom berg (1954), 132-3.
foreign X u th u s, Phorbas lam ents the im m inent dem ise of ‘lib er
ties’ in his ow n free country (45). H is reflections on religion and
politics— w hich are to him inseparable— ren d er him , indeed,
rath er m ore interestingly draw n than E u rip id es’ fanatical paidago-
gos. F or exam ple, he is deeply suspicious of
that piety w hich brings us
T o search for kings at Delphi. M ight not A thens
H ave chosen her own m onarch? H er brave youth,
H er bearded sages,— are they not the flower
A nd pride of Greece? (19)
H ere he is, in effect, suggesting th a t the A thenian people select
(though perhaps not actually elect) their ow n m onarch— a proposal
inform ed by the m em ory of the G lorious R evolution, w hen the
E nglish them selves ‘selected’ their king, the charter m y th of the
eighteenth-century constitutional m onarchy. A bove all the play
shows how deeply problem s of succession can blight hereditary
kingships.
W hitehead had a potential problem in identifying D elphi as a
prototype of the F oundling H ospital, since it was im portant to the
B ritish that it was a state foundation, not run, like the orphan
hostels in France and Portugal, by suspect C atholic priests prone
to inculcating superstition in th eir young charges.50 W hitehead’s
clever way out of this im passe is to present the D elphic O racle as a
total fraud, w hich was an allegation he could have found in any one
of several ancient sources, notably the E xhortation to the Greeks
w ritten by the early C hristian w riter C lem ent of A lexandria, or
O rigen’s A gainst Celsus. B ut W hitehead’s rationalizing account of
the oracle is m odified by m aking its fraudulence serve altruistic
purposes, rath er than m alevolent ones, at least u n d er its present
adm inistrator. T h is particular view of the D elphic oracle’s activ
ities is likely to have been inspired, rather, by the several articulate
pagan defences of its ph ilan throp y and the benefits its wise advice
has been able to confer on both individuals and w hole com m u
nities. W hitehead could have found these expressed by Q uintus in
C icero’s On D ivination, or in a m ore intense form by Celsus, whose
views can be inferred from his opponent O rigen.Dl
50 Anon. (1761), 42.
51 For an accessible account of the ancient opponents and defenders of the
Delphic Oracle, see Lipsey (2001), 197—227.
T h e frau d ulen t n ature of the oracles in W h iteh ead ’s E n lighten
m ent D elphi is already signalled rath er prejudicially in the play’s
jocular prologue (p. iv):
O ur scene to-night is Greece.
A nd, by the magic of the poet’s rod,
T his stage the tem ple of the D elphic god!
W here kings, and chiefs, and sages came of old,
Like m odern fools, to have their fortunes told.
T h e epilogue, m oreover, w hich was delivered by M iss H aughton,
the actress who had played the P ythia herself, includes the adm is
sion that she disavow s ‘the w hole deceit, | A nd fairly ow n m y
science all a ch eat’. B ut it is the action as the plot develops that
really shows how difficult it was for an enlightened eighteenth-
century author like W hitehead to do anything w ith a pagan oracu
lar shrine b u t reveal it as a fraud, w hich could be either life-
threatening or, in w ell-m eaning hands, potentially beneficial.
A letes him self invents all the oracles delivered at D elphi, and
gives them to the P ythia to deliver in a plausibly inspired m anner.
A letes uses the reputation of the oracle, com bined w ith his ‘experi
ence in the ways of m en ’, in order to give visitors to the oracle
‘secret kind advice’. As the Pythia says to him , he m ust exert
him self on A thens’ behalf (23):
Now, good Aletes, if thy pregnant m ind,
Deep judging of events, has ever fram ’d
Such artful truths as won believing man
T o think them born of H eav’n, and m ade thy nam e
R enow n’d in G reece, O h now exert thy power!
H is response is to give her, on stage, a w ritten copy of the oracle
w hich will, by the end of the play, p u t Ion on the A thenian throne.
T h e P ythia is to declare that the A thenians are to ‘Bestow th ’
im perial w reath ’ on ‘the young unknow n, | W ho tends m y
sh rin e’ (25).
T H E F U T U R E O F IO N
In his exploration of the idea that the D elphic oracle was frau d u
lent W hitehead has m uch in com m on w ith W illiam G olding, a
m uch later w riter in the English language. In his posthum ous
novel The Double Tongue (1995), narrated by a trainee P ythian
priestess, the oracles at D elphi are presented as pure invention.
E uripides’ Ion features in the novel, and G olding could have been
draw n to the play via any one of several avenues, for ever since
W hitehead had b ro ugh t the attention of the E nglish-speaking
w orld to him , Ion has resurfaced w ith som e frequency on its
stages. T h e dashing castrato V enazio R auzzini, resident of Bath
and toyboy of the B urney sisters, staged his popular Creusa in
Delfo in L ondon at the K ing ’s T h eatre in 1783, an opera w ith
‘entirely new ’ m usic, b u t partly m odelled on L acoste’s F rench
version.52 In the 1830s Ion produced T hom as T alfo u rd ’s radical
republican adaptation at C ovent G ard en (see Ch. 11). It was
chosen for perform ance as the C am bridge G reek Play in 1890,
less than a decade after the institution was inaugurated, probably
in order to coincide w ith the publication of a new edition of the
play by A rth u r V errall, a controversial C am bridge d o n .53
In the preface th at V errall supplied to the text of the play
published to accom pany the C am bridge production, he described
the recognition scene and resolution of the play as a ‘m elodram atic
contrivance’, b u t it was a contrivance b o un d to create in terest:54
either the perform ance or his edition, or both, in tu rn alm ost
certainly suggested the fam ous ‘h andbag’ scene in O scar W ilde’s
The Importance o f Being Earnest. Ion also underlies T . S. E liot’s
The Confidential Clerk (first perform ed at the E din b u rg h Festival
in 1953, alm ost exactly tw o centuries after the first perform ance of
W hitehead’s Creusa), in w hich the literary genealogy of C olby
Sim pkins, who loves m usic and birds, plays delicately on the
G reek archetype.’’3 Since the 1990s the ancient G reek tragedy
has itself enjoyed regular perform ances on the professional stages
of both E urope and N o rth A m erica.56 But it is m ost unlikely that
this obscure tragicom edy w ould have been rediscovered on the
B ritish stage u ntil considerably later w ere it not for the reality of
life for foundlings in early and m id -eig h teenth century L ondon.
52 See Rauzzini (1783); Highfill et al. (1973-93), xii. 260-1.

53 Verrall (1890a). 54 Verrall (18906), p. viii.
55 See llinchcliffe (1985), 52, 172-5.
56 See Padel (1996); Hall (20046), 2.
6
Eighteenth-Century Electra
Peggy A shcroft, Fiona Shaw , Zoe W anam aker— som e of the m ost
pow erful actresses to perform on B ritish stages during the second
half of the tw entieth century w ere draw n to play Sophocles’ E lec
tra .1 In this chapter som e of their stellar eighteenth-century fore
bears— A nne B racegridle, Claire C lairon, M ary A nn Y ates, A nn
Barry, Sarah Siddons— will appear perform ing the sam e S opho
clean heroine or roles fundam entally inform ed by her. A lthough
E u rip id es’ Electra is one of the few G reek tragedies scarcely to
register in perform ance history d uring the period covered by this
book, Sophocles’ version has always been prom inent (it was the
only G reek tragedy on the syllabus of M agdalen College, O xford,
in 1800),2 and has exerted a profound influence on both dram atic
theory and perform ance practice. S ubsequent chapters will discuss
its appearances in nearly every type of adaptation to be found in the
n ineteenth and early tw entieth centuries— late G eorgian C ovent
G arden tragedy, spectacular early V ictorian burlesque, academ ic
G reek play in the 1880s, and avant-garde psychosexual opera,
im ported from the C ontinent, in E dw ardian L ondon. Y et this
chapter will argue that those adaptations cannot be understood
w ithout recovering the Electra of the eighteenth century; and
although it was only itself staged in a translation of V oltaire’s
Oreste, its status as exem plary tragedy m eant th at it exerted great
aesthetic and political influence on the cross-fertilizing practices of
criticism , translation, perform ance and the visual arts.
EXEM PLARY ELECTRA

A ccording to the em inent F rench neoclassical theorist H ippolyte-
Jules Pilet de L a M esnardiere in La Poetique (1640), Sophocles’
Electra is the finest of all extant G reek tragedies. T h e reasons
1 See further Hall (1999a). 2 H urdis (c. 1800), 2; see Clarke (1945), 34.
Eighteenth-Century Electra 153
b ehind de la M esnardiere’s privileging of Electra m ay com e as
som e surprise to m odern audiences and interpreters of the play:
for him , its superiority lies in its exem plary reversal {peripeteia),
during w hich the w rongdoers, C lytem nestra and A egisthus, are
punished m ost appropriately and m ost severely at the very
m om ent w hen they m ost exult in their crim e.3 A lthough this
crudely providential reading of G reek tragedy does not last m uch
beyond the neoclassical period, the privileging of Sophocles’ Elec
tra extends throu g ho u t the eighteenth century. Sophocles’ tragedy
was central not only to theoretical studies of dram a of the period
b u t to theatre practitioners as well. E lectra’s force can be felt in the
m ost unexpected quarters, in som e of the m ost popular tragedies of
the century, and in term s of b o th its form and content. T h e
‘su bterran ean ’ Electras discussed here include W illiam C ongreve’s
The M ourning Bride and A rth u r M u rp h y ’s The Grecian Daughter,
w hich betw een them rem ained m ainstays of the L ondon repertoire
for around 150 years. C hristian Biet has show n the extent to w hich
Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus m ay well be considered F ran ce’s
eighteenth-century G reek tragedy;4 and there is a strong case to
be m ade for speaking of the Electra of Sophocles as the m ost
influential G reek tragedy in B ritain durin g the sam e period.
It is, of course, by no m eans fortuitous th at these tw o plays—
Oedipus Tyrannus and Electra— should be conjoined at this tim e.
It is not only the m odern psychoanalytical theory of F reud and
Ju ng that has recognized the inherent sim ilarities and clear oppos
itions betw een the m yths (in th eir respective treatm ents of the
d ep artu re/return story pattern; the overprivileging/underprivile-
ging of m o th er-so n relations, and so on). In the neoclassical period
th at tw inning was a consistent and system atic one, w hich was
form ally sealed in 1692 w ith the publication of the first F rench
vernacular translation of and com m entary on A ristotle’s Poetics by
A ndre D acier. In his com m entary D acier echoes the praise of the
Electra on form al grounds heard som e fifty years earlier in L a
M esnardiere’s w ork (although now for D acier it is less the reversal
that is of especial note than the recognition). B ut he also aligns it
w ith w hat had becom e, from at least the R enaissance, the p aradig
m atic tragedy, Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus. M oreover in 1692, the
sam e year as his com m entary on the Poetics, D acier produced his
3 La M esnardiere (1640). 4 Biet (1994).
154 Eighteenth-C entury Electra
translation of b o th the Oedipus Tyrannus and Electra, a w ork con
ceived as a com panion piece to his study of A ristotle. In the preface
to the translation he declares to his reader: you have heard the
‘rules’, now you can study the exam ples. T hese tw o plays are for
him the suprem e exam ples: Oedipus is the best; and although E lec
tra is deem ed the ‘inferior’ play, it contains scenes of exquisite
beauty and has, in D acier’s view, the best of all recognitions.
So in 1692 F ran ce’s first vernacular translation of Electra n a tu r
alizes it as the m ost instructive of all G reek tragedies. T h e im pact
of D acier’s edition and his translations was im m ediately felt in
France w ith versions of both the Oedipus and Electra appearing
on the stage in rapid succession (notable F rench Electras at this
tim e include the 1702 Electre of L ongepierre, and the 1708 version
of C rebillon). Its im pact was no less significant in B ritain, at a tim e
w hen F ren ch theory (rather than practice) enjoyed im m ediate and
w ide-ranging influence.
A lthough T h om as S tanley’s edition of A eschylus (1663) had
been followed in 1668 by an unnam ed and m ediocre edition of
Sophocles at C am bridge in 1668, this was com pletely superseded
by T hom as Jo hn so n ’s superior A ja x and Electra in 1705, Antigone
and Trachiniae in 1708, and the th ird instalm ent in 1746.3 T hese
editions, com bined w ith the translation of D acier’s edition of the
Poetics into E nglish in 1705, ensured that Electra w ould m eet a
w idespread B ritish audience. In an era w hen hardly any G reek
tragedies w ere available in E nglish, D acier’s w ork inspired not one
b u t two quite different E nglish translations of Electra, both of
w hich appeared in 1714. O ne, w hich was anonym ous, was dedi
cated to L ord H alifax. It is in sim ple prose, and the translator
claim s to ‘have aim ’d at follow ing the Greek original the nearest
I can; at leaving no W ord unexpress’d .’6 In com parison, Lew is
T h eo b ald ’s poetic version is im pressive. A fter C hrysothem is’ first
exit the chorus reflect (Soph. El. 473-83),
O r my prophetick Soul mistakes,
O r I in hope from Reason err;
O r vengeance swift advances makes,
U pon the C onscience-haunted M urtherer.
5 See Ingram (1966), 18—20; Clarke (1945), 59—60.
6 Anon. (1714a), p. iv. See e.g. the translation of El. 1058—62, ‘W hy behold we
those very wise Birds above, taking care of their Parents who have begot and bred
them up, and why don’t we do the same?’ (39).
Eighteenth-C entury Electra 155
D aughter she comes; she comes away
W ith Pow ’r and Justice in Array;
I’m strong in hope, the boding D ream ,
T h e H erald of her aweful T errors came.
T h e K ing’s R esentm ents shall not cease,
N or shall he bury W rongs but in redress.7
T h eo b ald ’s version, decorated w ith a pow erful engraving illustra
tion of A egisthus’ discovery of C lytem nestra’s corpse, engraved by
the H uguenot refugee Louis du G u ern ier (Fig. 6.1), was the m ost-
read Electra in E ngland for fifty years. It was m uch adm ired by
R ichard P o rso n .8 B ut it never saw the stage, despite a m isu n d er
standing to the contrary (see below).
Y et the im pact of D acier’s tw o books had been felt m uch earlier
in E nglish-language dram atic theory than in actual translation.
Im m ediately after their publication in 1692 there appears in
E nglish w riters a presum ed fam iliarity w ith Sophocles’ play: only
a year later, in 1693, John D ennis discusses the absurdity of the
chorus— the way it underm ines the neoclassical requisite of vrai-
semblance— w ith reference to Electra. H ow , D ennis asks, can ‘the
discovery that O restes m akes of him self and his design, to E lectra,
in the fourth A ct of that T ra g e d y . . . [be done] in the presence of
the C horus; so that he entrusts a Secret, upon w hich his E m pire
and Life depends, in the hands of Sixteen W om en’?9 A nd N icholas
Row e, a few years later in his 1709 edition of Shakespeare, sim i
larly presum es intim ate acquaintance w ith Electra w hen he com
pares it unfavourably w ith H am let. Picking up on D acier’s own
expressed concerns about the m orality of the m atricide and espe
cially E lectra’s onstage exhortation of O restes’ crim e, Row e attri
butes to Shakespeare a contrasting ‘w onderful art and justness of
jud g em en t th at [enables] the poet [to] restrain . . . him from doing
violence to his m o th er’.10
SU BTERRA N EA N ELECTRA
In his edition D acier seem s to be laying dow n the gauntlet to
m odern practitioners and som e, it appears, rose to his challenge.
It is in his com m entary on ch. 10 of the Poetics that he holds up
7 Theobald (1714). 8 Buchanan-Jones (1966), 424 n. 1.

9 Dennis (1693), dialogue V, 46. 10 Rowe (1709), Preface.
E l e c t r a .
F i g u r e 6.1 Frontispiece, designed and engraved by Louis du Guer-

nier, to Lewis Theobald’s translation of Sophocles’ Electra (1714).
Oedipus and Electra as the best m odels for peripeteia and recogni
tion (praising Electra for its double recognition, first by O restes of
E lectra and then E lectra of O restes). D acier goes on to note that
m odern playw rights tend m istakenly to avoid recognition— either,
he infers, because it is not inherent in their chosen subject-m atter
or because they find it difficult to effect. B ut recognitions, he adds,
have ‘w onderful effects on stage’ (as Sophocles’ Electra show s us):
‘M r C orneille was convinced of this, w hen he said the rem em
brance is the greatest ornam ent of T ragedies, b u t it is certain, that
it hath its inconveniences.’11 In both Electra and IT , how ever, the
recognition scene is m asterfully executed because it provides a
m eans and not (we presum e, as in the classic com ic denouem ent)
the end.
Five years later in 1697, we find D acier’s challenge being taken
up by the leading com ic playw right of the tim e, W illiam C ongreve,
in his only tragedy, The M ourning Bride, w hich was extrem ely
successful and revived consistently for several decades (see
Fig. 6.2). S urprising as it m ay seem to find E lectra transform ed
into a bride, albeit a perpetually m ourning one, and O restes no
longer the b rother/son b u t the husband, there is none the less a
sense in w hich it seem s as if C ongreve had not ju st been reading
D acier’s com m entary, bu t had now chosen in his play to act on
these neo-A ristotelian precepts. F or not only does The M ourning
Bride include a recognition scene that is closely m odelled on the
Electra (C ongreve, who read w idely in the classics in the original,
was well placed to w rite one),12 b u t it also follows D acier and his
neoclassical contem poraries in favouring a tragicom ic ending, in
w hich poetic justice is seen to be done to the full.
W hen D acier com m ents on the ending of Sophocles’ play, he
detects no am biguity at all: O restes is show n to be the divine agent
par excellence, an instru m ent of the gods sent to punish the terrible
crim e of A egisthus and C lytem nestra (and although D acier does
not spell it out explicitly, for late seventeenth-century sensibilities,
th at terrib le crim e is of course th a t all too recent actuality in
E ngland, the crim e of regicide). H ere at the end of The M ourning
Bride, the O restes figure A lphonso— disguised durin g m ost of the
play as the M oor O sm yn— announces that he has killed A lm eria’s
11 Dacier (1705), 160-1 = (1692), 148-9. 12 Thom as Davies (1784), ii. 348.
158 Eighteenth-Century Electra
-A ct /. T H E M O U R N IN G B R I D E . Scene S.
. M S S V o r t v c K n> m e (.//rritreZey o / Z a r a .
______C S e r/ze /te /r r ^ j/e .e /
•.), /)t> n t/,i,< / //>n/f r /> /// //> cr////> y o rt A t y r> c //.j
F i g u r e 6.2 M iss Elizabeth Younge (later M rs Pope) in the role of Zara

in Congreve’s The M ourning Bride (1776).
E ighteenth-C entury Electra 159
fath er.13 A nd C ongreve’s O restes killed his father-in-law ‘w here
he design’d m y D eath ’— a clear allusion to O restes’ injunction to
A egisthus to enter the palace to m eet his death at the sam e place in
w hich A gam em non had m et his at A egisthus’ hands. It was, m o re
over, these last few w ords of Sophocles’ tragedy that m ade a deep
im pression on D acier: w ith O restes’ w ords, Sophocles had been
able, D acier m aintains, to redeem the atrocity of the m atricide and
transform O restes into a divine agent. A nd here in C ongreve’s play
the crim e of the O restes-figure is fully m itigated: he has not been
guilty of regicide him self (the K ing is killed by one of his h en ch
m en through m istaken identity). C ongreve has w ritten a m oral
tragedy of w hich neoclassical theorists could thoroughly approve.
B ut it is the recognition itself that needs scrutiny in the light of
D acier’s com m ents. C ongreve’s recognition scene was m uch ad
m ired by Sam uel Johnson later in the cen tu ry ;14 b u t that Johnson
was not alone in his adm iration is testified by the engraving of
this scene serving as the frontispiece to the 1753 edition of the
Complete W orks (Fig. 6.3). It should be pointed out that although
Sophocles’ exam ple lies behind C ongreve’s scene, there are n u m er
ous departures from it. F irst there is no C hrysothem is (and conse
quently no offstage tom b; here as in Choephoroe O restes/O sm yn
appears ghost-like from b ehind the tom b); there is also no ‘false’
m essenger speech and no u rn (there is no need here because A l-
m eria believes her h usband is already dead); and also there are no
tokens to effect the recognition (because the separation of husband
and wife has not been that long). A bove all, there is no dram atic
irony since the audience has no reason before this scene to suspect
that O sm yn is in fact the long-lost husband. B ut the Sophoclean
m odel lies behind the psychological realism of the scene— espe
cially in the length of playing tim e required to convince the princess
that her h usband is not dead after all, b u t is indeed there in reality
loom ing from the tom b of his recently deceased father.
As O sm yn em erges from behind the tom b, he too m arvels at the
m iracle of discovering the im age of his ow n long-lost wife floating
before his eyes:
13 Here— again in accordance with Dacier, whose misgivings concerning the
matricide were, as we have already seen, widely felt at this time— Alphonso is the
Fortinbras figure rather than Ham let, returning to liberate his wife and his people,
not to confront the misalliance of his mother.
14 Samuel Johnson (1794), iii. 55—6, maintains that it includes the ‘most poetical
paragraph’ in all English poetry.
r /u /u y
F i g u r e 6.3 T he recognition scene in Congreve’s The M ourning Bride,

engraving by Charles G rignion (1753).
Am azem ent and illusion!
Rivet and nail me w here I stand, ye Pow ’rs, [Com ing Forward]
T h at m otionless I may be still deceiv’d.
L et me not stir, not breathe, lest I dissolve
T h at tender, lovely Form of painted A rt,
So like Alm eria. Ha! it sinks, it falls;
I ’ll catch it ere it goes, and grasp her Shade.
’T is life! ’tis warm! ’tis she! ’tis she herself;
N or dead, not shade, but breathing and alive!
It is Alm eria, ’tis, it is m y Wife! ( ii. vi)
T h en com es the m om ent captured on the engraving, w hen L eo
nora (the confidente/choral substitute) and H eli (the Pylades figure
also now realizing for the first tim e that this is his long-lost com
panion) com e to assist both ailing lovers. O sm yn too is stunned but
com es round swiftly to realize that this m iraculous reunion is
indeed for real; A lm eria’s recovery, by contrast, is m ore protracted
and she now m istakes him for her tyrannical father. B ut after
reassurances, she begins the process of slow recognition: first by
way of assent, then m ild rejection. She tells O sm yn, w ho is co n
fused by her unrelenting gaze:
I know not [why]; ’tis to see thy face, I think—
It is too much! too m uch to bear and live!
T o see him thus again is such profusion
O f joy, of bliss— I cannot bear— I m ust
Be mad— I cannot be transported thus, (i I . vii)
T h e recognition scene pro p er continues for som e eighty lines
fu rth er, durin g w hich tim e psychological realism is never u n d e r
m ined by any overt theatrical convention. W hilst D acier had felt
th at the exchange after the recognition in Electra was too long for
m odern audiences, here in The M ourning Bride C ongreve in tro
duces the two confidents H eli and L eonora to provide variety at this
point. C ongreve w ould appear to be saying to his m entor: here is
m y recognition, and I have sought solutions to the shortcom ings
you yourself have highlighted in Sophocles’ text.
It seem s, m oreover, as if C ongreve’s attention to D acier co n
tinued right to the end of the play. W e have already noted how the
ending to The M ourning B ride offers m ore than a passing nod to
Electra on m oral and lexical grounds. C ongreve also appears to be
attem pting to address other m isgivings D acier has concerning
the Electra recognition scene. F or D acier the inferiority of Electra
in com parison to Oedipus stem s from its failure to com bine the
peripeteia and anagnorisis. H ere in the ghoulish confusion of the
final m om ents of C ongreve’s play, A lm eria again believes her
husband dead. K neeling dow n to kiss him for the last tim e, she
reels in ho rro r w hen she finds only a headless corpse. W hen she
com es ro u nd from her sw oon, we w itness the second (albeit tru n
cated) recognition as she finds her dead husband alive. T h is tim e,
how ever, the recognition is coincident w ith the peripeteia as she
discovers, th at w ith the death of her tyrannical father, there is no
longer any barrier to her m arriage.
The M ourning Bride was a runaw ay success, especially rem em
bered for the perform ance of A nne B racegirdle, C ongreve’s m is
tress, in the role of A lm eria; in the first instance the retu rn s w ere so
good that it m anaged to save B etterton’s com pany at the T h eatre
Royal, D ru ry L an e.13 B ut it is very far from offering any point-for-
point parallels w ith Sophocles’ play. Indeed, other sources have
been identified for it— D ry d en ’s Indian Queen (1663-4) and his
Indian Emperor (1665) as well as R acine’s B ajazet lb A nd in ac
cordance w ith the spirit of the tim e, C ongreve not surprisingly
fought off various m ild accusations of plagiarism . T h is was a tim e
(as Paulina K ew es has ably show n in her recent stu d y )17 w hen
there was a very fine line betw een literary piracy and legitim ate
appropriation: creative rew orkings of other sources provided the
staple for the L ondon stage. B ut none of these other possible
sources detracts from C ongreve’s dem onstrably close reading of
D acier, w hich rem inds us that reception histories of ancient plays
cannot afford to restrict them selves to revivals of the originals
alone.
P O L IT IC A L E L E C T R A
M ore ancient even than Electra's status as aesthetic exem plar is its
role as political m anifesto, a role w hich can be traced back to Julius
C aesar’s funeral gam es, w hen lines from a R om an adaptation by
A tilius w ere sung in order, ‘to rouse pity and indignation at his
1S Bevis (1988), 298. 16 See W heatley (1956), 78. 17 Kewes (1998).

d eath ’ (Suetonius, D ivus Julius 1. 84. 2). A nd politics w ere the
m ajor th ru st of Jo hn Pikeryng’s E lizabethan Horestes (the first
English revenge tragedy, perform ed by 1567), an exploration of
the relation of the Elizabethan E nglish crow n to S cotlan d .18 But
although Sophocles’ Electra had begun to m ake som e im pression
upon the im agination of E nglish-speaking lands after the circula
tion of the 1548 L atin translation of A ja x , A ntigone, and Electra by
the D utchm an G eorgius R otaller,19 P ikerying’s play drew on
m edieval versions of the tale of O restes and had excluded Electra
altogether. T h e E nglish-language perform ance history of Sopho
cles’ tragedy really begins in the hall of C hrist C hurch, O xford,
w here T hom as G offe’s The Tragedie o f Orestes was perform ed
betw een 1609 and 1619.20 It is a free com position in the vernacu
lar, influenced by the plays popular on the public stages of
L ondon. It is a bloodthirsty revenge tragedy, boasting the o n
stage m u rd er of A gam em non and a disgusting clim ax w hich
m akes the im m inent P u ritan s’ O rdinance of S eptem ber 1642, fo r
bidding the acting of all stage plays, seem positively desirable.
T h e prologue to The Tragedie of Orestes nam es E uripides as the
source. B ut, besides E u rip id es’ Orestes, G offe draw on Seneca’s
Agamemnon and Thyestes, Shakespeare’s H am let, and Sophocles’
Electra. Electra is evident in the false account of O restes’ death
(II.v ), the despair of E lectra in response to it, C lytem nestra’s
cooler reaction, the (albeit highly truncated) recognition scene
(iv . v), and in the notion th at C lytem nestra and TEgystus have a
child, w hich occurs only in the Sophoclean version of the story. Its
im plicit politics are illum inated by the fact that G offe also w rote a
dram a, The Careless Shepherdess, perform ed in the C aroline court
u n d er the auspices of the F ren ch Q ueen of E ngland, H enrietta
M aria.21 H er theatricals w ere indissoluble in the P u ritan m ind
from the cerem onial display of her R om an C atholic religion.
G offe’s anarchic play on the O restes them e, requiring young m en
to im personate fem ales, w ould also have infuriated the Puritans,
and it was they w ho w ere attacked in the earliest know n English
18 Pikerying (1567), reprinted in Axton (1982), 94—136. T he author was probably

Sir John Puckering, Lord Keeper under Elizabeth I.
19 Rotaller (1550); see Sheppard (1927), 128.
20 Goffe (1633); see O D N B xxii. 635—6, Hiscock (1946), 64, 174; Ewbank (forth
coming).
21 Veevers (1989), 50.
translation of any play by Sophocles, C hristopher W ase’s royalist
Electra of 1649, published in direct response to the execution of
C harles I on 30 January of th a t year.
W ase addressed the translation to the Princess Elizabeth
(Fig. 6.4), C harles’s second daughter, a prisoner of the Parliam en
tarians since the Civil W ar had begun in her seventh year. She was
now im prisoned in C arisbrooke Castle on the Isle of W ight. W ase’s
royalist sym pathies lost him his fellow ship of K ing ’s College,
C am bridge. In the dedication to Electra he inveighs against cen
sorship and the P u ritan s’ closure of the theatres:
Playes are the M irrours w herein M ens actions are reflected to their own
view. W hich, perhaps, is the true cause, that some, privy to the Uglinesse
of their own guilt, have issued out W arrants, for the breaking of all those
Looking-glasses.
ELECTR
OF
h f% .
S O T H O CL ES:
r e s e n t e d to h e r
HIGHNESSE
THE LADY \
ELIZABETH; J
£ •*
e r ou e,
i;W
Shewing the Parallel! in
two Poems,
TH E % E T V % ^
and
T H E % E S T A V % A T IO H >
~By C ^ ■
.
At the H a w , fot Sam. 3 rom,
MDCXL1X.
F i g u r e 6.4 T itle-page and frontispiece depicting the dedicatee (Prin

cess Elizabeth), in C hristopher W ase’s translation of Sophocles’ Electra
(1649).
T h e volum e contains four fu rth er dedications by sym pathizers.
T h e first reassures E lizabeth that ‘F orreign P rinces’ crow d to
su pp o rt her, and that she will one day becom e a m other to K ings
w ho will avenge her father. T h e w riter of the next, anonym ous
dedication draw s an explicit parallel betw een Sophocles’ A egisthus
and C rom w ell, saying that the book makes C rom w ell’s follow ers in
L ondon fear that their ‘Egist’ will fall. T h e cu rren t situation is thus
conceived as a real-life reenactm ent of Sophocles’ tragedy, except
th at its vengeful ending has not yet been perform ed.
T h e translation itself is in E nglish so ro b u st that W ase m ust
stand accused of insensitivity tow ards his dedicatee. H e has
slightly adapted the language used to describe the actual m u rd er
of A gam em non in order to bring hom e the parallel w ith C harles I.
T h e chorus rem em ber the blow struck in the cham ber,
W here w ith the broad steel-faced Cleaver
T he Royall T em ples they dissever,
T reason was the Privy-C ounsellor.
L ater the sam e action is couched yet m ore savagely, describing the
‘Poll-ax R azor-edg’d ’ w hich decapitated the ‘Sovereigne’, and
even adding a pictorial diagram of a hatchet! W ase repeatedly
underlines the parallel w ith the contem porary situation. O restes’
last w ords ring out like a defiant speech from the Civil W ar:
’T w ere fit this M artiall law did still prevail
T h at who so durst transgress the statutes pale,
M ight streight be kild, for villains soon would fail.
W ase lived to publish a L atin poem celebrating the R estoration of
his O restes, C harles 11, in 1660, w hen the theatres w ere reop en ed .24
But poor Elizabeth, unlike E lectra, did not survive. She died, at the
age of 14, on 8 S eptem ber of the follow ing year (1650).
Sophocles’ Electra, throu g h W ase, was thu s associated w ith
suspect politics. T hose politics m ay have becom e correct again
u n der C harles II, b u t after 1688 any play about the restoration of
a rightful king m ight sm ack of Jacobitism , and this is probably w hy
no attem pts w ere m ade to stage an actual adaptation until the
22 Wase (1649), 8.
23 Ibid. 57. On these lines see Dacier below, and H olford-Strevens (1999),
219-20 n. 1.
24 O D N B lvii. 527-8.
m iddle of the eighteenth century. It is certainly less than su rp ris
ing that the first know n attem p t to stage an E nglish version of
Electra, the archetypal regicide tragedy, ran into trouble. In 1762
an adaptation of Sophocles’ Electra by the m erchant and play
w right W illiam Shirley was refused a licence altogether. Shirley
published his play in 1765, prefixing an address ‘T o the R eader’.
H e claim s that he began to w rite it in 1744, b u t had laid it aside on
receiving first tidings of the Jacobite rebellion in 1745, ‘from an
apprehension that the subject, w hich he had casually chosen,
m ight be considered as invidious and offensive’. G arrick of
D ru ry L ane had m uch later tu rn ed the play dow n, b u t in 1762
M r Beard, the m anager of C ovent G arden, had com m issioned
from Shirley a theatrical com plim ent on the b irth of G eorge I l l ’s
first son, to consist of the tragedy and a m asque, The B irth of
Hercules. T h e plays w ent into rehearsal at the end of N ovem ber,
and copies w ere sent to the L o rd C ham berlain to procure the
necessary licences. T h e m asque was approved, b u t the tragedy
received a notice of refusal, w rites Shirley, ‘to the very great
surprise of all persons who had ever seen it’. H e protested to the
L o rd C ham berlain th at the play ‘was no o ther than the E L E C T R A
of S O P H O C L E S , adapted to the E nglish stage’ and th at no ‘m a
lignant inten tio n ’ could be im puted to h im .25
Shirley claim s th a t his play m ight have been taken for a pro-
Jacobite text in 1745, w hen the only candidate for an analogue of
O restes was the Y oung P retender. Som e scholars have assum ed
that it was the association of Electra w ith the S tuarts (u n d erp in
ning W ase’s translation) w hich led to the censorship of the play in
1762.26 B ut Shirley, far from being a Jacobite, was an ardent W hig.
H is earlier plays, for exam ple E dw ard the B lack Prince (1750), had
dem onstrated his profoundly W hig view of E nglish h isto ry .27 In
the late 1750s he had published tw o tren ch an t periodicals, The
H erald, or Patriot-Proclaim er, and The C itizen; in 1759 he had
published an attack on the legal system in Portugal in w hich he
25 Shirley (1765),‘T o the Reader’. 26 Conolly (1976), 73—4.
27 A scene from Edward the Black Prince, which dram atized Edw ard’s victory
over the King of France at the battle of Poitiers, was perform ed as part of an
extraordinary patriotic pageant on British history at Covent G arden on 12 Feb.
1798. For a detailed discussion see Russell (1995), 52—3. Among the other scenes
enacted were two interpretations of history which are discussed elsewhere in the
present book because they depend heavily on Greek tragedies: Jam es Thom son’s
Edward and Eleonora and W illiam M ason’s Caractacus (see Chs. 4 and 7).
detailed abuses of pow er u n der the S tu art kings of E ngland, and
condem ned the ‘evil-disposed’ Jam es II. A gainst him the B ritons,
‘in defence of their L iberty .. . honourably took up arm s, and
gloriously secured their own rights, and those of their posterities,
by the resolute expulsion of him and his m ale-issue’.28 M oreover,
Shirley seem s to have been obsessively opposed to censorship; in
this pam phlet he cites C harles I I ’s persecution of the possessor of a
m anuscript; in a satirical poem published in 1762 he fulm inated
against all those who ‘dare in chains to bind | T h e bold productions
of the P o et’s m in d ’, and lam ented that
In vain, alas! deceiv’d B R IT A N N IA boasts,
T h at heav’n-born freedom guards her chalky coasts.29
It was in the sam e year that Shirley rew rote Electra as a d enunci
ation of the then P rim e M inister, John S tuart, th ird E arl of Bute,
and his influence over the Royal Fam ily.
G eorge III had com e to the throne in 1760; encouraged by L ord
Bute, he began an onslaught on the old C orps of the W hig party.
T h e P rim e M inister P itt, ‘the G reat C om m oner’ w ho had appealed
to a popular constituency beyond the landed and parliam entary
classes, resigned in O ctober 1761, follow ed by N ew castle in M ay
1762. Bute becam e Prim e M inister. H is ten ure of office was one of
the m ost tu rb u len t periods in B ritish political history. T h e K in g ’s
quarrel w ith the W hig leadership created a charged political a t
m osphere w hich galvanized rich and poor alike, and was expressed
in political theatre w hich developed allusive techniques of com -
m entary. 30
By Ju ne 1762 John W ilkes, cham pion of individual liberties, had
begun his attacks on Bute in the weekly periodical The N orth
Briton. T h is term for ‘S cotsm an’ was alm ost as old as the U nion,
b u t in 1762 it w ould have been taken as referring specifically to
Bute. W ilkes was particularly supported by the m em bers of the
m erchant classes, like W illiam S hirley.31 T h e tem p eratu re rose
exponentially, until W ilkes was finally arrested in 1763. A t the
28 Shirley (1759), 69. For his periodical journalism see Charles H arold Gray
(1931), 144-5.
29 Shirley (1759), 8-9; (1762), 32-3.
30 For example, Samuel Foote’s M ayor of Garret, which attacked Bute. See
Brewer (1979—80), 16—21. I am grateful to Jo Innes for bibliographical suggestions
and other invaluable advice on the political climate of 1762.
31 Brewer (1979-80), 15.
168 E ighteenth-C entury Electra
tim e w hen S hirley’s Electra was p u t into rehearsal, and refused a
licence, B ute had ju st been m obbed w ith such ferocity at the
opening of parliam ent (5 N ovem ber 1762) th a t he was lucky to
escape w ith his life.32
W hig propaganda presented Bute as totally unaccountable,
thereby threatening the balance of the constitution. It also targeted
his friendship w ith G eorge I l l ’s m other A ugusta. H u n dreds of
cartoons attacked the alleged sexual liaison alm ost as soon as
G eorge III had ascended the throne, purveying the im age of a
petticoat governm ent u n der Scottish influence.33 Bute was
labelled ‘the T h a n e’, the bestow er of posts and pensions to hordes
of h ungry Scots. H is fam ily nam e m ade it m ore plausible to depict
him as a Francophile Jacobite and the enem y of L iberty and
M agna C arta. H e was com pared w ith M acbeth, w ith Rizzio (the
m urdered lover of M ary Q ueen of Scots), and w ith Sejanus. T h e
Princess D ow ager was portrayed as the Q ueen in H am let, directing
Bute to p o ur poison into her sleeping son’s ear, or as Isabella,
Q ueen of E dw ard II, w ho had m u rd ered her hu sb an d and ruled
w ith her lover.34 Shirley was trying to add A egisthus and C lytem
nestra to this list. T h e arrival of the new baby son to the K ing in
1762 had supplied an analogue for O restes, since H anoverian
K ings w ere traditionally opposed by their disaffected sons.
A lthough m any of the fam ous Sophoclean scenes— E lectra’s
argum ent w ith her m other, the m essenger speech, the lam ents
over the u rn , the recognition— are taken from Sophocles, Shirley’s
adaptation charges the ancient story w ith contem porary political
m eaning. TEgysthus’ terrible tyranny is underscored throughout;
the ‘griev’d people of tw o kingdom s’ suffer u n d er his scourge.35
/Egvsthus is him self from M ycenae b u t w ants to take over A rgos,
w hich in 1762 is a transparent expression of E nglishm en’s fears of
a tidal wave of Scots taking over high office in E ngland. O restes’
revenge is fram ed as a struggle for ‘lib erty ’ against ‘oppression’
and the ty ran t’s ‘am bitio n ’. T h e relationship of TEgysthus to C ly
tem nestra is presented as that of an u p start underling to a queen
w hose favour he has w on w ith ‘feign’d observance and obsequious
vow s’, and w hom he now tyrannically dom inates.36
32 Coats (1975), 30. 33 George (1959), 122-3 and pi. 33; Coats (1975), 30.
34 George (1959), 119-21, 127. 35 Shirley (17 65), 2 . 36 Ibid. 23.
T h e chief hope of the fallen W higs was th at the now ageing
D uke of N ew castle w ould lead his cohorts back: as ‘the O ld
Corps m an par excellence,’ he tried to form a coalition of W hig
groups to oppose the C row n and B ute.37 S hirley’s play stresses
that u n d er A gam em non A rgos was a happy country. In the clim ac
tic third act, O restes m eets a ‘band of loyal and intrepid nobles’ of
advancing years. H e assures them th at he will respect the old
com pact betw een K ing and people: ‘T h e thrones of kings,
|. . . a r e only firm | W hile fix’d on public use and ap probation’.
H e pledges to restore all his nobles to ‘T h e full possession of your
natal rights, | T hose rights w hich none b u t tyrants e’er invade’.38
B ut S hirley’s m ost striking alteration is to m ake the people resp o n
sible for dethronin g /E gysthus. T h e rioting populaces of both
M ycenae and A rgos take over the palace, u n der the leadership of
the ageing nobles and M elisander (the equivalent of Sophocles’
paidagogos), and arrest the tyrant. M elisander tells O restes (v. ix),
T he governm ent and city
A re in our hands. So total a revolt
W as w onderful!— and w orthy of the people
O ’er w hom im m ortal A gam em non reign’d .39
S hirley’s Electra thus dram atizes a retu rn to the fondly rem em
bered com pact betw een the deceased K ing G eorge II (i.e. A ga
m em non) and his people. Shirley carefully avoids m aking any
figure in the A rgive royal fam ily tree correspond directly to
G eorge III. T h e hope— and threat— expressed through the play
was th at the new baby Prince of W ales w ould one day join forces
w ith the populace and displaced W hig leaders, to depose the ty r
annical u su rp er Bute. Shirley m ay be telling a lie w hen he claim s in
his address ‘T o the “ R eader” that the published play has n o t been
altered except ‘by m eer touches of the language’. B ut even in its
published version, it is m anifestly a vitriolic W hig attack on B ute’s
regim e.
H ow ever, Bute was not w ithout his defenders. Indeed, w hen the
Irish playw right A rth u r M urph y m ade the first of his tw o engage
m ents w ith Sophocles’ tragedy in his play A lzu m a , he w rote w ith
the express purpose of opposing S hirley’s strid en t anti-B ute read
ing. M urph y was well versed in G reek and L atin, having received a
37 Brewer (197 6), 62, 13 . 38 Shirley (1765), 53-4. 39 Ibid. 97.

fine classical education in France at the Jesuit College of Saint -
O m er; and d u rin g the later years of his life, he was to devote m uch
of his tim e to classical translation.40 H e m ay well have been aware
of the deliberate rew orking of Sophocles’ Electra in The M ourning
Bride, w hen he took the p art of O sm yn in a D ru ry Lane revival for
G arrick ’s com pany in 1755; b u t it was undoubtedly S hirley’s
proscribed Electra th a t led him back to the Sophoclean m odel
again in 1762. M u rp h y had previously attacked Shirley in The
Exam iner, and at the tim e of the play’s com position, he was in
volved in a pro-B ute political periodical, w hich was started in
opposition to The N orth Briton, entitled The A uditor.
M u rp h y ’s A lzu m a , set in Peru, is a dam ning critique of Spanish
im perialism at a tim e w hen B ute’s governm ent had only recently
(January 1762) declared w ar on Spain. O n account of his education
at Saint-O m er, M u rp h y shared w ith Bute the am bivalent status of
‘C eltic’ outsider; and in this play, w hich exposes Spanish tyranny
as a threat to B ritish liberties, he is dem onstrating th at Bute,
w hatever his enem ies m ight say, was a sound B ritish patriot. T h e
O restes figure, about to m eet his death at the hands of the Spanish
tyrant, cries out in a clear plea to the w ould-be B ritish liberators to
‘kindle fierce w ar’; those w ho hail from a ‘happier state’, the ‘foes
of tyran ny ’,
... W ho found their laws
O n the broad base of reason and of nature;
Oh! M ay that happy state, if such there be,
W ith bolder prow trium phant o’er the deep
Pursue you hither w ith avenging thunder,
In your own harbours w rap your ships in fire,
A nd bow ye dow n to seek detested gold
For other uses! Be that curse upon ye!41
A lthough its ending draw s heavily on V oltaire’s A lzire, and al
though the h orro r at the accidental m atricide is clearly echoing
V oltaire’s Oreste, M u rp h y him self instructs his readers in the
Preface to ‘look into the plays of Sophocles and E u rip id es’ for
the true source for his play.42
40 See e.g. his four-volum e Tacitus of 1793. For an account of M urphy’s life
based on his own autobiographical notes, see Jesse Foot (1811).
41 M urphy (1773), 41.
42 Ibid. 4.
H ere A lzum a (the absent O restes-figure in Chile) is eagerly
aw aited as the liberator of ‘P rostrate Peru [so that she] m ay lift
her head again’.4-1 T h e C lytem nestra-figure, O razia, is the queen of
the last Inca kingdom , the colonial subject w ho has been seduced
by both the religion and the sexual pow er of the Spanish tyrant,
Pizarro; w hilst her daughter, O rellana, vows never to com prom ise
w ith her co u n try ’s enem ies. W hen A lzum a arrives in disguise as a
slave leader, he proclaim s him self ‘O ne b orn in freedom ! | O ne,
w ho w hile yet he lives, like freedom ’s son | W ill dare to th in k ’.44
A rrested for gross insubordination, A lzum a declares to his friend
O zm ar/Pylades that it is intolerable to w itness ‘a nation bleeding
round us, [ Y et fetter’d thus in chains’.45 W ith the arrival of
O rellana, having daringly secured a w arrant for the slaves’ release,
M urph y teasingly offers and then denies his audience the recogni
tion scene proper. O rellana inquires generally of her long-lost
b ro th er and A lzum a is reduced to tears; b u t the Pylades-figure
urges caution and restraint upon his friend because O rellana’s
identity is not yet know n to them . H ow ever, the subsequent
scene, set inside the T em p le of the Sun, provides the audience
w ith a close paralleling of the Sophoclean recognition. O rellana,
accom panied by a chorus of the daughters of the sun, invokes the
Sun G od in her prayers to save her b ro th er, w hilst he w atches
together w ith his friend in the w ings. W hen she urges the strangers
to take a braid of coloured cloths to her b ro th er as token, A lzum a
can contain him self no longer, confirm ing his identity w ith a scar
from a tig er’s fang on his chest.
W ith its ending urging reconciliation betw een different religious
and ethnic groups,46 A lzu m a m ay well be said to be providing a
bold counter to the anti-Jacobite prejudice fuelling the opposition
to Bute. G arrick clearly understood this w hen he tu rn ed it dow n
for perform ance on the g round that ‘A certain political society
w ould dam n any production know n to com e from the pen of the
present w riter’.47 A lzu m a was not in fact perform ed until 1773,
som e ten years after its com position (and a year after M u rp h y ’s, as
we shall see, m uch m ore successful .E/ectra-inspired The Grecian
D aughter), w hen its indictm ent of Spanish im perialism was no
43 Ibid. 13. 44 Ibid. 20. 45 Ibid. 24.

46 M urphy was to take a stand against the G ordon riots in 1780.
47 M urphy (1773), 4.
longer urgently topical. T h e changing political circum stances of
the 1770s— w ith Bute out of office, and the Seven Y ears W ar long
over— was undou b ted ly one of the reasons w hy it failed to hold the
public im agination w hen it was eventually perform ed at C ovent
G arden in 1773.
In A lzu m a , M urph y grants considerable prom inence to the
recognition scene betw een b ro th er and sister, follow ing the S opho
clean scene even m ore closely than C ongreve’s earlier aesthetic
experim ent. H e even offers a second recognition of sorts, w hen
the C lytem nestra figure narrow ly avoids the crim e of infanticide
through recognizing her son by a scar received in childhood.
A lzu m a is an exciting play and a fascinating refashioning of the
tragedy. B ut Electra was no longer prim arily of aesthetic interest to
eighteenth-century audiences: it was politics that prom pted
A lzum a; and changing political circum stances w ere to engender
new versions of Sophocles’ play.
ELECTRA VISUALIZED
T h is politicized clash of u nperform ed E lectras in the early 1760s is
probably in p art a response to the tw o new English translations that
had appeared in 1759. P ierre B rum oy’s Le Theatre des Grecs was
published in an E nglish translation by C harlotte L ennox w ith the
assistance of the Earl of Cork and O rrery. B rum oy again reaffirm ed
the centrality of Electra w ithin the extant corpus of G reek dram a,
since, as was the case w ith D acier, his theorizing was im m ediately
followed by translations of b o th Oedipus and Electra.
T h e previous year had seen the appearance of the first com plete
E nglish verse translation of Sophocles. A lthough G eorge A dam s’s
tw o-volum e prose translation of all seven plays had appeared in
1729 (thus underlining the prim acy of Sophocles, because this was
half a century before m ost of E uripides or A eschylus was m ade
available in English), it never circulated w idely. B ut in 1759 T h eo
bald’s adm ired poetic translations of Oedipus and Electra were
finally superseded by those of T hom as Francklin. A p ro d uct of
W estm inster and T rin ity , Francklin becam e professor of G reek at
C am bridge in 1750, w hen Jerem iah M arkland— a m uch better
scholar— refused to stand for the position.48 Francklin was not a
48 Clarke (1945), 29-30.
distinguished H ellenist, b u t these w ere the days w hen L ord C hes
terfield could w rite to his son in 1748 recom m ending that he
p ursue a G reek professorship, since ‘It is a very p retty sinecure,
and requires very little know ledge (m uch less than, I hope, you
have already) of that language.’49
Y et Francklin was a versatile eig hteenth-century gentlem an
w ith a high profile in the cultural and theatrical life of L ondon.
H e resigned his professorship in 1759 and transferred him self to
the literary circles of the capital. H e was a friend of Johnson and
R eynolds, preached fam ously at St P aul’s, and becam e the first
chaplain of the Royal A cadem y. H is translations of V oltaire,
Cicero, and L ucian w ere, in their day, respected.50 H e produced
two successful theatrical w orks, The E arl of W arwick and M atilda,
in w hich the heroines, M argaret and M atilda respectively, are torn
betw een conflicting duties like the A ntigone ‘of F rancklin’s obvi
ous m odel’.51
Francklin’s Sophocles rem ained standard well into the n in e
teenth century. It is aim ed at a readership including w om en,
w hose responses Francklin guides: ‘T h e ladies m ay observe the
m odesty of T ecm essa’s behaviour; she answ ers [Ajax] only w ith a
sigh.’ T h ere is even a long note discussing w hether it is seem ly for
C hrysothem is, as a virgin princess, to walk fast.52 Ju st as the
recognition scene was regularly privileged and prized by the en
gravings that accom panied the p rin ted editions to the eighteenth-
century E lectra plays, so Francklin also dem ands that his readers
visualize the theatrical action, capping his praise of the last scene of
Electra w ith the follow ing adm onition:
L et the English reader conceive those inim itable actors, Q uin, Garrick,
and C ibber in the part of Aegisthus, O restes, and Electra, and from them
form to him self som e idea of the effect w hich such a catastrophe would
have on a British audience.
A lthough he had persuaded D avid G arrick to subscribe to the
edition, Francklin unsurprisingly failed to persuade him to stage
Sophocles unadapted. B ut he did arrange perform ances of his
version of V oltaire’s Oreste, a tragedy based on Electra w hich had
49 Dobree (1932), iii. 1084, no. 1518. 50 See Lynch (1953), 180-3.
51 Ibid. 186. 52 Francklin (1758), i. 24, 26 n.; see also 127—8 n., 148 n.
53 Ibid. 193-4 n.
been successfully staged in France in 1750, w ith M ile C lairon in
the leading role, w hich she had revived w ith spectacular success in
1761. In L ondon the starring role w ent to M ary A nn Yates, re
cently applauded for her perform ance in R ichard G lover’s M edea
at D ru ry L ane (1767).
F rancklin’s Orestes was not a h it w hen it appeared at Covent
G arden on 13 M arch 1769, and yet critics adm ired Y ates’s p e r
form ance. A spectator w rote that
for tone, and justness of elocution, for uninterrupted attention, for every
thing that was nervous, various, elegant, and true, in attitude and action,
I never saw her equal but G arrick /
In 1774 she tried to w in the hearts of the D ru ry L ane theatre w ith the
sam e tragedy, renam ed Electra. T h e new Prologue and E pilogue by
G arrick w ere ‘greatly receiv’d w ith great applause’, and the excel
lent set by Philippe de L o u th erb u rg com prised ‘perspective scenery
of A rgos, the Palace of A egisthus, and the T o m b of A gam em non’,
w ith costum es deem ed both ‘elegant and characteristic’.55
T h e 1714 E nglish translations of Electra had each offered excel
lent visual illustrations of one of the tragedy’s canonical scenes: the
u rn scene in the anonym ous version, and the revelation of C lytem -
nestra’s corpse in T h eo b ald ’s (see Fig. 6.1). Sixty years later
L o u th erb u rg ’s em phasis on the visual recreation of ancient G reece
is significant, because scene design was beginning to respond to the
publication of G reek m onum ents, in particular the first volum e of
Jam es S tu art and N icholas R evett’s The A ntiquities o f A thens
(1762). A t the beginning of the eighteenth century scenery had
not been individuated historically or geographically. B ut G arrick ’s
engagem ent of L o u th erb u rg at last p u t topographical scenery
before the B ritish p u blic.56 T h e adm ired costum e w hich M rs
Y ates w ore to play E lectra also strove for authenticity. It daringly
dispensed w ith the pannier, thus revealing the exact natural con
tours of her body, and su bstitu ted an unadorned black drape; her
hair, although piled high, was partly left to fall over her shoulders.
54 Quoted in Highfill et al. (1973—93), xvi. 328. For less enthusiastic contem por
ary reactions to Yates’s Electra, see L S iv/3. 1390—1.
55 Westminster M agazine (Oct. 1774), quoted ibid. 1841. W hen D r Samuel Parr
staged Oedipus Tyrannus and Trachiniae in 1776, he was lent costumes by Garrick,
perhaps those designed for the D rury Lane Electra of 1774. See Ch. 8.
56 Rosenfeld (1981), 33.
M ile C lairon had introduced this very costum e in the sam e role in
Paris in her drive to introduce a m ore naturalistic style to the tragic
perform ances at the C om edie-Franâise.57 T h e novel visual appeal
of the revam ped tragedy in L ondon ensured it greater success, but
it was still held to suffer from an excess of declam ation.
F o ur years after M rs Y ates’s second attem p t to breathe life into
F rancklin’s version of V oltaire, the m ulti-volum e series Bell’s
B ritish T h eatre published an Electra. T h e title-page claim s that
the play had been acted at D ru ry L ane, and the engraving depicts
M rs Y ates as E lectra, above a quotation from F rancklin’s text
(Fig. 6.5). B ut the published text is, instead, T h eo b ald ’s tran sla
tion of Sophocles. T h is has thoroughly confused historians of the
B ritish th eatre,58 and the reason is a m ystery. It m ay have been a
sim ple clerical error, or it m ay dem onstrate the flexible approach
of the eighteenth-century m ind tow ards translation: both T h e o
bald and F rancklin’s plays w ere notionally versions of Sophocles’
Electra. B ut Francklin was probably trying to im ply that the Elec
tra w hich had m et a lukew arm response was not by h im b u t by his
deceased rival. Francklin had long attacked T h eo b ald ’s tran sla
tions (as had Pope) in order to m axim ize the m arket for his own:
while still Professor at C am bridge he had concluded his poem
Translation w ith an appeal to the ‘G enius of G reece’ to inspire
him w ith Sophocles’ fire, and
From hands profane defend his m uch lov’d name;
From cruel T ibbald wrest his m angled fame (209-10).
Francklin here appended a scornful note, declaring that ‘T ib b ald
translated tw o or three plays of Sophocles, and th reaten ’d the
public w ith m ore.’59
F rancklin’s tragedy of 1769/1774 b ro u gh t E lectra into the cu l
tural lim elight. W e have already heard of M u rp h y ’s A lzu m a (1763,
b u t perform ed 1773) and The Grecian D aughter (1772); in M ay
1775 F ran cklin ’s Electra also pro m p ted Sim onin V allouis, a
French dancer, to star w ith his wife in a ‘G ran d T rag ic Ballet’
57 Pentzell (1967), 109—10; see Jacobs (1989), 249 n. 8; M arm ontel’s Memoires in
Barriere (1846-81), v. 198. T here is a contem porary picture of Clairon in the role of
Electra reproduced in Sayer (1772).
58 See e.g. Bevis (1988), 133, 268.
59 Francklin (1754), 13 and n. ‘T ibbald’ was the correct way of pronouncing the
name.
Electra.
SELL'S EDITION.
A TRAGEDY,
At tranflaud from SO P H O C L E S \ viitb $?tMf
Bj> Mr. T H E O B A L D .
» llT tX O « l» III« A U O T » *
V A R IA T IO N S or th i THEATRE,
■E&rarreJRaEal in
,
Regalnted fromth* 1’Mmpt-Book,
By PERMISSION of the MANAGERS
By Mr. HO PKINS, Proaptw.
!»t«mI3w
tts,;l#«*xltii+Atf itift
*Gf tit Tyww,
*Ah4 'A siAn, tMuk, aitvtitt, AifchyJ.
** *?»• in Coeph.
r m Atgiect if4ftu rtt,
LONDONt
PrinKtl for JosN 8 * ti, new E xtor-E xila ng t, ia the Strtais
M O C C L X X Y It*
F i g u r e 6.5 Frontispiece (engraving by J. T hornthw aite of M ary Anne

Yates in the role of Electra) and title-page to Lewis T heobald’s translation
of Sophocles’ Electra (1777).
Oreste et Electre at the K ing ’s T heatre. A lthough its plot is not
certain, there was a role for C lytem nestra.60 F ran ck lin ’s Electra
also had reverberations in the visual arts. T h e 1769 production
inspired a beautiful m iniature by Sam uel Cotes, w hich circulated
on fashionable p rints from an engraving,61 and in the 1770s
Sophocles’ tragedy becam e a popular them e in painting.
F rancklin had taken the p ru d en t step of dedicating his tran sla
tion of Sophocles to the then Prince of W ales, and was rew arded by
60 Ivor G uest (1972), 148; see also the article ‘Simonin Vallouis’ in Highfill et al.
(1973-93), xv. 102-3.
61 T he engraving, by P. Dawe, is reproduced in Highfill et al. (1973—93), xvi.
335. T he m iniature is reproduced in Foskett (1972), pi. 62. See the discussion in
Jacobs (1989).
E ighteenth-C entury Electra 177
being m ade the first chaplain of the Royal A cadem y and its P ro
fessor of A ncient H istory. O ne of the founding m em bers was
B enjam in W est, an A m erican, w ho was inspired by F rancklin’s
translation of Electra to paint a picture entitled ‘TEgistus, raising
the veil, discovers the body of C lytem nestra. F rancklin’s S opho
cles’ (see Fig. 6.6). W hen exhibited in the A cadem y in 1780, it
provoked an adm iring reaction.62 It was w ith pictures such as this
and his illustration of a scene from I T (see Ch. 2) that W est
established him self as the m ost advanced p ro ponent in England
of the neoclassical style, w hich used antiquity to provide illu stra
tions of ‘m odes of behaviour th at w ere to inspire devotion to ideals
of self-sacrifice for the sake of justice, honor, duty, and co u n try ’.63
W est m ay have selected this particular scene because Francklin,
his fellow A cadem ician, was by now w orking on his translation of
L ucian. Perhaps he drew W est’s attention to a passage in The
House (§23) w here L ucian ’s n arrato r describes scenes p ainted in a
hall. O ne is a ‘righteous deed, for w hich the painter derived his
m odel, I suppose, from E uripides or Sophocles’ (although the
scene fits only Sophocles’ Electra). L u cian ’s n arrato r describes
this ‘righteous deed’ thus:
T h e tw o youthful com rades Pylades of Phocis and O restes (supposed to be
dead) have secretly entered the palace and are slaying Aegisthus. C lytem
nestra is already slain and is stretched on a bed half-naked, and the whole
household is stunned by the deed— some are shouting, apparently, and
others casting about for a way of escape.
W est’s picture was perhaps an attem p t to recreate the painting in
this ancient ekphrasis. H e was not the only artist draw n to Electra.
Fuseli, who m oved in the sam e circle, had in 1776 draw n a sketch
portraying the sam e scene as W est, the actual revelation of Cly-
tem nestra’s corpse to A egisthus.64 B ut A ngelica K auffm an, one of
the two fem ale founding m em bers of the A cadem y, had by 1786
painted a picture w hich, like W est’s, explicitly labelled itself as
62 See von Erffa and Staley (1986), 260. T he painting is now lost, but an excellent
mezzotint copy by Valentine Green, associate engraver of the Royal Academy, has
been preserved. See W hitm an (1902), 4, 159.
63 Von Erffa and Staley (1986), 41-2.
64 Orestes und Pylades fuhren Agisth vor den von Elektra enthiillten Leichnam der
Klytamnestra, in Schiff (1973), i. 2, 87, no. 392. T he picture is now in Dijon.
Thanks to Catherine Steel for help on this.
F i g u r e 6.6 Valentine G reen, m ezzotint after Benjam in W est’s lost

painting JEgistus, Raising the Veil, Discovers the Body o f Clytemnestra:
Francklin’s Sophocles (1780).
inspired by F ran ck lin ’s Sophocles: in her case, how ever, the scene
depicted E lectra and C hrysothem is.65
ELECTRA COMES CENTRE STAGE

K auffm an’s choice of topic— a scene of fem ale colloquy containing
no m en— represents an im p o rtan t shift in response to the play. For
it was only w hen women began to study the play in earnest that the
character of E lectra and her conflicts w ith her m other and sister
began to strike chords of recognition, dislodging from centre stage
the recognition of a m an by his sister, a w ife’s corpse by her
h usband, or the politicized battle betw een O restes and A egisthus.
65 See Roworth (1992), 186; M anners and W illiamson (1924), 224.
M oreover, w ith a few significant exceptions, the characters of all
three w om en had previously been sw eetened and m ade secondary
to the m en ’s struggle over the throne.
As we have already heard (p. 155), D acier had concerns about
the m orality of the m atricide and especially about the onstage
exhortations delivered by Electra; and Row e had com m ended the
com parative restraint of H am let in this regard. Pierre B rum oy had
been so p ertu rb ed by the sentim ents expressed by E lectra and her
m other in their b itter confrontation that he departed significantly
from the G reek in w hat is otherw ise a faithful tran slatio n.66 Elec-
tra ’s harshness and unbecom ing behaviour— of w hich she is herself
painfully aw are (see 221-2, 307-8, 616-17)— repelled m ost eig ht
eenth-century gentlem en. Paul H iffernan was outraged in 1770 by
the m u rd er of C lytem nestra in Sophocles. It is one of the theatrical
crim es by ‘such m onsters that degrade the w hole h um an system ’,
because it is encouraged by a w om an.67 E lectra’s character seem ed
too m asculine: Coleridge invoked it to su p p o rt his view that ‘the
G reeks, except perhaps for H om er, seem to have had no way of
m aking their w om en interesting, b u t by unsexing th em ’.68 Even
Shirley had turned C lytem nestra into a victim of her lover’s am bi
tion, and toned dow n E lectra’s vindictiveness, replacing it w ith a
devotion to the liberation of her fatherland; Francklin had shaped
both C lytem nestra and E lectra to fit eig hteenth-century notions of
ideal fem ininity: their difficult confrontation is m uted, and his
E lectra regrets the m urder.
W e now are disappointed by the pusillanim ity of these w riters’
reactions to Sophocles’ m agnificent w om en. T h ere w ere, how ever,
three brave exceptions. In 1714 T heobald had seen the im portance
w hich Sophocles attached to E lectra, rather than her b ro th er O res
tes. T heobald argues from a perspective inform ed by the conven
tions of early eig hteenth-century ‘S h e-T rag ed y ’ that the play’s
pow er lies in the m ultiple em otions E lectra expresses:
... she is equally W onderful, in her strong and im placable R esentm ents
against her F ath er’s M urtherers; in her Im patience for Orestes to come
66 ‘This whole scene, between the m other and daughter, is so m uch in the Greek
m anners, that no art is capable of rendering it exactly, and yet agreeable to us. I was
apprehensive that a too close translation would rob it of all its beauty’. Brumoy
translated by Lennox (1759), i. 119 n.
67 H iffernan (1770), 57.
68 Raysor (1936), 37.
and revenge him ; in her excessive Sorrow s for her B rother’s supposed
Disaster; in her T ransports, w hen she comes to know he is living; and in
her Zeal, for the perform ance of his R evenge.69
Shelley agreed, for Electra stands behind the bitter, vengeful, dish
evelled Beatrice of his tragedy The Cenci, w ritten in 1819.70 Earlier,
in A rth u r M urph y ’s m ost fam ous and successful tragedy, The
Grecian Daughter, we find an Electra figure w ho comes straight out
of K auffm an’s circle. M u rp h y ’s play opened at D ru ry Lane in 1772,
w ith M rs Barry in the leading role of E uphrasia, b u t it was to rem ain
prom inent in the repertoire for over seven decades, w ith that fam ous
Electra, M ary A nn Yates, taking the part in 1782. It was, however,
really Sarah Siddons, Joshua R eynolds’s ‘T ragic M use’, who
becam e associated in the popular im agination w ith E uphrasia (see
Fig. 6.7), and this Electra, m ore than any other in the eighteenth
century, seems to accept the full im plications of her Sophoclean role.
In m arked contrast to neoclassical theorists and adapters, w ho
broaden the personalized vengeance of O restes to include the
dispossessed and the disaffected m ob and consequently m arginal
ize the role of E lectra, M u rp h y ’s second rew orking of Sophocles’
tragedy m akes E lectra the focus of the play. In The Grecian D augh
ter, she is deprived of a b ro th er altogether (as w ith C ongreve’s
M ourning Bride, the retu rn in g avenger is her husband, w ho in this
case has departed w ith her young child); w ith the A gam em -
non-figure breathing his last (rather than already dead) incarcer
ated in his dead w ife’s tom b and starved by o rd er of the usurping
tyrant, revenge can be E u ph rasia/E lectra’s alone. M oreover, M u r
p h y’s heroine does not sim ply seek to perpetuate her fath er’s
m em ory, she actually m anages to preserve his life in an ex trao rd in
ary off-stage scene in w hich she suckles the dying m an— a sensa
tional detail M u rp h y had found in V alerius M axim us’ Facta et
D icta M emorabilia (5. 4. 1), illustrating filial piety.71
In the final scene of the play, w hen the rebel forces are nearing
victory, and D ionysius (the A egisthus-figure) threatens the life of
her father on stage, E uphrasia stabs the tyran t in the heart before
proclaim ing to the guards,
69 Theobald (1714), 69, 70. 70 See further Hall (1999a), 289-90.

71 For a depiction of this scene see Rubens’s painting ‘Simon and Pero (Roman
Charity)’ (1625), in the Rijksmuseum, Am sterdam. It was a popular subject for
Italian and D utch painters between the 16th and the 18th cc.
F i g u r e 6.7 Sarah Siddons as E uphrasia in A rthur M urphy’s The

Grecian Daughter, c.1783. Engraving by J. Caldwell after a painting by
W . H am ilton.
K neel to your rightful king! T he blow for freedom
Gives you the rights of men. A nd oh! my father,
M y ever honour’d sire, it gives thee life.72
T o her, as saviour of her father and liberator of her people, the dying
king bequeaths his throne and his dom inions: and as a paradigm of
filial piety, E uphrasia is celebrated by all to the end of the play:
. . . stretch the ray
O f filial piety to tim es unborn,
T h at m en may hear her unexam pled virtue,
And learn to em ulate the G recian daughter.73
W e have com e a long way from the sw ooning heroine of C ongreve’s
M ourning Bride, and we are now on the edge of the territory of the
‘m asculine’ w om an of M ary W ollstonecraft’s circle, territory into
w hich the Sophoclean E lectra herself was hardly allowed until
w om en began to respond to her play in earnest. Elizabeth B arrett
com pared the em otional response of France to the corpse of N apo
leon w ith E lectra’s em otions on receiving O restes’ ashes; elsewhere
she likened her depression before a reunion w ith her lover to E lectra’s
‘sepulchral u rn ’.74 Beyond B arrett, the line of im portant w om en
w riters to have appreciated appreciate Sophocles’ Electra includes
G eorge Eliot, who even quotes the G reek in ch. 13 of J a n et’s Repent
ance,75 and above all V irginia W oolf in her sem inal essay ‘O n N ot
K now ing G reek’, in w hich this tragedy is m ade the foundation of
W oolf’s case.76 B ut even here the literary theory is once again related,
as has been show n to be the case repeatedly throughout this chapter,
to the history of dram a in perform ance. W oolf learnt her G reek partly
from Janet Case, an outstanding Classical student who had taken the
title role in the first-ever B ritish production of the authentic Sopho
clean play, by an all-female cast at G irto n College, C am bridge, in
1883 (see further below, Ch. 16). Exem plary Electra, Subterranean
Electra, Political Electra, and V isualized Electra— to these m anifest
ations of Sophocles’ archetypal heroine, whose shadow was cast so
long over the eighteenth-century B ritish stage, the late nineteenth
century was to add yet another significant m utation— Electra the
herald of fem inism .
72 M urphy (1772), v. iii. 73 Ibid.
74 ‘Crowned and Buried’, stanzas 19—20; Sonnets from the Portuguese, stanza 5, in
Barrett Browning (1994), 255, 219.
75 See Jenkyns (1980), 114. 76 W oolf (1925), 41, 43-4.
7
Caractacus at Colonus
Bring then to B ritain’s plain that choral throng;

D isplay thy buskin’d pom p, the golden lyre;
Give her historic form s the soul of song
A nd m ingle A ttic art w ith Shakespeare’s fire.
(Richard H urd, ‘O de’prefixed to C aractacusJ1
TH E CRISIS OF COLONIAL CO N FID EN C E

A fter the astonishing successes of the Seven Y ears W ar (1756-63),
during w hich the British conquered Canada, drove the F rench out of
W est Africa, took H avana from the Spanish, and asserted the
suprem acy of the British navy over all its E uropean rivals, the
euphoria of acquired em pire evaporated w ith speed. O ne anxiety
was that the B ritish em pire was now supported by oppressive
m ilitary m ight. T h e parallel w ith the m ilitaristic Rom an em pire,
w hich had grow n out of the R om an republic so adm ired by the
earlier eighteenth-century aristocracy, began to seem pressing; it
was rendered unavoidable by E dw ard G ibb o n ’s The H istory of the
Decline and Fall of the Rom an Empire (1776—88), the idea for which
was conceived as early as 1763. As L inda Colley has argued in
Britons, the spoils of unprecedented victory w ere unsettling partly
because they challenged the long-standing m ythology of Britain as
the land of liberty founded on Protestantism and com m erce.2 By
A pril 1775, this m ythology was to be subjected, m oreover, to its
greatest challenge since the G lorious Revolution: the gunshots
heard at Lexington announced that the T h irteen Colonies in N orth
A m erica w ere saying an unam biguous ‘no’ to dictation from L ondon.
A few m onths after B ritish im perial self-confidence was
left reeling from the shock of the A m erican D eclaration of
Independence in July 1776, a tragedy on the them e of colonial
1 M ason (1811), i. 104-5. 2 Colley (1989); (1992), 103.
184 Caractacus at Colonus
rule opened at C ovent G arden (6 D ecem ber). It continued to be
perform ed until M ay, and was revived the follow ing season. T h e
au tho r was the R evd W illiam M ason, a progressive Y orkshire
clergym an who, like m any decent A nglicans, opposed w ar w ith
the P rotestant republicans in A m erica; the play was Caractacus, a
rousing tale of ancient B ritish resistance to the R om an arm y. T h at
it was interp reted politically, at least by those w ho favoured
A m erican independence, is clear from the recitation, during a
Shropshire W hig m eeting held to protest against the war, of ‘A d d
itional lines to Caractacus’. A lthough probably not by M ason
him self, the new lines urged liberty for the colonies.3 In this
version C aractacus was equated w ith the A m erican rebels, and
the R om an arm y w ith the B ritish m ilitary. T h e identification was
m ade easier because su pp o rt for A m erican independence was
strong in the ‘C eltic’ fringes of B ritain, including N o rth W ales.
Caractacus was significant in B ritish dram a’s relationship w ith
Classics. It stages a conflation of T acitu s’ description of C aract
acus (or rather C aratacus), the indom itable B riton captured during
the reign of C laudius (A nnals 12. 33-7), w hose courage at Rom e
was to inspire several subsequent B ritish artw orks (see Fig. 7.1),
w ith the sam e h isto rian ’s account of the last stand of the druids of
M ona (Anglesey) against Suetonius P aulinus (A nnals 14. 29-30).
M ason’s tragedy was the m ost innovative theatrical m anifestation
of R om an history since A ddison’s Cato (1713). B ut it is w ith G reek
tragedy that Caractacus bears its m ost profound relationship. T his
is not only inherent in its content (the plot is m odelled on Sopho
cles’ Oedipus at Colonus), b u t in its form . ‘W ritten on the m odel of
the ancient G reek tragedy’ (see Fig. 7.2), Caractacus represented
the C ovent G arden d eb u t of one of the m ost outlandish features, to
eighteenth-century taste, of Sophocles’ authentic dram as: the sing
ing, dancing, involved, and interactive tragic chorus.
T h is chapter argues that the aesthetic experim ent M ason con
ducted in Caractacus was a crucial intervention in the eighteenth-
century debate about the tragic chorus, particularly because his
choice of identity for the chorus (druids and bards) dem onstrates
the extent to w hich H ellenic and ancient B ritish revivalism w ere
conflated. B ut it also argues th at the case of M ason dem onstrates
the im possibility of separating the aesthetic from the political:
3 See the Gentleman’s M agazine 46 (1776), 427; D raper (1924), 177—8.
Caractacus at Colonus 185
F i g u r e 7.1 T hom as D avidson, Caractacus being Paraded Before the

Emperor Claudius, a d 50 (1891).
M ason’s druids, by singing of ancient C eltic resistance to R om an

tyranny in the ancient G reek plural lyric voice, are a dram atic
analogue of C ollins’s D ruidic tem ple of freedom in the B ritish
w oodland, allegorically also representing the renew al of E nglish
poetry (Ode to Liberty, 1746):
CHA HACTACl'
CARACTACUS. '
D R A M A T I C POF.M.
BY W. M A S O N ,
JU S T H U S o f il m id a .
a roa
TllKATRlC.il. B M M teSU tTA TlO K ,
AS PERFORMED At t HE
T H E A T R E - R O Y A h , C O V E N T-G A R D E N.
WftlTTKN Oft tB® MODE1 OP

T H E A N C I E N T G R E E K T R A G E D Y .
MISSJMUS ET IECTAS BftCIDVM DK OENIE CHOREAS.
Tfec bytnwma «*.«««

ifissI*#®*(Btr.tf.8i»mac* AStfittauwv* “..cmca.
LONDON:
P r in t e d f o f , a n d u n d e r she D ir n T io n r f ,
G e o rg e C a w t h q r n , Britts!) L (bear?, S t r a n d .
MKCXCKI.
F i g u r e 7.2 Frontispiece (by B urnet Reading, showing Thom as

C aulfield in the role of Arviragus) and title-page to W illiam M ason’s
Caractacus (1796).
In G othic pride it seems to rise,

Y et Graecia’s graceful orders join
M ajestic through the m ixed design.
M aking connections betw een ancient B ritons and ancient G reeks
seem ed appropriate at a tim e of B ritish opposition to R om e’s
descendants in the ‘ancient regim es’ of E urope. Caractacus en
couraged identification w ith the G reeks (especially by the m ore
radical, pro-A m erican m em bers of the audience) and the draw ing
of parallels betw een the culture of A thens, w here tragedies were
perform ed, and that of early B ritain. T h is was a new vision of
G reece, inform ed by poetics and politics, w hich adum brates both
the rom antic H ellenism of Shelley (on w hich see Ch. 8), and the
association of Gaelic and G reek culture by Irish poets and d ram a
tists, especially Yeats, in the late nineteenth and early tw entieth
centuries. 4
C A R A C T A C U S IN A N G L E S E Y
T h e clim ax of M ason’s Caractacus entails the desperate last battle
betw een the R om an arm y and those ancient B ritons w ho chose to
defy it. E ven in defeat, the m oral victory is w on by the colonized
rather than their m asters. T h e R om an general A ulus D idius a r
rives at M ona, in p u rsuit of the B ritish K ing C aractacus, w ho, w ith
his daughter Evelina, has sought refuge at the d ru id s’ grove. T h ere
are com plications involving the treachery of other B ritons, b u t the
central story is sim ple. C aractacus’ son A rviragus arrives, leads an
arm y out against the R om ans, tem porarily routs them , b u t is
w ounded and later dies. C aractacus m akes a last heroic stand in
battle, b u t is captured. T h e play concludes as he and E velina are
led off as captives to Rom e.
T h e figures of the father and daughter are m odelled on the
Sophoclean O edipus and his loyal daughter A ntigone. Ju st as
A ntigone and the infirm O edipus arrive at the grove at Colonus,
the aged C aractacus enters on his daughter E velina’s arm . Like
O edipus in O C he engages in ten der dialogue w ith this daughter,
but is estranged from his son. T h a t O edipus was on M ason’s m ind
in this scene is underlined by C aractacus’ rem ark th at this deser
tion by his son ‘was parricid e’. Evelina, how ever, fears th a t her
b ro th er is dead, and in im itation of A ntigone in m ore than one
G reek tragedy lam ents that she can never prepare his body for
burial.'^ O ther features derived from O C include the fath er’s h o s
tile reception of his son, the reunion of b ro th er and sister, and
especially the struggle in C aractacus’ breast. H e oscillates betw een
anger and a troubled questioning of his relationship w ith the gods.
Y et this gives way to a tranquil understan d in g of his destiny (like
O edipus, he hears a m ystical ‘thu n d erin g voice’ calling him to
4 On the fusion of Grecian and Gothic in 18th-c. poets, see Sam brook (1993),
209—11. On the Irish literary revival and the Greek Classics see above all M acintosh
(1994), especially 4—18.
5 M ason (1796), 21-3, 24. All quotations from Caractacus, first published in
1759, are taken from this edition.
death). T h is is coupled w ith a prophetic foreknow ledge of his
people’s fu tu re.6
A rviragus is at first m odelled on O edipus’ estranged son Poly-
nices, b u t later he tu rn s into T heseus. H e leads the B ritons into
battle against the invading arm y at the pass beyond the grove, ju st
as T heseus and his A thenians take on C reon’s T h ebans in the
Sophoclean archetype. A nother influence is E u rip id es’ Heraclidae,
w hich supplies C aractacus’ rejuvenation and charge into battle,
based on E u rip id es’ elderly Iolaus. It is a surprise to find this
obscure tragedy influencing the B ritish stage in the eighteenth
century, until it is rem em bered that M ason’s curate, John D elap,
was w orking on a version of the sam e play, The R oyal Suppliants,
staged at D ru ry Lane in 1781 (see above, Ch. 3).7
Caractacus quaintly evokes the d ru id s’ sacred grove, inspired by
the grove of the E rinyes in O C. A ulus D idius is w arned that the
sanctuary is inviolable. T h e olive trees of C olonus are replaced by
oaks, b u t the altar, the dark stream , the detailed sacrifices, and the
‘w ide circus | Skirted w ith unhew n stone’ recall details of the A ttic
sanctuary in the Sophoclean play. T h e hero of O C is described as
descending stairs to a subterranean cham ber: in Caractacus there is
adjoined to the grove a ‘deep cavern’, w here rites are enacted:
access to it consists of ‘a thousand rugged steps of m oss-hew n
rock’.8
A udiences w ere enticed into the theatre by the scenery painter
N icholas D ali’s depiction of M ona. T h e stage was set w ith ‘m ighty
piles of m agic-planted rock’, w here ‘at tim es of holiest festival |
T h e D ru id leads his train ’, and the play’s rituals blatantly conflate
the B ritish druids w ith ancient G reek choruses. T h e dru id s enter
w ith a circular dance in the ‘sacred space’ of the grove on M ona.
L ater, they p erform rites to the sound of the harp: the chorus
leader M ador sings antiphonally to them , ‘R ustling vestm ents
b rush the ground, | R ound, and round, and round they go’. T h e
druids share the grove w ith bards, w ho play ‘im m ortal strains’ on
6 Ibid. 59-60, 81.
7 Delap (1781). On Delap and M ason see Gosse (1884), ii. 309; iii. 128. They may
have known about Jean-Franfois M arm ontel’s tragedy Les Heraclides of 1752.
D elap’s The Captives (D rury Lane 1786), whose plot is distantly related to another
then obscure Euripidean play, Helen, has an ancient Scottish setting, and a prologue
delivered by a Caledonian bard, who claimed that the author had been inspired by
‘all the Grecian stage’.
8 M ason (1796), 13, 11, 50.
th eir harps: ‘In visible shapes dance they a m agic round | T o the
high m instrelsy’. T h e choral odes are som etim es sung by the
druids, som etim es by bards, and evince diverse m etrical patterns,
antiphony, solo and kommos, refrain, and dyadic or triadic system s
w ith strophe, antistrophe and epode.9
M oreover, Caractacus is an im pressive stage play. T h e druids
are awesom e and fascinating, the m ain characters are firm ly draw n,
the action suspenseful, and there are m om ents of genuine pathos.
It raises sophisticated questions about em pire, liberty, and reli
gious tolerance. It leaves m agnificently unresolved the tension
betw een the early B ritish and R om an ways of life. C aractacus
em bodies a form of superior spirituality, and an adm irable inde
p endence.10 B ut his druids, the ‘prim itives’ in his Caractacus, also
practise to rtu re and h um an sacrifice. T h e R om an conquest is both
a b ru tal act of im perialism , and a necessary prelude to m odern
civilization. T h is tension, partly derived from the am biguous p re
sentation of R om e’s im perial m ission in V irgil’s Aeneid, is exem
plified in C aractacus’ speech to the R om an prisoners of w ar. T hey
are to be m ade h u m an sacrifices, w hich C aractacus deem s an
honour:
You are not slaves. Barbarians tho’ you call us,
W e know the native rights m an claims from man,
A nd therefore never shall we gall your necks
W ith chains, or drag you at our scythed cars
In arrogance of trium ph. N or ’til taught
By Rom e (what Britain sure should scorn to learn)
H er avarice, will we barter ye for gold.11
Y et A ulus D idius is no tw o-dim ensional villain. H e refrains from
desecrating the grove, because R om an ‘laws give licence to all
faiths’. H e is convinced that R om ans fight ‘N o t to enslave, b u t
hum anize the w orld’.12 T h e ethical com plexity of Caractacus
caused it to be appropriated by individuals across the political
9 Ibid. 12, 18-21, 29, 13.
10 It is relevant that M ason (who, like W illiam W ilberforce after him , was
educated at Hull G ram m ar School) was one of the first Englishmen to agitate
against slavery; as Rector of Aston in Yorkshire he delivered a sermon at York
dem anding the abolition of the African slave trade, making the daring point that
black people had been responsible for the culture of ancient Egypt. See Mason
(17886), 17 n.
11 M ason (1796), 84.
12 Ibid. 93-4.
spectrum , and it still m akes exciting reading. As late as 1962 one of
the few scholars to study Caractacus in dep th is surprised to find
him self concluding that it was u ndoubtedly ‘the m ost outstanding
heroic dram a of the eighteenth century’.13
T h e play’s dep th is partly a result of the tension w hich had
developed in M ason’s own views, w hich w ere by no m eans u n rep
resentative of those held by the B ritish m iddle class, betw een
Caractacus' first publication in 1759 and the text perform ed at its
1776 C ovent G arden debut. By 1776 it had becom e harder not to
connect M ason’s R om an E m pire w ith B ritish rule in N o rth A m er
ica, bu t this was not the sp irit in w hich som e of the m ore jingoistic
m em bers of the audience will have received it, and it was certainly
not the spirit in w hich it had been conceived in the less com pli
cated— even triu m p h an t— political atm osphere of the 1750s. A l
though by the m id-1770s M ason su pp o rted the cause of the
A m erican rebels, and had becom e extrem ely critical of B ritish
conduct abroad, he had also originally intended Caractacus ‘to
fight the cause of liberty and B ritain’,14 by encouraging the p o p u
lar patriotic identification of ancient and contem porary B ritons.
T h e dru id s had never com e to term s w ith Rom e, and their defiant
intransigence had spoken loud to earlier poets including Pope,
w hose w ork was adored by M ason, and who once planned a Brutus,
com plete w ith choruses, portraying the conflict betw een Rom e and
the B ritish druids. O ther poets w hose patriotic fervour was in
spired by the druids included M ichael D rayton and T hom as W ar
to n .15 B ut it was M ason w ho p u t C aractacus firm ly on the B ritish
patriotic m ap alongside the m ore fam iliar Boadicea, inspiring
m any others to do the same: a poem by the Revd Sneyd D avies,
for exam ple, begged C aractacus and the druids to rouse their
countrym en against ‘tinsel F rance’.16
TH E LEARNED RECTOR OF ASTON

M ason was know n for his absolute hatred of the T o rie s.17 H e had
previously w ritten another tragedy on the G reek m odel, Elfrida,
13 See A. L. Owen (1962), 147. 14 M ason (1811), ii. 10.
15 Discussed in A. L. Owen (1962), 140—1. On Pope’s projected Brutus, see Pope
(1797), i. 158.
16 See Pennant (1781), 422-4; Snyder (1923), 127.
17 John M itford (1853), p. xii n.
w hich had echoes of Philoctetes, Trachiniae, H ippolytus, and Phoe-
nissae. Set d uring the reign of K ing E dgar in ten th -cen tu ry H ere
fordshire, this tale of piety and doom ed conjugal love included a
chorus of A nglo-Saxon m aidens, w hose pious odes owe m uch to
M ason’s interest in church m u sic.18 Y et M ason was outraged w hen
the stage version turn ed the phrase ‘godlike y o u th ’ into ‘royal
y o u th ’. M ason com plained to H orace W alpole th at ‘royal’ was an
ep ithet ‘w hich I fancy will be approved no w here b u t at St. Jam es’s,
for it carries the ius divinum .’19 T h ere is, m oreover, a m ildly anti-
m onarchical tone to Elfrida going beyond the references to invasive
Scottish savages so suggestive of the 1745 Jacobite invasion. T h e
play’s villain is the rapacious K ing E dgar, w ho operates droit de
seigneur, and there is criticism of the co rrupting pageantry and vice
of royal courts. B ut M ason w ould later be terrified by the F rench
revolution, and his political stance— a deeply C hristian m oral sense
inherited from his father (also a clergym an)— is best u n derstood in
term s of his charitable principles and his philanthropy, especially
his agitation against slavery, his cam paign for the reform of the
Y ork lunatic asylum ,20 and his undo u b ted courage in allow ing his
nam e to be placed in the front of the Y orkshire P etition of 1780,
w hich dem anded far-reaching political reform s in p art as a guaran-
tee against oppressive taxation. 21
M ason’s radicalism stem m ed from ‘a scholastic adm iration of
the antique republics’.22 W alpole, how ever, p referred to see his
sym pathies w ith republicanism as ‘old fashioned G othic relics’.23
18 See his Essays on Church M usic, where he argues that words and melody m ust
be connected, in M ason (1811), iii. 287, 408. Interest in dram atic form also led
M ason to experiment with a tragedy on the alternative ‘Old English’ model:
Argentile and Curan opens with a chorus, but they thereafter disappear. Like a
Shakespearean heroine, Editha adopts male disguise, and the blank verse of the
leading characters alternates w ith semi-comic scenes in prose for the lower-class
individuals. M ason also w rote an unperform ed lyrical tragedy, Sappho. It incorpor
ates translations of Sappho’s fragments (cast in an acceptably heterosexual mode),
which were to be sung to m usic composed by Felice de G iardini, famous for
sensuous violin music (M ason (1811), ii. 207—318, 319—61). M ason also completed
W hitehead’s tragic Oedipus, which seems to have had no chorus (see below, Ch. 8).
G iardini wrote m usic for one of the revivals of M ason’s Elfrida: see Highfill et al.
(1973-93), vi. 167.
19 John M itford (1851), i. 45.
20 M ason (1772).
21 John Cannon (1972), 75-6.
22 H artley Coleridge (1836), 403.
23 L etter of July 1782 to M ason, in John M itford (1851), ii. 313.
B ut in this period G raeco-R om an and ‘G o th ic’ political revivalism
w ere not so very different. W higs believed that early B ritish cul
ture, until the N orm an invasions, had enjoyed dem ocratic assem
blies like those of classical A thens. A n expression of this view was
to be found in the defence speech delivered by Joseph G errald, a
republican cam paigner for universal suffrage, convicted of sedition
in 1794. H e had acted the role of the ostracized m onarch O edipus
at Stanm ore School tw o decades previously (see the next chapter),
and had apparently allow ed its political subtext to go to his head.
G errald m entions ancient G reek dem ocracies w ith approval, b u t
also claim s that he w ishes to see the restoration of the A nglo-Saxon
myclegemot, a legislative body consisting of representatives chosen
by all the people.24
GREEKS AND EARLY BRITONS

T h e success of Caractacus was partly a result of the m id -eig h t
eenth-century craze for druids, com plem ented by an interest in
m usical traditions believed to be inherited from the ancient Celtic
bards. Ju st as H om eric scholars in the 1930s w ere enthralled to
discover the epic singing of the M uslim guslars of Serbia, so
M ason’s friend T hom as G ray was affected by a blind W elsh
harper called Jo hn Parry; he w rote to M ason in 1757, w hile he
was w orking on Caractacus, th at P arry ’s ‘ravishing blind harm ony,
such tunes of a thousand years old . . . have set all this learned body
a-dancing’. G ray was inspired by P arry to com plete his visionary
poem The B a rd (1757), on the them e of E dw ard I ’s alleged ex ter
m ination of the W elsh b ard s.25 A nother friend of M ason who
com bined G reek and druidical interests, W illiam W hitehead (see
Ch. 5), produced a version of old W elsh verses, The B attle of
Argoed Llw fain, scored for harp, harpsichord, violin, or flute;
this trend culm inated in a popular scoring of W elsh songs su p
posedly derived from ancient b ard s.26
24 G errald (1794), 188-9.

25 Gosse (1884), ii. 312. T he poem is published in Starr and H endrickson (1966),
18-24.
26 Edward Jones (1784). Edward Lhuyd had published his Archaeologia Brtan-
nica in 1707; Edw ard Williams, alias Iolo M organwg, would hold his first pseudo-
D ruidic G orsedd in 1792.
T h e fascination w ith Celtic m usic was inseparable from interest
in the m usic of ancient G reece. E ig h teenth-century adm irers of
G reek tragedy fantasized about G reek m elody; Collins w rote a
(lost) ‘O de on the M usic of the G recian T h e a tre ’, and in ‘T h e
Passions, A n O de for M usic’, called up on M usic to arise from her
A thenian bow er and confirm her ancient rep u tatio n .2/ Parallels
w ere draw n betw een ancient B ritish and ancient G reek singing:
W hitehead’s Verses to the People o f England (1758) equated ancient
B ritish bards w ith T y rtaeu s, the S partan com poser of w ar songs.
W hen The Scots M agazine celebrated the building of the new
E din bu rgh theatre in 1773, the poem there published im agined
the hills of Scotia anciently resounding to G aelic epic and pastoral
w hile the poets of G reece w ere alive.28
T h e m ost im p o rtant factor in the fusion of classical and ancient
B ritish revivalism was the stir caused by Jam es M acpherson’s
‘translations’ of old G aelic poetry in the 1760s, culm inating in
The W orks o f Ossian, Son o f Fingal in 1765. T h e debate over the
authenticity of these w orks, w hich began alm ost as soon as they
appeared, long obscured th eir im portance as a cultural p h en o m
enon. B ut an excellent book by Fiona Stafford has reinstated
M acpherson as a sem inal influence on the R om antic poets and
B ritish cultural life in general.29 A t the tim e of the appearance of
O ssian’s w orks, the parallels betw een them and H om eric epic w ere
laboriously studied, for exam ple in an anonym ous treatise p u b
lished in L o ndon in 1762, Occasional Thoughts on the S tu d y and
Character o f Classical A uthors with Som e Incidental Comparisons of
Hom er and Ossian. T h e parallels w ere underscored by the learned
gentlem en w ho translated M acpherson into G reek verse, and by
poets like T hom as M ercer, in w hose Elysium , in im itation of
A eneid V I, the authorial voice encounters the shades of both
O ssian and H o m er.30
MUSICAL THEATRE
M ason’s dram a w ould probably never have been staged w ere it not
for the O ssian phenom enon. By 1763 arrangem ents of O ssian w ere
27 W illiam Collins (1765), 81-7. See Stern (1940), 144-6. 28 Anon. (1773).
29 Stafford (19 88). 30 M ercer (1774).
being produced in E d in b u rg h ,31 and O ithona, a D ramatic Poem,
Taken from the Prose Translation o f the Celebrated Ossian, was
perform ed as an opera to m usic by F. H . B arthelem on at the
T h eatre Royal, H aym arket in 1768. A m odern authority on eight
eenth -cen tury theatre m usic is surprised that the O ssian libretto
im itates G reek tragedy in dividing the choruses into strophe, an
tistrophe, and epode,32 b u t the librettist was either copying M ason
or sim ilarly connecting early B ritish singing w ith the ancient
G reek chorus.
Caractacus, w hich had already been perform ed in D ublin, was in
1769 experim entally recited during a single ‘A ttic evening’s en ter
tain m en t’ at the H ay m ark et.33 B ut in 1772 G eorge C olm an, the
m anager of C ovent G arden, decided to stage M ason’s plays. H e
began by altering the m ore sentim ental Elfrida and com m issioned
a score from T hom as A rne. T h e heroine was to be played by the
stunning redhead E lizabeth H artley, and A thelw old by W illiam
Sm ith. E ither A ttic art or Shakespeare’s fire w ent to the heads of
these stage lovers, w ho later eloped.
M ason, w ho had not been consulted, was apprehensive. H e
com plained to C olm an, w ho w ittily threatened him w ith a chorus
of G recian w asherw om en (the identity of the chorus of E u rip id es’
H ippolytus). M ason, w ho was not w ithout a sense of hum our
him self, w rote to H orace W alpole th at any success w ould be due
to the novelty of ‘such a strange sight as tw enty B ritish virgins’.34
In fact the success m ay have been ow ed as m uch to the p erfo rm
ance of the chorus leader ‘A lbina’, the outstanding oratorio singer
Isabella M attocks. In 1773 W alpole nevertheless reported th at ‘the
virgins w ere so inarticulate th at I should have understood them as
well if they had sung choruses of Sophocles’. B ut he insisted that
the play was ‘very affecting and does adm irably for the stage’;
G arrick of D ru ry L ane was envious because the K ing had already
been to see the play tw ice.3:1
M ason had been an undergraduate at St. Jo h n ’s College, C am
bridge, and was m ade a fellow of Pem broke H all in 1749. L earned
gentlem en from that university w ere particularly delighted by
E lfrida, because it seem ed to represent a revival of superior
31 David Erskine Baker (1763). 32 Fiske (1986), 315.
33 L S v/1. 42; L S iv/3. 1383.
34 L etter of 1 Dec. 1772 to Walpole, in John M itford (1851), i. 45.
33 L etter of W alpole to M ason, 19 Nov. 1773, in M itford (1851), i. 100—1.
dram a, and even to im ply that the w orld was now ready for a
com m ercial staging of a G reek tragedy. In F ebruary 1773 som eone
signing him self ‘C antab .’ suggested in the G entlem an’s M agazine
that the ‘English R oscius’, D avid G arrick, should attem pt the
Oedipus Tyrannus at D ru ry Lane:
As the tragedy of Elfrida, w ritten (after the G reek m anner) by that m ost
excellent poet M r M ason, has m et w ith such singular applause at Covent
G arden T heatre, I cannot help lam enting that our English Roscius has
never had a play of Sophocles (translated into English blank verse) repre
sented at D rury Lane. T h e plays in general, are the finest ever w ritten; and
the Oedipus Tyrannus is, in my opinion, the properest to be represented at
present, both for the grandeur of the choruses and the m agnificence of the
scenery. 36
U nsurprisingly this fantasy was not fulfilled, although G arrick
(w ho died in 1779) was reputed to have w anted late in his life to
stage E u rip id es’ Hecuba in the as yet un pu b lish ed translation of
R obert P o tter (on w hom see fu rth er below ), and procured expen
sive costum es. T h e plan was abandoned because of the cost of the
accom panying G reek chorus. G arrick was certainly interested in
‘G reek’ tragic costum es, for he donated som e to the pro d uctio n of
Oedipus Tyrannus at Stanm ore School in 1775.37 B ut instead of an
authentic D ru ry Lane Oedipus or Hecuba, the adm irers of M ason’s
ancient m odel w ere to be com pensated by the production of
Caractacus. A lthough not quite so popular w ith the general public
as E lfrida, according to G arrick it was m uch frequented by ‘m en of
taste and classical m en ’.38 E lizabeth H artley once m ore starred as
the heroine.
M ason disliked A rn e’s m usic, b u t it helped these tragedies to
succeed com m ercially. It is m ost un fo rtu n ate th a t no score of C a
ractacus now exists, since it was said by Sam uel A rnold to contain
‘som e of the brightest and m ost vigorous em anations of our English
A m phion’, 3 9 R um ours about its excellence— and indeed the su r
vival of a score— w ere still circulating in m usical journals at the
end of the nineteenth century,40 and m ay even have given Elgar
36 Quoted in L S iv/3. 1691.
37 L etter from Daniel W atson to John Carr, 2 Apr. 1788, in John Nichols
(1817-18), i. 431. See further Stoker (1993), 286.
38 L etter to H annah M ore in M eakin (1911), 99.
39 Quoted in Highfill et al. (1973-93), i. 114.
40 See D raper (1924), 15.
the idea for his ow n Caractacus. A rne prefixed to this score an
essay describing his use of sounds and rhy th m s corresponding to
the ideas expressed in the dram a. T o recreate the m usic of the
druids, he used clarinets, the serpent, liberal harp sequences, and
m arches accom panied by trom bone. T h e m usic has been praised
for innovative attem pts at local colour, especially in the overture,
w hich has been described as ‘a singular attem p t at program m e
m usic• ! .41
THE ANCIENT MODEL

Before M ason, G reek tragedy’s relationship w ith the B ritish com
m ercial stage in the eighteenth century had consisted of adapted
content rather than adopted form . It was a rem arkable achieve
m ent to realize the form of G reek tragedy in a m anner acceptable to
his era. H is plays are, how ever, not the first B ritish w orks to
incorporate elem ents sim ilar to the G reek tragic chorus. C hoirs
of angels sang in m edieval m iracle plays; choruses w ere perform ed
as interludes betw een the acts of early vernacular tragedies such as
Gorboduc and Jocasta; Shakespeare had used a chorus of sorts to
open the first two acts of Romeo and Juliet, and passages in blank
verse are delivered by a character nam ed C horus at the beginning
of each of the acts of H enry V .42 In early seventeenth-century
closet tragedy it was not only M ilto n ’s Sam son Agonistes (studied
by M ason43) th at experim ented w ith using a chorus. U sually the
chorus in the closet was confined to the ends of acts, b u t som etim es
it interacted w ith characters, as the chorus of E gyptians converse
w ith the m essenger in Sam uel D aniel’s The Tragedie o f Cleopatra
(1594, rev. 164). A chorus even occasionally appeared in p er
form ed tragedies, for exam ple Ben Jo nso n ’s Catiline (1611). B ut
after the separation of m usic from serious spoken dram a, w hich
41 For further details see the appendix on A rne’s music to M ason’s plays in
D raper (1924), 331-3.
42 For a survey of the chorus in earlier British dram a see E. Griffin (1959), 1—48.
Schiller’s experim ental use of choruses in Die Braut von Messina (first perform ed
1803) and his prefatory essay ‘U ber den Gebrauch des Chors in der Tragodie’, are
discussed in Brunkhorst (1999). This essay compares G erm an, French and British
attitudes, including reactions to M ason’s plays, but Brunkhorst is seemingly not
aware that M ason’s dramas were successfully performed.
43 See M ason, ‘Letters concerning the following D ram a’, prefixed to Elfrida
(1752), p. v.
occurred w ith the introduction of C ontinental opera to L ondon at
the end of the seventeenth century, choruses in E nglish-language
tragedy becam e rare. W here they did appear, their function was
confined to plausible songs in staged rituals (for exam ple, the
invocation of L aius’ ghost in D ryden and L ee’s Oedipus, hym ns
in the tem ple in D en n is’s Iphigenia, or the lam ent for T ro y in
T h o m so n ’s Agamemnon). H ostility to the choral convention
am ongst theatrical people was so strong that G ray tho u g h t th at if
Elfrida w ere to be staged it w ould have to lose its choruses;44 and
eig hteenth-century academ ic attem pts to stage ancient G reek tra
gedy m inim ized or dispensed w ith the chorus altogether, including
the productions of Sophocles in G reek at Stanm ore School.45
M oreover, M ason was using the chorus in a m anner distinct from
anything th at had gone before. H is choruses participate fully in the
continuous action, affecting the decisions of the central actors and
engaging in dialogue w ith them . M ason thu s cam e closer to actually
staging a G reek tragic m odel than any other playw right before the
nineteenth century. M odern m usic critics argue that if the choral
convention of G reek tragedy em erges elsew here in the eighteenth
century, it is in H andel’s oratorios, especially Hercules, advertised
as ‘a m usical dram a’ (1745); its libretto used both the pseudo-
Senecan Oedipus Oetaeus and Sophocles’ Trachiniae and gives an
essential function to the chorus.46
M ason’s achievem ent in popularizing the tragic chorus is further
u n derlined by rem em bering how recently it has been accepted in
the theatres of the m odern w orld. L ate n in eteen th -cen tu ry novel
ists, especially E liot and H ardy, m ay have been influenced by the
chorus, b u t n in eteen th-cen tu ry B ritish perform ances of G reek
tragedy alm ost always reduced or rem oved altogether the p ro b
lem atic chorus (a singular exception was the Antigone staged at
C ovent G arden, to m usic by M endelssohn, in 1845; see below ,
Chs. 12 and 18). E ven today com edy can be derived from the
popular notion of a squadron of sages intrusively intoning U n iv er
sal T ru th s and apostrophizing peculiar divinities, m ost recently in
W oody A llen’s film M ighty Aphrodite (1995). T h e landm ark p ro
duction in theatrical realization of the chorus is usually regarded as
K arolos K o u n ’s fam ous Persians in the m id-1960s, w hich used
44 Gosse (1884), ii. 212. 45 Field (1828), i. 78.

46 Keates (1992), 128, 256-8.
collective dance form ations and m oved the chorus away from the
periphery to the centre of the ritualized tragic action.47 Even
classical scholars have only relatively recently succeeded in turning
‘perceptions of the chorus from an encum brance into a core
strength of G reek tragedy’, by exploring both its collective p er
spective and its u n ique capacity for survival.48
THE CONTROVERSIAL CHORUS

D espite the rejection of the tragic chorus in theatrical practice, a
theoretical debate about its validity m arks E nglish dram atic criti
cism from D ryden onw ards.49 It was fuelled at the end of the
seventeenth century by D acier’s F ren ch editions of A ristotle’s
Poetics and of Sophocles, w hich had ardently defended the
chorus.50 F or a century countless essays p ropounded argum ents
for and against the chorus.51 Its supporters w ere usually clergy
m en, w hile its detractors w ere practising dram atists. It was
M ason’s achievem ent to bring these tw o opposing view points—
how ever tem porarily— together, and the reason w hy Caractacus
could achieve this was, quite sim ply, druidical revivalism .
F or it was inherently plausible th at druids w ould sing in a sacred
druidical setting, and the m ost im portant objection to the chorus
had always been its im probability. Its presence was alm ost always
found inherently ridiculous by sensible theatre professionals. S u p
porters of the chorus could find few good counter-argum ents:
Jam es Beattie, the professor of M oral Philosophy at A berdeen,
resorted to the desperate m easure of asserting that im portant p er
sonages in ancient ‘reality’ always had trains of attendants, of
w hom the chorus was a ‘prob ab le’ reflection.52 T h e probability
argum ent was connected w ith one about theatrical authenticity:
sensible critics saw th at reviving the chorus alone was inconsistent.
If authentic reconstruction of ancient theatrical practice w ere the
goal, other ancient conventions w ould have to be revived, inclu d
47 On the late 20th-c. rediscovery of the chorus see further Fischer-Lichte (2004).
48 See especially T aplin’s remarks on the revival of the chorus by a 20th-c.
playwright, T ony Harrison, in Taplin (1997), 172—3. For Edwardian experiments
see below, Ch. 18.
49 See E. G riffin (1959), 59-63.
50 Dacier (1692); (1693).
31 For an overview of the academic controversy about the chorus, see G reen
(1934), 219-25.
52 Beattie (1776), 12.
ing pipe or lyre accom panim ent,53 or even the m uch-derided
m ask.54 Such discussions usually centred on the ‘ru les’ of neoclas
sical theory. F rancophile neoclassicists m aintained that the unitary
choral identity facilitated the obligatory ‘unities’ of tim e and place,
w hich they believed to have been prescribed by A ristotle. But
opponents of the ‘tyran ny ’ of the unities argued that dropping
the chorus liberated m odern playw rights to travel in their plots
throu g h space and history, thus m aking far m ore types of story
candidates for rep resentation.55
M ore b u rn ing was the issue of the chorus’s role in ensuring the
m orality of tragedy, a central plank in D acier’s defence of the
chorus. A h igh-m inded E nglish advocate of the chorus translated
Sophocles’ Electra and urged a revival of dram as like those of the
A thenians, w hich served ‘as so m any Publick L essons, or Serm ons,
to instruct the People in Religion and good M an ners’. If m odern
playw rights w ere to produce m orally edifying dram a, there w ould
be need to re-establish ‘the U se of their C horus; w hereby an
occasion is given to instil, by the C harm s of M usick, into the
M inds of the H earers those Sentim ents of V irtue and G oodness’.56
Yet, as objectors pointed out, the chorus did not always set a
virtuous exam ple. In H ippolytus Phaedra said things in front of the
chorus ‘im proper to be heard by a n u m b er of w om en’, and the
chorus im m orally kept quiet w hen H ippolytus was arraigned by
his father. In M edea the chorus are effectively tu rn ed into accom
plices of m u rd er.57 O thers argued that m oral com m ents from the
chorus w ere useless if the m orality did not suffuse the entire
piece.58 Even the ancient playw rights w ere not im m une from
im m orality: had not A eschylus been indicted for im piety?59 F u r
therm ore, a m oralizing chorus m ight actually conceal m orally
dangerous m aterial: one paranoid critic im plies th a t H ellenizing
features such as the chorus serve to ‘decorate vice in fascinating
colours, and tu rn the sober sentim ents of virtue into ridicule’.60
By the tim e of the publication of E lfrida in 1752, this often
sterile debate was adopting from France the m ore exciting issue
of the ch o ru s’s class profile. C orneille and D acier had objected to
53 Colman (1783), p. xxv. 54 See Pye (1792), 533.

55 e.g. Cooke (1775), 90. 56 Anon. (1714a), pp. i-iii.
57 Cooke (177 5), 100-1. 58 Pye (1792), 232; Colman (1783), p. xxiv.
59 Pye (1792), 234.
60 ‘T he British T heatre’, London Magazine, 40 (M ay 1771), 262—5, at p. 264.
the lack of loyalty— even treasonable insubordination— w hich the
chorus in E uripid es’ M edea show s tow ards their king by taking
M edea’s side.61 B rum oy’s Le Theatre des Grecs (1730), read w idely
in B ritain, sees the political culture of dem ocratic A thens as ex
plaining the chorus: they are a reflection of the A thenian specta
tors, w ho w ere ‘accustom ed to be involved in public affairs’ and
therefore had ‘a quite different taste from the French spectators,
w ho m eddle no t w ith anything in th eir ow n happy and tranquil
m onarchy’ (see Ch. 8).62
In E ngland, on the other hand, R alph suggests that the chorus
was a result of the decline of A thenian freedom , added as an
ornam ent after Pericles established the theoric fund, to m ask the
decreasing political freedom of the playw rights.63 R ichard H u rd
was one of the few to see the political com plexity of the relationship
betw een dem ocratic A thens and her tragic choruses. T h e chorus
can only speak the truth if it consists ‘of citizens, w hether of a
republic, or the m ilder and m ore equal roialties’. Y et H u rd sees
that a good playw right can use the chorus even of a play set in a
tyranny to im ply political tru th s. H is subtle reading of Antigone
points out the ch o ru s’s reluctance to protest against C reon’s edict,
and the way they ‘obsequiously go along w ith him in the projects of
his cruelty’. Y et Sophocles, he argues, was still using the chorus in
a m orally effective way. H e is deliberately show ing how m en
becom e incapable of m oral p ro test u n der despotism . Sophocles
‘hath surely represented, in the m ost striking colours, the p ern i
cious character, w hich a chorus, u n d er such circum stances, w ould
naturally sustain’.64
M ason’s plays gave all these issues a new focus. H e courted this
reaction by prefixing five explanatory letters to Elfrida in 1752,
claim ing th at his aim had been ‘to pursue the ancient m ethod so far
as it is probable a G reek Poet, w ere he alive, w ould now do’. T h e
advantages of the chorus w ere that it m ade the playw right concen
trate on the unities, th a t it was a resource for ‘P icturesque D escrip
tion, sublim e allegory, and . . . Pure P oetry’, and th a t it added pom p
and m etrical variety. It guided the m oral sentim ents of the specta
61 See the discussion in H urd (1749),79—80.

62 Cited from Lennox’s translation, in Lennox (1759), vol. i, p. cix.
63 Ralph (1743), 16. 64 H urd (1749), 76-7.
tors and helped, like an internal audience in a painting, to heighten
pathos.65
T h e first reaction to M ason’s revival of the chorus was an enco
m ium w ritten and published anonym ously by N evile T hom as, a
schoolm aster. M ason’s chorus is not annexed to the action, ‘b u t
rises naturally out of the subject’; its m oral p u rity is so outstanding
that even Plato w ould let M r M ason into his Republic-, the o rn a
m ental diction has excelled the ancient G reek tragedians th em
selves.66 A less unctuous note was struck by the hilarious letter sent
to The Covent-G arden Journal by an ‘inm ate of B edlam ’ calling
him self ‘T ragicom icus’ (probably H en ry Fielding), com plaining
that som eone has throw n Elfrida into his cell. T h e m ain objection
of ‘T ragicom icu s’ recycles the ‘p robability’ argum ent: w ho w ants a
chorus, he asks, to tell D esdem ona to pick up her handkerchief?
B ut this fictional m adm an m akes the m ore original point that no
com petent dram atist needs a chorus to announce entrances, in
stead of m aking his audience work in order to discover the identity
of the characters.67
A fter the publication of Caractacus in 1759, there was a flurry of
fu rth er responses, both adm iring and critical.68 1761 saw a th e at
rical pastiche by R ichard Bentley (son of the fam ous scholar), The
Wishes; or H arliquin’s M outh Opened.69 Bentley was intrigued by
the ch oru s’s policy of n o n-interventionist com m entary even on
violence. The Wishes contains a play-w ithin-a-play entitled G un
powder Treason by M r D istress. G uy Faux, the tragic hero, in
sanely inform s the chorus that he is about to en ter the vaults,
w hich contain a m agazine of gunpow der, and blow up the H ouses
of Parliam ent. T h e chorus fail either to prevent disaster or leave
the vicinity, instead delivering a lengthy ode later paraphrased
from m em ory by Scott:
O unhappy m adm an,
O r rather unhappy we,
T he victim s of the m adm an’s fury
O r thrice, thrice unhappy
T h e friends of the m adm an,
65 M ason (1752), pp. ix—xii. 66 Anon. (1752), 9, 15, 19, 21, 25.
67 The Covent-Garden Journal, no. 62 (16 Sept. 1752), in Jensen (1915), ii. 93—5.
68 Collected in E. Griffin (1959), 100-6.
69 The Wishes does not seem to have been published. T here is a copy in the
Larpent Collection (British Library microfiche 199, F 253/85).
W ho did not secure him and restrain him
F rom the perpetration of such deeds of frenzy!
O r three and four tim es hapless
T he keeper of the magazine,
W ho forgot the keys in the door!70
Y et G uy Faux rem ains determ ined. W hen asked why the chorus
does not sum m on a constable, and carry the villain before a justice
of the peace, the dram atist M r D istress answ ers ‘Poh, poh, that
w ould be natural'— far too probable a reaction for any chorus.
A lthough it was enjoyed in private perform ances,71 B entley’s
play was not a success w hen it appeared at D ru ry Lane, because
its target was a convention of G reek tragedy still totally unfam iliar
to the play-going public. B ut opponents of slavish im itation of the
ancients continued to quote The Wishes— perhaps the funniest
parody of the G reek chorus ever w ritten— for decades.72
W HEN DRUID M ET GREEK

T h e problem w ith the chorus has always been the em phasis given
by n o rth ern E uropean culture to the individual. T h e paucity of
living collective dance traditions has m ade it difficult to u n d e r
stand the com m unal ritual function of this plural lyric presence.
M ason’s tragedies w ere w ritten at a tim e w hen com parative an
thropology was beginning to affect the understan d in g of dram a.
H u rd m ade intelligent com parisons betw een Peruvian theatre and
the R om an P raetexta and Togata, and also betw een C hinese tra
gedy and Sophocles’ Electra ,73 John B row n drew parallels w ith the
Iroquois in N o rth A m erica. H e argued that a form of dram a
sim ilar to G reek tragedy is practised by all prim itive tribes: a
C hief sings som e great action of a god or hero, and ‘the su rro u n d
ing C hoir answ er him at Intervals, by Shouts of Sym pathy or
concurrent A p prob atio n ’.74
Y et B ritish m en of letters discovered the prim itives w ho caused
the revival of the ancient chorus in their own back yard. In the
70 W alter Scott (1870), 225.
71 For example, at Brandenburgh House in 1761. See Rosenfeld (1978), 59.
72 See ‘T he British T heatre’ (The London M agazine, 40 (May 1771), 262—5);
W alter Scott (1870).
73 H urd (1751), 89-90, 162-7.
74 John Brown (1763), 41—2.
m id-eighteenth century huge enthusiasm (a phenom enon often
know n by the blanket term ‘C eltic revival’) was aroused for all
the inhabitants of pre-N o rm an Britain: the tribes encountered by
the R om ans, the W elsh, the C ornish, the G aels, the Irish, the
Celts, the N orsem en, and the A nglo-Saxons. M ost popular were
the early B ritish bards and druids. T h e ancient texts ransacked for
druidical lore w ere Caesar, T acitus, Pliny the Elder, L ucan, Pom -
ponius M ela, D iogenes L aertius, A m m ianus M arcellinus and C as
sius D io.75
O ne of the greatest druidical experts, W illiam Stukeley, advised
the dow ager Princess of W ales on the ‘C eltic’ rem ains discovered
by m en digging in K ew gardens. In 1763 he dedicated a book to her
as ‘V eleda, archdruidess of K ew ’. V eleda was believed to be the
nam e of an im portant ancient fem ale m ystic.76 M ason was also
convinced that there had been fem ale druids, w hich illum inates the
odd status of the chorus in Elfrida, experts in druidical song. T h e
m essenger in Caractacus reports that, p rior to the battle,
through our ranks
O ur sacred sisters rush’d in sable robes,
W ith hair dishevel’d and funereal brands,
H u rl’d round w ith m enacing fury.7/
M ason’s notes to the play point to a passage in T acitus w hich he
has lifted alm ost u n altered.78 T acitus says that w om en w ere in
volved in defending M ona against the R om ans (Annals 14. 30):
O n the beach stood the adverse arm y, a serried mass of arm s and m en, w ith
w om en flitting betw een the ranks (intercursantibus feminis). In the style of
Furies, in robes of deathly black and w ith dishevelled hair, they bran
dished their torches; while a circle of druids, lifted their hands to heaven,
show ering im precations . . .
It is scarcely surprising th at this colourful passage enthralled en
thusiasts for ancient Britain.
T h eir interest was not entirely new. Jacobean dram as engaging
w ith the R om an invasions, such as B eaum ont and F letch er’s
73 See A. L. Owen (1962) and Snyder (1923). T he translation of Caesar’s Com

mentaries by W illiam D uncan (London, 1753) had helped to make druids accessible.
76 Stukeley (17636), ‘Dedication’.
77 M ason (1796), 84-5.
78 Ibid. 101.
Bonduca (1614), had displayed som e druidical elem ents.79 Y et the
seventeenth-century conceptualization of early B ritain had draw n
little distinction betw een R om an and indigenous culture. Inigo
Jones had created scenery for m asques set in A rth urian England,
for exam ple A lbion’s Trium ph, b u t had visualized the B ritish past
in R om an term s.80 In 1620 he told Jam es I that Stonehenge was
Rom an: it was clearly based on four intersecting equilateral tri
angles, w hich was exactly the diagram deduced by Palladio from
the R om an V itruvius’ account of the th eatre.81
B ut at the beginning of the eighteenth century the prehistoric
circles of standing circles at Stonehenge and elsew here began to be
interpreted, rather, as pre-R om an druidic relics. O nce this crucial
separation of early B riton and R om an occurred, stone circles
becam e associated, rather, w ith the G reeks. T h e G reeks w ere
suddenly felt to have a greater affinity than the technocrats of
Rom e w ith indigenous B ritish culture. A n im portant publication
in popularizing the new ‘H ellenic’ view of the druids was H enry
R ow lands’s M ona A ntiqua R estaurata (1723). R ow lands believed
that ancient W elsh was the oldest language in the w orld and that
the culture of its speakers had num erous parallels in b o th H ebrew
and early G reek society. T h e ancient G reek philosophers, includ
ing Pythagoras, had im itated and adopted the m ystical lore of the
druids. R ow lands and his follow ers detailed features shared by
G reek and D ruidical religion, for exam ple m ountain w orship and
snake sym bolism , discovered at the A vebury circle.82
SOPHOCLES AND STONEHENGE

R ow lands argued that the ancient B ritons, like the G reeks, had
cultivated groves for the w orship of th eir gods, and th at A nglesey
was a special place of w orship. H e was inspired by a passage in
D iodorus about the H yperboreans (2. 47):83
In the regions beyond the land of the Celts there lies in the ocean an island
no sm aller than Sicily. T his islan d . .. is situated in the N orth and is
inhabited by the H y perboreans.. . Apollo is honoured am ong them
79 Snyder (19 2 3), 3 . 80 Peacock (1995), 69, 321.
81 Jones’s idea was later developed and published, in 1655, by his pupil John
W ebb. See Sum m erson (1966), 71—2.
82 A. L. Owen (1962), 124.
83 Rowlands (1723), 76.
above all other gods; and the inhabitants are looked upon as priests of
Apollo . .. since daily they praise the god in song and honour him exceed
ingly. A nd there is also on this island both a m agnificent sacred precinct of
Apollo and a notable tem ple .. .w hich is spherical in shape.84
T h is passage was to thrill adm irers of the druids: C alypso’s island
of O gygia was one candidate for the island beyond the Celts,
m aking Calypso a d ruidess.85 B ut D iodorus goes on to tell the
story of the H yperborean m ystic A baris, who travelled to D elos,
w here great perform ances on the cithara and choral dances w ere
instituted. T h ese celebrated A pollo and the revolution of the stars
in the heavens. T h e A baris story produced the exciting identifica
tion of D iod o ru s’ n o rth ern island w ith either B ritain or A nglesey.
R ow lands argued that A baris (w hose nam e in ancient W elsh
obviously m eant ‘son of R ees’, ap Rhys) took the D ruidic ritual
of circular choral singing, accom panied by the harp, from B ritain
to G reece.86 T hence it was a sm all inferential leap to identify a
round floor found to the eastern end of the druidic m onum ent at
T revw ry on A nglesey (probably the place now know n as T re f
Alaw) as an ancient theatre, a view su pp o rted by the discovery of
ancient ‘operas’ and plays on religious them es in the old C ornish
language.87 By 1740 Stukeley was arguing that the old W elsh nam e
for the druidical tem ple at Stonehenge, choir gaur, should be
etym ologized as chorus gigantum (‘T h e G ian ts’ D ance’), or, p refer
ably, as chorus magnus (‘T h e G reat C h o ir’).88 Stukeley reports
ancient explanations of the nam es of stone circles, such as ‘the
com pany dancing’ and ‘the band of m usick’, and notes traditions
th at stone circles w ere com posed of petrified choruses. H e argued
that the A vebury stone circle could have held ‘an im m ense nu m b er
of people at their panegyres and public festivals’, and w ould have
‘fo rm ’d a m ost noble am ph itheater’.89 T h e connection betw een
stone circles and the G reek chorus had becom e irresistible.
C ranky theories about the ancient chorus abounded. Som e
asserted that the G reeks inherited their dance m ovem ents from
the ancient Egyptians, and that the gesturing of the G reek chorus
was ‘a significant Hieroglyphical expression’.90 A nother view held
84 T ranslated by O ldfather (1935), ii. 37-41. 85 Stukeley (1763a), 15.
86 Rowlands (1723), 76. See A. L. Owen (1962), 81.
87 Rowlands (1723), 61, 68, 76, 89 and pi. IV, 342.
88 Stukeley (1740), 8 . 89 Stukeley (1743), 25, 83.
90 Ralph (1731), 92-3.
that the chorus could be illum inated by the E picurean notion that
Chaos ruled creation w ith its w arring atom s, ‘before this w orld was
tu n ’d by the M U S IC K of the spheres into a regular D A N C E ’.*1
M ore specifically, it was held that G reek choruses had ‘im itated in
their evolutions the supposed m otion of the heavenly bodies’.92
T h is idea was derived from antique scholars, including scholiasts
on E uripides and P indar, and was believed to stem from a treatise
by Ptolem y, the A lexandrian astronom er of the second century
AD. T h e strophic structu re of ancient choral lyric— ‘tu rn ’ and
‘c o u n ter-tu rn ’— reflected the dancers’ m ovem ents. T h ey revolved
in alternately opposing directions in im itation of the sun, m oon,
planets and constellations of the zodiac.93 A lthough sensible m en
like Brow n protested that a m ore likely aim had been the p reven
tion of giddiness,94 this idea gained popular currency.
It was given new w eight by the astronom ical activities w hich the
ancient D ru ids w ere believed to have perform ed at Stonehenge.
T h is theory had been suggested earlier, b u t was m ost concisely
expressed in the title of D r John S m ith ’s influential dissertation
(Salisbury, 1771): Choir G aur; The G rand Orrery o f the A ncient
Druids, Commonly Called Stonehenge, on Salisbury Plain, A stro
nomically Explained, and M athem atically Proved to be a Temple
Erected in the Earliest Ages fo r Observing the M ovem ents of the
H eavenly Bodies. T h is notion was w arm ly received by M ason,
w hose coryphaeus M odred, the C hief D ru id in Caractacus, swears
an oath before the final battle:
By the bright circle of the golden sun;
By the brief courses of the errant moon;
By the dread potency of every star
T h at studs the m ystic zodiac’s burning girth. 5
M ason had extracted such ideas from the num erous books he had
consum ed about the ancient B ritons, their religion, and their
m onum ents. T h ese researches are evident in the notes he
appended to Caractacus, w hich docum ent the play’s ethnography,
and in his correspondence w ith G ray.
91 Ibid. 114. 92 Pye (1792), 231 n. 6.

93 e.g. Etymologicum Magnum s.v. irpooohiov. T he ancient sources are collected by
Crusius (1888), 10—11. Thanks to Ian R utherford for help on this.
94 John Brown (1763), 114.
95 M ason (1796), 74.
In these letters G ray urges M ason to lessen the ‘G reek’ tone of
the druidical lore, and m ake it m ore distinctively ‘C eltic’. M ason’s
divinity A ndraste, for exam ple, has ‘too G reek an air’.96 A ndraste
is linked w ith the theory that the heavenly bodies are involved in
the ch oru s’s singing. In the last ode, a dirge for A rviragus, M ador
orders his chorus to play their harps:
Ring out ye m ortal strings!
Answ er, thou heav’nly harp instinct w ith spirit all,
T h at o’er A N D R A S T E ’S throne self-w arbling swings.
T here, w here ten thousand spheres, in m easur’d chim e
Roll their m ajestic melodies along.97
T h e chorus respond, in their final lines,
A N D R A S T E ’S heav’nly harp shall deign
T o mingle w ith our m ortal strain,
A nd H eav’n and E arth unite, in chorus high
W hile Freedom wafts her cham pion to the sky.98
G ray assum ed that A ndraste was a synthesis of the G reek personifi
cations A nanke and A drasteia. M ason, however, had found her in
Cassius D io’s account of B oudica’s uprising (62. 6), and she stayed in
the play. H is blatant H ellenization is evident, how ever, in the musical
detail. T h ere is no evidence that this British w ar-goddess was ever
honoured by a tragic chorus or nam ed in the dirges of hero cult,
let alone visualized, like the G reek god Apollo, as strum m ing a harp.
T H E P O L IT IC S OF TH E C H O R A L REVIVAL
T h e language in w hich M ason’s revival of the chorus was dis
cussed was politicized. M ason’s plays had politically m otivated
detractors, and the debate was not a sim ple m atter of personal
stance on colonial policy or on A m erica. In 1782, for exam ple,
B entley’s The Wishes was revived in Ireland, and a L ondon revival
was cancelled at the last m inute. M ason w rote to W alpole in great
relief, acknow ledging the excellence of B entley’s parody of his
‘poor G reek ch o rus’. B ut the focus in the revised version had
been changed, according to W alpole, into a b itter T o ry libel on
the W hig opposition: Bentley was a com m itted T ory.
96 L etter of Septem ber 1757,in John M itford (1853), 106.
97 M ason (17 96), 92 . 98 Ibid.
A n attack on M ason’s classicism was m ade by the frustrated
dram atist Percival Stockdale, in his A n Inquiry into the N ature
and Genuine Laws o f Poetry, published in L ondon in 1778, w hen
M ason’s plays had held the L ondon stage consistently for five
years. In his view M ason has been deceived into a high opinion
of his poetical talents, ‘by the tem porary pow er of the press to give
dignity to trifles; by the m iserable arts of theatrical m anagers to
procure popularity for a tinsel play;— and by the crow ds that
frequent our th eatres.’ Stockdale cannot un derstan d w hy the ‘fas
cination of G reek and L atin is yet u n brok en ’, leading to a situation
in w hich ‘the old, im p ertinent chorus is o b tru d ed on our stage by
som e little scholastic poets’. " H e inconsistently objects both to the
learned classicism of M ason’s plays, and to their popular appeal
am ongst the uneducated theatre-goers. T h is confusion m arks the
ideological com plexity underlying M ason’s synthesis of H ellenic
and C eltic revivalism .
G reek tragedy at this tim e was a contested property. Its neoclas
sical m anifestations w ere associated w ith elite and backw ard-
looking social forces, especially w ith the theatre of the F rench
A ncien Regim e. Y et the new G reek revivalism , connected w ith
the ‘discovery’ of the early B ritons, had a progressive face. G reek
tragedy was increasingly appealing to tru ly radical intellectuals in
Britain, a tren d brought to its consum m ation by Shelley (see Ch. 8).
T h e reaction to M ason’s plays is thus im plicated in w hat can be
seen as the struggle betw een conservative neoclassicism and p ro to
rom antic H ellenism . H is plays becam e a bone of contention b e
tw een classical p u rists and supporters of innovation in the theatre,
groups w ho, in the political sphere, w ere som etim es identified w ith
conservatives and radicals respectively.
R obert L loyd, for exam ple, was a classicist, a libertine, and a
friend of the radical John W ilkes. H is politics— though not his
m orals— did not differ m uch from M ason’s own. Y et L loyd felt
that his political views w ere inseparable from his hatred for neo
classical plays, w hich he regarded as inherently conservative. In a
poem published after his death in prison he criticizes ‘those who
breathe the classic vein’, poets ‘D elighted w ith the pom p of rules |
T h e specious pedantry of Schools’. H e singled out M ason’s dress
ing of a fable ‘in ancient-m odern taste’,
99 Stockdale (1778), 117, 179.

W hile C horus m arks the servile mode
W ith fine reflection, in an ode,
Present you w ith a perfect piece,
Form ed on the m odel of O ld Greece.
T h e term ‘servile’, often used by the critics of the ‘slavery’ of
neoclassicism and its ‘tyran ny ’ of rules, reveals their conviction
that attem pts to revive the ancient theatre w ere conservative.100
M ason was confusing because the progressive ideology of his plays
seem ed at odds w ith the perceived conservatism of th eir form . T h e
plays pleased both conservative philologists and popular audiences,
b u t they w ere also attacked from both sides of the political fence.
TH E CONSEQUENCES OF C A R A C T A C U S
T h e vogue for M ason’s plays had consequences m ore im portant
than the plays them selves. T h ey created an environm ent at last
receptive to the little understood A eschylus. A lthough T hom as
M orell had included an E nglish translation of Prometheus Bound
in his edition of 1773, the other plays w ere not available in the
vernacular u ntil the first com plete E nglish translation appeared in
1777, at the height of the craze for M ason’s tragedies, to create
profound im plications for E nglish R om anticism .101 A reason for
A eschylus’ inaccessibility had always been the length and opacity
of his choruses. B ut the translator, a kindly N orfolk clergym an
nam ed R obert P otter, who had previously paraphrased A eschylus’
Eumenides in a political context w hen describing the m iseries of the
w orkhouse, now reassured his readers th at the A eschylean chorus
is ‘always grave, sententious, sublim e, and ard en t in the cause of
liberty, virtue, and religion’.102
P o tter’s translations w ere rightly adm ired; it was discussing
A eschylus w ith P otter, w ho sat for him in 1778, that inspired the
p ainter G eorge R om ney to produce a series of chalk ‘cartoons’ of
the m ore striking scenes (see Fig. 7.3). T h e G reekless H orace
100 ‘Shakespeare: An Epistle to M r G arrick’, in Kenrick (1774), i. 80-1. Lord
Karnes wrote that to revive the chorus would be ‘to revive the Grecian slavery’ of
the unities: Kames (1763), iii. 314. See Green (1934), 224.
101 Elfrida made money steadily between 1772 and 1775, and was revived until
1792. Caractacus held the stage for two and a half seasons. Both plays were per
form ed in the provinces, for example at York and Bath. See D raper (1924), 90; H are
(1977), 237, 235. J. J. le Franc de Pom pignan’s French translation of Aeschylus had
been published in 1770.
102 Potter (1775), 55; (1777), p. xii.
W alpole was one of m any delighted w ith Prometheus, although
confiding to M ason that he did not ‘approve of a m ad cow for
first w om an’.103 T h e playw right R ichard C um berland was bow led
over by the choruses of Agamemnon. B ut C um berland was reading
them as lyric poetry, and rem ained a critic of the chorus as th e atri
cal convention. C um berland lam ents that ‘to have a genius like this
of iE schylus encum bered w ith a chorus, is as if a m ill-stone was
tied round the pinions of an eagle’.104
T h e im pact of M ason’s plays on the contem porary u n d erstan d
ing of G reek tragedy cannot be overestim ated. It m ay be comical
F I G U R E 7.3 G eorge Rom ney, A tossa’s Dream, chalk cartoon illustrating

A eschylus’ Persians (1778-9).
103 L etter of W alpole to M ason in 1778, in M itford (1851), i. 328—9.
104 See Richard C um berland’s essays from The Observer, reprinted in Chalmers
(1807), 172—3, 176, 178. On the contem porary reception of P otter’s Aeschylus see
especially Stoker (1993).
today to find P o tter asserting that M ason’s tragedies ‘u n ited the
pow ers of the three illustrious G recians . . . w ith the tenderness of
E uripides in E lfrida, w ith the force of TEschylus and the co rrect
ness and harm ony of Sophocles in Caractacus’, 105 B ut M ason’s
plays im pressed the literary consciousness of their day. John
C ooper w rote an influential volum e of criticism before either of
M ason’s plays was even perform ed, w hich judges all of Seneca’s
tragic o u tp u t of less w orth than Elfrida, and com pares M ason’s
w ork favourably w ith Sophocles’ Philoctetes and Oedipus at Colo
nus u)b G ray regarded the last ode of M ason’s second play on the
‘G recian m odel’ as one of the best things he had ever read .107
D u ring the later years of his life M ason was regarded as ‘E ngland’s
greatest living p o et’. T h e perceived em otional pow er of his trag ed
ies is reflected in the figure of the w eeping tragic m use, M elp o m
ene, who adorns his W estm inster A bbey m o num ent (Fig. 7.4).
M ason is placed on a pedestal w ith Shakespeare, M ilton, D yer,
A kenside and C ow per by a gentlem an w ho declares th at his clas
sical productions ‘w ould have done honour to A thens in her m ost
refined p erio d.’108 T h ey appealed to w om en as m uch as to men:
A nna Sew ard knew m uch of M ason’s ‘exquisite G recian dram as’
off by heart, and declared their author one of the greatest poets of
all tim e.109 B oth B yron and W ordsw orth show traces of M ason,
and his type of H ellenism lay behind the self-styled ‘G reek school’
of m inor rom antic poets. T hese included F rank Sayers, w ho in
1790 published two tragedies using ‘the G reek fo rm ’ w ith choruses
of bards or druids, and R obert Southey, w ho rem em bered w atch
ing M rs Siddons in the role of E lfrida in B ath.110
M ason’s plays inspired visual artists even before they w ere
perform ed: Angelica K auffm an painted a scene from E lfrida, and
John F laxm an’s attention m ust have been draw n to Caractacus’
G reek tragic archetype before he painted his lost CEdipus and
105 Potter (1777), p. xxiv. 106 John G ilbert Cooper (1755), 103.
107 Gosse (1884), iii. 47.
108 H artley Coleridge (1836), 462; Drake (1798), 27, 463.
109 Seward (1811), iv. 363-4.
1,0 See H artley Coleridge (1836), 433; Sayers (1830) includes Moina and Starno,
two of his ‘D ram atic sketches of northern m ythology’. Sayers, who also translated
Euripides’ Cyclops and a chorus from Aristophanes’ Thesmophoriazusae, argues that
the Greek form of dram a affords in its chorus ‘the most favourable opportunity for
the display of mythological imagery’ (p. 25). On Southey see Haller (1917), 73, 77,
80-5. M rs Siddons played Elfrida in April 1785: see Thom as Campbell (1834), ii. 67.
F i g u r e 7.4 T he m onum ent to W illiam M ason in W estm inster Abbey,

London, sculpted by J. Bacon (1799). T he grieving w om an probably
depicts M elpom ene, the M use of Tragedy.
Antigone in 1770. T h e plays w ere translated into both ancient
G reek and L atin, m aking the reputation of at least one ‘G recian ’
at O xford.111 T h ey influenced the T eu to n ic revival in G erm any
through K lopstock’s Die Hermannschlacht (1769), a celebration of
the ancient G erm anic hero A rm inius, and w ere also translated into
French and Italian .112 T h ere was a vogue for M ason’s poetry in
A m erica in the early nineteenth century: besides an A m erican
edition, published at B altim ore in 1804, an article in The M onthly
Review of July 1808 declares th at M ason was one of the w riters
w ho had best ‘served the language’. As late as 1834 a literary critic
could declare G ray, M ason, and Collins the three best w riters of
odes in the E nglish ton gu e.113
M ason’s contribution to the Celtic revival was enorm ous, since
m any people learnt everything they knew about the D ruids from
Caractacus. T h e play inspired the foundation of a G ran d L odge of
the O rd er of D ruids at a tavern in central L ondon, follow ed in
1789 by a ‘C aractacan Society’.114 M ason was a freem ason, and
Caractacus m ay also have spoken to that (at that tim e) enlightened
organization. M oreover, the druidical chorus rem ained popular.
John F ish er’s M asque of the D ruids, com plete w ith a G reek-style
chorus, was a long-running success at C ovent G arden. Jam es
B oaden’s chorus of bards in Cam bro-Britons enjoyed a ru n in
1798 at the T h eatre Royal, H aym arket: A ct III, Scene v, set on
Snow don, dram atizes G ray ’s The Bard. E dw ard I has invaded
W ales, and, as a stage direction insists,
w ith a hideous yell, the Bards rush to the verge of the cliffs, and w ith
haggard form s, seen only by the glare of the torches they carry, like furies
pour out their execrations upon his head, in a full chorus to the harp
only.115
T w o years later W illiam Sotheby published his Cambrian Hero, or
Llew elyn the Great, w hich has a chorus of four druids, and as late as
111 Glasse (1781). On the visual arts see G ray’s letter of O ctober 1760 in John
M itford (1853), 224; on K auffm an’s picture, see Roworth (1992), 166, 186 and,
for an engraving possibly related to M ason’s Caractacus, 181; on Flaxman, see
Constable (1927), 6.
112 On K lopstock see D raper (1924), 9; see also M athias (1823).
113 See the Revd J. S. Buckminster, quoted in D raper (1924), 10 n. 45; Anon.
(1834), 553.
114 Snyder (1923), 238, 165, 157, 161.
115 See Snyder (1923), 11; Boaden (1798).
1808 a balletic version of Caractacus was perform ed at D ru ry
Lane. It opens on M ona w ith a chorus of h arp -strum m in g bards,
and concludes w ith another bardic chorus singing defiantly in the
R om an fo ru m .116 All these choruses ultim ately derive, via M ason,
from G reek tragedy.
M ason’s Caractacus rem ains confusing. It was enjoyed by
learned philologists and by the least educated theatregoers. Its
neoclassicism was felt to be form ally conservative, b u t it was
sim ultaneously progressive in the challenge it presented to u n crit
ical jingoism , and its suggestion th at the dem ocratic culture,
m usic, and religion of ancient B ritain w ere analogous w ith those
of the G reeks. It appealed both to sim plistic B ritish patriots and to
the m ost ard en t critics of the B ritish m onarchy and its policies in
A m erica, including a republican who will becom e significant in the
next chapter, the orientalist W illiam Jones: it was certainly
M ason’s play that in 1775 inspired this radical young W elshm an
to gaze across C onw ay Bay, and confide in his com panions that the
view thrilled him because it encom passed ‘the isle of A ngelsea, the
ancient M ona, w here m y ancestors presided over a free b u t unciv
ilized people’.1w
116 Anon. (1808), 10,12, 26. 117 Quoted in G arland Cannon (1970), i. 199.
8
Revolutionary Oedipuses
A nd ju st w hen they seem engaged in revolutionising them selves

and things, in creating som ething that has never yet existed,
precisely in such periods of revolutionary crisis they anxiously
conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from
them nam es, battle-cries and costum es in order to present the
new scene of w orld history in this tim e-honoured disguise and
this borrow ed language.
(K arl M arx, ‘T he E ighteenth B rum aire of Louis B onaparte’
Collected Works, xi. 103-4.)
In his account of the life of his friend W illiam W hitehead, the poet
and playw right W illiam M ason refers to an incom plete version of
Oedipus Tyrannus that he found am ongst W hitehead’s papers after
his death. M ason explains that although he him self w ent on to
finish his frien d ’s play, ‘I am , how ever, sufficiently convinced,
that the tim e for this, or any other tragedy founded on classical
story, to appear, is by no m eans the latter end of the eighteenth
cen tu ry ’.
T h ere was considerable m isgiving about the ‘E nglish’ Oedipus of
D ryden and Lee tow ards the end of the eighteenth century. W alter
S cott’s reference to a production som e tim e in the 1770s, during
w hich the boxes w ere em ptied by the end of the th ird act, is an
im portant illustration of a radical change in taste.2 T h e reason,
Scott im plies, was the m oral indignation felt by the m em bers of the
audience at the prom inence granted to the incest m otif in this
‘E nglish’ version of Sophocles’ play (see Ch. 1). A nd the fact that
G arrick had tu rn ed dow n a suggestion in 1754 to m o u n t a p ro d u c
tion of B eaum ont and F letch er’s A K ing and N o K ing on account
of its handling of incest m ig h t well lend credence to S cott’s claim .3
1 W hitehead (1788), 123 n.
2 According to A. W. W ard (1875), 516 n. 4, Scott is referring to a production
e.1778.
3 Lynch (1953), 345 n. 25 cites Thom as Davies (1784), ii. 41-9.
216 Revolutionary Oedipuses
Indeed there is m uch evidence to dem onstrate that the m oral
reservations about the O edipus story w ere to persist in varying
degrees throu g h o u t the next century, and w ere to cloud judgem ent
of the Sophoclean version well into the first decade of the tw entieth
century (see Ch. 18).
A lthough M ason is by no m eans specific about his conviction
that ‘the latter end of the eighteenth cen tu ry ’ is not ‘the tim e for
this, or any other tragedy founded on classical story, to appear’,
one m ight safely infer that changing public taste lurks som ew here
behind his reservations concerning the popularity of Sophocles’
tragedy. M ason’s recent success w ith Caractacus in 1776 w ould
lead us to believe that he was not denying the validity of classical
subjects per se (see Ch. 7). B ut the prevalence of classical m odels in
France at this tim e, as they w ere increasingly invoked in su pp o rt of
the revolutionary cause, m ay well have led M ason to have exer
cised som e caution in 1788. A nd w hilst the French revolutionaries
w ere to m ake very extensive use of R om an republican sym bols to
prom ote their cause, Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus was regularly
used in the latter p art of the eighteenth century in France in order
to explore the b u rn in g issues su rro un d in g the com peting rep u b
lican and m onarchical ideologies.4
Oedipus Tyrannus was the m ost frequently adapted and tran s
lated classical play in Franee from 1614 to 1818, durin g w hich tim e
approxim ately th irty adaptations and six translations w ere p u b
lished.3 Y et if this was the m ost favoured G reek tragedy in eight
eenth -cen tury France, that other sem inal A ristotelian text
discussed by A ndre D acier in 1692, Sophocles’ Electra, m ay be
considered the m ost favoured ancient play of the period in B ritain
(see Ch. 6). B ut w hat is not usually acknow ledged is the extent to
w hich scholars and w riters in B ritain w ere also engaged w ith
Oedipus Tyrannus in the latter p art of the eighteenth century. As
the ‘E nglish’ version of D ryden and Lee began to fall from favour
on m oral grounds, the French revolutionary associations of S opho
cles’ tragedy w ere being keenly felt in B ritain. M ason’s m isgivings
about airing his com pletion of W h iteh ead ’s Oedipus, then, m ust be
assessed against the background of changing social and political
4 Biet (1994), identifies six versions of Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus w ritten in

France between 1784 and 1818.
5 Ibid.
Revolutionary Oedipuses 217
contexts in France and B ritain, w hich w ere now prom oting radical
rereadings of Sophocles’ paradigm atic tragedy.
T h is chapter charts the late eighteenth-century refiguring of the
Sophoclean protagonist, w ho is now subject to increasing critical
scrutiny. O edipus had been adopted as a figure of the E n lighten
m ent as early as 1718, w hen V oltaire challenged D acier in claim ing
that the fifth-century O edipus’ curiosity was the only adm irable
quality he possessed.6 N ow that the lim its of E nlightenm ent th in k
ing w ere increasingly felt against the background of political tu r
m oil, it was perhaps inevitable th at O edipus’ trajectory from
apparent know ledge to a realization of actual ignorance should
becom e paradigm atic. M oreover, if D ryden and L ee’s O edipus
had been draw n in response to the ‘ignoble’ figure of C orneille’s
play, now the R estoration ‘noble’ O edipus was being toppled in
favour of an O edipus w ho was to dem onstrate traits im plicit in the
am bivalence of the tyrannos of the title; for Oedipus Tyrannos
points to both O edipus’ status as ‘o u tsid er’ (rather than hereditary
m onarch) b u t also serves as a rem inder of the ‘tyrannical’ conduct
that such rulers often displayed. In France, the revolutionary
versions of O edipus at this tim e grant new prom inence to an
interrogatory chorus, w hose function is prim arily to scrutinize
the behaviour of the tyrannos.7 W e have already heard of M ason’s
ow n co ntrib u tio n to the late eig hteenth-century discovery of the
form al functions of the G reek chorus in B ritain (see Ch. 7); and
w ith the second wave of B ritish R om antic H ellenism , and espe
cially throu gh Shelley’s ow n engagem ent w ith the O edipus m yth,
we shall see ju st how radically the subversive potential of an
interrogatory chorus was adopted in B ritain in the early p art of
the nineteenth century.
T H E ‘G R E E K ’ O E D I P U S I N B R I T A I N
T h e eighteenth-century reception of O edipus in B ritain is as m uch
about the prevalence and then decline in popularity of the ‘E n glish ’
Oedipus of D ryden and Lee as it is about the rediscovery of S opho
cles’ play. W hen A ndre D acier’s enorm ously influential translation
6 ‘Troisiem e Lettre, contenant la critique de l’CBdipe de Sophocle’: Voltaire

(1719), 103.
7 Biet (1994), esp. 124.
and com m entary on the Poetics, to w hich w ere appended transla
tions of Oedipus Tyrannus and Electra, was published in 1692,
it also generated interest in the tw o plays in B ritain (on Electra see
Ch. 6). It m ay well have been D acier’s com m entary that inspired
‘M r. L ow ’s Scholars’ to m o u n t tw o perform ances in ancient
G reek of Sophocles’ Oedipus on 1 and 4 A pril 1714 in M ile E nd
G reen, L o n d o n .8
M ore im portantly, for our purposes here, how ever, was the
extent to w hich D acier’s com m entary on the play was to provide a
counter to the perceptions of O edipus derived from the D ryden and
Lee version. A ccording to D acier, O edipus’ rashness and b lin d
ness, not the crim es of parricide and incest, are the causes of his
m isfortune. D acier’s guilty O edipus was in large m easure a re
sponse to C orneille’s reading of Sophocles; and C orneille’s
ultim ately ‘redeem ed’ O edipus, w hom D ryden had found weak
and vacillating and w ho was regularly appearing on the stage at
the C om edie-Frangaise, could not have been m ore different (see
Ch. 1). If D ryden and Lee had sought to im prove upon C orneille’s
protagonist, w hen the first English translation of Sophocles’ tra
gedy appeared in 1715 the reader found a protagonist cast in the
D acier ‘flaw ed’ m ould absolutely. T h e translator, Lew is T heobald,
fully acknow ledges his debts to D acier’s com m entary in the notes.
E xplaining O edipus’ conduct in the scene w ith T iresias, he adds:
T he prophet at first refused to do it [i.e. tell the truth], but provok’d at last
by the severe language of O edipus, he accuses him of the m urder of Laius.
H ow ever, in T h eo b ald ’s translation, we have not only an O edipus
w ith flaws; we also find a T iresias w ho provides a robust defence
of his im m unity from the overw eening pride of an insouciant
m onarch:
W hat though you awe the Crow d w ith Regal Pow ’r,
I have a right of speech, as uncontroul’d,
A nd large, as any boasted L ord of Empire!
I serve not thee, b u t am Apollo’s Priest
N or e’er shall court the patronage of C reon.10
W ith C reon, m oreover, T h eo b ald ’s O edipus is rem inded that his
pow ers of regency are by no m eans unlim ited:
8 L S ii/1. 319; see Ch. 9, p. 246. 9 Theobald (1715d), 73.
10 Ibid., 11. 231-5.
Oedipus: Still I ’ve a m onarch’s right to rule thy Fate.
Creon: N o lawless R ight ov’r me, a Prince, as thou art.11
T h a t T h eo b ald ’s translation is a m agnification of D acier’s reading
cannot be overem phasized; and it is instructive to com pare the
m arkedly less strid ent prose translation of G eorge A dam s, w hich
appeared in 1729, w here T iresias’ declaration of independence
from the king is far less robust:
T houg h you are K ing, it is but just that I answ er you w ith the same
Freedom w hich you use in speaking to me. I am not your Subject, but
Apollo’s, neither will I em ploy Creon to protect m e.12
C om pare too the b itter exchange betw een O edipus and C reon, in
w hich A dam s’s O edipus is far less overbearing than T h eo b a ld ’s
im perious m onarch:
Oedipus: But you are a wicked M an.
Creon: But w hat if these are the D ictates of Blind passion?
Oedipus: Yes even then I may use m y Power.
Creon: No, unless you use it law fully.13
A slightly m ore intem perate O edipus is found som e years later
in T hom as F rancklin’s translation of 1758. F rancklin’s text
appeared the year before C harlotte L en n ox ’s translation of Pere
B rum oy’s Theatre des Grecs (Paris, 1730), and dem onstrates som e
of the historical aw areness of G reek dram a th a t inform s B rum oy’s
Preface. In a note, for exam ple, on the interchange betw een Creon
and O edipus, he notes D acier’s unease w ith C reon’s ‘republican
sen tim en t’ and adds: ‘ . .. w ere an E nglishm an to com m ent on this
passage, he w ould perhaps be of a direct contrary opinion, and
prefer the sentim ent of Sophocles to that of the French critic’.14
H ow ever, the language of the translation is broadly dom estic,
and even acts of sedition are devoid of contem porary resonance:
Oedipus: A udacious T raitor, thinkst thou to escape
T h e hand of vengeance?
Tiresias: Yes, I fear thee not;
For tru th is stronger than a tyrant’s arm .15
Elsew here Francklin praises the superiority of m odern over an
cient tragedy w ith reference to its ‘judicious descent from the
11 Ibid., 11. 133-6. 12 Adams (1729), i. 189. 13 Ibid. 200.
14 Francklin (1758), ii. 221. 15 Ibid. 203.
advantages of dem i-gods, kings and heroes, into the h u m b ler walk
of private life, w hich is m ore interesting to the generality of m an
k in d .’16 A nd there is a sense in w hich Francklin in his translation
of Oedipus Tyrannus has taken Sophocles’ tragedy of state ‘into the
h u m b ler walk of private life.’ W hen F rancklin’s O edipus is w ith
C reon, for exam ple, the protagonist sounds less the haughty au to
crat than the exhausted patriarch w hose insubordinate dependants
have w orn him down:
Oedipus'. A king m ust be obey’d.
Creon: N o t if his orders are unjust.
Oedipus: O Thebes!
O Citizens!
Creon: I too can call on Thebes,
She is m y country.17
B rum oy in his com m entary, even m ore than Francklin in his,
was at pains to em phasize the very different political circum stances
in w hich G reek tragedy had been developed. As early as 1674,
Rene R apin had noted the m odern French preference for gallantry
and sentim ent in com parison w ith w hat he considers the ancient
G reek delight in the hum iliation of kings.18 A lthough B rum oy was
not the only m odern com m entator to highlight the challenges to
kingship that w ere contained w ithin m any of the ancient G reek
tragedies, he was nonetheless the first to go so far as to im ply that
G reek tragedy provided, for its fifth-century-B C audiences, an
object lesson in the evils of k ingship.19
Francklin in his translation of 1759 m ay well have been reflect
ing in his p o rtrait of T iresias the anti-clericalism he shared w ith
V oltaire, w hose Oreste he was to translate for the E nglish stage in
1769 (see Ch. 6). B ut as som eone w ho was to becom e an ardent
friend of the future G eorge III, Francklin w ould have bridled at
the possibility of allow ing his O edipus to serve as the target for any
anti-royalist sentim ents.
It is, perhaps, by no m eans fortuitous that F rancklin’s tran sla
tion of Oedipus Tyrannus, w hich was broadly unaffected by any
French ‘p ro to -rep ub lican ’ readings of Sophocles’ tragedy, w ent on
to be rep rin ted in a collected volum e of F rancklin’s translations of
Sophocles that appeared in 1788. B ut no less surprising, perhaps,
16 Francklin (1758), i. 57 n. 17 Ibid. ii. 221-2.
18 Rapin (1674), ch. XX, 182. 19 See Brumoy in Lennox (1759), vol. i, p. cix.
was the appearance that year of a second collection of The Traged
ies of Sophocles translated by R obert Potter.
P o tter explains in the Preface, w ritten on 18 F ebruary 1788, how
he had delayed publication of his ow n translations of Sophocles
because of the existence of D r F ran ck lin ’s w ork. A request, how
ever, from an ‘illustrious’ person had persuaded him to publish his
ow n translations. P o tter had already been responsible for in tro d u
cing G reekless readers to A eschylus, w ith his collected volum e of
1777 (see Ch. 7), in w hich he identified, am ongst other things, a
concern for liberty, virtue, and religion in the A eschylean
choruses.20 H ere in his 1788 volum e of Sophocles, P o tter explains
that O edipus is n o t im pious at all; his excesses, he avers, are all
explicable. In P o tter’s reading, O edipus’ faults are not personal,
because the Sophoclean tragedy is sim ply a tragedy of fate. W ith
this m etaphysical reading of the play, P o tter’s Oedipus K ing of
Thebes is very far from F ran ck lin ’s dom estic tragedy. In the P ref
ace, he com pares A eschylus to an im pregnable castle on a rock;
E uripides to a G othic tem ple w ith dim light effusing throu g h the
w indow ; and Sophocles to an im perial palace w ith perfect sym
m etry. A nd in his translation, O edipus ‘Sovreign of T hebes, Im
perial O edipus’,21 is a conscientious king, w ho defers to his people
w hen u n der pressure: ‘I know thee wise and good’, he tells the
chorus w hen they urge m oderation during his altercation w ith
C reon, ‘w hy then persist | T h u s to depress m e, and to dam p m y
heart?’22 P o tter’s chorus is no cow ering body, b u t reply to their
dignified sovereign w ith confidence and authority: ‘L et m e repeat
w hat I before declared. | K now then, O k in g . .. \ 23
In part, P otter is responding to the earlier critical readings of
O edipus proffered by D acier and T heobald, ju st as Francklin (less
explicitly) m ay well have been. B ut P o tter (urged by his ‘illu stri
ous’ friend) was also no d o ub t seeking to redress other, less o rth o
dox, French readings that w ere in ready circulation in B ritain in
the 1780s. W hether the decision to bring out a new edition of
F rancklin’s collection th a t year was due to com m ercial and/or
personal pressures (F rancklin was clearly not devoid of personal
am bition; see Ch. 6), is hard to determ ine. B ut given the tim ing of
both these collections, it is perhaps not difficult to infer th at their
20 Potter (1777), p. ix. 21 Potter (1788), 1.

22 Ibid. 37 . 23 Ibid.
appearance was designed in no sm all m easure to counter the other
startlingly different engagem ents w ith Sophocles’ tragedy that had
begun to em erge in B ritain in the previous decade.
DR PARR AND HIS PU PILS

In 1779 the poet and orientalist T hom as M aurice of U niversity
College, O xford published a volum e of Poems and Miscellaneous
Pieces with a free translation o f the Oedipus Tyrannus o f Sophocles.
In the forew ord to the volum e as a w hole, M aurice proclaim ed that
the purpose of tragedy is to ‘expose to public detestation those
vices, to w hich the distinguished rank of the offender .. . m ay have
given a long and secure dom inion over the h u m an m in d .’24 T h is is
G reek tragedy cast in the B rum oy m ould: a public expose of
aristocratic venality, w hich social divisions have for too long oc
cluded from public scrutiny.
T h e Preface to the translation is generally recognized as the
w ork of Sam uel Johnson rather than M aurice him self.2S B ut it is
none the less of note, for it offers in m any ways a reading of
Sophocles’ play as it is m ediated throu g h M aurice. W hen Johnson
com es to discuss the character of O edipus, he com m ents that the
protagonist’s conduct is
by no m eans as irreproachable as some have contended . . . H is character,
even as a king, is not free from the im putation of im prudence, and our
opinion of his piety is greatly invalidated by his contem ptuous treatm ent
of the wise, the benevolent, the sacred T iresias.26
A lthough the observations here m ay well partly recall the earlier
readings of D acier and T heobald, w hen Johnson continues
his explication of O edipus’ conduct, we enter m arkedly different
terrain:
By m aking him [Oedipus] crim inal in a small degree, and m iserable in a
very great one, by investing him w ith some excellent qualities, and some
im perfections, he [Sophocles] at once inclines us to pity and to condem n.
H is obstinacy darkens the lustre of his other virtues; it aggravates his
im piety, and alm ost justifies his sufferings.
24 M aurice (1779), sig. A2r.
25 See Greene (1984), p. xxiv; and the Preface is reprinted here, 588—90. All
citations in this chapter, however, are taken instead from M aurice (1779).
26 M aurice (1779), 150.
27 Ibid. 151.
W hen M aurice’s ‘crim inal’ O edipus confronts C reon w ith his
b ro th er-in -law ’s alleged treachery, we could ju st as easily be
listening to the w ords of C reon him self in confrontation w ith
Sophocles’ eponym ous heroine in the Antigone:
Oedipus: T hou traitor!
Creon: B ut thou hast not prov’d m e such.
Oedipus: A bsolute is a king, and his com m ands
M ust be obey’d.
Creon: If founded on injustice,
T hey ought to be resisted unto death.
Oedipus: T hebes, hearst thou this?
Creon: Yes, hears and trium phs too.
I am her son; she taught m y infant soul
T he glorious precept.28
Johnson makes it clear in the preface th a t this is a ‘free’ translation,
‘not fettered by .. . [the] text, [but] guided by it’. It was, m oreover,
‘professedly w ritten on very different principles’ from D r F ran ck
lin ’s, ‘by w hose excellent perform ance he [M aurice] has been
anim ated and instru cted ’. M aurice’s ow n text, he insists w ryly,
catches instead ‘at the capricious taste of the day’.29
Indeed, w hen we tu rn to the translation, we are especially struck
by M aurice’s reflection of the ‘capricious taste’ of the next few
years. In the encounter betw een T iresias and O edipus, for
exam ple, as the blind priest clings to the principle of tru th in a
ty ran t’s w orld, he articulates a view point that is to becom e increas
ingly pro m inen t in political discourse in the early 1790s:
Oedipus: M iscreant, and hop’st thou for this daring insult
T o go unscourged?
Tiresias: T yrant, I scorn thy threats;
T ru th is my fortress, and, against thy power,
G irds me, as w ith a coat of adam ant.
H ere in the bitter exchange betw een C row n and accused, we
w itness a debate th at was to com e centre stage during the treason
trials of the p erio d.31 In his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice
(1793), W illiam G odw in confidently proclaim s:
28 Ibid. 189 . 29 Ibid. 151-2. 30 Ibid. 174.

31 On which generally, see Goodwin (1979).
... sound reasoning and truth, w hen adequately com m unicated, m ust
always be victorious over error: sound reasoning and tru th are capable of
being so com m unicated. T ru th is om nipotent.32
As M aurice’s T iresias continues to conduct his defence against the
C row n, he seem s m ore than aw are of the validity of G odw in’s
principle:
Oedipus: Shall thy tongue spit forth its dark abuse
A gainst thy sovereign?
Tiresias: I regard thee not,
W hile tru th rem ains m y shield.33
M aurice’s em boldened T iresias, arm ed w ith T ru th , know s that he
will overcom e royal excess because in reality he is n o t inferior to
his adversary:
Tiresias: W hat, though a m ighty em pire w ait thy nod,
A m onarch is but m an, and I, as m an
A m not inferior to the proudest prince.34
O ne such ‘T iresias’ at the centre of the treason trials of the 1790s
was the W est Indian radical of Irish descent, Joseph G errald. In
Scotland in 1792, G errald was one of tw o m em bers of the L ondon
C orresponding Society w ho w ere arrested in E dinburgh, together
w ith the secretary of the Society of the Friends of the People, and
charged w ith sedition. W hen G errald appeared in court in M arch
1794, he refused to answ er the charges b u t took the o p po rtu n ity to
continue to advocate political reform . H e was sentenced to fo u r
teen years’ tran spo rtation to A ustralia, w here he m et a tragic and
p rem atu re d eath .35 In the sam e year in E ngland, the assistant
counsel for the defence, Felix V aughan defended T hom as H ardy,
secretary of the L ondon C orresponding Society, against the charge
of treason. D ebate a b o u t‘T ru th ’ was central to all the treason trials
of the early 1790s, ju st as it rings out loudly in the show trial of
T iresias in M aurice’s version som e thirteen years earlier. T h e
conjunction of these nam es and circum stances is not w ithout sig
nificance, for all three m en, M aurice, G errald, and V aughan w ere
pupils of the charism atic headm aster, D r Sam uel Parr, dubbed
‘the W hig D r Jo hn so n ’, during his tim e at Stanm ore School.36
32 Godwin (1793), Bk. I, ch. 5, p. 140. 33 M aurice (1779), 175.
34 Ibid. 177. 35 For an account of G errald’s life, see O D N B xxi. 958—9.
36 D erry (1966).
W e do not know for sure w hat P a rr’s views on Sophocles’
tragedy w ere, b u t we can safely infer that M aurice’s version
w ould not have com e about w ithout P a rr’s tutelage.37 In his p ref
ace, M aurice m akes it clear that his translation dates from som e
years previously; and it is no coincidence that Oedipus Tyrannus
was staged by P a rr’s pupils in G reek at his school in Stanm ore in
1776. Indeed, included in M aurice’s collection, is the prologue
w ritten (but not used) for the school’s pro d uctio n of the Trachiniae
in G reek. Som e of the costum es had been procured from G arrick,
w ho was a great su pp orter of am ateur dram atics and w ho had been
prevailed upon throu g h the interm ediary services of L angton
B ennet;38 others were designed by P arr him self from his researches,
and w ere m ade by his wife. T h e accents of the pupils w ere perfected
w ith the aid of the nephew of the P atriarch of C onstantinople, John
Nikolai'des, w hose assistance had been secured by the m ediation of
P a rr’s close friend, the political radical and founder of com parative
philology, the orientalist W illiam Jones.
A lthough G arrick him self was not able to be present at the
perform ance, m any em inent scholars w ere m em bers of the au d i
ence at this rare pro d uctio n of a play in G reek .39 A m ongst those
present was G eorge H enry G lasse, w ho w ent on som e years later to
translate both M ason’s Caractacus into G reek verse, and (w ith
P a rr’s assistance) M ilto n ’s Samson Agonistes .40 G lasse m ay well
have been disappointed at P a rr’s decision to om it the choruses,
w hich w ere the focus of m uch critical attention during this period
and w ere later in the year to be seen on stage in the production of
Caractacus at C ovent G arden in D ecem ber (see Ch. 7). T h e
om ission of the chorus at Stanm ore, m oreover, was som ew hat
surprising since P arr him self was know n to be very interested in
choric m etre and ‘had also been seen plucking at the strings of a
cello and to this accom panim ent lustily chanting choruses from
37 M aurice (1822), n.p. makes this debt explicit, when he dedicates his second
edition to Parr: ‘M y preceptor in youth and my firm friend in m ore advanced life.
This free translation... commenced under his auspices and [is] sanctioned by his
approbation.’
58 Ibid. 27; M otter (1944), 63-75.
39 T here is, perhaps, some suggestion in Butler (1896), i. 28 that the Medea was
perform ed in Greek at Rugby a little later in 1798. Thanks to Paul N aiditch for this
reference.
40 D erry (1966), 27 n.
A eschylus’.41 B ut although P arr believed passionately in the value
of perform ance, the plays w ere for him ‘the m ost difficult [yet]
honorable of school business’.42
If the chorus was too difficult to get right in perform ance,
enactm ent of the episodes of G reek tragedy was clearly a highly
effective way of executing this ‘m ost difficult and honorable of
school business.’ O ne other im portant way in w hich P arr chose
to enliven the arduous task was to teach the plays w ith reference to
other m odern im itations; and so, according to M aurice, w ith ‘the
Oedipus Tyrannus, all the pathetic ejaculations of M ilton, relative
to his blindness, w ere adduced to increase the interest, from P ara
dise Lost and Sam son Agonistes.’ A nd P arr was allegedly so
affecting and effective w ith his range of references, th a t he w ould
regularly reduce his pupils to tears, ‘ .. . and, I believe, none who
heard them ever after forgot th em .’43
W hilst it m ight seem from this anecdotal evidence that P a rr’s
pupils w ere being urged to sym pathize w ith rather than scrutinize
the actions of Sophocles’ protagonist, it m ust be em phasized that
the focus on a chastened O edipus was not in any way incom patible
w ith the revolutionary readings. In M arie-Joseph C h en ier’s
CEdipe-Roi, for exam ple (w ritten around 1811 b u t published p o st
hum ously in 1818), O edipus is transform ed from tyrannical king of
the ancien regime to a m an at w ar w ith the tyrannical side of his
nature by the end of the play. A nd it m ay well be th at P a rr was
offering a sim ilar reading w ith his M iltonic parallels, w hich proved
unforgettable and w hich reduced his pupils to tears.
O ne pupil w ho never forgot his learning at the feet of P arr was
G errald, w ho, having suffered terrible privation follow ing a sen
tence of fourteen years’ tran spo rtation and now on his deathbed,
pronounced: ‘I shall die the pupil of Sam uel P a rr.’44 G errald had
appeared in the p art of O edipus som e tw enty years earlier at
S tanm ore School ‘w ith an unfaltering eloquence and m oving
pathos that excited general ad m iratio n.’45 As a b arrister in A m er
ica, he w ould have m ade use of that aptitude for ‘unfaltering
eloquence’; b u t it was as a political radical on his retu rn to B ritain
and at his trial in Scotland, in particular, that he was to com bine
41 D erry (1966), 27. 42 Parr, cit. ibid. 26.
43 M aurice, cit. Johnstone (1828), i. 212.
44 L etter to William Phillips, 16 May 1795, cit. ibid. 455.
45 D erry (1966), 27.
‘unfaltering eloquence and m oving p atho s’, w hich was once m ore
to earn him ‘general adm iration’.46 W illiam G odw in was one who
was especially affected as friend and ally of G errald; and he was so
m oved by his frien d ’s fate after having visited him in prison th at he
rew rote the conclusion of his ow n O edipal novel Caleb W illiams
(1794), because its pessim ism was too evocative of G errald ’s own
end.47 T h e parallels in the novel w ith Sophocles’ tragedy are
m any: distem per/plague, real and social, pervades the novel;
Caleb is guilty of u nintentional ‘parricid e’ in his search to discover
the ‘tru th ’ about Falkland; and tow ards the end he is tem porarily
rew arded w ith the ‘p rize’ of a m other-figure to w hom he is
strongly physically attracted, an episode that heralds the denoue
m ent. It is by no m eans fortuitous th at G odw in had read V oltaire’s
CEdipe and H orace W alpole’s play dealing w ith m other—son incest,
The M ysterious M other (1768) d u rin g the novel’s com position.48
W hilst P a rr’s sym pathy for the victim s of repressive policies
rem ained unerring, and although he had danced round the ‘T ree
of L ib erty ’ follow ing the fall of the Bastille, he nonetheless stopped
short of endorsing w hat he saw as ‘the cruel execution of the
u nhapp y p rince’ in F rance.49 M oreover, he had urged caution on
his one-tim e w ayw ard pupil, G errald (w hom he had reluctantly
expelled from Stanm ore for som e ‘ex trem e’ indiscretion);50 and he
m ay well have detected a strong dose of O edipus’ im petuosity in
his form er p u p il’s m akeup as G errald now once again declined to
heed his beloved m aster’s advice and to flee before his trial. T h at
G errald rem ained a favourite to the end is testified by P a rr’s strong
(albeit vain) efforts on G errald ’s behalf, the financial su p p o rt he
offered him personally (w hich G errald failed to receive),51 and by
his com m itm ent to the education of G errald ’s son follow ing his
fath er’s death.
Indeed, P arr was surrogate father to a generation of radicals w ho
cam e into prom inence during the 1790s. As young boys, they had
been am ongst the forty pupils of H arrow School w ho had followed
46 G errald’s reputation was long-lived for in 1832 his nam e was included with the
‘Scottish m artyrs’ on the banners in the streets of Edinburgh (ibid. 158).
47 Hindle (1988), pp. xxvii f.
48 Ibid., p. xxxvi.
49 Cit. D erry (1966), 27.
50 So Johnstone (1828), i. 453-4.
51 See letter to M r W indham, 8 May 1795 cit. ibid. 451.
P arr to Stanm ore in 1771, in the wake of w hat has been called the
‘P arr rebellion’, w hen his pro-W ilkes sym pathies had failed to
secure him the headm astership of H arro w .52 P arr was to rem ain a
cham pion of liberty way beyond his years as assistant m aster at
H arrow , during his tim e as H eadm aster of Stanm ore (w hich folded
in 1777 ow ing to a falling roll), C olchester, and later N orw ich
G ram m ar School. In 1793 P a rr’s endorsem ent of G odw in’s E n
quiry concerning Political Justice (advocating revolution w ithout
violence), w hich was conveyed to G odw in through the m ediation
of G errald, was m ost w elcom e to the author. W hen the tw o m en
m et the follow ing year through their shared anxieties over
G errald ’s fate at his forthcom ing trial, it was clear that as a liberal
churchm an P arr was likely to prove a problem to a visionary
rationalist like G odw in. P arr, m oreover, found G odw in’s doctrine
of universal benevolence, w hich privileged the public good over all
natural h um an affections, untenable. Som e years later on 15 A pril
1800, P arr delivered his fam ous Spital Serm on in w hich he set out,
in very broad term s, his objections to G odw in’s Enquiry. G odw in’s
reply the follow ing year registers m ore than a degree of d isappoint
m ent at having to respond to criticism from som eone w ith ‘gen er
osity o f . . . sentim ents and . . . w arm th o f . .. tem p er’; for ju st as
G errald had felt the need of P a rr’s blessing until the end, so
m any radicals in som e O edipal sense also needed the endorsem ent
of th eir W hig father figure.53
P A R R ’S L E G A C Y
In his L ife o f Shelley, T hom as Jefferson H ogg speculates on a
m eeting betw een P arr, the W hig divine, and Shelley, the atheist
and rebel.34 If the tensions betw een the 1790s radicals and P arr
were palpable and required indulgence on all sides, now H ogg in
1858 m ore than acknow ledged the clash of generations, w hich
w ould have precluded any fruitful interchange. W hilst those div
isions m ay have been acute on a personal level, P a rr’s legacy is
none the less still evident in the philhellenism of Shelley and his
generation. E ven if P a rr’s im p rin t is not felt in an im m ediate and
obvious sense, the m ediating influence of his pupils, and m ost
52 D erry (1966), IS. 53 Ibid. 160-1. See further Godwin (1801), 20.
s4 Thom as Jefferson Hogg (1906), 429—30.
definitely th at of M aurice, can be gauged in Shelley’s engagem ents
w ith G reek tragic form .
P a rr’s ow n broader influence on the second generation of B ritish
R om antics was long and persisten t and can be felt m ost keenly in
1820—1, w hen the paths of both P arr and Shelley intersect w ith the
publication of Shelley’s version of Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus.
In M ay of 1821, during the crisis w ith Q ueen C aroline, a satirical
cartoon entitled ‘L ucifera’s Procession’ based on a scene from
S penser’s Faerie Queene ( I . iv. 12-51) was published (see
Fig. 8 .1).55 It depicts the carriage of Q ueen C aroline on the road
signposted to R uin, being draw n by six ‘sage C ounsellors’ riding on
various anim als. W ith A lderm an W ood (L o rd M ayor of L ondon)
having fallen from his ass, Sam uel P arr finds him self riding on a
pig at the head of a procession of the reform ing W higs, who
rallied round the Q ueen durin g her public confrontation w ith her
F i g u r e 8.1 Lucifera’s Procession. Fairy Queen, engraving by G. H u m

phrey, 12 M ay 1821, depicting Q ueen C aroline as Lucifera in a coach
draw n by her supporters.
55 George (1952), x, no. 14182.
estranged husband, G eorge IV. Parr, labelled ‘loathsom e G luttony’,
is follow ed by L o rd G rey on a goat, H en ry B rougham on a wolf, Sir
Francis B urdett on a lion, and finally Barnes of The Times astride
a cam el. T h is caricature was designed to trivialize the sizeable
su pp o rt in the country for the Q ueen in her opposition to G eorge
IV, w ho had acceded to the throne in January 1820 follow ing the
death of his father, G eorge III.
G eorge IV had tried to dissolve his m arriage on grounds of
adultery in o rd er to prevent C aroline from becom ing queen.
Since the alleged adultery had occurred abroad in Italy, she
could not be accused in a B ritish court; instead her trial had been
conducted in the H ouse of L ords. T h e m arriage of C aroline of
Brunsw ick and Prince G eorge had never been a happy one: he had
fam ously rejected her at first sight; and after som e tim e in Black -
heath, she had m oved to Italy, from w here she had retu rn ed in
June 1820 in order to take up her right to the th ro n e.56 T h e reason
w hy P arr and o ther radicals supp o rted C aroline was that the K ing,
a notorious philanderer, had set about a cam paign of vilification
designed to prevent her from receiving her official title as m on
arch. W hat rankled w ith b o th the radicals and the general public
was that G eorge had sought to accuse his wife of an alleged ad u l
terous relationship w ith an Italian count (depicted in ‘L ucifera’s
Procession’ as Satan, the w hip-w ielding driver of the coach), w hen
the K ing him self was the m ost inveterate serial ad u lterer that the
H anoverians had yet been able to produce.
W hen C aroline landed on the English coast in June 1820, she
was feted all the way to L ondon. T h e radicals seized the o p po r
tunity to capitalize on this grow ing opposition to the K ing, and
P arr was prom in en t on her side from the sum m er of 1820 onw ards,
w hen he spent som e m onths as her first chaplain and a m ost tru sted
adviser. It was only ill health th at caused him to leave L ondon ju st
before the opening of her trial on 17 A ugust. H ow ever, his associ
ation w ith the trial rem ained strong: a w itness for the defence
W illiam G ell, who had served the Q ueen for som e tim e in Italy,
was another form er pupil of P a rr’s; and P arr had assisted
B rougham w ith his closing speech for the defence, w ith its parallels
betw een C aroline and O ctavia, the equally ill-fated wife of N ero .57
56 For a sym pathetic account of Queen Caroline, see Fraser (1996).

57 D erry (1966), 322.
If Parr is being vilified as a bloated glutton by the royalist cam p
in the cartoon, the irony was, of course, that the label was far better
fitted to G eorge him self. P a rr’s erysipelas— an inflam m atory dis
ease w hich causes an especially heightened red face— m ade the
porcine parallel (and the allusion to the em blem atic figure of
G luttony in S p enser’s poem ) cruelly apt. B ut the decision to
have P arr m ounted upon a pig, book in hand, had ju st as m uch to
do w ith his political affiliations as it did w ith any physical a ttri
butes, or w ith any allegedly shared appetitive proclivities. It was,
of course, E d m u n d B urke in his anti-revolutionary Reflections on
the French Revolution (1790), w ho had m ade the connection b e
tw een the m ob in France and the ‘sw inish m u ltitu d e’ explicit. Very
soon the term becam e a by-w ord for both the populace and the
radicals w ho acted on th eir behalf.58 N ow in the cartoon of M ay
1821, P arr is show n to be ludicrously in league w ith the porcine
populace in his defence of the Q ueen.
T h e im age of C aroline’s six ‘Sage C ounsellors’ astride various
anim als is echoed in a caricature of A pril 1821, depicting her
alleged Italian lover B artolom eo Pergam i astride a she-goat w ith
the head of C aroline herself (see Fig. 8.2).59 A n earlier painting by
C arloni entitled ‘T h e Public E n try of the Q ueen into Jerusalem ’
portraying the Q ueen on an ass, was exhibited in L ondon and
pilloried throu g h o u t 1821.60 Sim ilar caricatures undo u b ted ly lie
behind the final scene of Shelley’s slightly earlier radical rew orking
of these events, Oedipus Tyrannus; or, Swellfoot the T yrant (1820).
In the final scene of Shelley’s play, Iona T au rin a (C aroline) puts
on ‘boots and spurs, and a hunting cap, buckishly cocked on one side,
and tucking up her hair, she leaps nimbly on . . . [the] back' of the
new ly em erged Ionian M inotaur, who proudly proclaim s:
I am the Ionian M inotaur, the m ightiest
O f all E uropa’s taurine progeny—
I am the old traditional m an-bull;
A nd from m y ancestors having been Ionian,
I am called Ion, which, by interpretation,
Is John; in plain T heban, that is to say,
M y nam e’s John B u ll... 61
58 M ichael Simpson (1998), 247. 59 George (1952), x, no. 14171.

60 Ibid., p. xxiv. 61 Shelley (1970), 409, I I . ii. 103-9.
Fl G U R E 8.2 The Como-cal Hobby, engraving by G. H um phrey, 20 A pril

1821. Bartolom eo Pergam i astride a she-goat w ith the head of Q ueen
Caroline.
B ut Shelley’s M in o tau r is not the rakish Italian count of contem

porary caricatures; as Ion, the M in o tau r here is, of course, the
foundling who discovers he is tru e ruler of B ritain.62 As John
62 Shelley (1970), 409, 11. 117-19.
Bull, m oreover, the M inotaur is the restored spirit of the oppressed
w orking classes of E ngland; and the play ends w ith the Q ueen,
m ounted upon the M inotaur, leading her ‘loyal pigs’ in the h u nt
against the K ing and his ‘ugly badgers’, ‘stinking foxes’,
‘devouring otters, | T hese hares, these wolves, these any thing
b u t m en.’63
Shelley’s play was begun in A ugust 1820, som e tim e after the
beginning of C aroline’s trial for alleged adultery in the H ouse of
L ords. It was published in S eptem ber (w hen the trial was still
going on) by the radical publisher Jam es Johnson, b u t was w ith
draw n on threat of prosecution after only seven copies had been
sold.64 Follow ing C aroline’s acquittal in N ovem ber, there was
w idespread celebration in the streets of L ondon for three days
and three nights. A lthough the follow ing year on 19 July, the
people w ere to show little concern w hen C aroline was locked out
from W estm inster A bbey durin g the coronation (a traum atic event
from w hich she never recovered, and w hich led ultim ately to her
death nineteen days later), w hen Shelley was w riting his play, the
prospect of an end to H anoverian rule and even the em ergence of a
B ritish republic w ere far from utopian ideals.65
A lthough Shelley’s play was not intended for im m ediate p er
form ance, its status as ‘closet’ dram a does not in any sense deny its
potential for perform ance. As w ith m any of his plays, its p lot ‘can
be read to recom m end a direct political m aterialization of [the
tex t’s] im peratives.’66 H is Oedipus Tyrannus, m oreover, displays
both an acute aw areness of the G reek play in its original p e r
form ative context as well as broadly sim ilar preoccupations to
those found in recent F ren ch refigurations of Sophocles’ tragedy.
As the subtitle Swellfoot the T yrant show s, Shelley was very m uch
in tun e w ith the am biguities inherent in the tyrannos of the G reek
title; and, as we shall find, he is m ore than interested in the role of
an interrogatory, participating chorus.
W e have already heard of M ason’s aesthetic experim ents at the
end of the eighteenth century w ith the G reek chorus (see Ch. 7).
63 Cf. Ch. 11 on T alfourd’s Ion (1836), which is heavily indebted to Shelley and
to Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus.
64 W ebb (1977), 88.
65 For similar conclusions from different perspectives, see Paul Foot (1980) and
Fraser (1996).
66 M ichael Simpson (1998), 2.
B ut it was perhaps P a rr’s pupil T hom as M aurice in particular w ho
provided Shelley w ith a m odel for his politicized choruses. In
M aurice’s play, The F all of the M ogul, A Tragedy, Founded on an
Interesting Portion o f Indian H istory, and A ttem pted P artly on the
Greek M odel (1806), his m ain source is the study N a d ir Shah
(1773),67 by P a rr’s life-long friend W illiam Jones. T h e ‘G reek
M odel’ to w hich M aurice refers in the title is above all A eschylus’
Persians, the tragedy that lies behind Shelley’s H ellas (see Ch. 9).
B ut there are echoes of the O edipal archetype too in the fall of the
tyrant and in the struggle betw een the tru e-b o rn son and heir
versus the interloper.
M aurice’s use of the Persians, how ever, is not the only point of
com parison w ith Shelley’s play. M aurice’s use of tw o highly o p
positional and politically critical and subversive choruses is a
device adopted by Shelley as well in his version of Sophocles
Oedipus Tyrannus. T h e m ain chorus of B rahm in priests in The
Fall o f the M ogul decry their brutal subjection u n der the M ogul
E m pire at the outset:
Full thirty centuries have seen the race,
W ho boast from Brahm a their sublim e descent,
B eneath a foreign despot’s iron scourge
Bend their reluctant neck.
T h e play closes w ith this sam e B rahm in chorus threatening N adir
w ith eventual revenge w hen ‘A thousand furies shall thy bosom
w ring’,69 bringing about the Fall of the M ogul E m pire and the
liberation of the H ind u people of India. By identifying the G reek
chorus w ith contem porary eastern groups (H indus and in the case
of the second chorus Z oroastrians) oppressed by Islam , M aurice is
not only transferring the philological m odel of Indo-E uropean
linguistic genealogy (invented by Jones) to fit a w ider notion of
shared culture and ideals; he is also show ing how the form of the
G reek chorus can be fairly transferred to different groups as a
poetic vehicle for dissent, and especially politically radical descent.
Shelley had already translated E u rip id es’ Cyclops in 1819, and
had very recently published his sequel to A eschylus’ Prometheus
Bound; these both lie behind his treatm ent of Oedipus Tyrannus,
w hich he began in the sum m er of 1820. It is u ndoubtedly the play’s
67 M aurice (1806), p. x. On Jones, see Franklin (1995), pp. xv—xxx.
68 M aurice (1806), 30. 69 Ibid. 126.
deliberate generic hybridity that has led to m uch critical confu
sion.70 Shelley’s w itty subversion of the R om antic cult of the
discovery of an ancient (forged) text (see Ch. 7), is exploited
from the outset w ith the title page proclaim ing his play a ‘T ra
gedy . . . T ranslated from the original D o ric.’ T h e play begins as a
parodic rew orking of Oedipus Tyrannus, w ith the state of T hebes
afflicted by fam ine (although here the overbloated tyran t and his
court are m iraculously untouched by the fam ine). Sim ilarly recog
nizable is the subsequent scene betw een M am m on (T iresias) and
P urganax (C reon/the Foreign Secretary, L o rd C astlereagh, whose
nam e is alluded to in ‘purg -an ax ’/ ‘castle-reagh’), d uring w hich the
oracle (also the epigraph to the play) is sounded loudly: ‘Boeotia,
choose reform or civil war! | W hen through thy streets, instead of
hare w ith dogs, | A C onsort Q ueen shall h u n t a K ing w ith hogs, |
R iding on the Ionian M in o tau r’.71
W ith this first m ention of the troublesom e Q ueen, we enter into
o ther non-Sophoclean territory, w ith Q ueen Iona T au rin a
recalling A eschylus’ persecuted Io in Prometheus Bound, chased
throu g h o ut E urope by a L eech, a G adfly, and a Rat, w ho have
spied upon her every m ove. A nd w ith the appearance of the
G adfly, we have a w itty parody of Io ’s pitiful m onody in Prom e
theus Bound (561—88):
Hum! hum! hum!
From the lakes of the Alps, and the cold grey scalps
O f the m ountains, I come
Hum! hum ! hum!
From M orocco and Fez, and the high palaces
O f golden Byzantium ;
From the tem ples divine of old Palestine,
From A thens and Rome,
W ith a ha! and a hum!
I come! I come!72
A lthough the ‘A dvertisem ent’ to the play very soon makes any
earlier claim s to seriousness transparently com ic, it is the em er
gence of an anim al chorus of supplicating pigs that has led critics to
70 For H ighet (1949), 421, it is Shelley’s ‘greatest failure’— a view regularly
shared. See too T L S review 3rd October 2003, p. 12, of Shelley (2003), by Richard
Cronin: ‘few will regret’ its absence from the new edition.
71 Shelley (1970), 389.
72 Ibid. 396, I. i. 220-9.
find parallels w ith A ristophanes.73 B ut it m ay well be w ith the
satyr-play that the closest parallel can be found. F o r Shelley’s
adaptation shares w ith the ancient G reek satyr-play the them es
of discovery and transform ation: its porcine chorus m em bers
(rather than its hopelessly co rru p t and bloated protagonist) dis
cover their ow n tru e identity as descendants of the M inotaur; and
once nourished, they are m etam orphosed into bulls. W hen the pigs
becom e bulls, their association w ith D ionysus (as w ith the ancient
satyrs) m ay well becom e deliberate.
H ow ever, it is perhaps w ith the centrality of the chorus to
Shelley’s design that the affinity w ith the satyr-play is felt m ost
acutely. F or although the chorus of pigs are at first m arginalized—
they appear as straggly suppliants around the steps and altar of the
T em ple of F am ine in the first scene com pletely unnoticed by
Sw ellfoot the T y ran t— they increasingly begin to find a voice for
them selves, b o th because and in spite of th eir abject state. A bove
all, like M aurice’s B rahm in priests in The F all o f the M ogul, they
have access to a collective m em ory of another, b etter w orld in
w hich they had a different role:
I have heard your L aureate sing
T h at pity was a royal thing;
U n der your m ighty ancestors, we pigs
W ere bless’d as nightingales on m yrtle sprigs,
O r grass-hoppers that live on noon-day dew,
A nd sung, old annals tell, as sweetly too,
But now our styes are fallen in, we catch
T he m urrain and the mange, the scab and itch;
Som etim es your royal dogs tear dow n our thatch,
A nd then we seek the shelter of a ditch;
H og-w ash or grains, or ruta baga, none
H as yet been ours since your reign begun.74
As the ‘sw inish m u ltitu d e’, they agitate and confront Sw ellfoot
directly in this opening scene; here it is not through the m ediation
of the [Sophoclean] priest:
You ought to give us hog-w ash and clean straw,
A nd styes well thatched; besides it is the law!75
73 So H ighet (1949), 421; Wallace (1997), 75; Michael Sim pson (1998), 248.
74 Shelley (1970), 391, I. i. 37-48. 7S Ibid. 392, I. i. 65-7.
B ut as w ith the Peterloo m assacre the previous sum m er, cry for
reform m eets only w ith repression; and Sw ellfoot resounds:
T h is is sedition, and rank blasphemy!
Ho! there, m y guards!76
ushering in the royal butchers to slaughter the subversives.
T ow ards the end of the next scene betw een M am m on, P urga-
nax, and the spies, the chorus is heard offstage:
U gh, ugh, ugh!
Hail! Iona the divine,
W e will no longer be swine,
But bulls w ith horns and dewlaps.
O nce Sw ellfoot has arrived, we hear that offstage there is ‘A loud
tum ult, and cries o f “Iona fo r ever!— N o Sw ellfoot/ ”’;78 and a few
m inutes later, the offstage chorus chant loudly: ‘L ong live Iona!
D ow n w ith Sw ellfoot!’79
In A ct II in the Public Stye (the H ouse of C om m ons), the Pigs
are heard heckling in the background ‘She is innocent! m ost inno
cent!’;80 and then later in the scene, we are told: ‘A great confusion
is heard o f the Pigs out o f Doors, which communicates itself to those
within. During the first Strophe, the doors o f the S ty e are staved in,
and a number o f exceedingly lean Pigs and Sows and Boars rush in .’sl
N ow w ith the two sem ichoruses centre stage, Sem ichorus II have
sufficiently grow n in stature and voice to dem and th at their voice
be heard:
I vote Swellfoot and Iona
T ry the magic test together;
W henever royal spouses bicker
Both should try the magic liquor.82
T h e tw o sem ichoruses unite once the arrival of the Q ueen is
im m inent, and express their solidarity w ith her. A nd now , as is
the case in the Prometheus Unbound, Shelley’s un ited chorus can
display a new found confidence. H ere they are even able to m ake
prophetic pronouncem ents, once they realize that the ‘m agic test’
76 Ibid., 11. 67-8. 77 Ibid. 397, I. i. 272^1. 78 Ibid. 398, I. i. 292.

79 Ibid. 399, I . i. 324. 80 Ibid. 401, I I . i. 3. 81 Ibid. 403, I I . i.
82 Ibid. 404, i i . i. 127-30.
is in fact a ‘tru th test’, w hich will plainly reveal to all the hypocrisy
surrounding the trial:
T he oracle is now about to be
Fulfilled by circum volving d estin y ... 83
In the penultim ate scene of the play, we see precisely how destiny
is ‘circum volved’, w hen Iona snatches the G reen Bag containing
the ‘tru th test’ from P urganax’s hand and pours its contents over
the K ing and his court, ‘who are instantly changed into a number of
filth y and ugly animals’ .84 If the ‘sw inish m u ltitu d e’ has already
undergone its inner transform ation w ith the prospect of liberty in
the previous scene, here in the final m om ents of the play, we
w itness their literal transform ation: those ‘who eat the loaves are
turned into B ulls’.85
T h e final chorus is m ade up of Iona and the sw ine/bulls, and it
m ay well be th at Shelley is registering som e reservations about the
unlikely alliance betw een the populace and the jilted Q ueen. T he
M in o tau r w ould seem to be im plying at least the sh ort-term p rag
m atism of such an alliance, w hen he turns to Iona and issues his
invitation:
A nd if your M ajesty will deign to m ount me,
A t least till you have hunted down your game,
I will not throw you.86
T h e final strophe of the exodus, m oreover, w ould seem to fly in the
face of the prayer for restrain t m ade by L iberty in the previous
scene. In m arked contrast to L ib erty ’s plea to Fam ine to ‘lead them
not upon the paths of blood’, the chorus together w ith Iona sing in
pu rsuit of their quarry to an opening rh y th m that is strikingly
evocative of the chorus of that m ost popular F rench revolutionary
song, Qa ira!
Tallyho! tallyho!
T hrough pond, ditch, and slough,
W ind them , and find them ,
Like the D evil behind them ,
Tallyho! tallyho!87
83 Shelley (1970), 405, I I . i. 151-2. 84 Ibid. 408, I I . i.

85 Ibid. 409, i i . i. 86 Ibid., 11. 113-15. 87 Ibid., 11. 134-8.
Even if such an alliance is an uneasy and precarious one, it w ould at
least serve the purpose of ridding everyone of the com m on enem y.
In his spoof advertisem ent to the play, Shelley had already claim ed
th at the only ‘liberty [that] has been taken w ith the translation of
this rem arkable piece of an tiq u ity ’ is ‘the suppressing of a seditious
and blasphem ous C horus of the Pigs and Bulls at the last act’;88
and this teasing rem ark clearly dem ands of his audience to im agine
such a suppressed and subversive coda to his play.
In his political pam phlet, ‘A Philosophical View of R eform ’,
Shelley refers to the effectiveness of ‘large bodies and various
denom inations of the people’;89 and as w ith his chorus in Hellas
and Prometheus Unbound, the chorus of Shelley’s closet dram a
concerning O edipus m ay be said to serve as the dram atic correla
tive to such efficacy at a tim e w hen such assertions w ere subject to
severe censure. 90
Shelley’s adoption here of a G reek chorus for overtly political,
rather than sim ply aesthetic, purposes builds on M aurice’s w ork
and forges m ajor developm ent in the B ritish reception of G reek
tragedy. W h ether Shelley had any know ledge of the F ren ch revo
lutionary rew orkings of Sophocles’ tragedy— one thinks p articu
larly of C h en ier’s subversive CEdipe-Roi, w hich had only very
recently been published in 1818— it is clear that his version needs
to be placed alongside its F ren ch counterparts. Like these F rench
plays, Shelley’s version contains a tyrannical king of the ancien
regime. H ow ever, w hen we w itness Sw ellfoot and his court being
deliberately challenged by a chorus w ith overtly republican senti
m ents, we realize that Shelley’s handling of a G reek chorus turns
out to be even m ore brazen than the efforts of the revolutionary
playw rights across the channel.
CONCLUSION
It has been claim ed that ‘As the extrem e expression of social
defiance, incest was a serviceable sym bol for the R om antics, who
took seriously their obligation as rebels and social critics.’91 It m ay
well be that the increasing m iddlebrow m oral indignation about
88 Ibid. 390. 89 Shelley (1920), 86.

90 Cf. Michael Simpson (1998), 410-11.
91 M iyoshi (1969), 11, cit. Hindle (1998), p. xxxvi.
the D ryden and Lee Oedipus paradoxically inspired the younger
generation of R om antic w riters to tu rn to Sophocles’ play in search
of ‘the extrem e expression of social defiance’. G eorge Steiner has
eloquently discussed the R om antic fascination w ith b ro th er-sister
incest w ith reference to the A ntigone.92 B ut the political connota
tions that linked incest to the ancien regime w ere of long standing
and also co n trib u ted to the im portance attached to Sophocles’ play
in the eyes of the revolutionaries. A llegations had been m ade at
M arie-A n toin ette’s trial in O ctober 1793 about her alleged incest
w ith her son by the presiding judge, M .-J.-A . H erm an. T hese,
how ever, w ere based far m ore on the perception of the links
betw een political and sexual disorder w ithin the royal fam ily than
they w ere on actual fact.93
W hilst ‘revolutionary O edipuses’ w ere not the only versions of
Sophocles’ play available at this tim e, their im p rin t was hard to
resist. E ven the 1790 utilitarian prose translation by G eorge S om
ers C lark, Oedipus, K in g o f Thebes show s ju st how m uch other
radical readings had filtered throu g h to all levels. Som ers C lark
advocates the presence of a chorus throu g h o u t the play on the
grounds that it is m ore ‘naturally’ and ‘rationally’ used than
m odern shifts in scene. H e correctly describes the C horus of
E lders as ‘principal citizens of T h eb es’, b u t later in A ct II, Scene
i says ‘Oedipus, Chorus, the people assembled’,94 Som ers C lark’s
O edipus m ay well be less strid en t than som e of his contem poraries,
b u t he none the less w orks w ithin a strict constitutional m onarchy
and he is not w ithout b lem ish.95
H ow ever, in 1821 and ju st over a year after the suppression of
Shelley’s Oedipus Tyrannus, we once again find the retu rn of an
unblem ished O edipus on the L ondon stage. O n 1 N ovem ber,
Oedipus: A M usical D ram a in 3 A cts was perform ed at the Royal
W est L ondon T heatre. T h e au tho r of the play was John Savill
Faucit, although (as Faucit him self was quick to stress) his task was
m ore one of speedy com pilation, selection, and adaptation (w ith
ab un dant use of anachronism ) than of authorship. H e had ten days
in w hich to p u t together his version of Oedipus, w hich he had
m ade at the request of M r J. A m herst, the p ro p rieto r of the
92 Steiner (1984). 93 See Decem bre-Alonnier (1975), ii. 365.

94 George Somers Clark (1790), 13 and n.
Ibid. 23, citing Francklin’s criticism of his treatm ent of Tiresias.
Royal W est L ondon T h eatre. T h e play is dedicated to A m herst,
w hom F aucit praises for his boldness in taking the risk of both
personal criticism and considerable financial expense in a t
tem pting to m ount a revival of a G reek play.96
H is debts to D ryden and Lee, C orneille, and M aurice are clearly
stated on the title page to the published edition of his text. A l
though his deb t to M aurice is slight— at the very beginning of the
play, his H igh P riest’s recitative is a rearrangem ent of M aurice’s
parodos set to the m usic of a M r M ueller— the production did
p ro m p t an indignant M aurice to produce a second edition of his
text a few m onths later.97 B ut the greatest debt ow ed by F aucit is to
D ry d en and L ee (and th ro u g h them indirectly to Corneille), whose
text he substantially relies on, often verbatim , b u t m ost often
truncates. In this sense, F aucit’s play provided a m uch less u n
w ieldy version for an audience less tolerant of elaborate subplots
and Senecan bom bast. T h is is a ‘m o d ern ’ O edipus, reflecting the
grow ing interest in an (albeit lim ited) singing and dancing chorus
(this occurs only once although the play is significantly d ubbed ‘A
M usical D ram a’); and w ith its G othic details and its handling of
recent past (rather than current) events, it resem bles the popular
historical tragedies of the day.98
In F au cit’s version the confrontation betw een T iresias and
O edipus, w hich had proved so pow erful a focus of interest in
eighteenth-century versions of the play and w hich is a m ajor
source of anti-clerical vehem ence in his m ain source, is absent.
F aucit has chosen to avoid any scene w hich show s O edipus in any
critical light; instead this O edipus is the conscientious and valiant
head of state, who is beset by a treacherous b ro th er-in -law inten t
on fom enting dissent. F aucit has gone m uch fu rth er than D ryden
and L ee in his rehabilitation of Sophocles’ protagonist: follow ing
his realization of the tru th about his m arriage to Jocasta, O edipus
is revealed on a neoclassical terrace in the palace gardens,
lounging (O restes-like) upon a G recian couch in a fit of m adness.
In clear allusion to the form er K ing G eorge III, we w itness the
priests’ efforts to restore him to sanity. O edipus then delivers his
last Senecan speech from D ryden and L ee (see Ch. 1), before
96 Faucit (1821), Preface. F or a contem porary review see T alfourd (1821).
97 M aurice (1822). See the Advertisem ent "by M aurice (n.p.), where he refers to
the ‘very unw arrantable liberty having been taken, unknown to m e’ with his text.
98 George Taylor (2000).
dashing to the tow er to attem pt suicide. H ere in Faucit, how ever,
O edipus is unsuccessful in his attem pt and has som ew hat ignobly
to suffer the restraints of his courtiers. B ut in the final m om ents of
the play he redeem s him self w hen he rushes to protect E urydice
from C reon, w hom he stabs fatally ju st before dying him self at
the hands of his adversary. H is last w ish is th at A drastus and
E urydice should rem ain together, and the final scene consists of a
solem n tableau of the dead king.
W hat is significant here in F aucit’s version is that the ‘E nglish’
O edipus has been restored to the stage after som e tim e of absence.
But, in accordance w ith m odern taste, there is no reunion betw een
the incestuous couple after their realization of the tru th of their
m arriage. If the final scenes recall recent history w ith the m adness
of G eorge III, the last scene’s om issions are in clear deference to
the strictures on taste, w hich from the late eighteenth century at
least had m ade the D ryden and L ee version im possible to perform .
T h is is no longer Oedipus the tragedy of state; it is once m ore
Oedipus the fam ily d ra m a ." Like the projected im age of the deeply
religious fam ily m an G eorge III, the strength of w hich had acted
as the central stabilizing force of the counterrevolutionary m ove
m ent in the 1790s in B ritain, this O edipus is the king w ho dem ands
pity rather than censure. H ere then, in F aucit’s version of 1821, we
have an O edipus on the public stage w ho w hilst seem ingly in
opposition to the protagonist of the proscribed closet version of
Shelley, is at the very least a veiled exhortation to G eorge IV to
em ulate his father in fam ilial m atters. W hilst Shelley sought to
exploit the constitutional crisis of 1820 in order to revive the
republican ideals of the 1790s radicals, F aucit resorts to 1790s
iconography in order to restore the m yth of the m onarchy as the
m irro r of the fam ily; and in so doing, of course, F aucit is setting
Sophocles’ tragedy upon a path w hich is eventually to provide the
quintessentially ‘m o d ern ’ reading of the play as a m etaphor for
fam ily dynam ics.
99 Six m onths previously, on 11 May 1821, Faucit’s wife (with whom he had had
six children, including the actress Helen Faucit, see Ch. 12) m ade an unsuccessful
attem pt to have their m arriage annulled on the alleged grounds that she had married
Faucit under the legal age and without her parents’ consent. T he reason for her
action was, not surprisingly, her lover, with whom she subsequently went to live.
See Carlisle (2000), 10—11. Faucit’s Oedipus is, perhaps, a family affair in a personal
sense too.
9
Greek Tragedy in Late Georgian Reading
O R E S T E S IN B E R K SH IR E
T h e residents of the Berkshire tow n of R eading m ight in 1821 have
been tem pted by the advertisem ent in their local new spaper for
forthcom ing attractions at the n eighbourhood’s com m ercial
theatre. S hould their taste encom pass G raeco-R om an them es,
they m ight have w anted to see ‘M onsieur D E C O U R , the re
now ned F R E N C H H E R C U L E S !! W ho will p e rfo rm .. . F E A T S
A N D E V O L U T IO N S . . . ’. If they p referred oriental stunts, they
w ould choose ‘T h e C hinese JU G G L E R S from the C ourt of
Pekin!!’ Such exhibitions are typical of the entertainm ents enjoyed
during the late G eorgian era in any fast industrializing provincial
tow n. B ut w hat is surprising is that the sam e new spaper offers a
review of a production in the tow n hall of E u rip id es’ then little-
know n tragedy Orestes.
It had been acted in full costum e by the pupils of R eading
School (see Fig. 9.1). A ccording to the review er (the local w riter
M ary Russell M itford), it had im pressed its audience:
T he correct and vivid representation of one of the G reek T ragedies is all
the m ore interesting, because, from the days of Euripides until now, there
have been no works of genius produced . .. A deep repose is shed over the
grandeurs and m ournful beauties of the spectacle. W hat a trium ph . .. not
in our opinion only, but in that of some of the m ost distinguished G reek
scholars who were p re se n t. .. T he enunciation of the sweetest of languages
was in every instance so correct and clear, that the young perform ers
seem ed to be speaking their native tongue.1
T h is Orestes is particularly surprising, because it is often assum ed
that the practice of perform ing ancient G reek plays in B ritain
began in earnest in around 1880. Y et educational perform ances
of ancient dram a in the B ritish Isles have a m uch longer history, at
least w hen it com es to plays in L atin. E nactm ent had been initiated
1 M ary Russell M itford (1821).
244 Greek Tragedy in Late Georgian Reading
F i g u r e 9.1 A n unidentified scene (possibly the opening of E uripides’

Heracles) from a perform ance of G reek tragedy at R eading School (1857).
as a pedagogical m ethod by hum anists on the C ontinent in the

fifteenth century, w hence it had spread to E ngland. U niversity
perform ances of ancient dram a reached their first zenith in the
sixteenth century: staples w ere L atin com edies such as P lau tu s’
M enaechm i and T eren ce’s A delphi. Seneca’s tragic Troades also
enjoyed an occasional perform ance; so, indeed, did A ristophanes’
m ore ‘m oral’ com edies Peace and W ealth, in the original G reek.
B ut G reek tragedies w ere a rarity. T h ere is not m uch evidence for
G reek tragic dram a being perform ed during the Renaissance on
the E nglish side of the C hannel in either G reek or in English: even
the L atin translations of E uripides, popular on the C ontinent, w ere
little perform ed in E n glan d .2
T h e P u ritan closure of the theatres in the seventeenth century
had an im pact even on school theatricals. R ecitation was one thing,
and perform ance quite another. T h e theatrical w riter W estland
M arston reports that as late as around 1830, his ow n father
(a D issenting m inister) had praised his son’s declam ation of
Sophocles’ Electra at a school event in G rim sby, w hile opposing
any perform ances involving costum e and scenery.3 R ichard Valpy,
2 See Boas (1914), 11—17. T here may have been an Antigone in Greek at St.
John’s College, Cam bridge, in the early 1580s: see Bruce R. Sm ith (1988), 216.
3 M arston (1888), i. 3—4.
Greek Tragedy in Late Georgian Reading 245
the headm aster of R eading School responsible for that singular
Orestes, needed to defend the propriety of acting plays at his school
at all by claim ing that theatricals had b rought nothing b u t benefits
to his Scholars.4 V alpy was not alone: the previous chapter dis
cussed the two G reek plays p u t on by Sam uel P arr at Stanm ore
School in 1775 and 1776.
P arr justified his thespian experim ents w ith Sophocles by in
voking the authority of a pedagogical recom m endation m ade by
John M ilton. In his treatise O f Education, addressed to M ichael
H artlib, M ilton had advised that young m en, once they had stu d
ied politics, law and theology, w ould be ready for the recitation of
the ancient historians, epic poem s, and A ttic tragedies
of stateliest and m ost regal argum ent, w ith all the famous political ora
tions . .. which, if they were not only read, but some of them got by
m em ory, and solem nly pronounced w ith the right accent and grace, as
m ight be taught, w ould endue them w ith the spirit and vigour of D em os
thenes or Cicero, Euripides or Sophocles.5
But P a rr’s im m ediate inspiration for a costum ed perform ance was
a conversation w ith W illiam Jones about a G reek play p u t on
earlier in the century in Ireland. T h e organizer had been the
schoolm aster T hom as Sheridan, at his school in Capel Street,
D ublin, before his m ove in 1735 to the M astership of the Free
School at Cavan. Sheridan was the distinctly apolitical scion of an
old Irish Jacobite fam ily, father of the actor T hom as Sheridan, and
grandfather of the dram atist R ichard B rinsley S heridan (him self,
as it happens, a devoted pupil of D r Parr). T h om as Sheridan senior
had social connections w ith the theatre, and was from 1713 the
intim ate friend of Jonathan Sw ift. H is m ost senior class used to
p erform plays publicly before leaving for university. T h ey were
accustom ed to acting in Shakespearean plays, for exam ple Julius
Caesar in 1718 and in 1732,6 and also L atin com edies. T h ere was a
Plautus in 1719, and T eren ce’s A delphi in 1727, to w hich the
prologue was delivered by a ‘Scholar, riding on an A ss’.7 But
there w ere also at least three G reek plays.
4 Valpy (1804), pp. vii f. s M ilton (1963), 89-110, at 105.

6 O n the latter date it was acted by the boys, rather excitingly, ‘at M adame
Violante’s Booth’ (Robert Hogan (1994), 187). M adam e Violante ran a troupe of
D ublin child actors, one of whom went on to become the stellar Peg W offington.
7 Ibid. 170.
In 1720 S h erid an ’s senior pupils acted E u rip id es’ H ippolytus in
G reek, w ith an E nglish prologue, in front of dignitaries including
A rchbishop K ing, the L ord L ieutenant and probably Sw ift.8 Oedi
pus Tyrannus follow ed on 10 D ecem ber 1723 at the K ing ’s In n ’s
H all. Philoctetes seem s to have been perform ed next, in 1724 or
1725, since one of S h erid an ’s few substantial literary productions
was a 1725 translation of Philoctetes, intended for the L ord
L ieuten an t’s wife (and perhaps other w om en in the audience).
T h e all-m ale cast of this tragedy m ight well have recom m ended
itself to the m aster of a boys’ school. T h ere was certainly at least
one m ore G reek play, perform ed ju st before the C hristm as of 1728,
b u t the surviving prologue gives no clue as to w hich au tho r or play
was chosen th at year.9
E ven T hom as S h erid an ’s H ippolytus, despite claim s to the con
trary, was not the earliest post-R estoration perform ance of G reek
tragedy in Ireland or Britain: as we have already seen in Ch. 8, on
T h ursd ay, 1 and Saturday, 3 A pr. 1714, ‘M r. L ow ’s Scholars’ had
perform ed Oedipus Tyrannus in ancient G reek at M ile E nd G reen
in E ast L ondon. L ittle seem s to be know n of this production,
although the director m ust have been Solom on Low e, the cele
b rated H am m ersm ith schoolm aster, gram m arian and expert on
m nem onics, w hose w ork on G reek com position and gram m ar
was published in 1719.10 Y et the M ile E nd, D ublin, and Stanm ore
experim ents w ere n o t on such an am bitious a scale as R eading
School’s triennial tradition of perform ing plays, by both Sophocles
and E uripides, betw een 1806 and 1827.
THE HEADMASTER
T h e plays were the brainchild of R eading School’s dom ineering
headm aster, D r R ichard V alpy— a W higgish gentlem an of terrify
ing stature, fam ous for his flogging expertise (one of his nicknam es
was ‘D r W ackerbach’), to w hich his daughters w ere as vulnerable as
his sons and pupils. H e also had a zeal for the B ritish navy w hich
am ounted to an obsession. T h e plays w ere perform ed in aid of naval
8 Robert Hogan (1994), 36-7, 108-11.

9 See the prologues reproduced ibid. 131-2, 178—9; Sheridan (1725).
10 L S ii/1. 319; Lowe (1719). Lowe also published several works on Latin
grammar.
charities: an A m phitryo in 1797 raised £130 for the w idow s and
orphans resulting from L ord D u n can ’s victory over the D utch
fleet.11 V alpy’s naval enthusiasm also led him to insist on the
dancing of a hornpipe at the end of all his plays. O ne review er w rote,
W e could have dispensed w ith the hornpipe . . . D r. Valpy may well afford
to break custom w hich his good taste m ust reject. H is learning and talent
do not require such adventitious aid.12
D espite or perhaps because of his eccentric style, V alpy tu rn ed the
school’s fortunes round, transform ing it into one of the m ost
respected of its kind. H is nam e was know n to alm ost every B ritish
boy of the m iddle and u p p er classes in the nineteenth century, for
he w rote som e of the standard textbooks of the day, all of w hich ran
into num erous editions. T h ey included The Elements o f the Latin
Language (1782), The Elements o f Greek G ram m ar (1805), and a
fam ous Delectus sententiarum Graecorum (1815).
T h e open-m indedness of his approach to education probably
resulted from his background on the cusp betw een E nglish and
French culture: he was a C hannel Islander, born into a w ealthy
Jersey fam ily in 1754, and educated u ntil he was fifteen at Valogues
in N orm andy (thereafter at schools in S outham pton and G u ild
ford, and Pem broke College, O xford). T h ere had long been a
tradition of am ateur theatricals in Jersey, and in the second half
of the eighteenth century this little island received regular visits by
both French and E nglish com panies.13 R eading School retained an
interest in the C hannel Islands, deriving m any of its pupils from
them throu g ho u t V alpy’s career.14 V alpy, m oreover, was im
pressed by F rench scholarship, advocating P ierre B rum oy’s Le
Theatre des Grecs to the R eading intelligentsia.15 H e had visited
Paris in 1788, and w ritten about his nights at the C om edie-
Franpaise and the T h eatre Italien .16 As a youth he had been
obsessed w ith the com m ercial theatre and had attem pted to m eet
the great G arrick. H is ow n adaptation of Shakespeare’s K ing John
11 Fines (1967), 17.
12 This cutting is said (ibid.) to be in W. C. Eppstein’s collection of cuttings
relating to Reading School (1794—1808), held in Reading Public Library. It is not
there now.
13 Raoul Lem priere (1981).
14 Fines (1967), 11.
15 M ary Russell M itford (1854a), i, p. xvii.
16 Valpy (1814).
had actually been perform ed at C ovent G arden in 1803.17 A b ra
ham John V alpy, the second of the headm aster’s num erous sons,
was a p rin ter w ho loved the Classics, and edited the Classical
Journal from 1810 u ntil 1829;18 b u t he was also responsible for
The N ew B ritish Theatre, w hich published serious contem porary
dram as such as Jo hn P eter R oberdeau’s Thermopylae (see below ,
p. 266 n. 7), in an attem pt to persuade L ondon theatre m anagers to
raise the m oral tone of their theatres.
Som e have said th at the plays perform ed u n der E lizabeth I at
W inchester w ere the inspiration b ehind V alpy’s G reek plays.19 H is
contem poraries, how ever, believed that he had consciously set out
to com pete w ith the ancient institution of the L atin com edy, p e r
form ed at W estm inster School. A com ic account of R eading
School w ritten by a form er pupil (see below) portrays D r Valpy
as choosing a G reek play on the ground that its language w ould
tru m p L atin by virtue of its greater antiquity: 20
I f . .. the W — r youths are able to do justice to the pure L atinity of the
R om an poet, w hy should not m y boys equally shine in reproducing upon
the stage the G reek tragic M use? I have it!’ exclaimed the excited man; ‘we
will act a G reek p la y . .. and the w orld of letters shall shortly see that the
youth of the Royal gram m ar-school o f . .. can ‘fret their brief hour upon
the stage’ in a m ore ancient language than that of Rome.
Y et the source of V alpy’s idea of a G reek play was alm ost certainly
contact w ith Sam uel P arr, w ith w hom he was a correspondent.
V alpy can scarcely have failed to hear about the tw o Stanm ore
productions of Sophocles, especially since P arr ‘often expressed a
w ish that his exam ple had been followed in other sem inaries’:21 it is
significant that V alpy, like P arr, chose the Oedipus Tyrannus for
his first attem pt at a G reek tragic production (in 1806: see below).
Ever since R ichard V alpy had been appointed by R eading C oun
cil to head R eading School in 1781, he had encouraged the thespian
talents of his ‘S cholars’. H is theatrical aspirations w ere facilitated
by the school’s favoured status as recipient of a T rien nial V isitation
17 D N B xx. 85-6.
18 See further Clarke (1945), 85—6, 93; he is even better known for reprinting the
D elphin Classics with new indexes and notes by various hands. See O D N B lvi. 67.
19 Naxton (1986), 53. O n the W inchester College plays in the 16th c. see M otter
(1929), 28—35, and Cowling (1993).
20 Bockett (1857), 73.
21 Field (1828), i. 80.
by dignitaries from O xford U niversity, an occasion w hich offered
an excellent context for perform ances. T h e august V isitors w ere
encouraged to fulfil their duty by em olum ents arising out of an
endow m ent m ade in 1640 by R eading’s m ost fam ous son, A rch
bishop W illiam L au d .22 T h e O xford V isitors who, L aud had d e
creed, should in p erp etu ity visit R eading School included the
V ice-C hancellor, one of the Proctors, and the heads of several
houses, notably St Jo h n ’s, All Souls, and M agdalen.23
V alpy appreciated the value of the school’s link w ith O xford, and
enhanced the cerem onial aspect of the V isitations. E nglish-
language dram as had previously been perform ed at the school,
since there is testim ony to a Cato in 1731 (presum ably Joseph
A ddison’s fam ous tragedy of 1713).24 Before 1790 V alpy encour
aged the boys to p erform p u pp et show s and poetic recitations to
audiences know n to have consisted of betw een 300 and 400.25 But
he soon began to organize E nglish-language and L atin theatricals:
the perform ances betw een 1790 and 1801 consisted of Shakespeare
{H amlet, K ing Lear, K ing John, and The M erchant of Venice),
alternating w ith P lau tu s.26 T h e L atin plays at R eading w ere re
m em bered by a M ary Sherw ood, a pupil at the girls’ school ru n in
the old R eading A bbey by M adam e and M onsieur St. Q uentin; it
speaks volum es for D r V alpy’s liberal views on both the theatre
and w om en that he regularly took all his Scholars to w atch the
F ren ch plays acted by the girls. Sherw ood’s cousin T hom as had
been in a V alpy production of P lau tu s’ A ulularia (1791), and had
looked very fine ‘as a young lady’, w ith golden grasshoppers in his
h air.27
It was for the T rien nial V isitation of 1806 that V alpy attem pted
his first G reek play, an innovation w hich was im m easurably to
enhance the reputation of the school. Som e of the O ld R edingen-
sians m aintained ‘a sort of clu b ’ w hich m et at one of the tow n ’s
principal inns; in triennial years they used to stay for days— even
weeks— to help w ith rehearsals for the G reek play.28 T h is becam e a
22 Trevor-R oper (1988), 402.
23 M ary Russell M itford (1854a), i, p. xv; Newdick (n.d. b), 13; Bockett (1857),
72; prologue to Hecuba, Reading Mercury no. 5564, 29 Oct. 1827, p. 4 col. 3.
24 Carlisle (1818), i. 37-8. See Ch. 2.
25 Fines (1967), 15.
26 Valpy (1826), p. vii.
27 Sherwood (1910), 82-5, 130-3, 145.
28 M ary Russell M itford (1835), i. 313.
fashionable highlight of the R eading calendar; one account vividly
lists the notable local politicians, doctors, and lawyers w ho w ere to
be seen in the front row .29 T h e R eading alderm en, com plete w ith
their fu rred gow ns, w ere expected to attend ex officio.30 T h e T r i
ennial V isitation was traditionally concluded by a large banquet,
provided by the M ayor: in 1827 it was described as a ‘m ost su m p
tuous ban q uet at the T ow n-hall, at w hich turtle, venison, and
every delicacy in season, w ith w ine and fru its’ w ere served to the
R everend V isitors, the w orthies of the borough, and ‘upw ards of a
h u n d red gentlem en’.31
THE PERFORMANCES
T h e first R eading G reek tragedy was Sophocles’ Oedipus T yra n
nus, perform ed in 1806; a booklet was published to accom pany the
production w hich contained an adaptation of the 1759 English
translation by T hom as Francklin. T h e cast list reveals that V alpy
involved even his ow n sm allest children: one little son played
Jocasta’s attendant and another T eiresias’ child g u id e.32 A lthough
the translation om its the choral odes, there was certainly a chorus
of T h eban s to be seen, since the eye-w itness w ho w rote the review
for the local new spaper attests to their ‘m ajestic’ gestures (this,
incidentally, is probably the earliest surviving detailed description
of the perform ance of an authentic G reek tragic text in B ritain or in
Ireland):33
T he scene opens w ith a slow and dignified advance, while gentle and m ost
plaintive sounds of m usic, from behind, interest the feelings of every
spectator, w hich are progressively heightened, till the palace of O edipus
is discovered on one side, on the other a tem ple . .. some T hebans appear
w ith boughs in their hands waving in m ajestic m ovem ents.
O f particular interest is the reference to that ‘plaintive’ m usic from
backstage. A lthough nothing fu rth er is know n about the m usic as
early as 1806, one individual w ho rem em bered the G reek plays was
29 John J. Cooper (1923), 82.
30 M ary Russell M itford (1835), i. 312—13; (1854a), i, p. xv.
31 Anon. (1827). 32 Francklin (1806).
33 Anon. (1806). M ary Russell M itford (1854a), vol. i, p. xv was later to claim
that she had w ritten all the reviews for the Reading Mercury, and she certainly
composed all those from 1818 onwards. But it is unlikely that she wrote the earliest
review in 1806.
W illiam D arter, a R eading flautist who had been enlisted in the
1820s into the orchestra w hich accom panied the perform ances.
D arter recalls that in around 1819 the A m ateur M usical Society
had been established in the tow n under the direction of one M o n
sieur V enua. T h e Society had about 150 m em bers, who regularly
perform ed in the T ow n H all, thus naturally suggesting them selves
as accom panists to any plays enacted there. D arter recalls that ‘the
orchestra consisted of all the local professors of m usic of any
standing, as also of som e am ateurs’, and lists the instrum ents as
first and second violins, violas, cellos, double basses, flutes and
French h o rn s.34 T h is was quite a large sym phonic ensem ble. T h e
im plication seem s to be that in the 1820s, at least, the m usic was
chosen or com posed by M onsieur V enua.
T h e ground is firm er w hen it com es to the venue, described in
elegant detail in a slightly fictionalized account of the R eading
G reek plays in the novel B elford Regis by M ary Russell M itford
(see Fig. 9.2). She was the friend of D r V alpy w ho usually review ed
his plays in the local press, and her description corresponds w ith
inform ation draw n from factual sources. T h e plays w ere p u t on in
a large, elongated school-room w hich at that tim e com m unicated at
one end w ith the school-house (then in the civic h eart of Reading),
and at the o ther opened ‘into the entrance to the T ow n-hall, u n der
w hich it was b u ilt.’ T h ese buildings no longer exist, b u t it is clear
that the tow n hall and the school w ere architecturally difficult to
distinguish. A t the school-house end of the hall was the stage,
‘excellently fitted up w ith scenery and properties, and all the
m odern accessories of the dram a’. T h ere was a proscenium arch,
‘ju st the right size, ju st a p ro p er fram e for the fine tragic pictures it
so often rep resen ted ,’35 w ith a curtain that was raised at the beg in
ning of perform ances.36 M itfo rd ’s review of the 1821 Orestes sug
gests that the scenery was quite sophisticated, that torchlight was
used im aginatively, and th at characters ex machina had access
to stage doors and som e kind of device in w hich they could be
elevated:37
N othing could be m ore beautiful than the scene at A gam em non’s tom b—
the sepulchre am ong the woods— the Choral wom en hanging tenderly
over i t . .. O restes, holding the sword over the trem bling H erm ione . . . the
34 D arter (1888), 111-14, 125 . 35 M ary Russell M itford (1835), i. 310.

36 Bockett (185 7), 77 . 37 M ary Russell M itford (1821).
F i g u r e 9.2 M ary Russell M itford, c.1840.
torches casting a broad glare over the scen e. . . and then the radient [sic]
vision of Apollo, at whose beck the scene opened, and discovered the bay,
w ith H elen in a cloud, w hich the god also entered and began to ascend.
Valpy m ust have been affected by the death in 1808 of R ichard
Porson, the R egius Professor of G reek at C am bridge and titan of
E uripidean textual criticism , because his own form er star pupil
P eter Paul D obree (a G uernsey boy) was one of P orson’s intim ates
and later held the sam e chair at C am bridge. In any event, it was in
1809 that V alpy began his long career as a director of E uripides (he
was later to direct a recital of parts of M edea and a perform ance of
Hecuba, both of w hich had been fam ously edited by Porson). H is
choice of Alcestis was how ever perhaps inform ed, like Sam uel
P a rr’s Trachinians, by M ilto n ’s O f Education. F or in th a t treatise
M ilton specifies Trachiniae and Alcestis as representative of ‘those
tragedies . . . that treat of household m atters’ deem ed suitable for
study even by fairly young p u p ils.38 T h e R eading G reek play was
now becom ing fashionable. T ickets of adm ission for the second
and third nights of Alcestis w ere in so m uch dem and that m any
hopefuls had to be refused, and ‘d uring these representations’ the
tow n of R eading ‘had a great influx of com pany, w hich proved so
good an harvest to the in n s,’ th a t beds w ere only ‘w ith difficulty
obtained’.39 A nd well they m ight: after the last perform ance,
a Ball was given by the M em bers of the School M eeting to the ladies and
gentlem en in the tow n and neighbourhood, who had attended the Plays,
and contributed to the charitable object. T he com pany was brilliant and
num erous.
Indeed, on this occasion the R eading G reek play’s significance was
seen as lying as m uch in its status as high p oint in the B erkshire civic
and social calendar as in the niceties of the production itself: m ore
over, local m em ories of the V alpeian play seem to have been an
im portant factor in the initial experim ents at B radfield School,
w hich is very near R eading, over fifty years later.40 Y et M r C u rrie’s
1809 A lcestis was outstandingly ‘grand and m o u rn fu l’, M r F ell’s
style of speaking the role of A dm etus was ‘anim ated’ (the review
suggests that this was not entirely appropriate!), th at H ercules was
dressed in a real lionskin, and th at there was beautifully painted
scenery.
T h ree years later there was an ‘en tertain m en t’, w hich m ay have
consisted of enactm ents or recitations of passages from Sophocles’
Antigone-, in 1815 it is certain th a t the ‘en tertain m en t’ com prised
recitations from H om er and E u rip id es’ M edea.41 B ut in 1818
V alpy decided once again on a full-scale, costum ed production of
a tragedy, and chose one w hich has rarely been perform ed any
w here until the late tw entieth century, E u rip id es’ Heracles. It is
alm ost certain th at V alpy’s interest in this play was aroused by the
38 M ilton (1963), 104. 39 Anon. (1809).
40 Lewis Campbell (1891), 319, 321 n. 1.
41 See Anon. (1812); M itford (1854a), vol. i, p. xvii, who recalls a Reading Greek
play featuring Antigone, which is m ore likely to have been Sophocles’ Antigone than
Aeschylus’ Septem, Sophocles’ OC, or Euripides’ Phoenissae\ Anon. (1815).
innovative 1794 Tragoediarum Delectus edited by G ilb ert W ake
field, the tw o volum es of w hich attem pted to encourage the educa
tional study of plays w hich had previously not figured large on
school syllabuses. T h ese included Heracles, Orestes, and Ion (the
last of w hich was to have a m ajor im pact on V alpy’s pupil T hom as
T alfourd, Ch. I I ) .42 W hen it com es to Heracles, M itfo rd ’s review
attem pts som ething approxim ating to literary criticism : the reader
of the local new spaper is inform ed th a t the sim ple plot ‘contains
m uch striking situation, m uch of the fitness for representation,
w hich distinguishes E uripides from his great rival, and m uch of
the tender pathos, for w hich he is so justly celebrated’.43 It was
thus being discovered, by staged enactm ent, th at E u rip id es’ an
cient reputation for w orking so well in the theatre was fully ju sti
fied. T h e review com m ends the acting of M r B utler as Iris (‘so
beautiful and inexorable’), and especially the m anner in w hich
M r H arington as H eracles recovered from his ‘tran ce’ and rep re
sented ‘the agony w hich seized him at the sight of the dead bodies’.
E ncouraged by the success of Heracles, in 1821 V alpy chose
another play popularized am ongst schoolteachers by W akefield’s
Delectus, the Orestes w ith w hich this chapter began: it proved a
trium ph, and a repeat perform ance was exhibited by popular
dem and.44 Orestes has a large cast, and V alpy m ay have been
pushed to find am ongst his pupils sufficient num bers w ho could
handle the dem ands of the ancient G reek: at any rate, no fewer
than three roles, all w ith m ajor speeches (M enelaus, O restes, and
the A rgive m essenger), w ere taken by the three bro th ers Palairet.
T h e chorus consisted of three ‘A rgive ladies’, although the lyric
sections of this long play w ere som ew hat cut. T h e published
English translation, w hich in this year seem s to have been enacted
as a supplem ent to the three G reek-language perform ances, is
divided in the m anner of a neo-classical tragedy into five acts.45
42 W akefield (1794). T his edition did not, however, become widely known out-
side scholarly circles, nor even m uch used in schools, perhaps because Wakefield
held controversial religious and political views, and indeed was imprisoned for
seditious libel in 1798. His reputation as a polemicist may illuminate Byron’s choice
of Heracles as the play studied by an earnest bluestocking’ in Don Juan, published in
1821; he alleges that she had translated Heracles: ‘T hat prodigy | Miss Aram inta
Sm ith | W ho at sixteen translated Hercules Furens | Into as furious English’ (11. 52).
44 Fines (1967), 16.
45 Valpy (1821); D arter (1888), 113.
In 1824 V alpy’s choice alighted once again on Alcestis. T h is
perform ance m ade a strong visual im pact, especially M r Frederick
Bulley’s painting-like beauty in the title role: w hen his veil was
draw n at the end, ‘the fixed com posure of his features on w hich
death seem ed to have im printed a calm and holy beauty, w ould
have been a study for a P ain ter.’ D r V alpy was not always w illing to
m ake his Scholars im personate ancient G reeks w ith blatantly defi
cient m orals, and the outrageously selfish Pheres was excised from
the play as a bad m oral exam ple, w hile little m aster Spankie’s
rendition of the role of A lcestis’ son E um elus was accom plished
‘w ith the m ost captivating artlessness. It was very pleasant to hear
so young a boy lisping G reek .’46
T h e last play was the Hecuba of 1827, tw inned w ith K ing Lear.
M itford tho u g h t its star was ‘M r. M aul’ as H ecuba, w ho ‘had all
the h u rried and agitated vehem ence of a w om an’s revenge, the
m anner in w hich he rushed on the scene, holding in his hand the
bloody dagger, will not soon be fo rg o tten .’47 Y et this m orally bleak
play was carefully cut. Ju st as he had om itted A d m etu s’ selfish
father Pheres from the 1824 A lcestis, from Hecuba he deleted
Polym estor’s prophecies concerning the m iserable fates of A ga
m em non and H ecuba.48 T h is turned the play into a m uch sim pler
m orality tale.
By this tim e the R eading G reek play was perceived as som ething
m uch m ore im p ortan t than a ‘dram atic curiosity’, or so insisted
T hom as T alfo urd, a form er pupil by then w orking in L ondon as
theatre correspondent for the New M onthly M agazine (and later to
becom e M P for Reading). H e even persuaded the editor of this
national organ to publish a review of the R eading Hecuba, along
side his review of no less a theatrical event than E d m u n d K ean
perform ing in one of his m ost lauded roles as Shylock at Covent
G arden. In his letter to the editor, T alfo urd w rites th at the Hecuba
had been ‘a very singular and beautiful exhibition’. In his review
he records that the youth who played Polyxena perform ed on a par
w ith professional actors; T alfo urd em phasizes th at the event had
attracted ‘m any persons distinguished by classical and poetic
tastes’.49 T h is was not the first tim e th at the R eading G reek play
46 M ary Russell M itford (1824). 47 M ary Russell M itford (1827).

48 See M ary Russell M itford (1824); Potter (1827).
49 Thom as Noon T alfourd (1827-52), 21.
had been noticed by the press beyond Reading, for the L ondon
S ta r had reported the perform ances of b o th 1818 and 1821.50
TH E W OMAN W RITER RESPONDS

T h e m ost revealing p ictu re of the R eading G reek play em erges
from the various w ritings of the literary lady, M ary Russell
M itford, who w rote the reviews for the local new spaper. M itford
was to becom e a friend of E lizabeth B arrett Brow ning; she was
m uch involved w ith both dram a and periodical literature ranging
from m ore serious publications to the L a d y ’s M agazine. M itfo rd ’s
ow n w orks w ere inform ed by the G reek plays she w atched in her
tow n hall; a sequence of her ow n tragedy Julian, perform ed in
L ondon in 1823, was suggested to her by the opening of the
R eading Orestes of 1821.31 She m ade m ost of her living from
w riting serialized fiction; this was greatly adm ired at the tim e
and has recently been enjoying a renaissance in departm ents of
E nglish literature. M itford lived in or near R eading from 1802,
w hen she was fifteen. In her fictionalized account of R eading life,
Belford Regis, she creates a w hole chapter out of an idealized and
sentim ental account of the V alpy productions, translated to ‘Bel
ford School’.32 T h e tone is m ore hum orous than that of her
reviews, b u t the underlying sense of reverential awe for the good
D octor and for ancient G reek literature is identical.
Y et M itford, like m any fem ale intellectuals throu g h o u t the n in e
teenth cen tu ry ,53 had an am bivalent attitu de tow ards the study of
G reek. A lthough during that century m ore w om en began to learn
G reek than ever before, there w ere still very few in her generation
w ho had access to this m ost elite of languages, the jealously
guarded badge of the w ell-educated gentlem an. M itford loved
the em otional pow er and hum anity she perceived in G reek tra
gedy, and yet she despised the narrow philology of contem porary
scholars. In her youth one of the m ost form idable editors of G reek
tragic texts had been R ichard Porson, w hom she had observed
at close quarters since his step-daughter was one of her closest
50 D N B xx. 86. 51 M ary Russell M itford (1854a), i, p. xxvi.
52 ‘T he Greek Plays’, in M ary Russell M itford (1835), i. 294—318. For a recent
reassessment of M itford’s work in the context of the other women writers on close
term s w ith the Romantic poets, see W ordsw orth (1997).
53 Jenkyns (1980), 63-5.
Greek Tragedy in L ate Georgian Reading 257
childhood friends. She had been convinced that the great scholar
‘cared little for the p atho s’ of E uripides ‘or the vivid bits of tru th
and n atu re’. N o, ‘w hat he delighted in was his ow n new read
ings’.54 A n unappealing scholar w hom M itford m odelled on Por-
son is to be found editing E u rip id es’ Troades in her novel A therton
(1854).
T h is am bivalence tow ards G reek studies often leads M itfo rd to
deprecating the fem ale intellect in a heavy-handed m anner
designed to im ply the opposite. She w rites in B elford Regis,
I m ust hasten to record, so far as an unlettered w om an may achieve that
presum ptuous task, the trium phs of Sophocles and Euripides on the
boards of Belford School.55
In the ‘In tro d u ctio n ’ to her ow n dram as, she rem arks w ith som e
sarcasm on the paradox of her ow n role as new spaper review er of
the G reek plays, a role on w hich V alpy had apparently insisted:
‘F or m yself, as ignorant of L atin or G reek as the sm uggest ald er
m an or slim m est dam sel present, I had m y ow n share in the
p ageant.’56 T h is rem ark reveals the social function of the R eading
G reek plays as draw ing cultural boundaries, throu g h the ancient
language, along the lines of class, education, and sex. O n the one
h and stood V alpy’s Scholars and the O xford V isitors they w ere
trying to im press, and on the other the w om enfolk and local
R eading citizens who constituted m uch of the audience. In private,
m oreover, M itfo rd ’s idealization of the V alpy plays is revealed as
only one side of the story. W hen w riting inform ally to a fem ale
friend, she assum es the rhetorical posture of one denigrating the
m uch-lauded 1821 Orestes as terrib ly dull:
I never yawned half so m uch in m y life. T h e language is beau tifu l. .. but
even that w on’t do for four hours, and it lasted little less. Everything that
evening crept, crawled, ‘trailed its slow length along’. T h e last tim e I was
in that hall was at the election. O w hat a difference. ..! T he action [sc. in
an election] is so m uch m ore interesting, the characters so m uch better
developed and the speeches not half so long.57
54 M ary Russell M itford (1872), ii. 213.

55 M ary Russell M itford (1835), ii. 308. See also p. 315, on the effect of the
tragedies: ‘Even the most unlettered lady was sensible to that antique grace and
pathos.’
56 M ary Russell M itford (1854a), i, p. xv.
57 M ary Russell M itford (1872), i. 116—17, to M rs Hofland.
It is im possible to be sure w hether the encom iastic style of her
new spaper reviews and o ther publications, or the h um our of her
private correspondence, m ore tru ly reflects M itfo rd ’s experience
of sitting through the R eading plays. Y et she certainly realized that
performing a tragedy m ight cast a different light on (w hat we should
call) issues of gender. She was particularly struck by the way that
the sheer size of H ecuba’s role u n dercu ts the expressions of m is
ogynist sentim ent in the play: ‘W om an-hater though E uripides
w e re . . . yet in this tragedy he has paid a substantial com plim ent
to the sex, by resting the w hole of his interest on the fem ale
characters.’58 Indeed, she was lost in adm iration for the young
M r M aul in his realization of the role of Elecuba, for he
overcam e the difficulties of the double disguise of age and sex, in a
m anner w hich would have done credit to the m ost experienced artist.
W e do not allude m erely to the graceful and lady-like d ep o rtm en t. ..
w hich stood him (really we had alm ost w ritten her) in so m uch
stead . .. that w hich appeared to us so striking was, that his very passions
were fem inine.59
M itford is also particularly sensitive to the boys’ im personation of
fem ales (especially A lcestis, A ntigone, and E lectra), and in lighter
vein describes the trials of theatrical transvestism : w hen p erfo rm
ing fem ale roles the actors’ ‘coarse red paw s’ had to be w hitened
w ith cold cream and chicken skin gloves, and they w ere even put
into stays!60
It is indeed rem arkable that V alpy was so attracted to plays w ith
strong fem ale roles such as Alcestis, Orestes, and Hecuba. M itford
states that he refused to countenance a fem ale-free production: the
D o ctor’s boys, she says, w ere so fam ous for their w om en that she
could never
prevail upon him to get up that m asterpiece, ‘Philoctetes’, w here pity and
fear are m oved alm ost as strongly as in ‘L ear’, not on account of the
obvious objection of the physical suffering, but because there is no lady
in the play.6
58 M ary Russell M itford (1827). 59 Ibid.

60 M ary Russell M itford (1872), i. 116-17; (1835), i. 314-15.
61 M ary Russell M itford (1854a), i, p. xvi.
T H E O LD BOYS R E M E M B ER
A rath er different picture of the R eading G reek play em erges from
the hum orous m em oir of R eading School by a form er pupil nam ed
B. B. Bockett, who had gone on to becom e an ordained m inister
in the C hurch of E ngland. Bockett assum ed the pseudonym
‘O liver O ldfellow ’, invented new nam es for the principal ch ar
acters, and three decades after the last R eading G reek play p u b
lished O ur School; or, Scraps and Scrapes in Schoolboy Life, a title
w hich perhaps suggests a deliberate evocation of M itfo rd ’s O ur
Village.
Bockett had been chosen to play the role of the P hrygian slave in
the Orestes of 1821 (this is confirm ed by the program m e), and his
description of the preparations suggests a m uch m ore light-hearted
operation than som e of the other sources im ply. Y et the tone m ay
be a result of the anecdotal genre in w hich he is w riting, or of the
natural perspective of a 14-year-old boy. Bockett describes how
V alpy’s daughter had organized the w ardrobe ‘of our G recian
habilim ents’; he particularly recalls the hum iliation of being in
structed by this frightening w om an to try on his costum e, an
oriental ‘splendour of spangles and b righ t glazed calico’.
T h e role of the P hrygian slave in Orestes requires the actor to run
onto the stage in distraught panic. Bockett claim s th at D r Valpy
favoured a prim itive form of ‘m ethod acting’, and recalls that his
ow n ‘abject terro r and crouching hu m ility ’ had been highly com
m ended (see Fig. 9.3). H e claim s that he only achieved such
em otional authenticity because D r V alpy (the renow ned flogger
going in B ockett’s m em oir u n d er the nam e of ‘D uodecim us’, i.e.
‘T w elve of the B est’), used deliberately to h it him before his stage
entrance:
W ith stealthy, cat-like tread did D uodecim us the crafty glide behind those
scenes, and approaching the said Oliver at the happy m om ent, m ost
uncerem oniously did he deal him such a cuff or blow, as to draw forth
veritable tears from the eyes of the now really frightened and agitated slave.
M oreover, the same irresistible hand that dealt the blow proceeded, at the
same m om ent, to hurry on to the stage the sufferer, who, thanks to that
clever experim ent w hereby fact was substituted for fiction, did for once
succeed in ‘bringing down the house’.
Bockett records w ith pride that his perform ance earned him an
invitation to the R eading C orporation banquet. H e drank until he
F l g u R E 9.3 D r Valpy prepares Benjam in Bockett for his entrance as the

distraught Phrygian m essenger in an 1821 perform ance of E uripides’
Orestes at R eading School (1857).
passed out and had to be carried hom e from the feast, leaving his
hat b eh in d .62
B ut a m ore significant literary legacy of the R eading School play
was sitting beside Bockett at that feast, in the person of T hom as
T alfo urd, w hose ow n tragedy Ion captivated C ovent G arden in
1836, as will be seen in Ch. 11. A fter V alpy’s death T alfourd
prefixed a valedictory notice to the latest edition of Ion, singling
out as his greatest pedagogical virtue his transm ission to his pupils
of love for G reek tragedies, ‘those rem ains of antique beauty’.
Valpy ‘aw akened w ithin m e’, says T alfourd, ‘the sense of classical
grace’, w hich was consolidated by ‘the exquisite representations of
G reek trag ed y’ w hich ‘m ade its im ages vital’.63
62 Bockett (1857), 81. 63 Thom as T alfourd (1844), 3-4, 260.

V ITAL IM AGES
T h e ‘vital im ages’ provided by the R eading plays w ere rem arkable
in the context of theatre history, because in the first tw o decades of
the n ineteenth century serious dram a had retreated from the
public stages of B ritain alm ost altogether. V alpy was perfectly
aware of this, and saw him self as in som e sense challenging the
dearth of im portant dram a in the com m ercial theatre. T h e E p i
logue to the 1809 Alcestis not only refers to Jam es T h o m so n ’s
adaptation of the tragedy, Edw ard and Eleonora (see Ch. 4), and
to one of M rs S iddons’s nicknam es (‘T h e T rag ic M use’, after the
fam ous painting of her in that role by Joshua R eynolds), b u t
includes a condem nation of cu rren t practices in L ondon theatres:64
T he T ragic M use has left her Shakespeare’s isle,
A nd Com edy no longer deals her smile.
W ere G arrick now the London boards to try,
H is silver accents would in utterance die.
Indeed, their early drive for authenticity, w hich actually antici
pated by several years the sam e developm ents on the com m ercial
stage, m ade the R eading plays notew orthy. M itfo rd ’s 1821 review
of Orestes contrasts the W estm inster L atin play, w hich adopted the
‘dress and m anner of the latest E nglish fashion’, w ith the historical
accuracy of the R eading G reek play. T h is was perform ed
am idst scenery correct yet splendid, and in costum e every fold of w hich
has been studied, w ith extrem e care, and copied w ith the m ost exquisite
taste from the noblest of antique statues.65
It m ay be no coincidence th at the Elgin m arbles had arrived in
L ondon in 1806, the year of the first R eading G reek play, and
caused a considerable stir. D etails of the R eading productions
confirm that they aim ed at visual authenticity: in the 1824 Alcestis
not only was A pollo ‘u n earth ly ’, b u t ‘the zone, tunic and pallium
w ere faithfully displayed’.66 In Heracles the costum e ‘was exact
even in the m in u test details. Iris had her rainbow , Lyssa her snakes,
and T heseus his A thenian grasshoppers.’67 T hose grasshoppers,
inspired by T hucydid es’ account of old-fashioned hair accessories
in A thens (1. 6), w ere sym ptom s of a literal archaeologism w hich,
64 Valpy (1826), 173. See M acintosh (2001).
65 M ary Russell M itford (1821). 66 M ary Russell M itford (1824).
as will be noted in the next chapter, was only ju st beginning to
penetrate the com m ercial theatre.68
T h e quest for authenticity extended beyond the visual dim en
sion of the tragedies. D r P a rr’s tw o Sophoclean productions at
Stanm ore school had om itted all the tragic choruses, b u t at R ead
ing som e choruses w ere certainly perform ed, at least in the later
plays. In the 1827 Hecuba the chorus consisted of three boys, w ho
alternated w ith each other in delivering individual strophes as
solos, apparently in order to share the bu rd en of learning these
difficult sequences of ancient G reek.69 C are was taken over p ro
nunciation; in the 1821 Orestes, at any rate, the actors d istin
guished clearly betw een the A ttic and D oric dialects of the
iam bic and lyric m etres, and, to the ruination of the m etre,
inauthentically restored final vowels thro u g h o u t.70
Yet the m ost im portant function of the R eading G reek plays was
to m ake those involved sense the beauty of ancient literature and
art: the costum es and scenery m ay have been m odelled on G reek
originals, b u t the w riters of the review s already speak like pre-
Raphaelites of the sculptural or painterly beauty of the dram atic
representations them selves (see Ch. 16). A nother sentim ent ex
pressed by those w ho w rote about the plays is an apprehension
th at enactm ent of dram a uniquely revealed a ‘com m on h u m an ity ’
shared by the ancient G reeks and them selves. In an era w hen a
Classical education often m eant to rtu re by birchings and g ram
m atical exercises, som e lucky R eading pupils, including D obree
and T hom as T alfo urd (who was virtually dyslexic and could not
cope w ith gram m ar), discovered w hat it was like to be inspired by
their cultural ancestors in G reece.
D ecades later, w itnesses of the C am bridge G reek plays w ere to
speak of the life w hich perform ance breathed into these sepulchral
texts. In an im p o rtan t article P at E asterling has show n how re
viewers spoke of the ‘vivifying influence’ of these perform ances,
and the way they offered ‘contact w ith actual life’ as it was lived in
ancient G reece.71 T h is sense was enhanced by the entirely incor
rect belief held by som e that the C am bridge plays w ere the first
perform ances of G reek dram as since antiquity. Y et the perception
that enactm ent offers access to the ‘universal’ concerns of the
68 See Pentzell (1967), 221-2. 69 Valpy (1827).

70 M ary Russell M itford (1821). 71 Easterling (1999).
hum an soul, a profound spiritual com m union w ith the ancients,
was anticipated by reactions to the Reading plays. It is best ex
pressed in M ary Russell M itfo rd ’s eulogy of that singular 1821
Orestes-.
It was, indeed, delightful that these touches of p a th o s. .. were again
awakening the same electrical sym pathy, as of old— again swaying the
heart of a large audience as a single bosom , and proving the hum an soul
to be unaltered th ro ’ all the long fluctuations of fortune.72

IO
Ruins and Rebels
TH E GREEK UPRISING
F ar away from the B ritish stage, the G reek-speaking w orld in 1821
em barked upon eight painful years of revolutionary upheaval.
Years of planning w ere p u t into action by A lexandros Y psilantis
in O dessa, the ancient city on the Black Sea w hich C atherine the
G reat had refounded and populated w ith the prosperous m erchant
caste of G reeks know n as Phanariots. A fter announcing in early
M arch that the W ar of Independence had com m enced, he invaded
O ttom an M oldavia. In the Peloponnese, Bishop G erm anos of
Patras hoisted the G reek flag and began the m ainland uprising.
P art of the text of Y psilantis’ call to arm s read as follows:
Brave and valiant Greeks, let us rem em ber the ancient freedom of Greece,
the battles of M arathon and Therm opylae; let us fight on the tom bs of our
ancestors who fell for the sake of our freedom . T he blood of our tyrants is
dear . .. above all to the shades of M iltiades, Them istocles, Leonidas, and
the three hundred who m assacred so m any tim es their num ber of the
innum erable arm y of the barbarous Persians— the hour is come to destroy
their successors, m ore barbarous and m ore detestable!1
T h e struggles of the G reeks against the A chaem enid Persians
nearly two and a half thousand years before w ere thus adopted as
the charter m yth of the new H ellas, and its w arriors roused w ith
echoes of the exhortation w ith w hich the G reeks, according to
tradition, had been inspired p rior to the battle of Salam is, an
exhortation w hich A eschylus had quoted in his Persians (402—5):
‘O children of the H ellenes, com e on, liberate your fatherland,
liberate your children, your wives, your ancestral gods and the
shrines of your ancestors!’ T hese stirring w ords w ere already one
inspiration b ehind the song of the revolutionary balladeer Rhigas,
‘Rise, children of the H ellenes’, and the French revolutionary
1 See Tsigakou (1981) and R obert and Frani;oise Etienne (1992), 85—8.
R uins and Rebels 265
anthem Le M arseillaise, ‘A llons enfants de la Patrie | L e jo u r de
gloire est arrive’.2
A eschylus’ Persians holds a distinguished place in the p o st-an
tique perform ance history of G reek tragedy, since it was actually
the first know n play to receive a R enaissance enactm ent, one w hich
had m ade an early equation betw een A chaem enid Persia and the
O ttom an E m pire. In 1571 a w estern naval alliance, essentially
Spanish, Papal, and V enetian, led by D on John of A ustria, had
defeated the O ttom an fleet at the Battle of L epanto. In order to
celebrate the victory Persians was perform ed, perhaps in Italian
translation, in the private house of a m em ber of the V enetian
nobility w ho ruled the island of Z ante (Z akynthos). T h e dissem in
ation of the text of A eschylus’ play to these w estern G reek islands
was facilitated by the channels of com m unication linking G reek
intellectuals and Italian centres of scholarship.3 M ichael Sophia-
nos of Chios, for exam ple, translated A ristotle, collaborated on the
sem inal 1552 edition of the tragedies of A eschylus published by
Francesco R obortello in Venice, and becam e a professor of G reek
at Padua.
A F rench Les Perses, inspired by A eschylus, was in the early
nineteenth century dedicated to A lexandros M orouzis, Phanariot
Prince of the D anubian principality of M oldavia, and m ay have
been produced at his court in Jassy.4 A nd although Persians was
probably not perform ed in B ritain before 1907,5 in stark contrast
w ith its rediscovery for patriotic purposes in France in 1862 and
2 On Rhigas’ song see W oodhouse (1969), 60; on the importance of Salamis and
the Persian wars in the French revolution, and of another Greek source (Tyrtaeus)
in Le Marseillaise, V idal-N aquet (1995), 95, 101. Persians was very attractive to late-
18th-c. republicans: W illiam Jones, for example, had w ritten a play ‘on the model of
a Greek tragedy’, with ‘a chorus of Persian sages’, called Sohrab. See Teignm outh
(1804), 529. For a fascinating discussion of the part played by the Salamis narrative
in the origins of political theory both ancient and m odern, see Euben (1986). T he
same Aeschylean speech was quoted by M etaxas on the ‘Day of the N o’, 28 Oct.
1940, when he roused the Greek people to resist M ussolini’s ultim atum . For studies
of the cultural impact of Persians see Hall (1996), 1—6 and Hall (forthcoming).
3 On the Zante Persians see Protopapa-M poum poulidou (1958), 9—11; Valsa
(1960), 164; Knos (1962), 303, 654; on Greek intellectuals at the universities and
publishing houses of Venice and Padua, Geanakopoulos (1976), 63—6.
4 Knos (1962), 656.
3 T his was an avant-garde realization of a prose translation by B. J. Ryan,
perform ed at the Literary T heatre Society at T erry’s Theatre, with Lewis Casson
in the role of D arius’ ghost. See I L N 130, no. 3546 (6 Apr. 1907), 518 col. 3.
266 Ruins and Rebels
G reece in 1889,6 it had long been influential. T w o strands are
apparent in its B ritish reception. T h e first is a generally conserva
tive, patriotic tendency, w hich led at different tim es to the battle of
Salam is being connected w ith various fam ous B ritish naval victo r
ies. T hese included the defeat of the Spanish A rm ada, in an idea
for a play set in the court of Spain w hich T hom as R ym er outlined
in som e detail in his treatise A Short View o f Tragedy (1693), and
naval encounters in the O pium W ars, in an anonym ous burlesque
of Persians entitled The Chinaid, published in 1843. T h is strand,
how ever, is best exem plified by the anonym ous poem The B attle of
the N ile: A D ram atic Poem on the M odel o f the Greek Tragedy
(1799), w hich im itated Persians w hile celebrating N elson’s fam ous
victory over N apoleon B onaparte in the Battle of the N ile.7 T h e
other, far m ore radical strand in the B ritish reception of Persians
was developed by T hom as M aurice in The F all o f the M ogul
(1806), a tragedy ‘attem pted partly on the G recian m odel’, w hich
borrow s from the Sophoclean m odel of M aurice’s earlier Oedipus
(on w hich see C h. 8), b u t also from A eschylus’ Persians. T h e latter
is especially apparent in the battle narrative and the lam ents of its
m utinous choruses of B rahm in and Z oroastrian priests, w ho p re
dict that the persecution their religions have suffered will becom e
w orse u n d er their new est Islam ic ruler, N adir Shah, before the
subject H in d u and Parsee peoples shall one day be liberated from
im perial oppression.
T h e transhistorical vision of M aurice’s choruses, as well as the
aspirational politics, Islam ic principal characters, and eastern
palace setting of his play, directly anticipate those of Shelley’s
Hellas, a slightly later adaptation of Persians published in 1822
and dedicated to the P hanariot P rince A lexandras M avrokordatos;
as a refugee from the T urcocracy in Pisa, he had recently been
instructing M ary Shelley in ancient G reek. Shelley’s Preface
tw ins the A eschylean G reek tragic vision of the struggle for
6 T he students of Rhetoric at an Orleans seminary perform ed Persians in an
anonymous translation in honour of the m emory of Joan of Arc on 7 May 1862.
See Egger (1862). On the Athenian production see W artelle (1978), 135—6.
7 See also Sotheby’s sim ilar celebration of the Battle of the Nile (1799), which by
means of verbal echoes of Persians (e.g. the ‘awful order’ of the British fleet, p. 4)
implicitly equates Napoleon with Xerxes. John Peter R oberdeau’s Thermopylae; or,
the Repulsed Invasion (published 1814) drew on Richard G lover’s 18th-c. epic
Leonidas and was actually enacted by recruits at Gosport Naval Academy in April
1805.
Ruins and Rebels 267
freedom w ith the 1821 uprising. Shelley w rites that ‘the Persae of
A ischylus afforded m e the first m odel of m y conception, although
the decision of the glorious contest now w aging in G reece being yet
suspended forbids a catastrophe parallel to the retu rn of X erxes
and the desolation of the P ersians’.8 H e therefore replaced the
A eschylean lam ent for the dead of Salam is w ith his captive
G reek ch o rus’s visionary account of the utopian future w hich the
liberation of G reece m ight offer the w hole w orld. In was in the
Preface to this dram a th a t Shelley m ade his fam ous declaration,
‘W e are all G reeks . .. our laws, our literature, our religion, our arts
have their roots in G reece’, and added that ‘a new race has arisen
throu g h o u t E urope, nursed in the abhorrence of the opinions w hich
are its chains, and she will continue to produce fresh generations to
accom plish that destiny w hich tyrants dread and foresee.’9
GREEK RUINS
H ow ever m uch they m ay have supported the idea of pan-E uropean
revolution, the phlegm atic residents of L ondon in the early 1820s
w ere less likely to risk their lives in su pp o rt of H ellas and global
liberty than their contem poraries on the E uropean m ainland. D es
pite the public prom inence of the philhellene L ord Byron, and the
exploits of C aptain H astings on the H ydriote ship Themistocles,
only twelve know n B ritish volunteers w ent to G reece, in com pari
son w ith 260 G erm ans and 71 F ren ch m en .10 T h e L ondoners who
stayed at hom e w ere, how ever, able for the first tim e in decades to
see adaptations of G reek tragedy on the com m ercial stage; besides
F aucit’s 1821 Oedipus at the Royal W est L ondon T h eatre (dis
cussed in Ch. 8), the offerings included E dw ard Fitzball’s Antigone
and P eter Bayley’s Orestes, based on Sophocles’ Electra.
A lthough it can be no coincidence th at G reek tragedy was redis
covered on the stage at alm ost exactly the sam e m om ent as the
outbreak of the W ar of Independence, the political equation of
the ancient G reek struggles for freedom w ith the contem porary
G reek uprising was not in an unm ediated sense the cause of the
8 Shelley (1965), hi. 7. On M avorkordatos see Dakin (1972), 81—2.
9 Shelley (1965), iii. 9.
10 Puchner (1996), 86 n. 5. On the puzzling paucity of Britons who actually went
to Greece at this time see also W oodhouse (1969), 7-8. On H astings see H ow arth
(1976), 46-7.
experim ents w ith ancient tragedy. T h ey w ere, rather, a response to
the popularity of other types of spectacular dram a set against back
drops portraying the ruins of classical G reece. It was plays enacting
the G reek struggle w ith the T u rk s, rather than the struggle itself,
that stim ulated the interest in representing the exploits of G reek
heroes, perform ed in landscapes littered w ith ancient pillars. T h is
interest, as we shall see in the next section, inevitably led authors
and theatre m anagers in the direction of G reek tragedy.
Y et theatrical interest in classical archaeology, especially in rela
tion to Shakespearean plays set in the ancient w orld, had been
developing for m ore than tw o decades by the tim e of the G reek
uprising. As was noted in Ch. 6 in reference to L o u th erb u rg ’s
designs for G arrick, archaeological discoveries w ere having a
m ild effect on the theatre by the second half of the eighteenth
century. B ut this process was fundam entally a phenom enon of
the early nineteenth century. It was long custom ary am ongst liter
ary historians to condem n the theatre of this period, b u t recently
there has been fuller appreciation of the im portant technological
and scenic developm ents at this tim e. T h ey laid the groundw ork
for the m odern theatre, and it is hard to overestim ate the role of
ancient archaeology and art in this process.
T h e K em ble siblings (John, C harles, and to a lesser extent
Sarah) w ere, at least in B ritain, the founding parents of ‘archaeo
logical th eatre’. In 1794 John K em ble erected a m uch enlarged
theatre at D ru ry L ane, and began reproducing architectural fea
tures in unprecedentedly faithful detail. T h is date coincided w ith
the publication of the th ird volum e of Jam es S tu art’s The A n tiq u i
ties of Athens, w hich, for the first tim e, offered to its hungry
readership a precise delineation of the D oric style in arch itecture.11
A ntiquarian exactitude was established at least as an ideal by 1799,
w hen a m ythological pantom im e at Sadler’s W ells, the Oracle of
Delphi, included representations of the tem ple at D elphi, the
palace and gardens of O m phale, and the grottoes of B acchus.12
M ore significantly, w hen K em ble opened the new C ovent G arden
T h eatre on 18 S eptem ber 1809, it was partly m odelled on the
Parthenon. R obert S m irke’s auditorium boasted an im posing
flight of m arble steps leading to a D oric screen .13
11 See further Spencer (1954), 195-6. 12 Rosenfeld (1981), 35—8.
13 Rosenfeld (1972—3), 69; a contem porary engraving is reproduced in Acker-
m ann et al. (1809), ii. 263.
Sm irke was criticized for using such an im posing architectural
style for w hat was basically a place of entertain m en t (at that date,
indeed, predom inantly light entertainm ent), b u t he him self b e
lieved th at a dignified theatrical building m ight in itself im prove
public taste and therefore the type of repertoire p erfo rm ed .14
Sm irke’s G ran d F ro n t was decorated w ith relief sculptures w hich
included depictions of G reek figures representing C om edy (A ris
tophanes, M enander, and T halia), and, for T ragedy, A eschylus
w ith the trial scene from his Eumenides. K em ble’s inaugural ad
dress traced the history of the stage back to A eschylus and espe
cially Sophocles, u nder w hom ‘builders and decorators cam e’,
alluding to the ancient tradition that Sophocles had introduced
painted sets to the theatre, w hile betraying the fact that his own
late G eorgian interest in ancient dram a was prim arily sceno-
graphic.15
John K em ble’s scenery for the 1811 Coriolanus, w hich com
bined D oric and C orinthian orders, set new standards in an tiq u ar
ian set design.16 T h is heightened interest in representing
M editerranean antiquity was stim ulated by the influence of spe
cific archaeological discoveries and of publications containing il
lustrations of ruins and reconstructions of them . A new drop was
painted at the A delphi in 1815, in w hich a triu m p hal palace arch ‘in
exquisite style’ and adorned w ith statues was directly copied from
a D oric m asterpiece discovered at A lbano; in the sam e year in
Timon o f A thens at D ru ry Lane, there was spectacular new scenery
including a view of A thens based on a picture in the book L ord
B yron’s fellow traveller John H obhouse had published on his
return: Travels in A lbania and O ther Provinces o f Turkey in 1809
& 1810 , 17 By the early 1820s, the fashion for classical sets for
Shakespeare, in conjunction w ith the international situation,
becam e crucial in determ ining the choice of su bject-m atter dram a
tized in the theatres.
14 D envir (1984), 48.

15 Aristotle, Poetics 4, 1449a18—19. See the Courier for 19 Sept. 1809, in the
collection ‘Covent Garden: Newspaper C uttings’ in the Bodleian Library; W ynd-
ham (1906), i. 331.
15 Rosenfeld (1972-3), 68.
17 Rosenfeld (1981), 174, 150. On H obhouse’s journey see W oodhouse (1969),
15-16.
ST A G IN G TH E WAR OF IN D EPEN D EN CE
In 1809, the year the new C ovent G arden theatre opened, Sydney
O w enson (the future L ady M organ) published her then notorious
novel W om an: or, Ida o f A thens. F rom the perspective of theatre
history its im portance lies in its fusion of idealized classical G reek
ruins, m em ories of the fall of C onstantinople— prom inent w hen
Ida dresses for a m asquerade as Irene, the fam ous G reek heroine of
th at era18— and a nearly contem porary setting against the back
g round of O ttom an rule. It also contrasts the w onders of the
ancient theatre w ith the trivial dram a, so despised by Sir R obert
Sm irke, dom inating the theatrical repertoire of G eorgian L ondon.
W hen in the novel an E nglishm an visits A thens, the A rch o n ’s
lovely daughter Ida proudly show s off to h im the ‘theatre of
B acchus’; bu t w hen she is taken to L ondon art galleries and a
m odern farce, she is dism ayed. H aving ‘acquired her jud g m en t in
the school of Phidias, am idst the ruins of the P arth en o n ’, she is
bored by ‘the over-strained sentim ent of w hat is term ed genteel
com edy’.19
T h e L o ndon stage’s rediscovery of the G reek tragedies b orn in
Id a’s ‘theatre of B acchus’ is inexplicable except in the context of its
bullish reaction to the G raeco-T u rk ish conflict. T h e m ost con
spicuous feature of the 1820s B ritish theatre was a crop of ‘W ar of
In d ependence’ dram as, especially at the C oburg T h eatre. By N o
vem ber 1821 the C oburg audience was w atching C. E. W alker’s
‘entirely new grand M elo -D ram a’ The Greeks and the Turks; or,
the Intrepidity o f Jem m y, Jerry, and a British Tar. T h e star of this
spectacle, set in T hessaloniki h arb o u r b u t boasting pillared an
tique colonnades, was F an F ireproof, a B ritish grandm other. She
proved ‘ardent in the cause of G reece and universal L ib erty ’, while
a B ritish hornpipe dancer was aw arded the role of ‘connecting the
G reek revolution w ith the liberal feelings of the B ritish people’.20
T h e m ost im p o rtan t exam ple of this type of C oburg play was
L azaria the Greek; or the A rchon’s Daughter, another ‘G reek
18 Owenson (1809), iv. 206. On Irene in the 18-c. theatre, see above, Ch. 5 n. 7.
19 Owenson (1809), i. 85; iv. 188.
20 M ikoniatis (1979), 333. T he hornpipe dancing throws interesting light on
D r Valpy’s apparently eccentric taste for combining hornpipes with Greek tragedy
(p. 247).
M elo -D ram a’ perform ed in 1823, w hen serious fund-raising was
u nder way, u n d er the august aegis of the L ondon G reek C om m it
tee itself. T h e hero (despite the fem inine subtitle) was a m ale slave
nam ed D em etrius Lazaria. B eneath the heading Greek Cause the
playbill included the follow ing notice:
T h e great struggle in w hich the G reek N ation is engaged has occupied the
attention of every friend of hum anity, and every heart im bued w ith honour
and sensibility echoes these w ords, G R E E C E is fighting for L IB E R TY !
All m ankind declare the num erous deeds of C O U R A G E and V A L O U R
achieved by this Brave People, deserve to be recorded in letters of G O L D ,
and w orthy to be handed down to posterity as w orthy [of] their great
Ancestors. T he M anager of the R O Y A L C O B U R G T H E A T R E ... has
rendered his Stage the vehicle for exciting public interest, in their behalf,
by the production of a S P L E N D ID G R E E K M E L O D R A M A under the
IM M E D IA T E P A T R O N A G E of the N oblem en and G entlem en form ing
the G reek C om m ittee.21
O ne m onth later the offering was J. D o b b s’s P etraki Germano; or,
A lm a n za r the Traitor, an account of the Bishop of P atras’s leader
ship of the 1821 Peloponnesian uprising, b u t including scenes of
far greater antiquity— the ruins of ancient Laconia, including the
‘Senate Plouse’ and the am ph itheatre.22 T h e play was intended to
celebrate the Peloponnesians’ attem pt to ‘rekindle the Sacred
Flam e of L iberty. Sparta m ay take honour to herself of having
preserved even to this day, am ong her O ffspring, som e few M en
w ho possess all the heroic S pirit of their F a th ers.’23
T hese rem arkable pieces instigated a tren d w hich also produced
The R evolt o f the Greeks; or, the M a id o f A thens (D ru ry Lane,
1824, including a view of the A cropolis), the spectacular The
Siege o f M issolonghi; or, the M assacre o f the Greeks (A stley’s, July
1826), H . M . M iln er’s m usical dram a Britons at N avarino (C oburg
T h eatre, 1827), an extravaganza entitled The M u fti’s Tomb; or,
The Turkish M isers (A stley’s 1828), and The Suliote; or, The
Greek Fam ily (1829), w hich offered its D ru ry Lane audience a
21 British Library Playbill, dated 24 Nov. 1823. One of the earliest m em bers of
the London Greek Com m ittee has been encountered in an earlier chapter,
D r Samuel Parr. See W oodhouse (1969), 73.
22 M ikoniatis (1979), 336.
23 Ibid.
272 R uins and Rebels
rom antically dilapidated ancient tem p le.24 Such plays w ere also
popular in the B ritish provinces.25
F rom the perspective of the cu rren t book the m ost striking
aspect of these plays, besides their depictions of classical architec
ture, is that their freedom -loving heroes are som etim es given
ancient G reek nam es, even nam es taken from G reek tragedy. In
A li Pacha; or, the Signet R ing (C ovent G arden 1822), a Suliot chief
im probably nam ed Zenocles triu m p hed over the bloodthirsty
T u rk ish despot of E pirus, after adm onishing his m en to ‘show
the expecting w orld th at G reece is not extinct, and give som e
future H om er them es for a m ightier Iliad ’.26 T h e hero of
J. S m ith ’s tragedy Creon the P atriot, perform ed in N orw ich in
1825, m ay have derived his nam e from G reek tragedy, b u t he
was a contem porary klephtic revolutionary.27 T h e W ar of In d e
pendence m eant that ancient G reek ‘liberty’ and m odern G reek
‘liberation’ had becom e inseparable in the popular im agination.
B R IT IS H R E A D IN G S OF G R E E K T R A G E D Y IN
T H E 1820S
T h e theatrical reverberations of the G reek R evolution extended to
a renew ed interest in dram as concerned w ith the entire history of
the G reeks. Plays set at the tim e of the fall of C onstantinople in
1453 now found perform ance (e.g. Joanna Baillie’s Constantine
Palaiologos, staged in D u b lin in 1825), along w ith a few dram as
on them es from ancient G reek history, and— for the first tim e since
the eighteenth century— a handful of adapted G reek tragedies.
W estern E urope began to u n earth this genre after Sophocles’
Philoctetes— a profound statem ent of the pain of exile from the
fatherland— had been staged in 1818 by the P hanariot com m unity
at O dessa.28 W hile on the C ontinent the w orks of V oltaire and
24 See Droulia (1974), no. 1732. In this category should probably also be placed
the anonymous musical Lord Byron in Athens; or, the Corsair’s Isle (Sadler’s Wells,
June 1832).
25 An 1825 scenery catalogue for the T heatre Royal, Birmingham, includes two
columns and a ‘fire piece’ for W alker’s The Revolt of the Greeks. See John E.
Cunningham (1950), 153.
26 Act I, Scene iii. See further M ikoniatis (1979), 334—6.
27 [J. Smith] (1827); see Nicoll (1952-9), iv. 623.
28 See the article reproduced in Spathes (1986), 145—98, and Topouzes (1992),
166-7.
A lfieri w ere rediscovered,29 all three B ritish perform ed ad ap ta
tions of G reek tragedy w ere at least notionally new. T h eir ultim ate
sources w ere all Sophoclean (in contrast w ith the predom inant
E uripides of the eighteenth century), and they all dram atized
struggles against tyrants, perceived to be a broadly topical them e.
It was as if the possibility of a free, autonom ous G reece in the
political sphere finally liberated the im aginations of the m en of the
theatre, allow ing them to w eld the ancient plays to the archaeo
logical realities of the M editerranean. A nd it is in this context that
the experim ents in the 1820s w ith ancient G reek theatre need to be
read.
A spate of tragedies ow ing form and content to ancient G reek
dram a was published in B ritain in the early 1820s,30 and given the
contem porary theatre’s addiction to classical ruins, this tren d
w ould inevitably find enacted expression sooner or later. By June
1821 Dirce; or, the F atal Urn (a d istan t relative of M etastasio’s
opera Demofoonte) was attracting large audiences at D ru ry Lane
through the exertions (in breeches) of M adam e V estris (on w hom
see below, Chs. 12—14), playing the young hero C erinthus. Dirce
was inform ed by G reek tragedy (A pollo dem ands that a m aiden be
offered for sacrifice), b u t its im portance lay in its scenery. T h e
interior of A pollo’s tem ple was ‘correct in character, beautiful in
design, and finished in execution’.31 Dirce was also the first all
sung English opera, and the note struck by one review er is fascin
ating because it betrays the intertw ining of generic and aesthetic
questions w ith im m ediately topical affairs. O bjecting to the oper
atic indignities to w hich the com poser (C harles H orn) subjected
his ancient G reeks, the review er (T hom as T alfo urd, a form er
pupil at R eading School) com plains:
29 Puchner (1996), 101.

30 See e.g. R.C. Dallas, Adrastus: A Tragedy (London, 1823), W illiam Boscawen
Bell, The Queen of Argos: A Tragedy in Five Acts (London, 1823), and David
Lyndsay’s The Nereid’s Love in Dramas of the Ancient World (Edinburgh, 1822),
dedicated to ‘the M anes of Eschylus’. T he Constantinopolitan Gregorios Palaeolo-
gus’ im portant m odern Greek prose tragedy The Death of Demosthenes survives,
indeed, only in the English translation in which it was published in Cam bridge in
1824. See D roulia (1974), no. 516.
31 The Drama; or, Theatrical Pocket Magazine, 1 (1821), 95. A playbill for Dirce
at the Coburg Theatre on 16 July 1821 said that it boasted striking scenery (cit.
Rosenfeld (1981), 132).
274 R uins and Rebels
. .. to reduce the G od-like Greeks to ballad-m ongers— to m elt that hero
ism which is a possession to the world for ever into quavers— is neither just
nor wise . .. A first-rate singer, or a w om an dressed in male attire, may be a
fit representative of a Persian S a tra p . . . but will scarcely be w orthy to
represent that race who fought at Therm opylae and M arathon.32
O nly a few m onths later, at the Royal W est L ondon T h eatre, the
audience was prom ised classical G reek heroes delivering suitably
solem n speeches (alongside m usical interludes), in the rem arkable
adapted tragedy discussed in Ch. 8, John Savill F aucit’s version of
the ‘CEdipus Tyrannus of Sophocles .. . being its first appearance
these 2440 years’.33
Y et even the W est L ondon Oedipus was not the first of the 1821
G reek tragedies, for E dw ard F itzball’s A ntigone, starring one M rs
Clifford, was first produced in N orw ich T h eatre Royal in the
spring of that year, w ith the subtitle The Theban Sister.34 Fitzball
was then the ow ner of a N orw ich p rintin g shop. A five-act tragedy
in blank verse, his Antigone is archaizing in style (at least in
com parison w ith o ther types of stage play w ritten in the 1820s),
replete w ith archaic diction (‘thou w ast’ and ‘w ar’s stern p anoply’).
It draw s on both Sophocles’ Antigone and E u rip id es’ Phoenician
Women, b u t raises the rom ance betw een A ntigone and H aem on to
prom inence, thus portraying C reon as the enem y of Love as well as
L iberty. T h e action takes place over tw o days, and m oves through
various settings, from Polynices’ cam p outside T hebes, to A n ti
gone’s apartm ent, the ‘In terio r of a m agnificent T h eb an tem ple’, a
civic scene w ithin the gates of T hebes, a m ountainside, and a
cavern containing a statue of O edipus. By A ct III, Scene iv the
audience is w atching the ram parts of T hebes from the outside,
w ith Eteocles shouting at Polynices from the battlem ents, and the
fourth act reveals a state apartm ent and a T h eb an street scene. T h e
clim ax retu rns to the cavern, in w hich A ntigone and Polynices and
Eteocles die, before th u n d er sounds and the curtain falls on
C reon’s despair.
By 1824 Fitzball had been engaged as salaried author at the
Surrey T h eatre in L ondon, w here his N orw ich Antigone was ‘got
up w ith great splendour, and played m any n ig h ts’.35 C harles
32 New M onthly M agazine and Literary Journal, 3 (1821), 330.

33 The Drama, 2 (1821), 99-100.
34 Larpent 2206. See Fitzball (1859), i. 58 and n. 35 Ibid. 139.
T om kins, engaged at the Surrey as principal scene-painter under
T hom as D ibdin, in 1824 also provided scenery for three other
pieces by Fitzball, including one of the contem porary plethora of
nautical m elodram as. H is designs m ade the theatre popular; the
tem ples, civic scenes, state apartm ents and statues for Antigone
w ere pronounced grand, original and ‘calculated to raise’ the
S urrey m anagem ent ‘to the highest pinnacle of their profession’.36
T h e th ird and last G reek tragic adaptation was P eter Bayley’s
Orestes in Argos, based on Sophocles’ Electra, w hich played at
C ovent G arden in 1825, w ith John K em ble’s m uch younger
b ro th er C harles in the role of O restes (Fig. 10.1). Bayley’s play
was sym ptom atic of the E urope-w ide revival of interest in the
tyrant-slaying them e of Sophocles’ Electra in the wake of the 1821
uprising. Bayley m ay have been p ro m p ted by reports of the tragic
Oreste by Jean-M arie Janin, perform ed at the T h eatre Franâis
in Paris in June 1821.37 A lexandre Soum et, w ho was also involved
in entertainm ents m ore directly related to the G reek w ar (such as
the libretto for R ossini’s 1826 Le Siege de Corinthe), w rote a
Clytemnestre, first perform ed at the Paris O deon on 7 N ovem ber
1822, derived from Sophocles’ Electra. T h is G reek tragedy also
featured in the visual arts of the tim e. T h e follow ers of Jacques-
L ouis D avid com peted annually for the Prix de Rom e by painting
neo-classical scenes. Betw een 1801 and 1821 the prescription was
always from the Iliad, ancient historians, the O ld T estam en t and
O vid, b u t suddenly in 1822 it was ‘O reste et Pylade’, and in 1823
that fam iliar Sophoclean scene, ‘Egisthe, croyant retrouver le
corps d ’O reste m ort, decouvre celui de C lytem nestre’.38
Bayley’s prologue drew connections betw een the classical su b
ject-m atter and the continuing struggle in G reece by arguing that
the dram a at A thens used ‘to spread by scenic arts the P atriot
flam e’. T h e epilogue m akes an allusion to the ‘suffering G reeks’.39
T h e play em phasizes the role of the people of A rgos in the uprising
36 The Drama, 5 (1823), 40. 37 Frenzel (1962), 484.

38 In subsequent years other Sophoclean scenes were chosen: Antigone in 1825,
Philoctetes in 1838, and Oedipus Tyrannus in 1843, 1867, and 1871. See H arding
(1979), 32, 91-4.
39 T he prologue and epilogue do not appear in the first published version (Bayley
(1825a)), or in any other edition. T hey are quoted from the m anuscript in the
L arpent Collection (Bayley (1824)).
Theatre Royal, Covent-Oarclen,
This present FRIDAY, April 22, 1825,
Will b# performed {for the Second time) a NEW TRAGEDY, in five acts, call'd
Orestes in Arros. H'ith new Scenery, Dresses, and Decorations,

The Incidental Mustek composed by Mr. J. J. JONES, M.B. Oson.
us, ( Usurper o f the Throne o f ArgosJ Mr T O H E T T ,
Orestes rSon o f Agamemnon) Mr. C. KEMBLE,,
Pyla-Jes {his FriendJ Mr. COOPER,
Areas {an old Officer o f Agamemnon's) Mr. EGERTON,
Adrastus, y?r. T. COOPER,
JEsdiines, ) fMr. MORREBOW,
Cratidas, { Citizens, < Mr. LEY,
Eudainippus ) I Mr. BAKER..
Daulias, Mr. CHAPMAN,
Lyons ( an Emissary o f {Egisthus) Mr, EVANS,
Clytemnestra, {reigning uilk Mgisthm in Argos) Mrs, BARTLEY,
Electra, ) Daughters o f Agamemnon 5Miss LACY,
Clirysotheinis, \ and Clytemnestra. (Miss JONES,
Female Attendants, Miss J. SCOTT ami Miss BOOEN,
Nemesis, Miss HAMMERS LEY,
Tisiphone, Alecto, Megara, ( Furies) Mesds. Vedy, Twamley, Wells.
The PROLOGI E to he spoken by Mr. COOPER—The EPILOGUE by Mrs. GIBBS.
After which will be produced a new Interlude, called
Lofty Projects: Or, A K T S

IN AN ATTIC.
ALADDIV
Mr. Valentine Versatile,, Mr. YATES, Mr. Peter Polymath, MrMr. BARTLEY,
Mr.PompeswEgo, Mr. CHAPMAN, AN, Mynheer Yon
Von Krankinkopf, MMr.r. BARNES, IM obs. Piroutte, Mr HEATH
Calliope Polymath, Miss HENRY,
To which will be added (16th time} ihe revived Melo-Dramal'iek Enlfrti
Or, Tlie WONDERFUL LAMP.

The whole as originally r omposed and produced Ay Mr. F A B L E Y.
Aladdin, - - Mrs. VINING,
Tahi Tongluck, Cham of Tarlory. Mr, CHAPMAN, Knrar Haojoo, his Viiier, Mr. RYALS
Karim Azack, the Tizier’s son, 14r, T. P. COOKE,
Alienator, the African Magician, Mr. FARLEY,
Kazrsck, /its Chinese Slave, Mr, J. S. GRIMAim,
Princess Badrouiboudour. Miss HENRY,
Zobeiile and Airroo, he- chiefAttendants, Mesdames J, SCOTT and BROWN.
Widow Ching Mustapba, Mr*. DAVENPORT, Genie of the Ring, Mias H, BODEN,
4 track, Genteof the Air, Mr. EVANS, Genie of the IJimp, Mr. LOUIS, His attendant Spirits supporting
A LA D D IN 'S F L Y IN G PALA CE.
A C H IN E SE D IV E R T JSE M E N T ,
by Mrt.Vedy, Misses Ryalls, Romer, Griftitlm, Thomosin, Hibhcrt. & Kendall (Pupil of Mr. Austin.)
The NEW TRAGEDY, called
___________
'I'omanow, the Coifiedy of A ROLAND for au OLJVERL """""
Sir Mark Chase,’Mr. FAWCETi , Alfred Highflyer, Mr. JONES,Fixture, Mr. RAYNER,
, Maria Darlington. . - - Mbs F O O T E
With the Opera of CLARI.
Duke Vivaldi, Mr. T. P. COOKE. Rolamo, Father of Clari, Mr. FAWCETT, Jocoao, Mr. DURUSET
Clari, - Miss M. TREE.
To which will be added the Comedy of CHARLES the SECOND,
Ring Charles, Mr. C. KEMBLE, Lord Rochester, Mr. JONES, Copt. Copp. Mr. FAWCETT,
Edward, Mr DL’RUSKT, Lady Clara. Mm FAUCIT. Mary, Al.ss M. TREE.
Or Monday, (3d time) the new Tragedy of ORESTES inARGOS.
With the Last New Pantomime of HARLEQUIN and the DRAGON of WANTLY.
On Tuesday, the revived Comedy of A WOMAN NEVER VEXT; or the Widow of Cornbill.
King Henry the Sixth. Mr, BAKER, Foster, Mr, YOUNG, Stephen Foster, Mr, C. KEMBLE.
Fjsier, Jun. Mr. COOPER. Walter Brown, Mr. EGERTON, Sir Godfrey Speedwell, Mr, BARTLEY
Matter Innocent Lambskin, Mr. KEELfiY, Clown. Mr. BLANCHARD.
Agues Weteted, Mias CHESTER, Mrs,Foster, Miss LACY. Jane, Miss JONES.
After which, the Farce of The POACHERS.
On Wednesday, the Comedy of WIVES as THEY WERE and MAIDS as THEY ARE.
With the Dramatics Romance of ALADDIN
PRECIOSA. (Taken from Middj,kto» and Rowlkt’s SPANISH GIPSEY.}
TbeMUSICK by CARL MARIA VON WEBER, will be produced as soon as possible.
AnvT’ersons vnshsna tohttX & the B IL L S of the F L A Y dslhered to th em , man he Accommodated *>.
by-application ( t f by Letter, Pb$bpaidj to Mr. Thokas Cogpf.R, a! the StaysfJoor of the Theatre,
* firqjy Eleren till Two o Clock.__________ __
ei-li 9.~'l>enmkri«-<-OBn, Owsuh*, “ mm
F l GURE 10.1 C ontem porary playbill for Peter Bayley’s Orestes in Argos
at Covent G arden, 1825.
against ./Egisthus, and A reas, the paidagogos figure, is central to the
‘revolt | against the ty ra n t’.40 A lthough Bayley’s tragedy uses
A lfieri, V oltaire, and the version by Shirley discussed above in
Ch. 6, the m ajor source is Electra. O ne of the review ers even called
Bayley a ‘tran slato r’ of Sophocles, and com plim ents him for
greater fidelity to the G reek than either V oltaire or C rebillon.41
T h e production was praised for C harles K em ble’s perform ance
as O restes (Fig. 10.2) and for the effectiveness of the recognition
scene,42 b u t its prim ary im pact seem s to have been visual. T h e
theatre designers p u t considerable w ork into the classical scenery
for Bayley’s play (Fig. 10.3).43 T h e stage directions for the opening
of the second act required the representation of the tom b of A ga
m em non, the palace of the Pelopidae, and ‘A rgos in the distance—
not too rem o te’, w hile A egisthus’ death scene required num erous
pillars. It was set in ‘A large court of the Palace, w ith colonnade,
entrances to various apartm ents, baths & c.’44
T h is b rief theatrical revival of Sophocles co n tribu ted to the
irrevocable changes in public expectations of the playhouses
w hich m arked the 1820s, and w ere to prepare the ground for the
introduction of all the glories and excesses of V ictorian spectacular
theatre. A t D ru ry Lane, for exam ple, there is no m ention of classic
scenes at all in its 1819 inventory, b u t by 1829 the C ovent G arden
sale catalogue includes quite a num ber, quite possibly including
item s from Bayley’s Orestes. T h ere w ere three palace scenes in the
D oric style, the Ionic, and the C orinthian respectively, along w ith
a forum , an Ionic palace, a R om an hall, an Ionic hall, and a
C orinthian street. As R osenfeld argues, this new type of classical
idiom was im p ortan t as the only new style to be introduced into the
E nglish theatres in the first few decades of the nineteenth century.
N ot only the three adapted G reek tragedies b u t several other new
plays of the 1820s had G reek or R om an them es, allow ing the
representation of ancient palaces and religious buildings: Leonidas,
K ing o f Sparta boasted a rem arkable tem ple of H ercules.45 N ew
technologies w ere developed for satisfying the audience’s appetite
for the representation of antique buildings. In 1824 the ingenious
40 Bayley (1825a), 49. 41 Anon. (1825), 37 2 . 42 Ibid. 373.
43 Rosenfeld (1981), 150, 174-6 . 44 Bayley (1825a), 12.
45 Rosenfeld (1981), 176. This play was probably a version of Michel Pichat’s
Leonidas, a tragedy perform ed in Paris at the Theatre Franfais in 1825, w ith Talm a
in the title role. See further A thanassoglou-Kallm yer (1989), 57-9 w ith fig. 26.
11P111
r-ntar. nil im.v.srf

M P ? C . I K B f l H B & i r A S © I R S E S T T B S .l
F i g u r e 10.2 T hom as W oolnoth, M r. C. Kemble as Orestes, frontispiece
to D olby’s British T heatre edition of Peter Bayley’s Orestes in Argos
(1825).
DOLBY’S BRITISH THEATRE.
ORESTES IN ARGOS.
T. Jones, Del. W hite, Sculpt.

Orestes. Where lurks the murderous and sensual beast ?
H al art thou found 1 Ye Gods, I thank you!—Die—
Die—a thousand deaths in one 1
A c t V. S c e n e 4.
F ig u r e 10.3 H enry W hite, engraving of the clim ax of Peter Bayley’s

Orestes in A rgos (1825).
eidophusikon was used for only the second tim e at D ru ry Lane in
W illiam M oncrieff’s m elodram a Zoroaster, and the views it offered
extended upw ards of forty-eight breathtaking feet. A long w ith the
E gyptian pyram ids and V esuvius erupting, they displayed the
T em ple of A pollinopolis M agna and the C olossus of Rhodes.
If Jo hn K em ble had been associated w ith authentic set design,
and his sister Sarah Siddons had begun, tow ards the end of her
career, to experim ent w ith attitudes and drapes derived from
G reek statuary,46 their rath er younger b ro th er C harles will always
be rem em bered for his co n trib u tio n to the developm ent of th e atri
cal costum ing. Indeed, historians of theatre have traditionally
dated the b irth of m odern costum ing in B ritain to the m edieval
realism of his 1823 production of K ing John, tw o years p rio r to
Orestes in Argos.47 K em ble’s enthusiasm was fed by L evacher de
C h am ois’s lavishly illustrated Recherches sur les costumes et sur les
theatres de toutes les N ations tant anciennes que modernes (1790), and
above all T hom as H o p e’s Costumes o f the Ancients (L ondon, 1809),
a com pendium of illustrations based on ancient paintings to be
seen on the vases H ope collected. T h e edition of Bayley’s play
published in the popular series D olby’s B ritish Theatre provided
illustrations and descriptions of the costum es. M iss L acy’s E lectra
w ore an austere ‘slate-coloured cotton long dress, and d rap ery ’,
w hile K em ble’s O restes sported a
lilach-coloured fine cloth short tunic, em broidered w ith black around the
bottom ; black belt, w ith w hite em broidery; white hat w orn on his back;
w hite square robe, em broidered w ith lilach, the colour of the tunich; white
sandals, flesh legs and arm s.48
T hose ‘flesh legs and arm s’, im plying authentic G reek sem i
nakedness, w ere an innovative feature. E dw ard Fitzball, the author
of Antigone; or, the Theban Sister, later recalled that
the first tim e I saw naked feet represented, (in silk fleshings, of course,) was
in a G reek tragedy, ‘O restes’, at C ovent G arden T heatre, and m any people
disliked the appearance, although it should have rem inded them of some of
the finest statues in the world; but English taste was very squeam ish.49
46 Pentzell (1967), 214-19 . 47 See Lily B. Campbell (1918), 213-15.

48 Bayley (18256), p. ix. T he reaction was similar to the shock caused by the
revealing toga which Talm a had worn when playing the role of Brutus in Paris in
1789.
49 Fitzball (1859), i. 69.
E ven though these Sophoclean experim ents of the 1820s w ere
born out of a com bination of archaeologism and the exciting new
experience of enacting episodes from the real-life dram a unfolding
in G reek-speaking lands, it was K em ble’s taste for antiquarian
glam our that was to prove the m ost dom inant strain in the B ritish
encounter w ith the ancient G reek stage over the rem ainder of the
nineteenth century. W hite fabrics, pastel drapery, sandals, flesh
ings, the illusion of naked lim bs, m arble shoulders, sculptural
m etaphors, the eroticization of the actor’s physique— all these
w ere to becom e dom inant elem ents in the language in w hich
G reek theatre was discussed and im itated, especially after the
lustrous H elen F aucit’s (alm ost) bare-shouldered realization of
Antigone in 1845 (see Ch. 12).
Before this book’s narrative m oves to that crucial production,
how ever, it m u st first linger on the political scene ju st long enough
to consider the im pact of the change of governm ent th at follow ed
the general election of 1830, and the consequent G reat R eform
A ct, upon a young alum nus of R eading School. T hom as T alfourd
spent his early adulthood engaged in studying law, p ursuing rad
ical causes, and review ing the archaeologically sophisticated
theatre of the 1820s. In the next chapter it will be w orth bearing
in m ind th at it was T alfo urd w ho objected to H o rn ’s Dirce because
he held such passionate views, nourished by the continuing
struggle in G reece, about the appropriate way to p u t on stage the
freedom -loving offspring of T herm opylae and M arathon.
11
Talfourd’s Ancient Greeks in the
Theatre of Reform
A TH EATRICA L HIT
It is 26 M ay 1836. C ovent G arden theatre is packed w ith p ro m in
ent w riters, including C harles D ickens, R obert Brow ning, R ichard
H engist H orne, W illiam W ordsw orth, W alter Savage L andor,
M ary Russell M itford, and Jo hn F o rster. Politics and high society
are well represented— L o rd M elbourne, L ord C hief Justice D en
m an, L ord G rey, L ady Blessington. O ne literary m an realizes that
the theatre is thronged ‘w ith an audience the like of w hich, in point
of distinction’, he has ‘never seen in an E nglish th eatre’.1
T h ey have gathered for the first night of T hom as T alfo u rd ’s
Ion, a new star vehicle for the actor W illiam M acready, incom par
able as C oriolanus and R ichard III. T h e excitem ent has been
fanned by T alfo u rd ’s enterprising pre-circulation of the play to
shrew dly selected em inent persons. M r C athcart, an actor, is ‘so
devoted to his a rt’ that he has walked from B righton to L ondon to
be p resen t.2 M acready, in ancient G reek costum e, assum es the role
of the foundling priest Ion and to rap tu ro us applause leads the cast
in an em otionally com pelling enactm ent of a story set in heroic
Argos (see Fig. 11.1). Like E u rip id es’ Ion and Sophocles’ O edi
pus, T alfo u rd ’s Ion discovers that he is the hereditary m onarch of
his country: the difference is that this n in eteenth-century Ion
founds a republic and com m its suicide.
Ion represents a rem arkable m om ent in the history of B ritish
H ellenism ’s m anifestations in the theatre. By the 1830s, w hen the
W higs returned to pow er after nearly fifty years in opposition, the
theatre-going public had all b u t forgotten the adaptations of G reek
tragedy w hich had entertained them during the W hig ascendancy
of the eighteenth century, and the taste for w hich had been
1 M acready (1912), i. 469; Robinson (1872), ii. 176, i. 214.
2 M ary Russell M itford (1872), ii. 261.
m tke Theatre o f Reform
neC°f &<-t•»«<•«, 9
F i g u r e 11. l
M artha Macready, Macready as Ion (1836).
284 Talfourd’s A ncient Greeks
fleetingly revived in the early 1820s. T h ey w ere by now accustom ed
to seeing ancient G reece theatrically represented by the settings
of stu ntm en’s spectaculars, like the hippodram atist A ndrew
D ucrow ’s The Tam ing o f Bucephalus, the W ild Horse o f Scythia;
or, the Y outhful D ays o f A lexander the Great, w hich had enthralled
audiences at A stley’s in the late 1820s.3 Ion, together w ith T a l
fo u rd ’s other play inspired by G reek tragedy, The A thenian C ap
tive (1838), was to constitute the last significant use of G reek
tragedy on the professional stage for a radical political purpose
until the E dw ardian era. T h e only other successful nineteenth-
century plays to draw their plots from ancient G reece or Rom e
w ere Jam es K now les’s Caius Gracchus (1815) and Virginias (1820),
w hich had b o th dram atized R om an them es.4 T alfo u rd ’s plays,
m uch the m ost radical theatre pieces of th eir tim e, w ere direct
responses to it: in 1836 the country could still feel the enthusiasm
for change w hich had resulted in the great R eform A ct of 1832.
M oreover, b o th their leading actor and th eir au tho r w ere com m it
ted reform ers. M acready was an ardent republican, and T alfo u rd a
radical M P , com m itted to universal suffrage.5
B oth T alfo u rd ’s ‘ancient G reek’ tragedies feature the deposition
of a tyrannical hereditary m onarch: by 1830 the w ords ‘despotism ’
and ‘tyran ny ’ had been applied by b o th W higs and radical dem o
crats to the T o ry adm inistration around K ing G eorge IV, w ho had
incurred odium durin g the Q ueen C aroline scandal, and had never
recovered popular support. W hen the incom petent W illiam IV
was crow ned in 1830, he enjoyed a b rief spell of popularity, b u t
soon becam e disliked by both the w orking and the liberal m iddle
classes, now h u n g ry for change.
R eform ers of the parliam entary system had by 1836 m ade p ro
gress. In 1828 N onconform ists had been allow ed to qualify for
public office by the repeal of the T est and C orporations Act; this
was follow ed in 1829 by the C atholic E m ancipation Act. D ecades
of T o ry rule w ere ended by their defeat in the H ouse of C om m ons
in 1830, follow ing a general election in w hich the tw o m ain issues
of the cam paign had been reform of parliam ent and the ending of
3 British M useum playbills 170; see Saxon (1978), 147.
4 Ernest Reynolds (1936), 118 n. 1.
5 See A rm strong (1993), 154: ‘m uch the m ost radical plays of this tim e were
being w ritten by Thom as N oon T alfourd’. See also the notice of T alfourd’s eleva
tion to the Bench in I L N 15, no. 382 (28 July 1849), 52 col. 3.
in the Theatre o f Reform 285
slavery. T h e great R eform A ct of 1832, w hich had taken fifteen
tu rb u len t m onths to be passed by the L ords follow ing its first
introduction to parliam ent by L ord Jo hn Russell, had nearly
doubled the size of the electorate. In 1833 slavery was ended.
O ther reform ist legislation had follow ed quickly.
M ost contem porary w riters approved of the changes, and looked
to the past for an genealogy of reform ; after the W higs’ retu rn to
office in 1830 they sought historical precedents for a party w hich
had been excluded from pow er for nearly half a cen tu ry .6 Som e
found them in the Renaissance, in sixteenth-century Protestants,
or in the R oundheads of the seventeenth-century E nglish Civil
W ar. B ut T alfo urd located the antecedents for constitutional
reform and for the denunciation of slavery in archaic G reece.
T alfo u rd ’s tragedies w ere disregarded throu g h o u t m uch of the
m iddle and later tw entieth cen tu ry .7 E valuated according to purely
aesthetic criteria, the neglect is understandable. T h e poetry is
derivative, the heroes im plausibly selfless. B ut in his day T alfo urd
had the reputation of a forem ost dram atist; in A N ew S p irit o f the
Age (1844) R ichard H engist H orne included an extended discus
sion of T alfourd, thus im plicitly p u tting his achievem ents on a level
w ith those of D ickens, W ordsw orth, T ennyson, and C arlyle.8
L eigh H u n t addressed no few er than three sonnets to the author
of Ion in the N ew M onthly M agazine, and the play was so popular
am ongst the reading public th at it ran throu g h tw o private and four
public editions by 1837 (m any m ore subsequently),9 in addition to
G erm an and A m erican editions.
M oreover, contem porary sources concur that the first night of
Ion was a triu m p h. Som e even tho u g h t that ‘the E lizabethan age
had retu rn ed , and th at the old dram atists had retu rn ed in the
6 Llewellyn (1972), 64.
7 T he play was still regarded as an im portant work of literature by some into the
first four decades of the twentieth century: it was the subject of a Leipzig University
dissertation by Saschek (1911), and before the Second W orld W ar an American
academic, Robert S. Newdick, was writing two books on Talfourd (n.d. a, b). T he
undated and unpublished typescripts are housed in Reading Public Library and
have been a useful source of factual information.
8 H orne (1844), i. 245-60.
9 T he first public edition was Ion, a Tragedy (London, 1835), followed by the
second edition (1835), the third (1836), and fourth (1837). The Athenian Captive
was less widely read, enjoying only one solo publication (The Athenian Captive, a
Tragedy [London, 1838]), although regularly appearing in collections of T alfourd’s
works.
person of T alfo u rd ’.10 Io n ’s success inspired other historical tra
gedies: B row ning’s dram atic career began w ith his Strafford, in
1837. T h is play was com posed directly for M acready, and it was at
the first-night party celebrating Ion that B row ning broached w ith
him the possibility of this tragedy on E nglish h isto ry .11 E ven
fashionable high society loved Ion: M acready continued to p er
form u ntil at least the autum n of 1837, and one m an of the theatre
recalls ‘the unceasing rattle of the num erous carriages, bringing
aristocrat after aristocrat, to w itness the triu m p h ’.12 Reviews
record such ‘storm s of applause as rarely trouble the stagnant
atm osphere of an E nglish th eatre’.13 Ion received the undo u b ted
h onour of a detailed dram atic travesty by Frederick Fox C ooper,
w hich was perform ed at the G arrick T h eatre in N ovem ber 1836,
and, w ith an alm ost entirely fem ale cast, at the Q ueen’s T heatre,
W hitechapel, in D ecem b er.14 T h e title role in the tragedy was
also taken by T alfo u rd ’s son F rank in front of distinguished
guests at a draw ing-room production, in 1848, the sam e year
that undergraduate friends of F rank at O xford w ere the first
n in eteen th -cen tu ry m en to defy their university’s ban on theatrical
perform ances by staging Ion at B rasenose C ollege.15
Y et Ion was also seen as a heavyw eight stage play of lasting
stature: am ongst other L ondon revivals, the play was perform ed
at Sadlers W ells in 1852 and 1861.16 U n fo rtu n ate boys b orn in the
late 1830s risked being christened ‘Io n ’; passages from Ion w ere
translated by Sam uel B utler’s schoolboys at Shrew sbury into
G reek iam bics.17 It was still fam iliar in France in 1849,18 and its
republican m essage m ade it popular in the U SA , w here it en
thralled the E liot Professor of G reek L iteratu re at H arvard,
10 Robinson (1872), i. 214; ii. 176; Brain (1904), 92-3.

11 M iller (1953), 53-9. 12 Macready (1912), i. 318; Fitzball (1859), ii. 97.
13 The Athenaeum, no. 448 (28 May 1836), 386.
14 Cooper (1836). See Nicoll (1952—9), iv. 283. Ion Travestie went to great lengths
to send up M acready’s appearance and style of acting, w ith wild, carrot-coloured
wig and a comically erect posture. See Cooper (1836), ‘Costum es’ and notes on p. 8.
15 Robinson (1872), ii. 288; ‘T he fight for the dram a at Oxford’, The Oxford
Times, 10 Sept. 1887.
16 Thom as Noon Talfourd (1841-52), entry for 27 Apr. 1852; N ew dick(n.d. a), 32.
17 e.g. Ion T rant, a Cam bridge undergraduate in 1859: see Burnand (1880), 186.
On the Shrewsbury iambics see British M useum Add. M S 34589 f. 325; Newdick
(n.d. a), 14-15.
18 See M ilsand (1849), 838: ‘Ion fut applaudi; et, entre les pieces modernes, on en
citerait peu qui se soient aussi bien m aintenues au repertoire.’
in the Theatre of Reform 287
C ornelius C. Felton, who was rem inded of ‘a long-lost w ork of
Sophocles’.19 It was perform ed in N ew Y ork by D ecem ber 1836,
and often revived there u ntil 1857.20 T alfo u rd ’s b ro th er Field (an
artist know n for the p o rtrait of E lizabeth B arrett B row ning w hich
adorns the cover of m ost editions of her poem s), saw it in Buffalo in
1853;21 M ary A nderson starred as Ion in Boston in 1877 and
1881.“2 Professional perform ances w ere not uncom m on in the
U SA at the tu rn of the tw entieth cen tu ry .23
T H E P R O V I N C I A L B R E W E R ’S S O N
T alfourd was a hum orous, sw eet-tem pered, and popular m an,
loved by som e b etter rem em bered w riters, especially C harles
D ickens (see Fig. 11.2, D aniel M aclise’s affectionate caricature of
T alfo urd, com posed shortly after his triu m p h w ith Ion). R eaders
m ay have encountered him in the disguise of the innocent T om m y
T rad d les in D avid Copperfield; his children F rank and K ate gave
their nam es to tw o youngsters in Nicholas N ickleby. H e and his
eccentric wife R achel (the devout daughter of Jo h n T ow ill R utt, a
N onconform ist m inister; she despised fashion and doted on cats)
hosted fam ous dinners in their L ondon residence at 56, Russell
Square. T h ese w ere attended by guests such as D ouglas Jerrold,
W illiam T hackeray, M acready, D aniel M aclise, M ary Russell
M itford, and John F orster, the ‘m utual frien d ’ of m any of D ick
en s’ circle.24 T h e parties w ere rem em bered for the presence of
sw arm ing children.
T alfo u rd ’s ow n grandfather was a N onconform ist m inister in
Reading; his father, a brew er, was also religious. A lthough T hom as
attended the P rotestant D issenters’ gram m ar school in M ill H ill for
two years (1808-10), his m ost form ative period was spent at R ead
ing School u n der D r Valpy. It was here that T alfo urd, w ho becam e
head boy, discovered his love of G reek tragedy. T h e perform ances
of G reek dram a so delighted him that he continued to prom ote them
19 Felton (1837), 486. 20 T . Allston Brown (1903), i. 49, 393, 427, 493.
21 Buffalo Commercial, 23 M ay 1853. 22 Newdick (n.d. a), 32.
23 Ibid. 33.
24 Cum berland Clark (1919), 10—11, 20. See also Fig. 11.2, from Bates (1873),
194. Talfourd also edited the works of Lam b and wrote standard essays on Dennis
and Rymer: see Anon. (1854). For further details of T alfourd’s life and achieve
m ents outside the theatre, see O D N B liii. 735-7 (Edith Hall).
F ig u r e 11.2 T hom as N oon T alfourd by D aniel M aclise (published

1873).
as an adult by review ing them in the national press. H e later claim ed
that it was D r V alpy and his theatrical productions th a t had
aw akened w ithin him the adm iration for classical dram a th at lay
behind the genesis of his Ion.25 A lthough there does not seem to
have been a staged perform ance of Ion at R eading school, T alfo urd
probably encountered the play via G ilb ert W akefield’s 1794 school
selection of G reek tragedies, w ith notes, from w hich D r V alpy m ust
have tau gh t (see Ch. 9). W akefield’s second volum e contained Ion,
Philoctetes, and Eumenides 26 O n the other hand T alfo urd is m ost
unlikely to have read the tw o relatively recent G erm an experim ents
w ith Ion, since, despite his radical outlook, he rem ained a doggedly
provincial p atrio t.27 H e was p ro u d of his inability to speak any
foreign languages, was an enthusiast for E nglish food and drink,
and by 1836 had only left B ritain on a single occasion, for a brief
business trip to Portugal in 1818.28
T alfo urd also developed at R eading School his enthusiasm for
good causes, precociously publishing Poems on Various Subjects
(1811), including ‘T h e E ducation of the P o o r’, a biblical tragedy
entitled ‘T h e O ffering of Isaac’, and a pam phlet against the use of
the pillory.29 H is fam ily’s poverty prevented his attending u n iv er
sity; instead he chose a career in law (he eventually becam e a
judge), com bined w ith literature and reform ist politics. H is dem o
cratic idealism is evident from the speech he delivered to ‘th u n
derous’ applause at R eading tow n hall after the Peterloo M assacre
in 1819, using an allusion to G reek m ythology to m ake his p o in t:30
Free and open discussion is the Prom ethean heat, w ithout w hich the
noblest constitution would be useless.. . T he tom bs of the victim s at
M anchester m ust becom e altars on w hich the friends of liberty m ust
swear eternal union.31
25 Thom as Noon T alfourd (1844), 3-4.
26 T alfourd may also have read W illiam W hitehead’s Creusa (see Ch. 5), and
there is also just possibly some connection with mysterious watercolour sketches for
a putative production of Euripides’ Ion by the English architect and classical
perspectivist Joseph M ichael Gandy, painted in around 1820, and now housed in
the G etty Research L ibrary Special Collections.
27 On Johann Jakob Bodm er’s narrative poem Kreusa (1777), and August
W ilhelm von Schlegel’s adaptation Ion, a dram a first perform ed at W eimar, under
G oethe’s direction, in January 1802, see Franke (1939), 14—15, 134—42.
28 See O D N B liii. 736.
29 Brain (1904), 72-5.
30 Ibid. 86.
31 Q uoted from the Reading M ercury, of 1819, ibid. 84—5.
290 T alfourd’s A ncient Greeks
T alfo urd was first elected M em ber of Parliam ent for R eading in
1835; he was re-elected on the accession of Q ueen V ictoria in 1837
and once again in 1847. H is political career was devoted to ph ilan
thropy: in 1837, encouraged by W ordsw orth, he delivered a crucial
speech in a debate preceding the introduction of the 1842 C opy
right A ct (popularly know n as ‘T alfo u rd ’s A ct’), w hich helped the
indigent relations of deceased w riters. T h is earned him the g rati
tude of C harles D ickens, w ho applauded the initiative in the tou ch
ing dedication to The Pickwick Papers (1837). T alfo urd was also
responsible for the pathbreaking C ustody of Infants A ct, ‘confer
ring on unhappy wives, separated from their husbands, a right to
have a sight of their ch ild ren ’.32 T h is piece of legislation, along w ith
T alfo u rd ’s im p o rtan t contribution to the 1843 repeal of the T h e a t
rical Patents A ct, will becom e significant below , in Ch. 14.
T alfo u rd ’s rise from poverty-stricken provincial obscurity to
attendance at the d in n er parties of the L ondon elite astonished
his contem poraries, including the diarist H en ry C rabb R o b in
son.33 F or T alfo urd was a gram m ar-school boy from (at best) the
low er m iddle class, w ho appropriated the ancient G reeks— without
a university education— in the cause of reform . H e was a literary
analogue of those new m en, often nonconform ists enriched by
trade, w ho began in the 1830s to patronize Classics and fine arts,
thus usurping the aristocracy’s control of cu ltu re.34 T h is process
had begun tw o decades earlier, as G raeco-R om an antiquities had
accum ulated at the B ritish M useum . By 1830 ordinary people
could visit one of the richest repositories of such objects in the
w orld, and this was crucial to the creation of a cultured m iddle
class.33 C ertainly it required fam iliarity w ith the statuary of the
P arthenon for T alfo u rd ’s audience to visualize his Ism ene in The
A thenian Captive, kneeling ‘A t stern M inerva’s inm ost sh rin e’,
‘w ith an arm as rigid | As is the giant statu e’ (i. i). C ertainly it
32 Robinson (1872), i. 214.

33 Ibid. ii. 174 (entry for 8 M ay 1836): ‘In the evening called at T alfourd’s. He
was gone to dine with Lord M elbourne. I knew T alfourd when he was a young man
studying the law, unable to follow the profession but by earning money as a
repo rter... . He now dines with the Prim e M inister. I m ust add a more upright
and honourable m an never existed.’
34 Frank Davis (1963), 13-14.
35 See Grewal (1990), 209. On the im pact on British Rom antic poets of the Elgin
marbles and Greek sculpture generally, see Larrabee (1943), especially the discus
sion of Byron and Shelley (149-203).
took a grasp of art history to appreciate the critic w ho in 1844
defined the effect of Ion s old-and-new classicism as that of an
austere D oric tem ple at A thens filled w ith the ‘elegant statues of
C anova’.36
If T alfo urd discovered that m ythical G reeks could be as m odern
and elegant as C anova’s artw orks, he also saw that they could be as
sym pathetic as the characters in popular fiction. C ontem porary
literature was increasingly stressing the ordinary and the dom estic,
especially in the popular com ic w riting of D ickens and T hackeray.
B ut the new interest in bourgeois dom esticity seeped even into
interpretations of ‘heroic’ subject-m atter, leading to a fascination
w ith the fam ily life of historical personages such as C harles I,37 or
even archaic heroes such as T alfo u rd ’s Ion, w ho is given a hom e
life of affectionate intim acy w ith his foster-father and his adoptive
sister C lem anthe, played w ith an im pressive aura of piety by Ellen
T ree (see Fig. 11.3).
T alfo u rd ’s lively, elegant, dom esticated ancient G reeks are
sym ptom atic of the contem porary reaction against the elite’s con
trol of classical education. T alfo urd was an intim ate friend and
collaborator of E dw ard Bulw er (in 1836 they edited H azlitt to
gether). In the preface to The L a st D ays o f Pompeii (1834), Bulw er
(he had not yet renam ed him self B ulw er-L ytton) com plains that
the n o rth ern im agination has been alienated from the classical age
‘by the scholastic pedantries w hich first acquainted us w ith their
n atu re’, and proposes th a t it is a b etter plan ‘to people once m ore
those graceful ruins. T o reanim ate the b o n e s . .. to traverse the
gulph of eighteeen centuries . . . \ 38 In Ion the audience traversed
a ‘g u lp h ’ of tw enty-five centuries, and realized that the ancient
G reeks were anim ate, sentient hum ans ju st like them . A perception
ru n n in g through the reactions is that Io n ’s classicism was offering
som ething palpably w arm er— m ore hum an and lifelike— than any
classical tragedy before. D ram atists had usually w ritten
as if the Greeks and Rom ans of other days were stiff, passionless, and
bloodless, as the statues w hich represent them . T his is not the case with
‘Ion ’, w hich was a beautiful and interesting specim en of life, as doubtless it
passed in the days of Ion’s existence.39
36 H orne (1844), i. 254-6. 37 Stein (1987), 72.

38 Bulwer (1834), pp. vii, v. 39 Fitzball (1859), ii. 96-7.
F i g u r e 11.3 Ellen T ree as C lem anthe in the original production of

T alfourd’s Ion at Covent G arden (1836).
T h e play also reflects the influence up on T alfourd of rom antic

H ellenism . H is poetry overflow s w ith the literary im ages w hich the
R om antics had absorbed into their m ental landscape of H ellas: the
glim m ering m oonbeam s, lonely fanes, w hite colum ns, and
saddening cypress by the C ephisus proliferate as m uch in T alfo urd
as in L o rd B yron’s Curse o f M inerva (1812).40 B ut T alfo urd had
also learnt from K eats, and from Shelley’s translations and adap
tations of G reek texts, that G reek m ythology need not be m erely
40 Levin (1931), 33.
ornam ental. It could be used as a potent arena for the exploration
of social and political concerns. T alfo urd was attached to Shelley’s
w ritings: a few years after his ow n ‘G recian’ tragedies he was
successfully to defend Queen M ab against an attem p t to censor it
on the ground of its alleged atheism .41 A lthough Ion feels m ore
m ythical, w hile The A thenian Captive tends to the p seu do -h isto r
ical, both T alfo u rd ’s tragedies are insistently future-focused, en
visaging utopias in a brave new w orld after the fall of tyrants: this
was a use of G reek m yth and ancient G reek heroes derived from
Shelley’s interest in the im plications of the G reek past for an
im pending new golden age.42 G reek literature, for T alfourd,
revealed from the past a potentiality for people to live in utopian
freedom , a potentiality w hich could therefore be realized once
again in the future. As Shelley had p u t it,
W hat the G reeks were, was a reality, not a prom ise. A nd w hat we are and
hope to be, is derived, as it were, from the influence and inspiration of
those glorious generations.43
IO N A N D T H E G R E A T R E F O R M A C T
Ion is a five-act dram a in pleasantly archaizing iam bic pentam eters
w ith a sim ple plot. T h e foundling hero has been fostered by a
priest of A pollo at A rgos. T h e city is being oppressed by a cruel
king, A drastus, and is suffering from a plague. It transpires in A ct
II from an oracle that A pollo requires a republic:
Argos ne’er shall find release
T ill her m onarch’s race shall cease.
B ut Ion discovers that he is of the ‘m onarch’s race’, for A drastus is
his father. A fter A drastus has been assassinated Ion m ust com m it
suicide in order that A rgos m ay ‘find release’.
T alfo u rd ’s story fuses the foundling priest-king from E u rip id es’
Ion w ith the plague-bringing king from Sophocles’ Oedipus T y r
annus; the m otif of the patriotic y o u th ’s suicide owes som ething to
E u rip ides’ Phoenician W omen. In the exciting recognition scene
41 Thom as Noon T alfourd (1841).
42 W ebb (1982), 25—6. On Shelley’s ‘regenerative’ view of history, including
ancient Greek history, see Kucich (1996).
43 David Lee Clark (1966), 219.
294 T alfourd’s Ancient Greeks
(IV. i), the reconciliation of the dying king A drastus w ith his long-
lost son Ion recalls the endings of both H ippolytus and Trachiniae.
T h e play’s title is designed to draw attention to its classical h eri
tage; T alfo urd w rote th at it was E u rip id es’ Ion
which gave the first hint of the situation in w hich its hero is introduced—
that of a foundling youth educated in a tem ple, and assisting in its services;
but otherw ise there is no resem blance between this im perfect sketch and
, . . .
that exquisite picture. 44
T h is disclaim er is not entirely true. Several features have been
absorbed from the E uripidean prototype, especially a certain
sw eetness of atm osphere and the m oral pro b ity of its hero: Ion in
T alfo urd is only forced into w rongdoing because it is justified in
the nam e of a higher principle. T h ere are also echoes in term s of
detail: Ion was abandoned in a sacred grove, ju st as E u rip id es’ hero
had been left by his m other in a place of religious significance.
Y et the play’s m ost im portant influences are Sophocles’ T h eb an
plays. Like several English radicals before him (see Ch. 8), T a l
fourd saw in Oedipus Tyrannus the concept of the plague-bringing
hereditary dynasty of kings, w ho m ust be destroyed in the cause of
their citizens’ w elfare. O T also supplied the opening sequence at
the tem ple of Apollo: A genor, an old sage of A rgos, lam ents the
plague afflicting the city ( i . i). Ion first encounters the tyrannical
m onarch A drastus w hen delivering a m essage from the sages of
A pollo, ju st as C reon in the O T arrives w ith new s from the D elphic
oracle; A drastus responds to the new s of Io n ’s arrival m uch as
O edipus responds to T iresias’ prophecies, w ith a paranoid accus
ation that the sages are ‘sophist traito rs’ ben t on deposing him .
O edipus sw ears to root out the slayer of L aius, w ho turns out to be
him self: Ion sw ears to shed the blood not only of the ty ran t A dras
tus b u t of any child he m ight have fathered, since that ‘is needful to
the sacrifice | M y country asks’ ( i l l . ii).
Antigone lies b ehind Io n ’s encounter w ith A drastus, w hich has
been forbidden on pain of death. T h e old king, shunned by his
forem ost citizens and courtiers, has locked him self away and
banned all visits by his subjects, thus transparently im itating the
dissolute seclusion into w hich G eorge IV had retired in the late
1820s. T h e youthful Ion shares num erous features w ith A ntigone:
44 Thom as Noon Talfourd (1844), 7-8.

he has disobeyed the ty ran t’s edict, is convinced that he is defended
by the ‘strengths of heaven’, and that he is opposing A d rastu s’
tem porary hum an law w ith ‘the eternal law ’ (II. i). A drastus, in
turn, is m odelled on C reon, the archetypal tyran t in A ntigone:
T alfo urd was devoted to this play, in w hich he m ay have perform ed
at R eading School in 1812.
T alfo urd also loved Oedipus at Colonus, rem arking, in an essay
on the theory of tragedy, ‘how reconciling and tender, yet how
awful, the circum stances atten dan t upon the death of CEdipus!’45
T h is synthesis of tenderness and awe inform s the inexorable sense
of duty and piety driving Ion tow ards parricide (w hich in the event
is avoided) and subsequently tow ards his ow n death. T alfourd
called this com pulsion
the idea of fascination, as an engine by w hich Fate may work its purposes
on the innocent m ind, and force it into terrible action m ost uncongenial to
itself, but necessary to the issue.46
T h is ‘fascination’ is a peculiarly R om antic concept, shared,
am ongst others, w ith the philhellene Byron: late in his sh ort life
he had described his ow n m agnetic attraction— physical and sp ir
itual— to G reece and her liberation as a ‘m addening fascination’.47
T alfo urd was fortunate in his actors. M acready apart, John V an-
denhoff was excellent in the role of Io n ’s despotic father A drastus.
V andenhoff was a L atin scholar and form er classical teacher,48
w hose interest in classical su bject-m atter later resulted in his
fam ous realization of the role of C reon in Sophocles’ Antigone at
C ovent G arden (1845; see Ch. 12). H e was an old-fashioned actor,
regarded as ‘the last prom inent tragedian of the K em ble school,
having a good deal of the stately carriage and bold outline of his
predecessor’; in the role of A drastus his ‘pathetic b u rsts’, in contrast
w ith his repressed dignity, w ere apparently ‘very telling’.49
F or A drastus is no tw o-dim ensional tyrant: the play em phasizes
the essential hum anity even of royalty. Ion pities A drastus,
45 Thom as Noon T alfourd (1850a), 21-8 at p. 26.
46 Thom as Noon T alfourd (1844), 8.
47 See Byron’s fragm entary ‘Last W ords on Greece’, with Levin (1931), 50:
‘W hat are to me those honours or renown | Past or to come, a new -born people’s
cry? | ... | Such is this m addening fascination grown | So strong thy magic or so weak
am I.’
48 V andenhoff (I860), 30-1.
49 M arston (1888), i. 22.
how ever despotic, because he is ‘childless, friendless, and a king’
( i . i); A drastus only developed into a bitter, cruel old m an because
of a series of em otional deprivations in his youth. Y et A drastus is
clearly now a T o ry renegade. In 1836 the audience m u st have been
acutely aware of recent legislation designed to regulate w orking
conditions for the labouring classes, such as the Factory A ct of
1833, and the Poor L aw A m endm ent A ct of 1834, intended to
fight rural poverty. A gainst this backdrop A d rastu s’ expressed
views on the low er orders associated him w ith the T o ry lan d
ow ners (despite their interm itten t crocodile tears over the in d u s
trial w orkers em ployed by their W hig opponents), w ith w hom
T alfo urd and M acready w ere in such disagreem ent. A drastus des
pises ‘artizans’, believing them to be gullibly vulnerable to dem a
gogues, and his opinion of the agricultural labourer is as low. In a
fam iliar type of T o ry rant, he says he has never been prepared to be
accountable to
the com m on herd,
T he vassals of our ancient house, the mass
O f bones and m uscles fram ed to till the soil
A few brief years, then rot unnam ed beneath it. (i I . i)
A drastus is a cynical, bitter, arbitrary relic of an ancient G reek
ancien regime, prophetically aw are that he is ‘sad h erito r’ of ‘a great
race of kings’ w hose ‘doom is n ig h ’ (ii. i). H e is thus like the
protagonists of the num erous apocalyptic and anxiety-laden ‘last
of the race’ novels produced in this period, from Jam es Fenim ore
C ooper’s The Last o f the M ohicans (1826) to B ulw er’s The Last
D ays o f Pompeii (1834);50 he is also like C reon in Antigone, in that
he knows that if his pow er (and the m onarchy itself) is to last he
m ust apply the laws he has decreed even if he is reluctant to do so
( i i . i):
O r the great sceptre w hich hath sway’d the fears
O f ages, will becom e a com m on staff
For youth to wield, or age to rest upon,
D espoil’d of all its virtues.
T h e full political th ru st of the play is not revealed until the final
scene of the last act (v. iii). T h e scene is set in the great square of
50 On which see Stafford (1994), especially the chapter on Bulwer (ch. 10).
the city: ‘on one side a T h ro n e of state prepared,— on the other an
A ltar,— the Statues decorated w ith garlands’. T h e ‘Priests, Sages,
and People’ process onto the stage, followed by Ion ‘in royal robes.
H e advances am idst shouts, and speaks’. F or the new king of A rgos
has a four-point plan to announce for its constitutional reform .
B entham ite U tilitarians believed that law is ‘not antecedent to
the state, b u t the m aking of it the p roper activity of the state’;51 in
Ion the theatre-going public of the 1830s could enjoy w atching a
com plex constitutional overhaul being undertaken in the city-state
of ancient A rgos. F irst, to A genor, the tru sted old sage w ho
b ro u ght him up, Ion entrusts the overseeing of appointm ents to
legislative bodies and the judiciary. T hese officials are to be good
and sym pathetic m en. Ion instructs him ,
T o rule our councils; fill the seats of justice
W ith good m en not so absolute in goodness
As to forget w hat hum an frailty is;
A nd order m y sad country.
A t the tim e of the production of Ion appointm ents to the judiciary
had becom e a red-h o t issue. It had been agreed in 1835 that
m unicipalities w ere to have a bigger say in the selection of their
Justices of the Peace, and throu g h o u t 1836 W hig Justices of the
Peace w ere elected in tow n and country, m uch to the chagrin of
T o ry m agistrates. Ion reflects this concern w ith the adm inistration
of justice, and installs a fairer system at A rgos: The A thenian
Captive im plies the im possibility of a fair judicial system u n d er a
co rru p t constitution in the m u rd er trial w hich constitutes A ct V.
T h e solution is to im p ort som e noble-m inded young A thenians to
supervise the proceedings (iv. iii)!
Step two in Io n ’s constitutional overhaul is to disband and exile
the arm y. T h e m aintenance of a standing arm y had in reality long
been a contentious political issue, b u t there is even a h in t here of an
anti-im perialist sentim ent: C rythes, C aptain of the Royal G uard,
is shocked at Io n ’s dem ilitarization of the state, and asks him ,
D ost intend
T o banish the firm troops before whose valour
Barbarian millions shrink appall’d . .. ?
51 Llewellyn (1972), 9.
T h e em pire w hich the W higs inherited in 1830 already included a
large dependency in India, a foothold in the south of A frica, and
the plantation colonies of the W est Indies w here slavery was not
ended until 1833, b u t m any radicals w ere now as reluctant as Ion to
extend the dom inions.
Io n ’s th ird step is to outlaw m onarchy and transfer sovereignty
to the A rgives them selves.
N ever more
L et the great interests of the state depend
U pon the thousand chances that may sway
A piece of hum an frailty! Swear to me
T h at you will seek hereafter in yourselves
T he m eans of sovereign rule.
Ion is prepared to envisage that a state w ith large territories m ight
need the unifying sym bol of a ruler: A rgos, not being large,
N eeds not the magic of a single nam e
W hich w ider regions may require to draw
T h eir interests into one.
B ut even this lone concession to royalty is couched in conditional
term s {‘m ay requ ire’). Ion sees m onarchy’s function not as to
govern or legislate, b u t solely to provide the unifying focus of a
single figurehead for a plurality of regions. T h e issue of the size of
the dem ocratic city-state m ay have m ore to w ith the series of acts
of 1835, follow ing the M unicipal C orporations C om m ission,
w hich b ro ugh t about the experience of radical dem ocracy at least
on a local level. Local politics now gave the B ritish people their
first heady taste of representative dem ocracy in w hich the fran
chise was not based on p roperty qualifications.
Ion is shortly to secure his fourth guarantee that after his death,
the sovereign pow er shall live
In the affections of the general heart,
A nd in the w isdom of the best.
D espite the (probably deliberate) poetic vagueness of this p re
scription, it is difficult not to read Io n ’s final clause as a dram atic
legitim ization of the 1832 R eform Act; the sovereign pow er is to
exist in the ‘affections of the general heart’, im plying the universal
male suffrage for w hich W illiam C obbett had already been calling
in the 1820s and for w hich T alfo urd cam paigned. T h e ‘w isdom of
the b est’ probably m eans the elected representatives of the sover
eign population. T alfo urd was certainly on the radical w ing of the
W hig adm inistration, b u t believed th a t the m iddle classes had
som ething special to offer the new ly enfranchised masses: he was
to distance him self from the m ore extrem e C hartists at the end of
the decade.
T h u s Io n ’s constitutional overhaul seem s to entail not an en
tirely levelled society, b u t one in w hich all classes share sover
eignty and coexist in harm ony. T h e state is to be governed
‘ten derly’ and ‘by sim ple law s’; ‘all degrees’ are to be ‘m oulded
together as a single form ’. T h is utopian prescription is the p ro d uct
of a tim e w hen w riters from B enjam in D israeli and T hom as C ar
lyle to E lizabeth G askell w ere noticing the fragm entation of society
into separate interest gro u ps.32 In archaic A rgos Ion solves the
problem by inviting those very artisans and agricultural labourers
w hom A drastus had despised to partake in the sovereignty of this
idyllic, kingless state.
Ion, as the last king of A rgos, now stabs him self to death. H e has
delivered the Argives from tyranny and plague; as their last ever
constitutional m onarch he dies to secure their freedom from m o n
archy. T alfo urd had refused to contem plate using any actor other
than W illiam M acready, and he was fortunate that M acready (who
was pursued by aspiring playw rights) agreed to take on the play:
the p u blic’s renew al of interest in serious dram a from around 1830
was a direct result of his perform ances at C ovent G arden. A fter
careful rehearsal, detailed in his diary, he gave a brilliant p erfo rm
ance on the first night. H e was particularly pleased w ith his ch ar
acterization of ‘the devotion of Ion to the destruction of
A drastus . .. and in the last scene’,53 that is, in the tw o m ost bla
tantly political sequences. G iven the im portance of individual star
actors to the theatre of this p erio d,54 and M acready’s ow n attrac
tion to the role of Ion, it is im p o rtan t to appreciate how the identity
of the actor m ust have augm ented the political m eaning of the play
in perform ance.
52 Ibid. (1972), 14.

53 W. C. M acready (1912), i. 318. See Fig. 11.1 above, in which Ion swears to slay
Adrastus.
54 See Emeljanow (1987), 5 and 12: it was ‘M acready’s encouragem ent that
brought tem porary fame to writers like T alfourd’.
C hildhood privations caused by his fath er’s im prisonm ent had
led this R ugby-educated m iddle-class boy to becom e an ardent
republican. H e loathed the m onarchy w ith an unusual intensity:
his diary records the bitterness w ith w hich in 1847 he spurned an
invitation from Q ueen V ictoria to perform passages to her from the
E nglish translation of ‘M endelssohn’s’ Antigone (on w hich see the
next ch ap ter).35 H e banned the phrase ‘low er classes’, insisting
that they be called ‘poorer classes’.56 As actor-m anager of C ovent
G arden from 1837 he incurred odium in the highest places by
allowing A nti-C orn-L aw m eetings to be held in the th eatre.57
T h ro u g h o u t his career he chose roles w hich allow ed him to im p er
sonate ‘the defender of the H earth, H om e, and the People against
the brutality o f ty ran ts’, and to p o u r out ‘the zeal and heat of his
ow n political convictions’,58 including Jam es K now les’s stirring
Virginias (1820).59 W atching this republican actor playing a G reek
hero who dies to p u t an end to a corrupt royal fam ily m u st have
been quite an experience.
Ion enacts the transference of pow er in A rgos from the aristoc
racy to the m iddle and (to a lesser extent) w orking classes, and a
change in value-system from heredity to m eritocracy; in The
A thenian Captive pow er is transferred from a lawless tyran t to a
young, m oderate m onarch, w ith the idealized dem ocratic A thens
on the horizon. A ncient G reece thu s provides a theatrical context
for the fictive replaying of the history of the 1830s, w hich had seen
near-revolution, radical reform , and finally an accom m odation
w ith a new , young, dom esticated m onarch.
A T H E N S A N D A R G O S I N T H E 1830S
T h e last years of T o ry rule in the 1820s had seen the G reek revolt
and the b irth of an independent G reece. T h e R om antics’ associ
ation of ancient G reece w ith th eir m ore vaguely conceptualized
‘lib erty ’ was lent concrete form by the G reek W ar of In d ep en d
ence.60 As we have seen in the previous chapter, the w ar itself
provided m aterial for the popular stage, b u t it also stim ulated the
draw ing of parallels betw een ancient G reek struggles for liberty
55 M acready (1912), ii. 301. 56 M arston (1888), i. 65.

57 H orne (1844), ii. 119. 58 Shattock (1958), 5.
59 Emeljanow (1987), 12-13; Shattock (1958), 2, 5, 23.
60 See Jenkyns (1980), 15; Tsigakou (1981), 46—7.
and the m odern G reek dream of liberation from T u rk ish d o m in
ation. Y et this very w ar stopped w hat little tourism had previously
operated in G reece,61 m aking the country a peculiarly blank canvas
on w hich rom antic radicals like T alfo urd could inscribe their
utopian and reform ist fantasies. T h e great ‘oath ’ scene in w hich
his Ion sw ears to take up arm s in the cause of liberty, for exam ple,
is inform ed by the classical m odels provided by the pagan Leonidas
at T herm opylae and by the oath of the H oratii, fam iliar from W h ite
h ead ’s tragedy The R om an Father (see pp. 129, 141) and above all
from D avid’s already fam ous painting Le Serm ent des Horaces
(1784). B ut a m ore im m ediate reference is the ‘oath ’ them e popular
am ongst painters responding in the 1820s to the G reek uprising, for
exam ple M ichel P hilib ert G en o d ’s The O ath o f the Young W arrior.
T h e G reek youth portrayed is a pious C hristian, sw earing on his
w eapon as he departs to confront the T u rk ish infidel.62
In the 1830s ancient G reece was an ideological m inefield. O ne
year after Io n , and one year before The A thenian Captive, T a l
fo u rd ’s friend Bulw er published p art of his history of A thens,
com m enting that ‘the history of the G reek R epublics has been
too often corru ptly pressed into the service of heated political
partisan s’.63 T h e partisans to w hom he referred included W illiam
M itford (no relation of M ary Russell M itford), w hose conservative
The H istory of Greece (the first volum e was published in 1784), a
m assive account from the perspective of T o ry landow ners, had
indicted A thenian dem ocracy. It had consequently ‘m ore than
anything else legitim ized the use of A thenian history as a vehicle
for debating in detail the w isdom and viability of m odern dem o
cratic governm ent’.64 M itfo rd ’s interpretation of A thenian history
was to dictate the param eters of the debate and find its w ay into
encyclopaedias and textbooks beyond the m iddle of the nineteenth
century, certainly until the first volum e of G ro te’s pro-A thenian
and pro-dem ocratic account was published in 1846.65
B ut ranged against the anti-dem ocratic critique of classical
A thens was the adulation of her dem ocracy expressed by radical
61 Pem ble (1988), 48 . 62 See Athanassoglou-Kallm yer (1989), 19-20.
63 Bulwer (1837), i, p. viii.
64 For the fundamental account of M itford, G rote, and the debate over the
Athenian constitution see T urner (1981), 192—244. See also A. M omigliano’s in
augural lecture, ‘George G rote and the study of Greek history’, delivered at U ni
versity College, London in 1952, and published in M omigliano (1969), 56—74.
65 O n the conflicting British attitudes to Greek history in this period, see also the
m ore recent discussion by Jennifer T olbert Roberts (1994), 229—304.
B ritish supporters of the French revolution: T o m P aine’s follow
ers, for exam ple, had included in the repertoire of liberty songs
they sang at th eir m eetings an ode based on the old A thenian song
in praise of the tyrannicides H arm odius and A ristogeiton.66 Views
of ancient A thens had been im plicated in the m ovem ent for reform
in the 1820s and early 1830s: T hom as A rnold’s edition of T h u
cydides, published betw een 1830 and 1835, draw s parallels be
tw een W illiam C obbett and the ancient A thenian dem agogue
C leon;67 the year before the pro d uctio n of Ion saw the publication
of the first volum e of Bishop C onnop T h irlw all’s eight-volum e
H istory of Greece, (1835-44), w hich was not pro-A thenian, b u t
w hose m oderation ‘im plicitly neutralized A thens as a stock w eapon
in the conservative arm oury’.68
T alfo urd carved out an am biguous path for his Ion, aligning
him self w ith those w ho applauded the ancient dem ocracies while
holding back from explicit advocacy of republicanism itself (nei
ther the w ord ‘rep u b lic’ nor ‘dem ocracy’ is ever actually used). Ion
is no h ard b itten regicide: he regards actual assassination as p erm is
sible only if ‘the audible voice of H eaven’ calls an individual to
‘that dire office’ (i. i). Ion prefers to encourage insurrection by
speeches consisting of ‘w ords w hich bear the spirits of great deeds |
W ing’d for the F uture; w hich the dying breath of F reed o m ’s
m arty r shapes as it e x h a le s .. . ’ (I. i). B ut evidence that Ion was
certainly perceived in 1836 to be a radically political dram a com es
from the com ic parody by Frederick Fox C ooper staged late in that
year. C ooper published an essay w ith Ion Travestie, in w hich he
rem arks th at the tragedy’s sentim ents w ere all ‘on the side of
lib e rty . .. L iberalism “ goes the w hole hog” .’ In the travesty the
character of Irus is conceived as a black slave, w ho has suffered
terrible treatm ent, b u t celebrates the reform s about to be enacted
in A rgos by singing (24—5) th at now he is at last ‘em ancipate’ he can
‘get into de parliam ent | A nd represent de nation!’
It is m ost significant that T alfo urd transfers the political focus
altogether from A thens to A rgos. O ne of the attractions of the
66 See W oodcock (1989), 27. T he Athenian song was translated and the English
ode composed by the republican Sir W illiam Jones, the great oriental scholar
associated with the experiments with Greek tragedy in the 1770s at Stanm ore
School, discussed above (Ch. 8).
67 T urner (1981), 209.
68 Ibid. 211.
sem i-fictive context of archaic A rgos m ust have been its very
vagueness: although this city-state was dem ocratic durin g som e
parts of the classical period, little is know n of earlier A rgive p o lit
ics, w hich m ade T alfo u rd ’s idea of a constitutional overhaul rea
sonably believable. B ut m ore im portantly, in E uripides the
foundling Ion is revealed to be the tru e-b o rn king of Athens, not
only w ith a hereditary right to the throne, b u t since a god (Apollo)
is his father, w ith an absolute divine right to rule. In T alfo u rd ’s
play Ion kills him self rather than perpetuate a co rru p t m onarchy:
A thens itself, against the background of W illiam M itford and T o m
Paine, m ight have been too nakedly political a setting, b u t Io n ’s
suicide m ust have been especially significant to those w ho knew
the E uripidean prototype.
SLAVERY, SHELLEY, AND U TO PIA

T h e political trajectory of The A thenian Captive is sim ilar to that of
Ion: it portrays a G reek people’s revolt against an autocrat (in this
case nam ed C reon), and his destruction. B ut a m ajor difference
betw een the tw o tragedies is that the republican tenor of Ion is
replaced in The A thenian Captive by a less constitutionally specific
appeal for ‘liberty ’. C o rin th rem ains a m onarchy, even if it is
im plicitly presented as inferior to the dem ocratic A thens w hence
arrives the play’s hero (T hoas played by M acready). Y et it can
hardly be irrelevant that T alfo u rd ’s second and considerably less
anti-m onarchical ‘G reek’ play was produced at the H aym arket in
A ugust 1838, a year after the death of W illiam IV and the young
Q ueen V ictoria’s accession. In The A thenian C aptive a co rru p t old
m onarch in C orinth is replaced by a virtuous young one, as if to
echo the hopes of the liberal B ritish m iddle classes in respect to
their youthful new queen.
T h e plot entails the arrival at C orinth of T hoas, an A thenian
p risoner of w ar (w ith a E uripidean nam e) w ho does not know th at
he is the long-lost son of the C orinthian tyran t C reon and his wife,
an A thenian aristocrat. T hoas is enslaved, kills C reon, finds out his
true identity, and kills him self to prevent his accidental act of
parricide from polluting the people. H e leaves them in the benevo
lent hands of C reo n ’s young son H yllus. T h e echoes of A thenian
tragedy are louder even than in Ion, especially during the assassin
ation of C reon, in w hich the offstage death-cries typical of regicidal
scenes in G reek theatre are im itated. E u rip id es’ Ion was again an
inspiration: The A thenian Captive opens at a tem ple w here a priest
w atches the flight of the birds (the opening line is ‘W heel through
the am bient air, ye sacred b ird s’), and w hen T h o a s’ m other Ism ene
recognizes the illegitim ate son w hom she bore in lonely m aiden
hood in A thens (111. ii), the language is rem iniscent of the m other-
son recognition scene in E u rip id es’ Ion.
C reon is nam ed after the C orinthian king in E u rip id es’ M edea,
and the C orinthian setting, the pervasive eulogy of A thens, and
C reon’s speech in w hich he exiles his son H yllus are all suggestive
of th at tragedy. A nother influence is Sophocles’ Electra: C reo n ’s
son H yllus is injured in the chariot race at the C orinthian gam es,
and the m essenger describes the accident in lines inspired by the
Sophoclean paidagogos’ false m essenger speech reporting the death
of O restes in the chariot race at the Pythian games. In one scene
C reusa addresses the u rn containing her dead father’s ashes (IV. i),
w hich is rendered m ore profound if the contrast w ith its prototype
in Sophocles’ Electra is held in m ind. B ut T h o as’ ‘m ad ’ scene after
he kills C reon ( i l l . iii), the b ro th er-sister bond betw een C reusa
and H yllus, and the intensity of the relationship betw een T hoas and
H yllus, are im itations of the deranged O restes’ relationships w ith
E lectra and Pylades in at least five G reek tragedies. T hese include
E u rip ides’ Orestes, w hich T alfo urd had seen in the perform ance at
R eading School in 1821 (see Ch. 9).
A lthough the overtly anti-m onarchical tone of Ion is m issing
from The A thenian Captive, A thens, w hich has no sovereign, is
once again idealized: the focus has shifted from the idealization of a
system (people’s sovereignty) to idealization of a specific place.
T alfo urd taps directly into a now traditional im age of A thens, the
hugely p o ten t ‘ideal city of the m in d ’,69 the A thens Shelley had
described in H ellas (1822) as ‘Based on the crystalline sea | O f
tho u g h t and etern ity ’ (698-9). C reon once raped Ism ene, an
A thenian patrician, w hose loveliness and grace he ascribes to her
A thenian provenance (i. i). N ostalgic for hom e, T hoas cries (i. i),
I seem
O nce m ore to drink A thenian ether in
69 W ebb (1982), 3.
A nd the fair city’s colum n’d glories flash
U pon my soul.
W hen Ism ene asks him how , though only a soldier, he learnt to
think loftily, he responds ( i l l . ii),
From Athens;
H er groves; her halls; her tem ples; nay, her streets
Have been m y teachers.
H ad he been raised anyw here else, he says, as an orphan he w ould
have been ‘ru d e’. B ut the education provided by A thenian civic life
had proved sufficient even to a poor orphan, raised by ‘an old
citizen’ who lived (like E lectra’s h usband in E u rip id es’ Electra)
in a lowly hut.
W hen C reon insults A thens at the victory feast, T hoas risks his
life to defend his city’s nam e. H e goes into a state of w hat H yllus
calls ‘ecstacy’ and ‘frenzy’ as he characterizes A thens as ‘the p u rest
flam e the gods | H ave lit from heaven’s ow n fire’. H e continues,
’T is not a city crow n’d
W ith olive and enrich’d w ith peerless fanes
Ye would dishonour, but an opening world
D iviner than the soul of m an hath yet
Been gifted to imagine— truths serene,
M ade visible in beauty, that shall glow
In everlasting freshness ...
. .. on the stream of tim e, from age to age
C asting bright images of heavenly youth
T o make the world less m ournful.
Like W alter Savage L an d o r’s Pericles in Im aginary Conversations
(1824) and m any ancient G reeks in n in eteen th -cen tu ry E nglish
literature, T hoas speaks very m uch in the future tense: ‘A V ictor
ian m ight try to im agine him self as an ancient G reek, b u t the
G reek that he becam e tended to be one strangely obsessed w ith
the fu tu re.’70 T h e ‘pure beau ty ’ of A thens, ‘the Q ueen of cities’, we
are assured, will be responsible for ‘em pearling starless ages’ (iv.
ii). Salam is rem ains in the future: A sia will at som e tim e invade
w ith her ships, b u t they will be sw ept away ‘As glittering clouds
before the sun-like face | O f unapplianced v irtu e’ (IV. ii; ‘unap-
plianced probably m eans ‘n atural’). T h ere is a good deal m ore of
70 Jenkyns (1980), 53.
this prophetic A thenophilic m ysticism ; in prison T hoas com forts
him self (unironically) w ith ‘airy visions’ of A thens’ future great
ness. W hen he philanthropically kills him self, to curb his p arri
cidal pollution ,71 his dying w ords request th at he be retu rn ed (v . i):
T o the city of m y love;
H er future years of glory stream m ore clear
T h an ever on m y soul. O Athens! Athens!
T alfo urd was not the only radical provincial politician w ho saw a
connection betw een the dem ocratic society w hose creation the
reform s of the 1830s had m ade possible and the glories of Periclean
A thens. In 1832 the m an w ho had played the crucial role in the
draw ing up of the term s of the bill was Jo hn L am b ton, first Earl of
D urham , know n to his constituents as ‘R adical Jack’. W hen he
died prem aturely, the m o num ent that local businessm en erected in
1844 to dom inate the early V ictorian skyline at Penshaw (betw een
D u rh am and Sunderland) was a p ro u d replica of the A thenian
T heseion, sym bol of Pericles’ building program m e and of A then
ian dem ocracy in its prim e (see Fig. 11.4).
T h e bill to abolish slavery was passed in 1833; another political
strand in the play is its denunciation of slavery, as suffered at
C orin th by the (apparently) ordinary A thenian T hoas. H e refuses
to take off his helm et in front of the king, and w hen offered the
choice of slavery or death, responds, ‘D ost dare | In su lt a son of
A thens by the d o ub t | T h y w ords im ply?’ T h e play’s m ost th e atri
cally pow erful feature is the contrast betw een T h o as’ first
arm oured, helm eted entry in A ct I and his second, in a slave’s
garb, in A ct II. W hen L ycus, the w icked slave-m aster com es to
give him servile dress, T hoas lam ents,
M ust an A thenian w arrior’s free-born lim bs
Be clad in w ithering symbols of the pow er
By w hich m an m arks his property in flesh . .. ?
M acaulay, at least, w ould have had som ething to say about T a l
fourd’s idealization of A thens and his im plication that slavery was
not a problem there: in his essay on the C om te de M irabeau (July
1832) he criticizes those revolutionary leaders who chant rhapsodies
71 This was the perform ed conclusion, for which Macready was largely respon
sible; Talfourd had planned that Thoas should persuade Hyllus to kill him. T he
original ending is printed as an appendix in T alfourd (1844), 264-8.
F i g u r e 11.4 T h e Penshaw M onum ent, near Sunderland.
to A thenian dem ocracy while forgetting about A thenian slavery.72

But T alfourd did really m ean it: the Reading M ercury of 5 M ay 1838
reports that he spoke w ith considerable passion on the subject of
‘N egro E m ancipation’ at a public m eeting in his constituency.
T h e action of the play throughout underlines the equality of all
m em bers of m ankind and the inhum anity of slavery, especially in
the friendship betw een H yllus and T hoas, w hich transcends
superficial m arkers of status and race, and H yllus’ fantasy that he
and T hoas can exchange clothes and thus erase the social boundary
dividing them .
N O N C O N F O R M IS T ION
T alfourd, born in the eighteenth century, retained an affection for
neoclassical tragedy and its practitioners: he was ju st old enough to
have been m ightily im pressed by M rs Siddons at the end of her
72 See Clive (1989), 109.
career in 1812.73 H e also ow ed m uch to Joseph A ddison’s Cato, that
m anifesto of W higgish patriotism first produced at D ru ry L ane in
1713 and subsequently becom ing a staple of the eighteenth- and
early-nineteenth-century staged historical im agination.74 T alfourd
had seen K em ble in the starring role, and had him self perform ed
the play in private theatricals.75 Like A ddison’s Cato, b o th T a l
fo u rd ’s classical heroes com m it suicide in the nam e of the com m on
good, and the parallel was sensed by the shrew der of his contem
poraries: H orn e saw Ion as profiting from the legacy of Cato, b u t
su bstitutin g for pity, terro r, and the intellectual force of eighteenth-
century tragedy, ‘a m oral pow er’ w hich induces in its audience
adm iration and spiritual edification.76
F or T alfo u rd ’s theatrical ancient G reeks sim ultaneously look
both forw ards and backw ards.77 H is choice of a poetic diction
w ith echoes of E lizabethan form s is a sym ptom not so m uch of
retrogressive archaism as of the contem porary sense that the
greatest traditions of tragedy in E nglish w ere currently being
revived.78 It seem ed to T alfo urd th a t plays like K now les’s Virgi
nias (1820) and M ary Russell M itfo rd ’s R ienzi (1828) m arked a
definite revival of tragedy in E ngland, superior to anything since
the age of Shakespeare. A nd in T alfo u rd ’s im portant contribution
to the regeneration of the national dram a w ith his ancient G reeks
he can be seen as representing an em ergent tren d in the ideas w hich
u n derp inn ed the new era.79
In his influential study of V ictorian H ellenism , Frank T u rn er
has argued that one reason for the attractiveness of the G reeks to
n ineteen th -cen tu ry B ritons is precisely the new ness of the link. T o
appeal to G reece
was to appropriate and dom esticate a culture of the past w ith w hich there
had been, particularly in Britain, a discontinuous relationship. A nd that
very discontinuity may have been part of the attraction for nineteenth-
73 Newdick (n.d. b), 13. 74 See Culler (1985), 11.

75 Unidentified cutting, Thom as Noon Talfourd (n.d.), col. 9.
76 H om e (1844), i. 254-5.
77 On T alfourd’s pivotal position see also Sharm a (1979), 158.
78 Ibid. 157, arguing that the lucidity of his style is a m arked im provem ent on
Browning’s dram atic versifying, and that it was the main cause of T alfourd’s
trium ph with Ion on the stage.
79 On T alfourd’s role in revivifying serious theatre, see Bulwer’s dedication to
him of The Lady of Lyons in his Dramatic Works (Bulwer (1863), 106).
century w riters who regarded m uch of their own experience as discontinu
ous w ith the recent past.80
W hile the evidence assem bled in the earlier chapters of this book
suggests that T u rn e r is overstating his case in arguing th at B ritain’s
relationship w ith ancient G reek culture could be described as ‘dis
continuous’, there is no doubt that there was a perception am ongst
the new ly bourgeois that th eir identification w ith the G reeks was
innovative. F or the new m iddle class in the new reform ed B ritain,
of w hich T alfo urd was a ‘left-of-centre’ ideological spokesm an, to
give voice to the G reeks was precisely to revel in w hat H u m p h ry
H ouse fam ously d ubbed their sense of being a ‘parvenu civiliza
tio n ’.81 It was, they felt, to counter the continuous L atinate line
w hich the crow ned heads of E urope could trace to ancient Rom e.
T h e perceived new ness of the resuscitated voice of the ancient
G reeks was connected w ith their perceived youth. T alfo urd saw in
G reek tragedy the im portance of its youthful figures:
. .. how rich a poetic atm osphere do the A thenian poets breathe over all
the creations of their genius! T heir exquisite groups appear in all the
venerableness of hoar antiquity; yet in all the distinctness and in the
bloom of unfolding youth.82
Ion's first n ig h t was also T alfo u rd ’s fo rty -fo urth birthday, b u t if he
was not him self as strikingly young as the great R om antic poets
had been w hen they had com posed their poem s (and m ostly died),
he could m ake his heroes like them . In both his H ellenizing plays
the contrast betw een the obsolete tyranny and the new , reform ed
society is sym bolized by a stark generation gap betw een ageing
m onarchs and th eir vigorously idealist young sons.
Ion did have detractors. M acaulay w rote from C alcutta on
25 July 1836 that there was both ‘too m uch and too little of the
antique about i t . .. Ion is a m odern philanthropist, w hose politics
and m orals have been learned from the publications of the Society
for the D iffusion of U seful K now ledge.’83 H e had a point: Ion is
philanthropically given to visiting the w orthy poor. H e risks his
ow n health spending ‘T h e hours of needful rest in squalid hovels j
80 T urner (1989), 61.
81 T his was in a broadcast entitled ‘Are the Victorians coming back?’. See House
(1955), 93.
82 Thom as Noon Talfourd (1850), 26.
83 Cit. Newdick (n.d. a), 34-5.
W here death is m ost forsaken’ ( I . ii). G eorge D arley review ed the
play negatively in The A thenaeum ,84 and the trajectory of his attack
is obviously political. H e feels that a levelled society w ithout ex
ceptional individuals cannot hope to produce serious ‘tru e ’ dram a:
‘W here are the m odels to draw from , w hen individuality is lost in
the sam eness of civilization?’ H e objects to the play’s ‘languishing’
poetry, ‘insipidities’ of character, dom estic em otions and ‘fem i
n in e’ sw eetness. It is one instantiation of the m odern ‘perpetual
hym n and hosanna about the altar of social love’, and m arred by
Io n ’s ‘m ethodistical can t’, in particular his W esleyan claim of
divine protection ( i . ii):
But they who call m e to the work can shield me,
O r make me strong to suffer.
D arley is correct about the religiosity of T alfo u rd ’s G reeks. Both
plays, alongside their dem ocratic political th ru st, reflect T a l
fo u rd ’s ow n N onconform ist background, and the influence upon
him of his D issenting wife Rachel, by featuring independent-
m inded priestly figures w ith profound m oral au tho rity .85 T u rn e r
has argued th at one of the reasons w hy som e nineteen th -cen tu ry
w riters found G reece so attractive an arena for w orking out their
ow n identity was th at C hristianity— rightly or w rongly— seem ed
easier to reconcile w ith G reek polytheism than w ith w hat they
understood of R om an religion. It was m uch easier ‘to interp ret
G reek religion as an earlier stage of a hum an perception of the
divine th at was in certain respects com patible w ith . .. C h ristian
ity ’.86 T alfo u rd ’s heroes are both charism atically C hristlike and
unshakeable in their religious convictions.
B ut the N onconform ist spirituality of T alfo u rd ’s heroes, how
ever eccentric it m ay seem in hindsight, was actually one of the m ost
distinctive features of their au th o r’s R om antic reform ist H ellenism .
T h ere is nothing com parable in the eighteenth-century adaptations
of G reek tragedy discussed earlier. T alfo urd offered his audiences
sentim entalized Shelley plus a large dose of M ethodism . Phocion in
84 Darley (1836). It is striking that this negative literary discussion of the play
was published in the same issue of The Athenaeum as the ecstatic review of the first
performance at Covent G arden (see above, n. 13).
85 Sharm a (1979), 155—6. Talfourd him self claimed, in the fascinating account of
the genesis of Ion published in the 1844 edition of his collected plays, to have been
deeply affected in his early youth by H annah M ore’s ‘sacred dram as’ on biblical
themes: Thom as Noon T alfourd (1844), 10. 86 T urner (1989), 76.
Ion is the son of the high p riest of Apollo: he refuses to kneel to
A drastus, announcing in superbly N onconform ist m anner that he
has studied in a school
w here the heart
In its free beatings ’neath the coarsest vest,
Claims kindred w ith diviner things than power
O f kings can raise or stifle (i I . iii).
T o a son of A thens like T hoas slavery is unendurable, because it
w ould be ‘foulest treachery to the god w ith in ’ to indulge the will to
live in ‘the vain spasm s of the slavish soul’. T hoas has also joined
an ancient tem perance m ovem ent, scornfully spurning w ine w hen
there is the serious business of liberty to w orry about (II. i).
Ion was know n as m uch for its religious com m itm ent as its
political radicalism : H orne w rote that it appealed to ‘the conscien
tiousness of its audience’, as a ‘m ixture of the pure C hristian
principle of faith and love w ith the G reek principle of inexorable
fate.’8/ It seem s that the religious dim ension was m ost apparent
w hen the role of Ion was taken— as it often was— by a w om an as a
‘breeches’ role. N othing aw ed by M acready’s identification w ith
the part, the redoubtable Ellen T ree exchanged C lem anthe’s
m uslin and ringlets for Io n ’s tunic and sandals, and took the play
to the H aym arket. She was so im pressive at conveying the hero’s
‘purity, nobility, and self-sacrifice’, that ‘at the close, the spectator
w ithdrew reverentially as after a religious observance’.88 A nother
w om an to im press in the role of Ion was C harlotte C ushm an, the
first A m erican actress ever to w in international fam e (see
Fig. 11.5); she was a disciple of M acready’s energetic b u t co n
trolled style of acting, and her perform ances durin g the L ondon
season in 1845-6 earned her a reputation as tragic actress second to
none except H elen F aucit (who took over from Ellen T ree the role
of C lem anthe in Ion shortly after its prem iere (see Fig. 11.6), and is
a central interest of the next chapter). Judging from the sketch in
the Illustrated London News of C u sh m an ’s perform ance as Ion at
the H aym arket in F ebruary 1846, she had closely m odelled it on
M acready’s definitive realization of the role (com pare Fig. 11.1).
T alfo u rd ’s w orks have partly disappeared from the scene b e
cause of the tendency am ongst historians of literature to regard the
87 H orne (1844), i. 254-5. 88 M arston (1888), i. 219.

a im CCSHKAH, AS “ io n ,” AT T H K HAXMAKKJ. r IHEAXBK.
F i g u r e 11.5 C harlotte C ushm an as Ion, H aym arket T heatre (1846).
1830s as an infertile w asteland lying betw een the R om antics and the
V ictorians. W ith a few exceptions, such as T en n y so n ’s first volum e
and som e early D ickens, little from this decade is ever now even
read. T h e m ain reason is precisely the self-consciously political
tone of m uch of the w riting, an inevitable consequence of the
rapid social and political changes taking place. In his book The
Spirit o f Reform , B rantlinger w rites of the ‘intense excitem ent and
expectation of fu rth er radical changes or of social dissolution’
characterizing the early 1830s, and of the self-consciously ‘im prov
ing’ quality of the literature that this decade p ro d uced .89 T alfourd’s
choice of ancient G reek content m ay have distinguished h im sharply
from the o ther theatrical w riters of his day. B ut his reform ist
message was absolutely typical of the contem porary theatre. In the
1830s dram a becom e a context for self-consciously ‘im proving’
sentim ents equal to that provided by fiction and periodicals.
89 Brantlinger (1977), 11-12, 19.
O n M n l u i 't l a j w ill b e r e p e a te d th e T r a g e d y o f O T T H I S E i l j ® :
Othello, Hr, MACREADY, logo, Mr.VANDESTHOFF.'cnssio, Hr. C. KEM BLE
• I U L 1 1 JS C A l i A B .
A n d o n W O X O A Y S E X T , w i l l Ire p e r f o r m e d B h n k n p e a r e i, P i t t ) o f
B r u ta s M'MACREADY Cassius HPVANDENHOFF MaicAiitonyMC KEMBLE

A L A D D IN i OR T H E W O N D E R F U L LAMP!
ION,
/>-§. T h e re v iv a l o f this Grand Rom antic Spectacle— w ith it® beswttiM 3c«m eiy~-its Gorgeous Pageantry—aad its Bp1«
Processions- -having teaan attended w ith th e most com plete Success, •will bo repeated T h is BvtmlBg Friday. m d aa
,, ___ _______ . A laddin, Mias V IN C E N T , _ ^JKazrac. M r C. J. S M IT H . _________ ________ ____
T h is E ven ing, W E D K N iD A Y , N ov e m b e r M h . iMMS.
Tb. f m m b . wili MU***. «i.S. Pi/tt Tim H r . S e r je a n t T A L T O D B D S T r a g e d y a t
Adrastits,.... ............ (King of Argos)............ . ...Mr. V A N DEM B 0 F F,

Ctesiphon & Ca«*arnit‘r. (Noble Argwe Youths) Afr. HSiNEV WALLACK & Mr. J. WKBSTFR
I o n .................................................................................... Mr . M A C R E A D Y .
Medou,.. { lligh Hriest of the Temple of Apolloj . .Mr. THOMPSON, Phocion,. .(his Son). .Mr. G SEN NETT
Agenor, Cleon & Timocles. ( Sages of Argos) Mr. PRITCHARD, Mr. TILBURY & Mr. HARRIS
Crythes.f Capiatnof theRrgalGuard)MrMQllvAi.T$, Soldier, Mr.COl.LETT, \ rus,(a Sou,SlaveloAoenorWivtl ASH
Ctemantite,. (Daughter of Medon)...................... MmsH IS t E N FA V C I T.
IN G 1 H E QUESTION.
After which, the laughabte Fante of ------
P O P Mr.PPrwouse....................................................................Mr. W. F A R R BN,
Henry Thornton,....................Mr. J. WEBSTER,
Miss Biflin,.....................Mrs. GLOVER, Miss W'inierblossom Mrs. GARRICK
______________ Ellen. Murray. ... Miss LEE. Bobbin, ...Miss VINCENT.
A fc A S I Ni
io conclude « ith~t36r(ft Thatthat Ten yeatt)the Grand Komuntic Spectacle of
9
Or. 'JTtlJE tl'O V H /;/i f ( 7 , /..l.fff * .
Ainidii,, — " A r e y o u a n y j r , H othei?"-B «'»pJ — M,n .
Abtumzar,( aUlajiciunJ Mr.PRlTClI ARD, Kazrac.fhisStave) Mr.C.J.SMITH, Cham ofTartarv, Mr. THOMPSON'
vimcent
Karah Ilanjou, ( Grand Vizier) Mr. HOWARD, Karim Aiac, ( his Son) Mr. J.*WEBSTER, ’
Officers of the Cham, Messrs. Bender, Evans, &e. Cham Tartary, Messrs. Wilson, Trinff Lee See
Olrock, ( Genius of the A ir ) Mr. HARRIS, Citizens ofGenius o( the Lamp, Mr. COLLETT,
Geoi of the Ring,Princeas
Mis* LANE, Mandarins, Offices of State. So. Messrs. Jefferson, Walton. Avres tee
Badroulbadonr. Miss LEE. Zobeid*1, (her Attendant') Madame V ED Y,
Widow Chinff Mustapha, Mrs. GARRICK, Amrou, Miss NICHOLSON, Slave, Miss I AND
The MAGICIANS CAVE, «f RESTING PEACE of RAZRAC,
Descent ofttee Genius Olrock, a n d View of the mountains ot'LtoJpho!
STR E E T IN CHAO T A H T A R Y - Song.
or
Axe yon angry, H o tte r!' Miss Vincent
T H E B LA STED C ED A R . A NO EN TR A N C E TO T H E CAVERN.
the the
r p jjin a n v r / v r ,/ r e t r r c r t h e c/c
INTERIOR of CAVERN of VPONDERPVE EAIOP.

TH E C H IN E SE B R ID G ES AND W ATERFALLS.
A tA D D I. X tO W tliK . THK H O , , r BATH .
A L , A M M A N C' .IRS A VAGXMMEHAA W M *C M *APM BHE R «O N MMiA X It.AC.h , h I O T >

T H E F L l iX O P A L A C E !
C H / .V ffN E
a n a frn f a v ir x o n o f T a x m a g i c i a n i n A f r i c a
T H E D E S C E N T O F A L A D D I N ’S P A L A C E !
P »» S E IM .. by M u d a m tt T B D I. T H IS »£ H E K T P U 1 K . ASO
*' T H E E X 'lX E l “ —
as re v iv e d w ith th e G R A N D PRO CESSIO N and Public E ntree o f E lizabeth into th e C ity o f M oscow -seated in h e r Chariot,
draw n b y S E A L H O R S E S ! and the C O R O N A T IO N o f the E M PRESS, & c.-w iU , in consequence of ti^ a p p Ia iL e
_ ' __ attended its last representation, b e repeated on F rid a y n ext, w ith the Spectacle o f A L A D D IN -
H r, M A C R E A D Y will perform the pari of “ ION,” This Evening; KING JOHN, To-morroic,*OTHKLLO.- on
Saturday; ami on Monday next, be will aet the Character of Brutus, in Shakspeare’s Play of JULIUS GA5SAK."
nWho
r MOST POSITIVELY THE LAST SEASON of Mr. CHARLES K EM BLE)
will again peifotnt Faulconbr'dge, in KING JOHN, To-morrmv; Camofin Slmkspeare’s l’lav of OTHELLU.oa
Saturday; ami on Monday next, Mart,: Antony, in Shakspeare’a Play of JULIUS OASSAR
H r. V A N D E N H O F F , H r .W .F A & R E N & M rs. G L O V E R . wTT^rTorm Evening. ~
ON f H U R S D A t i R I N G J O H N .
K ins John, Mr. MACBEADY, Fanlconbridge. Mr. CHARLES KEM BLE.
A M (EAuthor
W ofO R“ Pelham,”
IG IN “AEugene
L PAram,'’
L A Y“ Last
, BDays
Y of E. L. B D L W E R ,^ E S Q . M .P .
Pompeii,” ** Riensi," “ Deverettx,” Sfc.)
Maw been accepted Tfacwfre, madwlll »>e speedily t»rod«c4»d._______
TorfawmtvfTSwrdoyjSimkspoare'sTragedy of KING JtMlN—JGngJohn.Mr.Mneresdy, Faiileonbridge,Mr.ChartcsKinnliie, L«dyConsla»ee,Sl*MHe'enFaueit.
To conclude with die Qt>e»Of'GUY MANNERiNG—Heory Bertram, (PintNbpiS-pfXt-St*iqmrtme*) Mr.CoHins, Dominie Sampson, Mr. W.Karrew.
Deodi* Dioinont. Mr. Webeter, Jnlm Mannering, MiisYiijcent. I.nejr Bertram, Miss Turpin.
O
nFriday, the Drama of THE EXILE : or. The Detent of S&
eria— Dstaa, Mr. Vaudenhol'. Governor, Mr. W. Farren, Setvilx. Mr. Webater. j
Dim. Mr. 0. Bennett. Benm Altiadoft Mr. PriteberdL Alesina. Mia* Vincent, Settees, Mr*. W. » « « , Catherine. Mis* Turpin. After which, the I
JUeghahle Farce of PET 1'ICOAT GOVERNMENT—Heetk. Mr. W. Peneo. Mrs. Camay, Mis. Glover. To conclude with the Romantic Spectacle ■
of.ALADDIN; or.the. ironderhJ I™p-Alftd<lio,Miw Vioeem, Xsme. Mr. €. J. Smith.
O
nSotnniiU
f. Shalttpeare'a Play of (3THELL0—Othollo. Mr. Sl&rreedy. Csauo. Mr.Chsrie* Kemble, lago, Mr.Vandenhoff, Deedemooa.Miss Helen Faudtj i
Emilia, Mr«.vy.We*t. Toconckd- with the H.rtotwd Dram* of C H A R L ^ T H E TWELFTH —Charte* the Twelfth, Mr. W.Fartee, Adaru Btoeh.
(Fint That) Mr. Hfmry Walladk, TriiAolemus Muddkfetk, Mr, Webmer, Major fanherg,
Mr. G. Bennett, Eadiga, Mias Vincent, t%tea,.Miw Leo.
B iqlnsffl'l, ACREADYCassmsarVANDEN'KOFFiaarcAntonyUFCKEM BLE

An,ttm Monday. ÎmkspeSro d Play of J V U V S ( A ' '.ft,
iioxes it. H alf-P rice is. P it ixftlalf-P rice I*. I.ouer Gallery \x. H a lf Price 6a . t pper Gallery (id. A'oJ/alf-Tries
The BeXxCKre oodrr the iltrec!'«n of Mr. NOT » R «, of-whna Private Boxes and PVare* su j be obtsir*.!
P r i » s « e 0 o x e » m a y a t e o b e h o d o f ,W f .8 A S 8 , iH o le A g c n t « H i e W e s t E B i i * f f h e l o w n ) » t . d n t n e * 'K t r e « l . ^
V uant ftex et Refina, Door* open at ltMt\-*»f Sis, Petfbreaouehejiim at Seven, N-j ymoy returned, S.G. EddMAtW, Ftistet.EsetetC9W*.Su:«Mt .1
F i g u r e 11.6 C ontem porary playbill for T alfourd’s Ion at Covent

G arden (1836), after H elen Faucit took over the role of C lem anthe from
Ellen T ree.
TH E DREAM OF A PO L ITIC A L STAGE
W ith the m ore popular stage presentations Ion also shares a sense
of im m inent apocalypse, a feeling th at civilization was approaching
a m om ent of radical change. D eep resonances w ere found in the
idea of lost em pires, lost civilizations of the past, especially those
w hich had com e to a spectacular end: stage adaptations of B ulw er’s
novel The Last D ays o f Pompeii abounded, and it was one of the
m ost popular subjects of panoram as durin g the 1830s and 1840s.90
B ut the ‘lost civilization’ them e in T alfo urd is subordinate to the
ideals of patriotism and dem ocracy, also at the centre of B row n
ing’s political plays; even B row ning’s love dram as em phasize the
m oral m otifs of service and sacrifice.91 In the dram as of T alfo u rd ’s
friend D ouglas Jerrold, in particular, reform ist them es prefiguring
those of D ickens’s fiction had been explored since the late 1820s.
Jerro ld ’s plays portray the plights of petit bourgeois and w orking-
class characters, oppressed by dastardly aristocrats, ju st as Ion and
T hoas think they are com m oners, and are persecuted by kings.
Jerro ld ’s fam ous B lack-E yed Susan (1829), and o ther politicized
m elodram as such as The Press Gang and The Factory G irl w ere, by
the early 1830s, staples of the popular theatre; The Golden C a lf
(1832) attacks those w ho honour m oney and social status.92
Politics w ere thus being placed at the centre of culture. Bulw er
was behind the 1832 Select C om m ittee of E n qu iry into the legal
foundations of the theatre, w hich had criticized the L o rd C ham
berlain’s prerogative of dram atic censorship; he believed th a t lit
erature needed a propagandist voice. In his non-fictional study
England and the English (1833), he argues against political censor
ship of theatre, w hose m ain function he saw as the protection of the
nobility by preventing ‘political allusions’. H e acidly concludes
that ‘to see o u r m odern plays, you w ould im agine there w ere no
politicians am ongst u s’.93 In contrast, he invokes the ancient
A thenians:
the theatre with them was political... T h u s theatrical perform ance was to
the A thenian a new spaper as well as a play. W e banish the Political from
the stage, and we therefore deprive the stage of the m ost vivid of its actual
90 Altick (1978), 181-2, 323. 91 Sharma (1979), 2-3.

92 This section owes m uch to Brantlinger (1977), 26. See also W alter Jerrold
(1914), ii; Emeljanow (1987), 21—55.
93 Bulwer (1833), ii. 141-2.
sources of interest. A t present the English, instead of finding politics in the
stage, find their stage in politics.94
As if in response to his frien d ’s challenge, T alfo urd consciously
created a theatrical perform ance im itating A thenian theatre in
w hich he could p u t those exciting contem porary politics back
onto the English stage.
T alfo urd thought literature should ideally not be used for the
expression of narrow ly p a rty political sentim ent. In a discussion of
H azlitt in the Edinburgh Review, he had once w ritten that dram a
tists ought to respect all m em bers of their audiences, w hich invari
ably consist both ‘of m en of all parties, and m en of no p arty ’.95 H e
shared w ith C arlyle and D ickens an advocacy of social reform
w hich basically assum ed that social reform presupposed moral
reform : institutions could best be changed by altering hum an
n atu re.96 Y et feelings ran so high in the decade of reform that
T alfo u rd ’s ancient G reeks in Ion and The A thenian Captive,
while m odelled on the characters in extant A thenian tragedy, do
deliver speeches closely echoing the constitutional debates in the
new spapers of the 1830s, and do express views w hich im ply that
they w ould have been extrem ely unlikely to vote T ory. B ut they
are w arm and sym pathetic hum an beings, acting nobly and speak
ing eloquently in the nam e of im proving the condition of their
peoples and the reform of their body politic. W ith T hom as T a l
fo u rd ’s em otional and idealized H ellenic heroes, as im personated
by M acready, not only the theatre b u t the ancient G reeks it rep re
sented had indeed once again becom e political.
94 Ibid. 141.
95 Talfourd, ‘H azlitt’s lectures on the dram a’ (first published in The Edinburgh
Review), in Thom as Noon T alfourd (1850), 68-73, at p. 69.
96 See Brantlinger (1977), 2, 4-5, 11.
12
Antigone with Consequences
SOPHOCLEAN DREAMERS
In recollections of his D u b lin boyhood, published in 1902, the
elderly Irish w riter and theatre critic Percy Fitzgerald confessed
to a recurring dream . In 1846, w hen still a teenager, he had w it
nessed the ravishing H elen F aucit perform ing the leading role in
Sophocles’ Antigone. M ore than half a century later Fitzgerald
w rote that the ‘classical vision haunted m y boyish dream s for
weeks, and does still. . . It seem ed som e supernatural figure lent
tem porarily to this base earth. N ever since have I understood in
the same way the solem nity of the G reek play’.1 W hat kind of
theatrical experience could have m ade such an im pact on an ado
lescent m ale psyche th at it inform ed his fantasies for m ore than a
half a century? In this ch ap ter’s exploration of the consequences of
A ntigone’s appearance on the stages of B ritain and Ireland in the
1840s, an unprecedented degree of hyperbole will everyw here be
apparent in the responses of its adulatory spectators.
T h e im pact m ade by T alfo u rd ’s Ion on the L ondon im agination
had inevitably raised once again the issue of w hether the texts of
G reek tragedy them selves could successfully be perform ed. In
1837, the year after Ion, T alfo u rd ’s friend Bulw er asked him self
exactly this question. H e felt that A eschylean dram a was w holly
unsuitable, its form al, declam atory style requiring not actors b u t
m ere ‘reciters’. O n the o ther hand, says Bulw er,
W hen we come to the plays of Sophocles, we feel that a new era in the
dram a is created, we feel that the artist poet has called into full existence
the artist actor. H is theatrical effects are tangible, actual— could be repre
sented tom orrow in Paris— in L ondon— everywhere.
B ulw er’s view now seem s oddly prescient. A lthough he personally
failed to persuade M acready to produce a play called The M urder
1 Percy Fitzgerald (1902), 26—7. 2 Bulwer (1837), ii. 590-3.

A ntigone w ith Consequences 317
o f Clytemnestra (probably Sophocles’ Electra) in 1838,3 alm ost all
Sophocles’ tragedies w ould indeed be perform ed in B ritain, u n
adapted, before the end of the nineteenth century. It is even m ore
striking that w ithin less than a decade of B ulw er’s statem ent,
Sophocles’ Antigone should have been fully staged not only in
Paris and L ondon b u t in Potsdam , Berlin, H am burg, F rankfurt,
V ienna, D ublin, E dinburgh, and even N ew York.
In 1845 there was a seism ic shift in the B ritish p u blic’s relation
ship w ith G reek tragedy. T h e cause was an unprecedented p ro
duction at C ovent G arden of Sophocles’ Antigone in English
translation (not adaptation), to m usic by M endelssohn. T h is p ro
duction had far-reaching consequences for B ritish theatrical and
cultural life, consequences w hich w ere to inform not only the
developm ents explored in this chapter, b u t m uch of the m aterial
discussed in all the rem aining chapters of the book. Antigone has
been an overw helm ingly popular play in the m odern w orld. It has
been staged on hu nd reds of occasions, and has also stim ulated
several adaptations (by B recht and A nouilh, am ong others) so
significant that they have them selves becom e ‘C lassics’ of the
repertoire. It is therefore at first sight surprising to find that
Antigone was never perform ed in B ritain during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, except latterly in the form of Italian
opera; Francesco B ianchi’s A ntigona was actually first perform ed
in E ngland at the K ing ’s T h eatre in 1796.4 O ne reason for the
neglect of Antigone was the unim portance to its heroine of her
relationship w ith H aem on, her betrothed: as even B ulw er acknow
ledged, if Antigone were to be staged, it m ight be desirable to have
‘m ore reference to her lover ’.5 B ut the m ain reason w hy Antigone
had m ade so little im pact on the B ritish im agination before the
nineteenth century was that there was no significant F rench m odel
for B ritish dram atists to im itate: C orneille, Racine, and V oltaire
had none of them attem pted to adapt this tragedy. For the first
tim e in the narrative traced in this book, the credit for discovery of
a G reek dram a as a text suitable for perform ance on a m odern
B ritish stage m ust be given, unquestionably, to G erm an-speaking
culture.
3 Macready (1912), i. 472.

4 See the English translation of Lorenzo da Ponte’s libretto in Bianchi (1796).
s Bulwer (1837), i. 551.
318 A ntigone with Consequences
T h e ancient G reek tragedian m ost likely to be chosen for the
privilege of a fully staged E nglish-language perform ance was
always Sophocles. H e had been the m ost influential in the late
seventeenth century, the first to be edited by an E nglishm an, and
the first to be translated in full into the E nglish language. H is
Oedipus and Electra, as we have seen, had far-reaching im plica
tions for the eighteenth-century L ondon stage and for Shelley’s
and T alfo u rd ’s late G eorgian responses to G reek tragedy. B ut it
was his exaltation by G erm an R om antics (in the poetry of G oethe
and of H olderlin, w hose translation of Antigone was published in
1804, and above all in A ugust W ilhelm Schlegel’s influential lec
tures on G reek tragedy, first published in E nglish translation in
1815) w hich had led, by the 1830s, to Sophocles’ enjoym ent of the
status of ‘b est’ ancient tragedian in B ritain. H e was tho u g h t to
occupy the ideal m iddle ground ‘betw een’ A eschylean prim al ru g
gedness and E uripidean w ordy decadence. H e was ‘a pure G reek
tem ple’ in contrast to A eschylus’ ‘G othic C athedral ’.6 H e was
regarded as ‘sublim e’, ‘ideal’, his plays exem plars of classical p e r
fection com parable w ith the statues created by the m aster sculptor
contem porary w ith him , Phidias; his chorus was deem ed to rep re
sent Schlegel’s ‘ideal spectator’, the serene, m ournful b u t em otion
ally distanced w itness to the tragic crises suffered by m onarchs and
noblem en .7
PRUSSIAN A N T IG O N E
A lthough T alfo u rd ’s Ion prepared the ground, the im m ediate
stim ulus behind the C ovent G arden staging of Antigone was u n
doubtedly G erm an adm iration for the play. T h e B ritish interest in
cultural developm ents in G erm an-speaking countries was con
nected w ith the Q ueen ’s m arriage in 1840: in 1841 the Prince
C onsort, a deep adm irer of the Prussian kingdom , had been invited
by Sir R obert Peel to chair the Royal C om m ission on the p ro m o
tion of the Fine A rts in Britain. Indeed, the so-called M endelssohn
Antigone, along w ith a translation of the Oedipus at Colonus for
w hich M endelssohn had also com posed a m usical accom panim ent,
6 Edward FitzG erald (1889), i. 190.

On the concept of the ideal ‘Spectator’, which Schlegel found in the pseudo-
Aristotelian Problems, see further Hall (199%), 96 n. 1.
A ntigone with Consequences 319
w ere to enjoy royal com m and perform ances at B uckingham palace
and W indsor Castle throu g h o u t the years 1848 to 1850.8
It is in the context of the young Q ueen V ictoria’s recent union
w ith a com m itted advocate of the achievem ents of G erm an culture
that the C ovent G arden m anagem ent chose to im itate an im portant
Potsdam production of 1841, overseen by F ried rich W ilhelm IV,
w ho dream ed of a renaissance of G reek tragedy in the heart of the
K ingdom of Prussia. F or in G erm any in the late eighteenth cen
tury, nationalist fervour had fuelled long-standing resentm ent
against F ren ch neoclassicism and the dom inantly R om an/L atin
lens through w hich G reek culture had been viewed; one m anifest
ation of that had been the pre-em inence enjoyed by the French
neoclassical adaptations of G reek dram a. T h is nationalism , com
bined w ith developm ents in both classical scholarship and in the
theatre, led eventually to a revival of G reek tragedy that was to
spread throu g h ou t the w hole of E urope. W hen G erm an classical
scholarship first sought, in the late eighteenth century, to encom
pass all aspects of the ancient w orld w ithin its range of study, it
found a keen audience am ongst m em bers of an intelligentsia in
search of a m odel upon w hich to base their ow n ideas. A nd since
m any G erm an cities w ere able to enjoy perm anent standing
theatres from the late eighteenth century onw ards (long before
any com parable institutions existed elsew here in E urope), the
stability of the profession entailed an unprecedented respectability
and increasing vitality. G oethe took over the H oftheater in
W eim ar in 1791, giving E urope for the first tim e a theatre w hich
was, generally speaking, free from the w him s of public taste
and able to experim ent in the staging of G reek tragedy in verse
translations.
W hilst the F rench plays had been designed prim arily to im prove
on the G reek originals by extending the em otional range of the
m aterial, and E nglish adaptations had often provided com m entary
on political ideas and events, the productions at the H oftheater
sought to capture the ‘universal’ in G reek tragedy and usher it into
the w orld of G o ethe’s W eim ar. G o ethe’s ow n enthusiasm s w ere
evidently not shared by all: A. W . Schlegel’s adaptation of Ion
(produced early in 1802) failed to satisfy the W eim ar audiences;
8 See Cole (1859), ii. 46. William Bartholomew once again supplied the English
translation: see Bartholomew (1850).
and Johann F ried rich R ochlitz’s abbreviated and inelegant ad ap
tation of Antigone (early in 1809) was strongly criticized by clas
sical scholars. B ut the W eim ar experim ent is still of som e (albeit
indirect) significance. F or even if Schlegel’s version of Ion proved
unsuccessful, it was his lectures on G reek tragedy betw een 1809
and 1811 that first established the high status accorded to the
G reek plays throu g h o u t E urope in the nineteenth century. M ore
over, by staging the R ochlitz version of Antigone— its infelicities
notw ithstanding— G oethe had introduced the public to the G reek
tragedy that was to rem ain pre-em inent in the G erm an-speaking
theatre, and indeed in the E uropean theatre as a w hole, throu g h o u t
the second half of the century.
It was the production of Sophocles’ own Antigone that opened at
the H oftheater in the N eues Palais in Potsdam on 28 O ctober 1841
that secured the pre-em inence of the play in the nineteenth-century
E uropean repertoire. It is generally referred to as the M endelssohn
Antigone on account of the orchestral introduction and the m usical
settings of the sung choral odes and the ‘m elodram atic’ parts of the
dialogue (i.e. ‘su ng -d ram atic’, from the G reek melos, ‘song’),
w hich w ere com posed by the rising star of the Prussian C onserva
tory and the E uropean concert hall, Felix M endelssohn-B artholdy.
H e saw him self as in som e sense ‘resto rin g ’ the authentic m usical
dim ension to the play, originally provided by m usic, now lost,
w hich had nevertheless been com posed by none other than the
tragedian Sophocles him self. B ut the production was in fact a
collaborative undertaking overseen by F ried rich W ilhelm IV.
T h e translation, w hich was by Johann Jakob C hristian D onner,
was both accurate and lucid as well as being m etrically com plex;
the classical scholar A ugust Boeckh of Berlin U niversity had been
called in as philological adviser. T h e play was perform ed in the
V itruvian theatre in the palace, and the responsibility for the
staging fell largely to L udw ig T ieck, w ho sought to avoid all
those illusionist techniques that had predom inated in the realism
of G o ethe’s W eim ar stage, w ith its detailed costum es, elaborate
sets, m irrors, and special effects.
T h e choice of Antigone was by no m eans fortuitous, since the
tragedy had been central to the developm ent of po st-K an tian
G erm an philosophy. It had fundam entally inform ed both H egel’s
dialectical view of history and the specific them es of his
Phenomenology, nation-state versus fam ily, legislative fiat versus
traditional ethics. H egel’s pupils had already applied to contem por
ary politics their m aster’s ideas of the ‘m oral com m unity’ (sittliche
Gemeinschaft) that for H egel constituted the G reek polis. A nd here,
in the intellectual excitem ent of Friedrich W ilhelm IV ’s Prussia,
there was to be no better illustration of that ‘m oral com m unity’.
T h at is not to im ply, how ever, that the production offered a
H egelian interpretation of the play tout court, in w hich the claim s
of C reon and A ntigone w ere antithetically balanced, or that it was
sim ply an apology for C reon, as has som etim es been claim ed .9 F or
not only w ere the collaborators in the production them selves of
diverse political persuasions, b u t the Potsdam audience’s open-
m inded outlook w ould have m ade them as likely to have been in
sym pathy w ith A ntigone as w ith C reo n .10
T h is extraordinary Antigone was transferred to several G erm an
theatres, scored a success at the Paris O deon, and proved a sensation
w hen it was produced in L ondon in early January 1845. T h e E n g
lish translation was m ade from D o n n e r’s G erm an text (not Sopho
cles’ G reek) by W illiam B artholom ew .11 F rom L ondon it was taken
by John V andenhofPs son G eorge to N ew Y ork, w here it was m uch
less successful (see below). T h e P otsdam Antigone and its im itations
w ere billed everyw here as the first ever attem pts to resuscitate this
ancient play on the m odern stages of E urope and A m erica, and
attracted ‘learned and unlearned alike ’.12 D espite its failure, even
the N ew Y ork Antigone was im p o rtan t as an early exam ple of a
E uropean production of G reek tragedy beginning to becom e a
truly international phenom enon by being exported across the A t
lantic: its only certain B ritish precedent was Ellen T re e ’s first
A m erican tour w ith T alfo u rd ’s Ion, w hich she acted, for exam ple,
at the Park T h eater in N ew Y ork on 3 F ebruary 1837.13
AN TIG O N E AT COVENT GARDEN

P art of the appeal of the B ritish prem iere of Antigone was the
identity of the two actors taking the roles of C reon and A ntigone.
9 George Steiner (1984), 182.

10 See Steinberg (1991), 141-2; Flashar (1991), 74-5.
11 Bartholomew (1845).
12 Stirling (1881), i. 161-2.
13 T . Allston Brown (1903), i. 49.
John V andenhoff, feted a few years previously for his perform ance
as another ancient G reek autocrat, A drastus in the H aym arket
production of T alfo u rd ’s Ion, kept G reek tragedy in the fam ily
by playing C reon to the A ntigone of his own daughter C harlotte.
T h ey w ere both highly praised. T h e scene w hich seem s to have
m ade the greatest im pact, to judge from the review s and the
cartoons in Punch shortly afterw ards (18 January), was precisely
the confrontation of the arrested A ntigone w ith her tyrannical
uncle (see Fig. 12.1). Y et C reon was notable for his ‘great d ignity’,
his ‘pow erful and m elodious voice ’;14 he was adm ired for his
portrayal of C reo n ’s ‘stern and rugged passions’, especially in his
‘desolation of g rie f at the end of the play .15 C harlotte V andenhoff,
w hose solem n vocal delivery was m uch adm ired, played A ntigone
w ith ‘the highest intelligence’, especially in the difficult enunci
ation of speech throu g h the m usic in the fourth scene (w hich
req u ired her to say w ords such as ‘w oe’ w ith feeling and fre
quently ).16 T h e perform ance was w ildly applauded, and the ru n
was extended for another m onth, resulting in no few er than forty-
five perform ances (an exceptional success in those days). T hese
m ade a considerable profit. A young A m erican underg rad u ate at
C am bridge, C harles B risted, recalled later,
I w ent dow n to L o n d o n . .. to see Antigone, w hich was just then one of the
lions, and received w ith a furore that showed how extensively Classical
tastes are diffused am ong the educated classes in England. O ne interesting
effect of the acting on a m odern stage of this ancient play was, that it
brought out the points, and showed how far Sophocles w rote for the
galleries.17
F or despite the popularity of other m usic by M endelssohn in
L ondon at the tim e, the review ers w ere surprised to find that the
play itself, in perform ance, upstaged the m usic.
T h e sixty poorly rehearsed chorus-m em bers perform ed badly, at
least on the first night, and the Punch cartoon depicting the chorus
was m ore acerbic than the cartoons depicting the o ther perform ers
(Fig. 12.2). It suggested th a t the ch o ru s’ costum es had entirely
failed to conceal their true identities as early V ictorian oratorio
singers; an am used M endelssohn w rote to his sister to describe
the cartoon. H e was also astonished that the L ondon production
14 M arston (1888), i. 21. 15 IL N 6, no. 140 (4 Jan. 1845), 10.
16 Ibid. 17 Bristed (1852), 234.
F ig u r e 12.1 Punch cartoon illustrating A ntigone under arrest by

guards (1845).
AN TIG O N E ANALYSED.
FIGURE 12.2 Punch cartoon illustrating the chorus of the ‘M endelssohn

Antigone’ (1845).
had pandered to popular taste by inserting a ballet to accom pany the

ode to D ionysus .18 Y et the tragedy itself, at least according to the
review er in The Times, was ‘triu m p hantly successful’:
18 Wyndham (1906), ii. 177.
U p to seven o’clock last night the general belief was that the tragedy would
be a failure unless indeed it was saved by M endelssohn’s m usic. H ow the
wise have been deceived! T h e m usic, as executed last night, proved detri
m ental, w hilst the tragedy itself has been m ost trium phantly successful.
F ar from the chorus saving the tragedy, the tragedy has saved itself in spite
of the chorus.19
T h e Covent G arden Antigone did have a few critics. M acready, m o
tivated prim arily by envy at its popularity, described it as ‘low, p ro
vincial rant and extravagant pantom im e. If this be the representation
of a G reek play the A thenians m ust have had a w retched taste .’20 But
L ondoners now enthusiastically shared that taste: a feature in the
Illustrated London News devotes m uch space to a plan of G reek
theatre, a bust of Sophocles, and a ‘scene from “A ntigone” ’, ex
plained as ‘that w herein “A ntigone” is brought by the guards, and
acknowledges having buried the corpse of her b ro th er ’.21
T h e stren gth of the public interest is partly rooted in the precise
historical context. T h e costum es w ere of conscious antiquarian
correctness, and John M acfarren’s painted proscenium , depicting
w hat was a know ledgeable approxim ation to the frons scaenae of a
R om an im perial theatre, was the result of extensive research into
archaeological publications. It was an unprecedented theatrical
m asterpiece of m inute antiquarianism , the p ro d uct of a period
newly interested in reconstructing and recording in a precise and
scientific way the archaeology of the past (see Fig. 12.3). T h is
developm ent is reflected in the close relationship betw een Classics
and early photography: tw o of the earliest daguerreotypes in exist
ence record the R om an forum in 1840 and a Pom peian scene: they
are attem pts ‘to capture antiquity w ith the tools of the m achine
age ’.22 T h e inventor of photography as we know it, W illiam Fox
T albo t, was a classical and O riental scholar w ho had w on the
Porson prize at C am bridge for translating som e of M acbeth into
G reek: one of his first pictures was of a b u st of P atroclus, taken in
1840: tw o fu rth er pictures of this b u st w ere published in his
collection of ‘photogenic draw ings’, w hich began to appear ju st
the year before the C ovent G arden A ntigone.22, It is revealing to
find review ers, w hose expectations of historical sets w ere being
19 The Times, 3 Jan. 1845, quoted in Little (1893), 67.
20 M acready (1912), ii. 289.
21 IL N 6, no. 142 (18 Jan. 1845), 45.
22 Buckland (1980a), 117, 189.
23 Buckland (19806), 61, 81.
SCENE FROM “ ANTIGONE,” AT GOYENT GARDEN THEATRE.
F ig u r e 12.3 Antigone, arrested by guards, is brought before Creon.

Scene from Antigone at C ovent G arden, January 1845. R eproduced from
I L N 6, no. 142 (18 January 1845), 45.
transform ed by the invention of photographic m edia, anxious to

show off th eir ow n classical know ledge. T h ey begin to com plain
about tiny anachronistic details, such as the R om an (rather than
G reek) appearance of the sandals .24
A N T I G O N E IN D U B L I N
In B ritain it was not only the L ondon stage w hich succum bed to
this unique production. Indeed, the actress w ho later becam e m ost
24 IL N 6, no. 140 (4 Jan. 1845), 10.

firm ly identified w ith the role in the public m em ory was not the
neurasthenic C harlotte V andenhoff of the L ondon production, b u t
H elen Faucit, a slightly older, w arm er, and m ore graceful figure,
who took Antigone to D u b lin and E dinburgh. Faucit was the
outstanding E nglish tragic actress of h er generation (she had learnt
m uch of her craft from M acready) and a great beauty. In striking
contrast to her A m erican rival, C harlotte C ushm an, w ho was n o
toriously m asculine in voice and appearance, w hen F aucit acted in
tragedy she was alm ost universally acknow ledged, by w om en and
m en alike, as representing the ideal of perfect w om anhood. Indeed,
despite her ow n p aren ts’ scandalous divorce, the exam ple F aucit
set in her ow n personal life, both as a young w om an and in her
excellent m arriage to T h eo do re M artin (later Prince A lbert’s offi
cial biographer), did m uch to m ake it possible for respectable
w om en to think about entering the acting profession.
F aucit was the daughter of an accom plished actress, H arriet
Faucit, and Jo hn Savill Faucit, the author of the m usical version
of Oedipus Tyrannus perform ed at the W est L ondon T h eatre in
1821 (see above, Ch. 8). T h eir slender, dark-haired daughter had
m ade her nam e in the roles of lovely young heroines— Shake
speare’s Juliet, M iranda, and R osalind, O tw ay’s Belvidera in
Venice Preserved, Julia in Sheridan K now les’ The Hunchback,
and the sw eet C lem anthe in T alfo u rd ’s Ion. Perhaps it was in
volvem ent in T alfo u rd ’s w ork that had originally inspired her
longstanding interest in G reek tragedy, and had pro m p ted M ac-
ready to give her a copy of Schlegel’s D ram atic Literature to read
w hen she was b edridden in 1840.25
H aving conquered Paris in 1844, w here she m ade a point of
studying the ancient sculptures in the L ouvre, F aucit w itnessed
the C ovent G ard en Antigone in January 1845 in the com pany of
John C alcraft, the m anager of the T h eatre Royal, D ublin. A fter
im m ersing herself in the study of G reek tragedy w ith T heodore
M artin, the scholarly adm irer she was later to m arry, she im m edi
ately agreed to take the play to D ublin, w here she perform ed it on
22 F ebruary and nine fu rth er tim es in the next few weeks.
T h e D u b lin theatre was capacious enough for the raised G reek
stage, com plete w ith Ionic pillars, ‘au thentic’ tripods, and a set
containing no few er than five doors. In the centre was placed the
25 M acready (1912), ii. 40.
door reserved for the entrances of C reon (played by C alcraft). T he
inflated tone of the reviews and other records of the production
indicate that F aucit’s personal perform ance was a tow ering tri
u m ph. She excited all w ho w atched her by m anaging to convey
both a cool, abstract sense of the apprehension of a m ournful
destiny, and a physical, tactile, loving intim acy. T h e consistent
them e in the ecstatic D u b lin press is her reconciliation of the
form al, classical ideal w ith w arm hum anity and em otion. F aucit’s
‘classical’ poses and gestures, her elegant lim bs fram ed in flow ing
drapery, w ere captured in the p o rtrait (see Fig. 12.4) and sketches
by Sir Frederick B urton, the D irector of the N ational G allery, and
im pressed every co m m en tato r .26
She seem s to have been an acceptable object of sublim ated (and
not always so sublim ated) m ale sexual desire, and certainly m ade a
particular im pact on boys and young m en, including the adolescent
Percy Fitzgerald w hose recollections opened this chapter. She
becam e the fashionable rage and attracted several Irish suitors.
T h irty -five distinguished gentlem en, m em bers of the Royal Irish
A cadem y and the Society of A ncient A rt, presented F aucit w ith a
G raeco-R om an brooch, and publicly thanked her for advancing
the study of the G reeks in D u b lin ‘by creating love and adm iration’
for their a rt .27 In D ecem ber of the sam e year she also starred in
seven perform ances of Antigone in E d in b u rg h , w here the p ro d u c
tion had been eagerly aw aited in the city w hich already regarded
itself as the ‘A thens of the N o rth ’. T h e actor Jo hn C olem an fell
passionately in love w ith her extraordinary ‘beauty of face and
f o r m .. . com bined w ith those rare gifts— beauty of m ind and
p u rity of soul’. H e adored her as a ‘goddess’, adm iring her
‘G recian type of b e a u ty . . . the sloping and m ajestic shoulders,
the virginal bust, and the arm s lost to the V enus de M ilo ’ .28
IN TELLECTU A L REVERBERATIONS
F aucit’s perform ance in E dinburgh was w itnessed by T hom as de
Q uincey, who was inspired to w rite a fulsom e essay on the subject.
T h e term s in w hich this piece was com posed illum inate the reasons
w hy A ntigone spoke so loudly to the public sensibility of this
26 Carlyle (2000), 144—7; she reproduces the sketches on p. 145.
27 Theodore M artin (1900), 145-58.
28 Coleman (1904), 328-9.
early V ictorian decade. F aucit’s realization of the role chim ed
perfectly in tun e w ith the contem porary view of ideal w om anhood,
and did m uch to ensure for the next half century that A ntigone
m aintained the status of ‘the suprem e w om an figure in the w hole
range of G reek tragedy’, as a fem ale educationist was still describ
ing her in 190 3 .29 A lthough F aucit had been discrim inating in her
use of classical poses, m aking them p art of a fluid sequence of
m ovem ents and deliberately avoiding static tableaux ,30 de Q uincey
was fascinated by the statuesque aspect of the perform ance. H e
drew recu rrent parallels betw een F aucit’s ‘attitu des’ and G reek
statuary or betw een F aucit’s flesh and m arble. H e described ec
statically the m om ent w hen the heroine first appeared on stage:
T hen suddenly— O heavens! w hat a revelation of beauty!— forth stepped,
walking in brightness, the m ost faultless of G recian m arbles, M iss H elen
Faucit as Antigone. W hat perfection of A thenian sculpture! T h e noble
figure, the lovely arm s, the fluent drapery! W hat an unveiling of the ideal
statuesque! Is it Hebe? Is it Aurora? Is it a goddess that moves before us?
Perfect she is in form ; perfect in attitu de.31
T h e V ictorian theatrical aesthetic was of course obsessed w ith the
equation of statues and beautiful w om en (especially dead or dying
w om en), to an extent brilliantly dem onstrated by G ail M arshall in
her recent study of nineteen th -cen tu ry actresses and the ‘P ygm a
lion’ m otif, w hose cover illustration portrays none other than F re d
erick B urto n ’s p o rtrait of H elen F aucit acting A ntigone
(Fig. 12.4). 32 T h e descriptions of F aucit’s perform ance as A ntigone
provide the first tru ly extended exam ples of the sculptural sim ile
w hich was later to suffuse the discourse around, for exam ple, the
early academ ic G reek plays w hich will be discussed later in Chs.
15—16. T h is sim ile helped to sustain the m ore generic parallel
draw n betw een G reek tragedy and the art of sculpture. D e Q uincey
argues th at w hile indigenous E nglish tragedy has the colour and
realism of paintings, the G reek conception of tragedy ‘is a breathing
from the w orld of sculpture . . . W hat we read in sculpture is not
absolutely death, b u t still less is it the fulness of life .’33
For if A ntigone was proof that G reek tragedy was aesthetically
sculptural, she was also evidence th a t it was ethically scriptural.
29 Fogerty (1903), p. xii. 30 Carlyle (2000), 143.
31 De Quincey (1863), 225. 32 M arshall (1998).
33 De Quincey (1863), 217.
F ig u r e 12.4 Frederick B urton’s portrait of H elen Faucit in the role of

Antigone (1845).
She offered the early V ictorians the possibility of reconciling

m aidenly C hristian piety w ith brutal pagan m ythology. In a telling
passage, de Q uincey apostrophizes Sophocles’ A ntigone as ‘H oly
heathen, daughter of G od, before G od was born .. . idolatrous, yet
C hristian lady ’ .34 T h e identification of the V ictorian conscience,
founded in C hristianity, w ith A ntigone’s virtue is crucial. It
underlies the tenor of m ost of the m any poem s on the subject of
this heroine com posed in the afterm ath of the M endelssohn A n tig
one, including M argaret S andbach’s Antigone in her high-m inded
collection A urora (1850), and G eorge M ered ith ’s Antigone in his
Poems (1851), w here the entom bed heroine speaks apocalyptically
to her sister Ism ene of m artyrdom and redem ption.
T h e C ovent G arden Antigone also happened to coincide w ith the
early days of the B row nings’ courtship and in particular w ith
E lizabeth B arrett’s planning of her verse novel A urora Leigh.
T h e heroine speaks as a H igh V ictorian ‘cultural p ro p het inscrib
ing a secular scrip tu re’ w hen she so clearly echoes A ntigone’s
distinction betw een tem poral, contingent, m an-m ade law and the
tim eless, universal im peratives :35 A urora w rites of poets as
O f the only truth-tellers now left to God,
T he only speakers of essential truth,
O pposed to relative, com parative,
A nd tem poral truths . .. (1. 859—62)
T hese ideas also prefigure R obert B row ning’s appropriation of
G reek tragic ethics (as represented in his case by E uripides) to
prefigure his ow n spiritually advanced and esoteric version of
C hristianity, above all in book 10 of The R ing and the Book,
w here E uripides rises from the dead in order to defend his ethical
system , as a ‘pagan’, in the new court of R om an C hristianity.
M atthew A rnold was im pressed by H elen F aucit as A ntigone,
and in his 1849 poem To a Friend nam es as his chief intellectual
prop— m ore im p o rtan t even than H o m er or E pictetus— the
tragedian Sophocles:
. .. whose even-balanced soul
From first youth tested up to extrem e age,
Business could not make dull, nor passion wild;
W ho saw life steadily, and saw it whole;
T h e mellow glory of the A ttic stage,
Singer of sweet Colonus, and its child.36
34 M arshall (1998), 204-5.
35 M cSweeney (1993), p. xxxii. T he following quotation from Aurora Leigh is on
p. 29 of M cSweeney’s edition.
36 Arnold (1986), 53. In Dover Beach (1867), Arnold depicts Sophocles listening
to the sounds made by the Aegean sea, and hearing in them ‘the turbid ebb and flow
| O f hum an misery’ (11. 15—18).
In the sam e year he also published Fragment of an Antigone, w hich
proposes a lyric dialogue betw een H aem on and the chorus, at the
ethical centre of w hich lies the opposition betw een ‘obedience to
the prim al law, | W hich consecrates the ties of blood,’ and the
‘good’ that each individual m an ‘selects’ for him self .37 A rnold
certainly also had a perform ance by H elen F aucit in m ind w hen
he w rote his H ellenizing tragedy M erope (1858), for he tried hard
to persuade the actress to p erform the role .38 In another fam ous
V ictorian ‘closet’ G reek tragedy, S w in b u rne’s A ta la n ta in Calydon
(1865), although A lthaea is prim arily m odelled on A eschylean
queens, she nevertheless tu rn s into A ntigone as she lam ents the
death of her brothers, who, unlike her husband and son, can never
be replaced .39
T h e long essay that de Q uincey w rote about F aucit also shows
that the M endelssohn Antigone engaged w ith the V ictorians’ em er
gent m etaphysical sense of the gloom and glory of their destiny, of a
fate as inexorable as the m achines on w hich the industrial revolu
tion had been built, o f a march of history that was sim ultaneously
progressive and fraught w ith tragic suffering. T h is was fu ndam en
tally different from the u p beat W hig teleological vision of history.
T h e W hig aetiology of B ritish liberty had dom inated m uch of the
eighteenth cen tu ry ’s interp retatio n of G reek tragedy, and vestigial
signs of it can be seen as late as T alfo u rd ’s Ion. H ow different is the
note sounded by de Q uincey w hen, from the entire corpus of G reek
tragedy, he deem s th at no scene ‘tow ers into such affecting g ran d
eur as this final revelation, through A ntigone herself, and her ow n
dreadful death, of the trem endous wo [sic] that destiny had sus
pended over her house’. T h ro u g h w atching Antigone de Q uincey
had apprehended G reek tragedy’s essential ‘breathless w aiting for a
doom th at cannot be evaded . . . the inexorable rising of a deluge ’.40
If Antigone seem ed to chim e w ith H igh V ictorian ideas of the
fem inine, the beautiful, the pious, the virtuous, and the ineluctably
destined, it also offered fruitful m aterial for the social and political
rum inations of m any intellectuals, notably G eorge Eliot. R eferring
to an 1850 revival of the M endelssohn Antigone at D ru ry Lane, her
essay ‘T h e Antigone and its M oral’ show s that she discerned in the
37 Arnold (1986), 20.

38 See the letter from Arnold cit. Theodore M artin (1900), 256.
39 Sw inburne (1901), 66: ‘W ho shall get brothers for me while I live? | W ho bear
them? W ho bring forth in lieu of these?’
40 De Quincey (1863), 205, 217-18.
play precisely the type of arduous, com plicated social process that
m irrors those she depicts in her novels, a struggle for civilization
‘betw een elem ental principles and established laws by w hich the
outer life of m an is gradually and painfully being b ro u g h t into
harm ony w ith his inw ard needs’. F ar from being a sim plistic
defence of A ntigone’s insistence on her principles, how ever valid
they are, Eliot sees the play as portraying the inevitable cost of
enlightenm ent, civilization, and progress: ‘R eform ers, m artyrs,
revolutionists, are never fighting against evil only; they are also
placing them selves in opposition to a good— to a valid principle
w hich cannot be infringed w ithout harm . . . m ake a new road, and
you annihilate vested interests; cultivate a new region of the earth,
and you exterm inate a race of m en ’ .41 H ere Antigone is heard to
resonate not only w ith the victim s of the industrial revolution at
hom e, b u t w ith those of the B ritish em pire overseas. T h e figure of
A ntigone was deeply to inform several of her subsequent novels,
above all her treatm en t of M aggie T u lliv e r’s attitu de to fam ilial
responsibilities in The M ill on the Floss (1860), the m oral tensions
of Romola (1863), and D orothea in M iddlem arch (1871—2). In the
way that the C ovent G arden Antigone b ro u gh t G reek tragedy— its
social and dom estic conflicts, its sense of inexorable fate, its syn
thesis of m ournfulness and m agnificence, its dialogue betw een
individual subjectivity and collective consciousness— into the fore
front of the V ictorian psyche, it is scarcely possible to overestim ate
its subterranean im pact on the social vision not only of Eliot, b u t
also, subsequently, on the w orks of other novelists including W .
Francis Barry (w hose The N ew Antigone was published in 1887),
and, m uch m ore significantly, alm ost every book ever w ritten by
T hom as H ardy.
THEATRICAL REPERCUSSIONS
Antigone did n o t produce an im m ediate revival of other S opho
clean tragedies on the B ritish stage, despite its cult status and the
hopes that enthusiasts such as Bulw er continued to n u rtu re. By
41 See Eliot (1856), reprinted in Pinney (1963), and, most conveniently, in
Rosemary Ashton (1992), 243—6. ‘T he Antigone and its M oral’ began life as a notice
of a school edition of Antigone with English notes, but outgrew its original function.
T he D rury Lane revival to which she refers, which featured John Vandenhoff, was
reviewed in The Athenaeum, no. 1175 (4 May 1850), 482.
D ecem ber 1845 he was proposing to M acready a version of Sopho
cles’ Oedipus Tyrannus, w ith choruses along the lines of the M en
delssohn experim ent, and by the follow ing F ebruary the Italian
com poser Saverio M ercadante had agreed to w rite the m usic to
accom pany them . But w hen M acready read the m anuscript, he
rejected it alm ost out of hand because he felt it lacked ‘sim plicity
of style and picturesqueness and reality’ 42
A lm ost all the people w ho had profited from the A ntigone craze
attem pted to cash in on w hat was felt— incorrectly, as it tu rn ed
out— to be a lasting new fashion for serious G reek theatre. T h e
C ovent G arden m anagem ent revived T alfo u rd ’s Ion in the sam e
season, and H aym arket follow ed suit the follow ing y ear .43 W illiam
Bartholom ew , the author of the English text for Antigone, at
tem pted to repeat the success it had achieved w ith a version of a
play by A ugust von K otzebue from 1812. The Ruins of A thens;
A D ram atic M asque, to m usic by B eethoven, opened at the
Princess’s T h eatre in O xford Street in M arch 1846. It is set in
the early nineteenth century, thus anachronistically assum ing that
G reece is still u n d er O ttom an dom ination.
M inerva is chained to a rock in G reece, aw aiting liberation; two
enslaved G reeks, im probably nam ed H elen (a descendant of M il-
tiades!) and H ector, sing a lam ent beneath the ruins of the A then
ian acropolis, now a T u rk ish m osque. M ercury tells M inerva that
she m ust m ove to a new country: after rejecting the possibility of
m igrating to Rom e, they select an isle w here ‘the relics of our fanes
| A re honoured and adored by F reed o m ’s sons’. T h is, it transpires,
is B ritain. T h e last scene depicts the fagade of the Royal Exchange,
the Bank of E ngland, and a statue of the D uke of W ellington; here
M inerva is introduced to a procession of characters from Shake
spearean dram a, and consequently decides to m ove forever to
L ondon and crow n a statue of Shakespeare w ith an olive w reath.
T h e m usical num bers include choruses by ‘Priests and Priestesses
of A pollo’, a hym n to M ahom et sung by dervishes, and the p atri
otic conclusion depicting the w itches from M acbeth apostrophiz
ing the G reek goddess:
42 Macready (1912), ii. 313, 322, 338, 340.

43 Stirling (1881), i. 61-2; I L N 8, no. 199 (21 Feb. 1846), 133.
Hail, M inerva,
In A ncient Greece, A thena of th ’ Athenians:
A nd here, and now, B ritannia of the Britons!
N othing could m ore clearly equate ancient G reek theatre and the
contem porary L ondon stage than the conflation of M inerva w ith
B ritannia .44
B artholom ew dedicated the published version of his Antigone to
C harlotte V andenhoff, in gratitude for helping to m ake his nam e,
and the original A ntigone never forgot her m om ent of triu m p h at
C ovent G arden. She was later responsible for a spectacular version
of A lcestis, perform ed to G luck’s m usic w ith Sir H enry Bishop
conducting, at S t Jam es’s T h eatre in 1855 (see Ch. 15). B ut a m ore
im m ediate theatrical repercussion was felt, once again, in Ireland.
In N ovem ber 1846 H elen F aucit and John C alcraft attem pted to
build on their triu m p h an t D u b lin Antigone by staging a second
G reek tragedy featuring a persecuted virgin, E u rip id es’ Iphigenia
in A ulis. T h is tim e the play was proudly billed as offering the first
original production of a G reek tragedy in Ireland. C alcraft com
posed an E nglish translation by synthesizing several different v er
sions, and cast him self as A gam em non. F aucit successfully
extracted the m axim um pathos out of Iphigenia’s predicam ent,
w ithout succum bing to sentim entality, w hen (as The Freem an’s
Journal for M onday, 30 N ovem ber p u t it) she appeared ‘a su pp li
ant at her fath er’s feet, and shuddering w ith h o rro r at that gloom
and dark uncertainty th at aw aited h er’. She was rew arded w ith
show ers of flowers and standing ovations, in contrast w ith poor
M rs T e rn a n ’s C lytem nestra, w ho was criticized for lack of dignity
(perhaps using her ow n toddler Ellen as the infant O restes had
caused its particular problem s). T h e orchestra and oratorio-style
chorus perform ed a score by the th eatre’s m usical director, R ich
ard Levey. Like m any directors before and since, C alcraft am eli
orated the psychological harshness of the play by using the m ore
com fortable (and post-E uripidean) alternative denouem ent in
w hich Iphigenia is replaced by a deer and w hisked off to safety
by the goddess A rtem is, thu s exonerating her father from his
crim e. C alcraft offered his audience w hat The Freem an’s Journal
described as ‘a m agnificent tableau’, involving A gam em non’s
44 See Bartholomew (1846).

departing galley and ‘the G recian fleet w afted by a favouring gale
from the w inding bay of A ulis ’ .45
A lthough plans to take Iphigenia to E din b u rg h did not m aterial
ize, the role, it has been argued by F aucit’s recent biographer, was
im portant to her developm ent as an actress. It gave her fu rth er
scope to experim ent w ith consciously sculptural effects, an experi
ence that she later found invaluable, especially w hen tackling the
role of H erm ione in The W inter’s Tale. In the fam ous statue scene
the m arble-like F aucit was in 1847 regarded as spellbinding; the
role of the self-sacrificing young m aiden also pow erfully affected
her newly serene realization of the role of Shakespeare’s Ju liet .46
Antigone itself continued to capture the public im agination long
after the productions of 1845. T h a t it had becom e a byw ord for
serious theatre in B ritain is am ply illustrated by the fact that in
1867, w hen A lbert Joseph M oore was com m issioned to p aint a
frieze to go above the proscenium at the new Q ueen’s T h eatre, in
L ong A cre, the subject he chose was ‘A n ancient G reek audience
w atching a perform ance of “A ntigone” by Sophocles ’.47 In M arch
1859 there was a colossal perform ance at C rystal palace of S opho
cles’ Oedipus at Colonus, w ith a choir and orchestra perform ing
M endelssohn’s m usic to this second Sophoclean play. It was not a
great success, b u t w hen E dith H eraud perform ed the M endelssohn
Antigone a few weeks later, on 9 A pril, before ten thousand people,
she did it ‘w ith such beautiful elocution and passionate expression
that the assem blage w ere m oved as well as d elighted .’48 G enevieve
W ard perform ed w ith rath er m ore success in the sam e venue, in
both Antigone (D ecem ber 1875) and Oedipus at Colonus (June
187 6).49 O ver the next decade she also perform ed A ntigone in
D ublin and even toured A ustralia w ith it. She m ade Antigone all
the rage in M elbourne in 1885, w here her perform ance was volun
tarily su pp o rted by no few er than ninety-five m em bers of the local
Philharm onic Society .50
45 The Freeman’s Journal, M onday, 30 Nov. 1846; hearty thanks to Norm a

Macmanaway and especially Charles Benson for help with research in Dublin.
46 Carlyle (2000), 172-3.
47 Geoffrey Ashton (1992), 61-4.
48 IL N 34, no. 963 (5 M ar. 1859), 226; no. 969 (16 Apr. 1859), 379. Edith H eraud
also perform ed Antigone at St Jam es’s Hall: Edith Heraud (1898), 125.
49 Gustafson (1881), 126; IL N 68, no. 1922 (27 M ay 1876), 511.
50 W ard and W hiting (1918), 62, 117-20.
In 1850 the E nglish A m bassador in A thens had asked for the
M endelssohn Antigone to be staged on Sophocles’ native soil, b u t it
was not until D ecem ber 1867 that the play was finally perform ed,
in the translation of A lexander Rangavis, in the O deion of H erodes
A tticus in A thens. D espite the fact that earlier audiences had found
M endelssohn’s m usic both baffling and disappointing by turns, it
was the m usic that was to rem ain popular the longest and was the
m ain attraction in revivals tow ards the end of the century; it is even
recom m ended in the first m onum ental E nglish-language edition of
Sophocles, begun in the 1880s, w hich earned its author R ichard
Jebb the chair of G reek at C am bridge and a knighthood into the
b argain .51 It was not uncom m on to find new productions using
M endelssohn’s score, even productions of o ther G reek plays; w hen
Sophocles’ Electra was perform ed by the young w om en of G irto n
College, C am bridge, in 1883, the accom panying m usic was M en
delssohn’s com positions for Antigone, played on the pianoforte. As
late as 1903 the redoubtable Elsie Fogerty published a special
edition of Antigone for use in girls’ schools, and prescribed M en
delssohn’s m usic as if it were a com pulsory ingredient of any
perform ance, helpfully inform ing her readers that it is available
from the publishers N ovello, at the price of four shillings .52 It is
difficult to find corners of the globe w here the m usic was not still
being heard in the last years of the n ineteenth century. It was
perform ed m ore than once in N ew H aven, C onnecticut, and was
studied as the subject of L eipzig dissertation by a U S citizen, who
then published it in W ashington, D C .53 E ven Stanislavsky, w hen
he m o unted a production of Antigone in 1899 at the M oscow A rt
T h eatre, chose M endelssohn’s m usic to com plem ent the n atural
istic details of the actors’ perform ances.
A N TIG O N E TRAVESTIED
A fter all the praise and extravagant rhetoric bestow ed on the
M endelssohn Antigone it is alm ost refreshing to discover the
acerbity w ith w hich E dgar A llan Poe review ed the 1845 p ro d u c
tion, by som e actors from E ngland, at Palm o’s O pera H ouse in
51 Cf. Cam pbell (1891), 318; and Jebb (1900), p. xlii: ‘T o most lovers of m usic
M endelssohn’s Antigone is too familiar to perm it any word of com m ent here.’
52 On the G irton Electra see Hall (1999a), 291—6; Fogerty (1903), p. xxxii.
53 Little (1893), 50.
C ham b er’s S treet, N ew Y ork. H e was appalled. T h e stage was far
too sm all, the design was shoddy and absurdly anachronistic, and
the singers who perform ed the choruses w ere com pletely u n re
hearsed. A lthough the m usical score was beautiful, the play itself
was crude and unperform able. T h e ‘im perfection’ of its dram atic
developm ent proved, to Poe, only Sophocles’ artistic im m aturity—
the ‘dram atic inability of the ancients’. Indeed, the very idea ‘of
reproducing a G reek play before a m odern audience, is the idea of a
pedant and nothing b eyond’.
Like any serious dram atic perform ance th at goes badly w rong,
the Palm o’s Antigone was hilarious. As Poe says, ‘of the num erous
school-boys who w ere present on the opening night, there was not
one who could have failed to laugh in his sleeve ’.54 It was reported
that at one perform ance a w it in the audience threw darts at the
m essenger’s shield, w hich was painted w ith concentric black and
w hite rings and thus bore an u n fo rtu n ate resem blance to a dart-
board. T h e w it succeeded in scoring a b u ll’s eye at w hat should
have been the em otional clim ax of the play, and ‘the absurdity of
the entire piece b u rst upon the audience, w ho hailed the descent
of the curtain w ith u n restrained m irth and lau gh ter ’.55 Ju st for once
the perform ers and even the harshest critics w ere in agreem ent.
T h e young E nglish actor-m anager w ho played C reon, G eorge
V andenhoff (son and b ro th er of the C ovent G arden C reon and
A ntigone, John and C harlotte V andenhoff), later adm itted that he
had him self found it alm ost im possible not to laugh at the chorus: ‘a
parcel of goat-headed, goat-bearded old fellows, in G recian robes,
w ith spectacles on nose, confronting m e, w ithin the proscenium ,
opening w ide their m ouths, and baa-a-ing at m e ’.56
T h e point of the com ic tale of the fate of Antigone in N ew Y ork is
rather m ore serious than it seem s. It is a general rule of live theatre
that the m ore elevated the text, the m ore uproarious the result if
the elevation is not sustained in perform ance. It was partly because
it took itself, its solem nity, and its archaeologism so seriously
th at plans w ere b o rn to exploit the comic potential of the 1845
Antigone as soon as it had opened in L ondon. A brilliant rhym ed,
poetic synopsis of the play appeared in Punch alm ost im m ediately
to accom pany the cartoons reproduced in Figs. 12.1-2; the
54 Poe (1845), 132. 55 T . Allston Brown (1903), i. 341.

S6 Vandenhoff (1860), 245.
depiction of A ntigone as a naughty child w ho has been ap p re
hended by the stage police m ay suggest that som e m em bers, at
least, of the C ovent G arden audience m ay have found not only the
chorus b u t the play’s central characters som ew hat com ical. T h e
synopsis extends over tw o full pages, and a sense of its flavour can
be gleaned from these lines describing C reon’s conduct at the
tragedy’s conclusion:
H e’s getting exceedingly sick of his life,
W hen to add to his sorrow the corpse of his wife
Is shown through an opening m ade at the back
O f the stage, and his m ind is of course on the rack:
H e goes from the scene w ith a heart-rending cry,
As everyone fancies, to languish and die.
T h e m an responsible for this piece was alm ost certainly M ark
L em on, the m agazine’s founding editor, and it gave rise to a
ru m ou r that he was preparing a burlesque on the tragedy for the
A delphi th eatre .57 In the event L em on’s burlesque was not staged,
perhaps because of the speed w ith w hich a rival, the gifted E dw ard
L em an B lanchard, produced his brilliant Antigone Travestie. In
the 1830s, w hen Frederick Fox C ooper’s Ion Travestie had
follow ed hard on the heels of T alfo u rd ’s neoclassical Ion (see Ch.
11), B lanchard had w ritten songs for the saloon theatres he fre
quented. L ater he was responsible for the annual pantom im es at
D ru ry L ane betw een 1852 to 1888, w hich earned him the title
‘father of B ritish p antom im e’. B ut he was also the u ndisputed
father of burlesqued G reek tragedy, for he established his career
in F ebruary 1845 w ith his innovative response to the sm ash h it at
C ovent G arden: it is frustrating th at his detailed dairies are m iss
ing for the exact period durin g w hich this piece was conceived and
p erfo rm ed .38
F or if one im p o rtan t consequence of the M endelssohn Antigone
in B ritain was the discovery that G reek tragedy could be staged,
another was the concom itant discovery that the conventions of
G reek tragedy, if burlesqued, w ere extrem ely funny. T h ere had
been occasional burlesques of classical m ythology before, notably
Jam es P lanche’s Olympic Revels (1831), w ritten for the opening
57 Punch, 8 (18 Jan. 1845), 42-3; see IL N 6, no. 142 (18 Jan. 1845), 43.
58 Blanchard (1891), i. 40. He was involved at this time in extensive household
removals.
night of the O lym pic T heatre; the new m anager, M adam e V estris,
had sustained the role of Pandora. Ion Travestie had burlesqued a
late G eorgian tragedy deriving from a G reek tragedy, although
w ithout m any of its form al conventions such as the chorus.
T here had even been rare experim ents in burlesquing G reek tra
gedy for reading p u rposes .59 B ut it was only in 1845 that B lanchard
discovered in the form and conventions of perform ed G reek tra
gedy itself an inspirational source for the popular stage.
T h e burlesque opened at the N ew S tran d T h eatre at the begin
ning of February. B lanchard m ay have got the idea of burlesquing
Antigone from the satirical parody Antigone in Berlin w ith w hich
A dolf G lassbrenner had m ocked the Prussian m ania for things in
G reek in the afterm ath of the Potsdam production. B ut the E n g
lish-language travesty is w holly original and draw s on a purely
indigenous strand in B ritish theatre and m usical com edy. Its set
ting was ‘a parody on the old G reek theatre, in the shape of the
outside of R ichardson’s show ’; at the end the cast crouched u n der
um brellas outside it, to escape divine vengeance in the form of a
show er of rain .60 Jo hn R ichardson, now dead, had been an im p o rt
ant im presario associated particularly w ith B artholom ew Fair: his
touring productions offered a diet of variety acts, abridged m elo
dram as, and ‘panoram ic view s’. T h is form of fairground theatre,
w hich often parodied serious dram a as perform ed at the licensed
theatres, was a vital m edium for the dissem ination of dram a in and
beyond L ondon d uring the early nineteenth century. T h e portable
theatre w hose setting B lanchard’s Antigone Travestie im itated was
an unusually large booth w ith detachable fittings, an elevated
platform , and an interior stage w ith crim son cu rtain s .61
By choosing this setting B lanchard was com m enting on the role
of his own travesty in bringing such a quintessentially highbrow
art-fo rm as G reek tragedy to a w ider, m ore popular audience. T h e
w ork is thoughtfully titled, perhaps rem iniscent of Ion Travestie,
b u t also placing it in the tradition of the to rren t of earlier ‘classical’
travesties inaugurated by Paul S carron’s Virgile travesti of 1648;
travesty, according to com ic theorists, is the subcategory of
59 See e.g. Styrke (1816); Anon. (1843).

60 IL N 6, no. 145 (8 Feb. 1845), 91.
61 Altick (1978), 173; Banham (1995), 921. Thanks to Dave Gowen for research-
ing this.
burlesque w hich recasts a particular w ork, usually of high style, in
an aggressively fam iliar reg ister .62
Antigone Travestie has never been published. T h e only know n
copy is the m anuscript in the collection of L o rd C ham berlain’s
plays housed in the B ritish L ib ra ry .63 It is a close and hilarious
burlesque of the Sophoclean tragedy. T h e cast consists of C reon,
A ntigone, Ism ene, a guard, T iresias (an astrologer), ‘H erm o n ’
instead of H aem on, a chorus and a chorus-leader. It ends happily.
A ntigone and H erm on play tricks w ith nooses in the cave, and
appear alive at the end; H erm o n ’s rebellion against his father is
com pounded by a conviction for debt. B ut otherw ise it closely
follows the Sophoclean plot, parodying the m em orable passages,
w ith the addition of several songs to be sung to popular tunes. It
was regarded as belonging to ‘the broad rath er than the polished
school of extravaganza’, b u t was also tho u g h t to be ‘exceedingly
well w ritten, and not a passing topic of the day is let off w ithout a
joke or allusion .’64 T h e pro d uctio n was enhanced by the great
com edian H arry H all as C reon, com m ended by B lanchard
him self .63
T h e opening scene features A ntigone bem oaning her fate: ‘A h
me! W hat griefs are m ine, m uch m ore than I can bear; | Perhaps
Ism ene w ouldn’t m ind a share.’ A ntigone clearly im itates the
‘translationese’ of the A nglicized C ovent G arden tragedy: she
bem oans her ‘catalogue of woes | W ith lots of evils’. C reon has
scenes m odelled on his Sophoclean ‘inauguration’ speech and en
counter w ith the guard. T h e intim acy w ith the original becom es
even closer in A ntigone’s argum ent w ith C reon, w hich addresses
the issue of gender. C reon rebukes her, ‘O h w om an, w om an!’, and
she responds ‘D o n ’t insult our sex. | V ivat regina now — not vivat
rex’: V ictoria had ascended the thron e only eight years previously,
in 1837. Y et since A ntigone was a ‘drag’ role, played by M r.
G . W ild, the gender dynam ics here m ust have been com plicated.
A t C ovent G arden m assive applause had greeted H aem on’s
stirring rebuke of his father, ‘T h a t is no state w here only one
m an rules ’:66 B lanchard’s travesty developed the them e. ‘A king’s
no king who spoils a subject so’, said ‘H erm o n ’, adding ‘It’s but
62 See e.g. Jum p (1972), 2. 63 Add. M SS 42982, fos. 166-173.

64 I L N 6, no. 146 (15 Feb. 1845), 110. 65 Blanchard (1891), i. 202, n.2.
66 Bristed (1852), 234-5.
hard lines, w hen only one m an ru les.’ A nother highlight was the
T iresias scene, recognizably sub-Sophoclean, including T iresias’
accusation, ‘Y ou’ve been and cast one living in a to m b ’; the scene
concluded w ith a T iresias—C reon duet, to the w ell-know n tune of
The Gypsey K ing. T h is m usical n u m b er synthesizes the traditional
‘sw agger’ and the ‘laughing song’:
Oh, I am the G ypsey K ing
A nd not such a K ing as thee.
Y our conduct is not the thing
A nd that you will presently see.
Y our em pire will be knocked down
A nd your lands will your enem ies seize.
T hey w on’t leave the king half a crown,
So your m ajesty do as you please.
T h e refrain is shared by T iresias and C reon, singing respectively
‘I am ’ and ‘Y ou are’ . . . ‘the gypsey K ing— ha! Ha! Yes I am /he is
the gypsey king.’
Som e of the h um o ur em erges from updated references to hailing
cabs, taking trains, and em igrating to N ew S outh W ales. B ut m ost
derives directly from parody of G reek theatrical conventions: it
requires a fam iliarity w ith G reek tragedy w hich m any of its au d i
ence had only recently acquired through w itnessing the serious
C ovent G arden Antigone. T h e chorus self-referentially explain to
the audience th at they ‘fill up the dialogue w hen it a little porous is.
| A nd let slip the m e an in g . . . ’. A ntigone, condem ned to the cave,
sings a solo exploring the idea of being buried alive, m uch as she
does in Sophocles; yet B lanchard’s A ntigone self-consciously
prom ises the audience, ‘E ven there I can behave as a heroine
should rave’.
TH E INVENTION OF GREEK
TRAGIC BURLESQUE
In sending up G reek tragedy B lanchard’s Antigone Travestie
struck a vein of h u m o u r that was to continue to be m ined for
another three decades. T h e satirical press now used parodic v er
sions of the G reek tragic chorus in a variety of contexts. Som e
weeks later, for exam ple, parliam ent was bitterly divided over the
M aynooth Bill, w hich proposed to raise the grant given from
L ondon to supp o rt this C atholic sem inary in Ireland. T h e difficult
position in w hich Sir R obert Peel found him self was likened in an
article in Punch ‘to the situation of the heroes in G reek tragedy,
w hose proceedings w ere the subject of alternate abuse and praise
from the chorus’; these conflicting com m ents duly appear in a
choral ode divided into ‘M aynooth strophes’ and ‘anti-M aynooth
an ti-stro p h es’. T h e M aynooth ode is adorned w ith a cartoon,
depicting prom inent politicians w earing G reek costum es and
holding top hats (see Fig. 12.5). It is strikingly sim ilar to the
cartoon of the Antigone chorus published earlier th at year (see
Fig. 12.2 ).67
O nly a m o n th after B lanchard’s travesty there appeared a stu n
ning burlesque on the them e of M edea, ‘in every way calculated to
foster the taste for the G reek dram a, called up by the revival of
“ A ntigone” ’ and ‘concocted by M essrs. Planche and E u rip id es .’68
Jam es R obinson P lanche’s The Golden Fleece opened at the H ay
m arket on E aster M onday, 24 M arch 1845. It benefited from
Priscilla H o rto n ’s legs in breeches as Jason, and from the incom
parable w ife-and-husband team of M adam e V estris and C harles
M athew s, as M edea and the chorus respectively. T h ey toured w ith
this pathbreaking piece until late 1847.69
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CnARfVARI. U
F ig u r e 12.5 Punch cartoon showing Sir R obert Peel torn by the M ay
nooth controversy (1845).
67 Punch, 8 (3 M ay 1845), 191. 68 IL N 6, no. 152 (29 M ar. 1845), 200.

69 Appleton (1974), 159—61.
P lanche’s burlesque is unusual in not being inspired by a play
that was currently in the repertoire of the L ondon theatres. Instead
it is the A ustrian trilogy Das Goldene Vliefi of Franz G rillparzer
that lies behind P lanche’s play. G rillp arzer’s version, w ith its
sym pathetic p o rtrait of M edea, had enjoyed enorm ous popularity
elsew here in E u ro pe .70 B ut the fact that Planche should have
chosen to w rite a burlesque of a play that was largely unknow n to
a L ondon audience is not as foolhardy as it m ay at first appear.
M em bers of the audience m ay not have been fam iliar w ith the
details of the story of M edea, b u t m any w ould have very recently
becom e acquainted w ith the form al elem ents of G reek tragedy, and
especially w ith its chorus, throu g h the C ovent G ard en Antigone.
Planche w ould have had particular reason for follow ing the for
tunes of the G erm an Antigone, since as early as 1838 he had been
approached by M endelssohn him self to w rite the libretto, b u t his
lengthy correspondence w ith the com poser had com e to n o th in g .71
Planche chose to distinguish betw een ‘b u rlesq u e’ and his own
‘extravaganzas’ by claim ing that burlesque was ‘the broad carica
ture of a tragedy’, w hilst extravaganza was ‘the w him sical treat
m ent of a poetical subject ’.72 It seem s to have been the degree to
w hich he took his original seriously, com bined w ith no sm all
am ount of finesse, th at secured his leadership in the field, and set
exacting standards for his successors. If ‘polysyllabic loquacity’
could be claim ed to be the hallm ark of b u rlesq u e ,73 then Planche
com bined such linguistic pyrotechnics w ith ingenious allusiveness.
As a leading founder of the B ritish A rchaeological A ssociation in
1843, Planche was at the forefront of the m ovem ent tow ards his
torical accuracy in scenic and costum e design; and the extrava
ganzas he p u t on w ith E liza V estris at the O lym pic have rightly
been considered to be the forerunners of the naturalistic plays of
the 1880s o nw ards .74 It was partly the m u ch-adm ired archaeo
logical accuracy of the M endelssohn Antigone at C ovent G arden
that m ade Planche choose a G reek subject for his extravaganza in
1845, so that he was able, am ongst o ther things, to com m ent on its
style of presentation.
70 See M acintosh (2000a), 12-14. 71 Roy in Planche (1986), 31.

72 Planche (1901), 268 . 73 Cf. T russler (1994), 238 on Victorian farce.
74 Booth (1969-76), v. 14.
The Golden Fleece was com m ended for its light-hearted im ita
tion of the C ovent G arden A ntigone’s earnest authenticity: it was
played ‘on the raised G reek stage’ boasting a bilingual E nglish and
G reek inscription on the pedim ent, and ‘the concluding effect’
featured M edea rising ex machina from C o rin th in a chariot
‘draw n by two Fiery D ragons am idst the clouds ’.75 T h e first part
was based on A pollonius’ Argonautica (see Fig. 12.6), and the
second on E urip id es’ tragedy M edea. B ut it used a chorus (in the
lone form of M athew s) throughout; the playbill m akes several
com ic references to the C ovent G arden Antigone. It says that
M athew s represents ‘the w hole body of the C horus, rendering at
least fifty-nine m ale voices entirely unnecessary ’.76 M edea, aban
doned by Jason, sings a lam ent to the tune of ‘T h e Fine Y oung
E nglish G en tlem an ’ (quoted at greater length in Ch. 14), w hich
SCBKB F R O M T H E E X T R A V A G A N Z A OF “ T H E G O L D E N FLEECE." AT T H E H A Y M A R K E T THEATRE.
F ig u r e 12.6 T ableau portraying Jason and M edea escaping on the

Argo at the end of part 1 of Planche’s The Golden Fleece (1845).
75 See Planche (1845), 30. 76 Prefixed to Planche (1845).

intertextually refers directly to the production w hich had begun
the ‘G recian’ craze:
H e leaves me to darn his stockings, and m ope in the house all day,
W hile he treats her to see ‘A ntigone’, w ith a box at the G recian play.
It is easy to disparage burlesques, underestim ating the virtuosity
of the best of the actors. C harles M athew s’s perform ance as the
C horus in The Golden Fleece was adm ired by the m ost serious of
theatrical critics: he was particularly com m ended for his quick
ness, easy elegance, and w hat we w ould call ‘d eadpan’ ability to let
the incongruous clash betw een the gravity of the m aterial and the
levity of the perform ance speak, hilariously, for itself. H e was
especially rem em bered for the m anner in w hich he sang a silly
song beginning ‘Fol de riddle lol’ com pletely straight, w ithout
grim ace or w ink, at a tense m om ent in the action .77
T h e next year saw Planche attem pting to repeat the success of
The Golden Fleece w ith a rem arkable E aster entertain m en t at the
H aym arket, based on an ancient G reek com edy. The Birds of
Aristophanes: A D ram atic Experim ent in one A c t, being an humble
attem pt to adapt the said “B irds” to this climate, by giving them new
names, new feathers, new songs, and new tales stands virtually alone
in the history of the B ritish stage before the tw entieth century as an
attem pt to m ake com m ercial theatre out of the texts of O ld
C om edy (see Fig. 12.7). Birds m ay have been chosen because of
its fam ous bird-noises and low level of obscenity, although Planche
m ay also have been aw are that G oethe had staged this play in late
eighteenth-century W eim ar. P lanche’s piece m akes w itty reading:
the playbill advertised the settings as ‘A pex of a w oody m ountain,
w hereon is held the parliam ent of B irds’, follow ed by ‘T h e high
court of O lym pus, w ith poses plastiques of the principal deities’ (on
this type of spectacle see above, p. 30): it boasts that besides the
K ing of the Birds, and Priscilla H orton as the nightingale, there
will appear ‘other birds by a flock of auxiliaries from the zoological
gardens’.
T h e costum es w ere ‘in exquisite taste’, the ‘stage itself was
cleverly platform ed into a rocky m odel of the ancient G reek
stage, backed. . .b y m odern scenery’, and H o rto n ’s perform ance
earned her the title of ‘the m ost graceful burlesque actress on the
77 George Taylor (1989), 71-2.
Sf'KSK FROM T1IE S E W CLASSIC BURLESQUE OF “ THE BIK&g OF AKISTOFHASE8,” AT THE HATMABKKT THEATRE.
F i g u r e 12.7 Scene fro m Planche’s burlesque The Birds of Aristophanes

(1846).
stage’. H er ‘beautiful voice’ was ‘heard to great advantage in the

incidental parodies ’.78 T h e im pressive m usic com prised tunes by
H andel, gavottes, and a delicious trio betw een the N ightingale,
Euelpides, and Peisthetaerus in their up dated personae of Jackan-
oxides and T om ostyleseron (‘H ellenized’ form s of the proverbial
Jack N oakes and T o m Styles). T h e tun e was M ocking Bird; the
chorus incorporated w ords from A ristophanes’ fam ous ‘b ird-
noise’ refrain:
Toro toro toro tinx,
Kickabau, kickabau,
Toro toro toro, loli lolink.
T h e targets of the h u m o u r included ugly new u rb an architecture,
hazardous financial speculations of ‘joint-stock com pany d irect
78 IL N 8, no. 207 (18 Apr. 1846), 253.
ors’, and the cu rren t craze for building railw ays. T h e equivalent of
the inhabitants of C loudcuckooland, m en w ho dream im possible
dream s, are the proponents of a C hannel T unnel: as the chorus
sing in a ditty entitled ‘Parabasis’,
W hy should not the fowls in the air build a palace,
W hen there’s hope of a subm arine railway to Calais?
Y et this play was not a success w ith the public: one review er p ro
nounced it ‘too good— too good, at least, to elicit shouts of laughter
from a general audience. N othing can be m ore polished or w itty
than the w riting; b u t in som e instances the w riting was too
esoteric .’79
Planche later com plained that his intention had been to ascertain
‘how far the theatrical public w ould be w illing to receive a higher
class of en tertain m en t than the m odern E xtravaganza of the E n g
lish stage . . . T o open a field— not for m yself alone— b u t in w hich
m uch abler m en m ight give the reins to their im agination and their
w it in a dram atic form , u n fettered by the rules and conventions of a
regular C om edy, and assisted to any extent by M usic and D ecor
ation .’80 In his m em oirs he was m ore explicit: he was trying to ‘open
a new stage-door by w hich the poet and the satirist could enter the
theatre w ithout the shackles im posed upon them by the laws of the
regular d ram a’. H e contem plated no less an am bitious schem e than
‘to lay the foundation for an A ristophanic dram a, w hich the greatest
m inds w ould not consider it derogatory to co n trib u te to ’.81 T h e
ultim ate problem was that m aking com edy out of com edy was not
the way of the early V ictorians: the w hole point of the laughter in
burlesque was that it parodically rew orked an elevated prototype.
G reek tragedy began to be given a com ic spin even outside the
theatre in the im m ediate afterm ath of the 1845 C ovent G arden
Antigone. T hackeray began w riting V anity F air in m id -F eb ru ary
1845, w hen he retu rn ed to L ondon from a long trip abroad to find
the C ovent G arden Antigone at the height of its success. T h e novel
began to appear in 1847. A t the sam e tim e he began to draw the
sketches to accom pany the text in the form of w ood engravings .82
79 Ibid. 80 ‘Preface’ to Planche (1846), 4-5. 81 Planche (1872), ii. 80.
82 O n the chronology of the novel and the sketches, see D. J. Taylor (1999), 220,
260-1, and Catherine Peters (1987), ch. 7. Recent critics have acknowledged the
im portance of the Clytemnestra engraving to the reader’s experience of Vanity Fair
(see e.g. Jadwin 1993), but the connection between it and the Covent G arden
348 A ntigone w ith Consequences
In chapter 51 the indom itable Becky Sharp attends som e fashion
able charades, given by L ord Steyne at G au n t H ouse, his stately
hom e. T h e first and second charades are orientalizing fantasies
w ith T u rk ish settings; the third m oves, how ever, to ancient
G reece, and features Becky as C lytem nestra, m u rdering A gam em
non to the sound of m usic from Don Juan, her eyes ‘lighted up w ith
a sm ile so ghastly, th a t people quake as they look at h er.’ T h e
charade ends w ith L ord S teyne’s pun: ‘M rs R aw don Craw ley
was quite killing in h er p a rt.’ T h is is follow ed by the n arrato r’s
com m ent that, in front of the excited P rince of W ales, ‘Becky
laughed; gay, and saucy looking, and sw ept the p rettiest little
curtsey ever seen.’ T hackeray illustrates this m om ent w ith an
engraving (see Fig. 12. 8).83 T h e financially em barrassed ad v en tu r
ess, dressed as a G reek tragic heroine whose bare-shouldered
costum e and sim ple hairstyle are clearly m odelled on those w orn
by A ntigone as played by both C harlotte V andenhoff and H elen
Faucit, was sexily saluting none o ther than the excited Prince
R egent. T h is scene therefore sum s up all the essential features of
classical burlesque— the conjunction of the high tragic plot w ith
operatic or ballad-operatic m usic, puns, sauciness, p retty w om en,
and frolics th at challenged, even as they failed to erase, huge
disparities in class and status.
T h e A m erican C harles B risted who w ent to see the M endels
sohn Antigone was a politically conscious young m an, touchingly
idealistic about the brave new republic in his hom eland. H is ac
count of his days at C am bridge often reveals his astonishm ent at
the political apathy, class snobbery, and casual brutality against
servants and w om en he found in E ngland. H e was perplexed that
the audience of Antigone b ro u gh t dow n the house at H aem on’s
fam ous line, ‘T h a t is no state w here only one m an rules’, because
he perceived the B ritish to be apolitical and characterized by an
extrem e acceptance of social hierarchy .84 Perhaps B risted’s confu
sion offers another clue as to the reason w hy G reek tragedy b u r
lesqued, rath er than played straight, was to prove the dom inant
m ode of its presentation in the next few decades. Classical b u r-
Antigone has not been drawn. For fuller discussion of this and the other, quite
different Clytemnestra engraving in Vanity Fair, where Becky Sharp resembles
Medea rather than Antigone, see M acintosh (forthcoming).
83 Thackeray (1968), 596-7. 84 See Bristed (1852), 234-5.
F ig u r e 12.8 The Trium phof Clytemnestra, plate depicting Becky Sharp

dressed for a draw ing-room charade inspired by Aeschylus’ Agamemnon
(1867).
lesque was fun and apparently anodyne, b u t its very particular

com edic w orld, as the next chapter will argue, offered the class-
ridden audiences of m id-V ictorian L ondon an im aginative en v ir
onm ent whose im plicit politics w ere rather less innocuous than
they seem ed.
13
The Ideology of Classical Burlesque
CLASSICS AND CLASS

Several im po rtan t books published over the last few decades have
illum inated the diversity of ways in w hich educated nineteenth-
century B ritons used ancient G reece and R om e in their art, arch i
tecture, philosophy, political theory, poetry, and fiction .1 T h e
picture has been augm ented by C hristopher S tray ’s study of the
history of classical education in B ritain, in w hich he system atically
dem onstrates th at how ever diverse the elite’s responses to the
G reeks and R om ans durin g this period, know ledge of the classical
languages served to create and m aintain class divisions and effect
ively to exclude w om en and w orking-class m en from access to the
professions and the u p per levels of the civil service .2 T h is opens up
the question of the extent to w hich people w ith little or no educa
tion in the classical languages knew about the cultures of ancient
G reece and Rom e.
O ne of the m ost im portant aspects of the burlesques of G reek
dram a, to w hich the argum ent tu rn ed tow ards the end of the
previous chapter, is their evidential value in term s of the access
to classical culture available in the m id-nineteenth century to
w orking- and low er-m iddle-class people, of both sexes, who had
little or no form al training in L atin or G reek. For the burlesque
theatre offered an exciting m edium throu g h w hich L ondoners—
and the large proportion of the audiences at L ondon theatres who
travelled in from the provinces3— could appreciate classical m ater
ial. B urlesque was a distinctive theatrical genre w hich provided
entertaining sem i-m usical travesties of w ell-know n texts and sto r
ies, from G reek tragedy and O vid to Shakespeare and the Arabian
N ights, betw een approxim ately the 1830s and the 1870s.4 W ith the
1 See Jenkyns (1980), (1991); T urner (1981); Vance (1997).
2 Stray (1998).
3 See Percy Fitzgerald (1870), 15—16.
4 See Nicoll (1955), iv. 133—54, and Schoch (2002).
The Ideology of Classical Burlesque 351
im portant bu t rare exceptions of the productions studied else
w here in this book ,3 durin g these decades neither ancient dram a
nor serious dram a on ancient G reek and R om an them es was m uch
perform ed in B ritain. T h is was noticed w ith som e pleasure by
C harles D ickens, him self praised by K arl M arx for ousting the
hoary nobility from their centre place in im aginative literature, and
substituting im poverished w orking p eople .6 D ickens’s antipathy
to the G reek and R om an classics was connected both w ith his
particular m odel of indigenous radicalism and w ith his conven
tional m id -n ineteenth-cen tu ry taste for farce, sentim entality, and
m elodram a .7 H e w rote to B ulw er-L ytton in 1867 that the public of
their day could only be induced to go and see a G reek play in the
form of burlesque: m oreover, ‘a G reek nam e and breakdow n
nigger-dance [the (to us shocking) term for a type of m usical frolic
characteristic of the m id -n ineteenth -cen tu ry popular theatre] have
becom e inseparable ’.8 D ickens was scarcely exaggerating: classical
burlesques w ere so popular th at in som e years several new
exam ples cam e before the public. In 1865, for exam ple, the
L ondon playhouses offered no few er than five new classical b u r
lesques: these featured P irithous, the ancient m ariner G laucus,
and Echo and N arcissus, along w ith the Odyssey and the A eschyl
ean Prometheus B ound.9
B urlesques often opened at holiday tim es, w hen they reached
large audiences: in the 1850s it was estim ated that over 60,000
people visited the L ondon theatres and places of am usem ent each
Boxing N ight alone .10 In this era, w hich invented the traditional
B ritish pantom im e, it was unrem arkable for at least one C hristm as
entertainm en t in any year to have a classical setting. In 1859 the
theatregoer could choose to w atch a treatm en t of one of the p an to
m im e them es still fam iliar today, such as R obin H ood (D ru ry
5 T he exceptions include T alfourd’s Ion in the 1830s, the ‘M endelssohn Antig-

one*, and some tragedies derived from Medea.
6 See D em etz (1967), 45.
7 See van Amerongen (1926), 72.
8 L etter of 25 Oct. 1867, cit. van Amerongen (1926), 72.
9 F. C. Burnand, Pirithous, the Son of Ixion (New Royalty Theatre, April); F. T .
Trail, Glaucus; or, a Fish Tail (Olympic Theatre, July); H enry J. Byron, Pan; or,
The Loves of Echo and Narcissus (Adelphi Theatre, April); F. C. Burnand, Ulysses
(St Jam es’s Theatre, April); R obert Reece, Prometheus; or, the M an on the Rock
(New Royalty Theatre, December).
10 Ritchie (1857), 17.
352 The Ideology of Classical Burlesque
F ig u r e 13.1 Scene from R obert B rough’s burlesque The Siege o f Troy,

(1859).
Lane) or L ittle Red R iding H ood (C ovent G arden), b u t at least one

review er regarded them as outclassed by R obert B rough’s ‘am bi
tious’ burlesque of the Ilia d (L yceum ), entitled The Siege of Troy
(Fig. 13.1).11
T h e burlesque theatre transcended class barriers. U nlike v irtu
ally all other professionals, actors w ere recruited from across the
class sp ectru m .12 T h eatre audiences also included the proletariat:
in 1859 as m any as 60,000 individuals attended the plebeian S tan d
ard T h eatre in the East E nd of L ondon— at the tim e the largest
theatre in B ritain— to w itness John H erau d ’s tragedy M edea in
Corinth (on w hich see Ch. 14).13 O ne censorious com m entator
describes the audience of burlesque as a m ixture of ‘vapid g ro u n d
lings who take stalls, and, w ith vacant m ind, “ guffaw ” over the
poor antics they com e to see’ and the fashionable ‘swell of our day ’ .14
T h e A delphi T h eatre was associated w ith raucous burlesques,
11 IL N 34, no. 953 (1 Jan. 1860), 10-11; R obert Brough (1858).
12 Tracy C. Davis (1991), 3.
13 Allan Stuart Jackson (1993), 65, 68, 123—+.
14 Percy Fitzgerald (1870), 150.
The Ideology o f Classical Burlesque 353
popularly know n as ‘A delphi S cream ers’, and w ith the unru ly fans
of M r E dw ard W right, a drag actor specializing in transvestite roles
such as M edea in M ark L em o n ’s M edea; or a Libel on the L ady of
Colchis (1856).15 T h e G recian Saloon in Shepherdess W alk, off
w hat is now the C ity R oad, w hich could seat 700 m em bers of the
u rb an and su bu rb an w orking and low er m iddle classes, specialized
in firew ork displays, cosm oram as, grotto scenes, statuary, and
colonnades .16 It was hom e to Jo hn W ooler’s Jason and M edea
(1851), w hich was held to have been ‘nicely got up, b u t very vulgar
in dialogue ’.17
H enry M orley, Professor of E nglish L iteratu re at U niversity
College, L ondon, w rote in the early 1850s:
T here is a large half-intelligent population in London that by bold puffing
can be got into a theatre. It num bers golden lads and lasses as well as
chim ney sweeps.18
Y et the audience also often included this w orthy academ ic. F o r at
the other end of the spectrum the big W est E nd theatres attracted
spectators including people of m uch higher social class and educa
tion, and burlesque in such contexts could be extrem ely sophisti
cated. G eorge H enry Lew es (G eorge E liot’s partner) recalled the
perform ances of the suave public-school-educated C harles M a th
ews, at the tim e of his fam ous realization of T h e C horus in Jam es
R obinson P lanche’s The Golden Fleece (1845), as characterized by
grace, elegance, and ‘delightful airiness’. M athew s had been ‘the
beau-ideal of elegance’ w hose costum es w ere studied by young m en
of the tow n ‘w ith ardent devotion ’.19 A n engraving by ‘P hiz’ beau
tifully captures the m ixed constituents of the audience in the 1850s:
in the stalls sit the m iddle classes, in the boxes the m ost affluent of
fam ilies, and in the gallery the standing hordes of the w orking
classes .20 A t the end of the period for classical burlesque, w hen it
was partly replaced by a taste for light opera and G ilbert and Sulli
van, the singer E m ily Soldene recalled w ith pleasure that it had been
her privilege ‘to earn the applause of all ranks’, from m em bers of the
royal fam ily ‘to the coster and his wife of W hitechapel ’.21 M ost
15 Ritchie (1857), 205. 16 Pearsall (1973), 27.

17 W ooler (1851); Blanchard (1891), i. 86. 18 M orley (1866), 23.
19 Lewes (1875), 62.
20 T he engraving is reproduced in Pearsall (1973), 67. See also Booth (1977), 101.
21 Soldene (1897), 299.
354 The Ideology o f Classical Burlesque
classical burlesques w ould have found their ideal spectator in the
m an w ho enjoyed the topical satire and cartoons in the m agazine
Punch (founded in 1841), w hich was ostensibly aim ed at the ed u
cated bourgeoisie, b u t was particularly appealing to the m ore aspir-
ational m em bers of the low er m iddle class. H is education in the
Classics w ould have been sim ilar to th a t inflicted on one theatregoer
during his childhood in the 1840s, w hen a governess m ade him
m erely learn ‘parrot-w ise’ from the old E ton L atin gram m ar and
from a couple of books on ancient m yth and h isto ry .22 T hose who
loved the theatre for the m ost p art sim ply accepted burlesque as one
of the range of entertainm ents on offer: theatre-going diarists tend
to record accounts of serious perform ances of Shakespeare along
side those of burlesque w ithout any sign that one was inherently
superior to the o th e r .23
D espite its w ide appeal, classical burlesque has been alm ost
com pletely neglected by scholars since W illiam D avenport
A dam s’s im p ortan t study of burlesque, w ritten at the end of the
n ineteenth cen tu ry .24 T h ere are at least three reasons for the lack of
research. F irst, w ritten sources are sparse: w ith the significant
exception of D ickens, the fam ous w orks of the great V ictorian
w riters usually ignore the entertainm ents offered to the urban
m asses, w hose social stratification lay betw een solid m iddle-class
prosperity and hopeless poverty .25 Secondly, classical burlesques
have slipped through a chasm yaw ning at the place w here academ ic
disciplines fail to m eet. For m odern students of the V ictorian
theatre, w ith little education in Classics, burlesques of O vid or
H om er are uninviting. Scholars of E nglish literature, on the other
hand, have regarded all burlesque as inferior and ephem eral, sig
nificant only as a sym ptom of the decadence of V ictorian theatre.
As for classicists, even those interested in nineteen th -cen tu ry re
ception, few have even been aw are of the existence of the genre,
except possibly in one of its last m anifestations, Thespis, or the
Gods Grown Old, the first w ork on w hich W . S. G ilb ert and A rth u r
Sullivan collaborated (see below ). T h ird ly , the p roblem has been
exacerbated by the inaccessibility of m any of the m id-V ictorian
22 Francillon (1914), 45—6.

23 e.g. Clem ent Scott (1892).
24 W. D avenport Adams (1891). H e identifies ‘mythological’ (i.e. classical) bur
lesque as the m ost significant of burlesque’s subspecies, and devotes his first major
chapter to it.
25 See Bradley (1965), p. viii.
burlesques, w hich w ere either published in (now) rare series such
as The A cting N ational D ram a or L a c y ’s A cting Edition, or not
published at all. T h e unpublished burlesques discussed below
(there are others) have been consulted in the L o rd C ham berlain’s
collection of m anuscript plays, housed in the B ritish L ibrary. T h e
creation of this im p o rtan t research resource was one of the few
positive b y-products of censorship in the B ritish th e atre .26
Yet the dozens of theatrical entertainm ents on G raeco-R om an
them es produced in the m id -n ineteenth century dem and attention,
since they show that know ledge of Classics was m ore w idely dis
sem inated across all social strata than has been recognized. F or the
sake of sim plicity this discussion includes in the category ‘b u r
lesque’— also know n as ‘b u rle tta ’— 27 m any pieces w hich styled
them selves ‘extravaganzas’. T h e founding father of the genre,
Jam es R obinson Planche, saw ‘b u rlesq u e’ as the system atic com ic
rew riting of a particular w ork of literature, to be distinguished
from the ‘extravaganza’, w hich was a theatrical spectacular only
based on a fam iliar sto ry .28 B ut in practice the boundaries are
im possible to m aintain: self-styled extravaganzas included
extended parodies of fam iliar texts, w hile self-styled burlesques,
w hich often contained lavish spectacle, could depart considerably
from their textual archetype. By 1870 a com ic theorist rem arked
that nobody— m anagers, authors, actors, or audience— could
define burlesque, m uch less describe it: if pressed, they w ould
say it used ‘low dresses’ (i.e. low er-class clothing), and was ‘a
thing m ade up of dancing and jokes and an old sto ry ’.29
TH E O RIG INS OF CLASSICAL BURLESQUE

T o the long tradition of burlesque of elevated texts in E nglish
belonged such im portant dram as as B eaum ont and F letch er’s
K night o f the B urning Pestle (1611), w hich burlesqued chivalric
26 On censorship in the British theatre see M acintosh (1995) and Chs. 4 and 18,
this volume.
27 See Nicoll (1952—9), i. 137—9; the term ‘burletta’ originally referred to a
dram atic work which included a sufficient num ber of songs to allow it to be
perform ed at one of the m inor unlicensed theatres. T hese theatres were not perm it
ted to stage all-spoken dram a until the Theatrical Patents Act was repealed in 1843,
but circumvented the ban by including songs amongst the spoken drama.
28 Planche (1872), ii. 79-80. Decades later, W. Davenport Adams (1891) sug
gested the same distinction between extravaganzas and burlesques, which he saw as
‘definite and deliberate travesties of subjects previously existent’ (pp. v f.).
29 Percy Fitzgerald (1870), 150-1.
them es in the theatre, and H enry F ielding’s burlesque of the high
tragic style, Tom Thumb (1730), subsequently renam ed The T ra
gedy o f Tragedies; or, The L ife and D eath o f Tom Thum b the Great
(1731).30 T h e m usical com ponent of burlesque, how ever, owed
m ore to eighteenth-century ballad opera, w hich featured p ro letar
ian characters, breakneck com ic routines, and the w ealth of tra d
itional B ritish popular song. T h e earliest of these was John G ay’s
The Beggar’s O pera, first produced at L incoln’s In n Fields in 1728.
T h e elem ent of spectacle in V ictorian classical burlesque was in
tu rn related to the fairground entertainm ent of the eighteenth
century, w hich had included spectacular enactm ents of scenes
deriving from classical m ythology (including G reek tragedy; see
above, Ch. 2), such as Hero andLeander, w ith scenery and m achin
ery representing ‘the sea, L eander and H ero, T rito n s, N eptunes,
and m erm aids’, a standard entertain m en t at S t B artholom ew ’s Fair
in the E ast E n d of L o n d o n .31 In Ch. 2 it was argued that there was
one attem p t to perform a m usical, spectacular, and also parodic
version of a particular G reek tragedy in the eighteenth century—
Lew is T h eo b ald ’s Orestes of 1731.32 Y et it was also suggested that
the m ore influential eighteenth-century antecedents of the V ictor
ians’ distinctive classical burlesques w ere undo u b ted ly the clas
sical ‘b u rlettas’ of the Irish playw right K ane O ’H ara, w hose M idas
was still know n and adm ired by nineteen th -cen tu ry w riters inclu d
ing Planche and his successor W . S. G ilbert: as late as 1870 M idas
was held to be universally fam iliar .33
T h e authors of m id-V ictorian classical burlesque also share a
debt to the irreverent rhym ing subversion of classical them es
favoured by L ord Byron. H e had w ritten a parodic six-line tran s
lation of the opening of E u rip id es’ M edea (June 1810), beginning:
‘O h how I w ish that an em bargo | H ad kept in p o rt the good ship
A rgo!’; in Don Juan he had fu rth er explored the rhym ing potential
of the nam e A rgo by rhym ing it w ith cargo and even w ith super
cargo ,34 T h e identical rhym e occurs in the n u rse’s ‘prologue’ to
P art II of Planche’s sem inal The Golden Fleece (1845), w hich
fundam entally influenced the direction taken by its genre:
30 Mackinlay (1927), 203-5. 31 Stirling (1881), i. 15.

32 See above, pp. 54—60 . 33 Percy Fitzgerald (1870), 149—50.
34 Don Juan 2. 66, 14. 76. See Lord Byron (1994), 34, 657, 813.
O, that the hull of that fifty oared cutter, the Argo,
Between the Sym plegades never had passed w ith its cargo!33
M oreover, Byron had translated a popular m odern G reek ballad,
M a id o f A thens, to w hich the refrain was Zurq /tov, ads dy airw (‘M y
Life, I love y o u ’); Planche used this refrain in a duet in The Golden
Fleece ,36 T h e continuing influence of L ord B yron’s w orks is re
flected in the self-conscious quotation from D on Juan (canto 1, st.
201) w hich opens the preface to Francis B u rn an d ’s Venus and
Adonis; or, the Two R ivals & the S m a ll Boar (H aym arket 1864):
I ’ve got new mythological m achinery
A nd very handsom e supernatural scenery.
T hese lines both define classical burlesque and exem plify its style.
It incorporated m ythical them es, elaborate theatrical m achinery,
stunning visual effects (often set in supernatural contexts such as
O lym pus or H ades), and was w ritten virtually throu g h o u t in b ra
zenly doggerel rhym ing verse.
Planche had been w riting burlesques since 1818, b u t had to w ait
until 1831 to succeed w ith a burlesque upon a classical them e, his
Olympic Revels, the foundation text of the m id -n ineteenth -cen tu ry
classical burlesque. Loosely related to H esiod, it was inspired by
G eorge C olm an’s story The Sun-P oker, and, u n der its original title
Prometheus and Pandora, had been rejected by different theatres.
B ut w hen the indom itable actress-m anager M adam e V estris took
over the O lym pic T h eatre, intending to attract the beau monde w ith
a new kind of elegant b u rletta sim ilar to F rench vaudeville, she
tu rn ed to Planche. H is innovative piece, w ith its locally allusive
new title, assured her success. T h e effects w ere charm ing (the
exquisitely p retty V estris as Pandora em erged from a trap door),
and the m usic eclectic b u t elegant. W hile P andora sang songs
based on Swiss yodelling m elodies, in order best to display her
coloratura, Ju p iter and the other gods sang to rousing m usic from
M ozart’s M arriage o f Figaro, W eb er’s Der Freischiitz, A u b er’s
M asaniello, and R ossini’s W illiam Tell. 'H Planche also attrib u ted
the success enjoyed by O lym pic Revels to the decision to costum e it
in elegant recreations of ancient clothing— a decision w hich was to
affect the w hole fu ture of the genre— rather than in the absurd
35 Planche (1845), 20. 36 Lord Byron (1994), 34; Planche (1845), 14.
37 Burnand (1864). 38 Appleton (1974), 64-9.
clow n-like uniform previously conventional in burlesque. P rom e
theus, for exam ple, was dressed in a ‘P h ry g ian ’ cap, tunic, and
trousers, instead of the traditional ‘red jacket and nankeens, w ith a
pinafore all besm eared w ith lollipop .’39 T h e next piece on w hich
Planche and V estris collaborated, O lym pic Devils (C hristm as
1831), was even m ore successful, especially the elaborate special
effect w hich concluded in the B acchantes’ sparagmos of O rp h eu s’
body, and the floating of his head dow n the river H eb ru s .40
G R E E K T R A G E D Y IN A N E W E L E C T R IC L I G H T
O ver the next forty-five years dozens of burlesques on classical
them es were perform ed on the L ondon stage. T h ey drew on an
cient sources— especially epic and tragedy— w hich w ould have
been encountered by the authors at school or university. But
m any filled out their storylines from L em p riere’s fam ous classical
dictionary, a book to w hich the scripts often m ake explicit refer
ence .41 B u rnan d ’s Venus and Adonis, for exam ple, recom m ends
that fuller inform ation on the dramatis personae can be found in
the ‘celebrated dictionary of D r. L em p riere ’.42
T h e Odyssey was a staple of the genre, and the Ilia d was the
source of B rough’s The Siege o f Troy, w hose huge cast of G reeks,
T rojans, and Im m ortals was supplem ented by ‘C am p Follow ers,
Policem en, T hieves, Philosophers and P oets’. T h is burlesque also
draw s on Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida, b u t m uch of it re
quires fam iliarity w ith the Iliad-, even the cast list includes H o m
eric epithets in both G reek and English for characters including
N estor and H ector. T h e action includes parodies of fam ous Iliadic
scenes, such as A chilles’ argum ent w ith A gam em non from book 1,
H ector, A ndrom ache, and A styanax (in a peram bulator) from book
6, A chilles’ arm ing scene, and the death of H ector, upon w hich
A chilles typically com m ents,
I’ll for my chariot run,
A nd drag him , tied behind it, round the city.
’Tw ill be effective, though perhaps not pretty!43
39 Planche (1872), i. 179-80. 40 Appleton (1974), 68-9.

41 Lem priere (17 88). 42 Burnand (1864), 3.
43 Robert Brough (1858), 2-3, 4-12, 23-4, 29, 43.
It is highly likely th at B rough was inspired to send up the Ilia d by
the earnestness of W illiam G ladstone’s m assive three-volum e
Studies on Hom er and the Heroic Age, published earlier in 1858
and w idely discussed.
Epics from later antiquity w ere also burlesqued: it was the third
and fourth books of A pollonius’ A rgonautica that inspired the first
half of P lanche’s The Golden Fleece-, the w itty playbill claim ed that
P art I was
founded on the third and fourth books of ‘the A rgonautics’, a poem by the
late A pollonius R hodius Esq., principal L ibrarian to his Egyptian M aj
esty, Ptolem y Evergetes, professor of G reek poetry in the Royal College of
Alexandria.
T h e attention to A pollonius is particularly strict in /E etes’ in stru c
tions concerning the yoking of the bulls and the sow n m en, and in
M edea’s speech to Jason about the m agic salve .45 P art II, how ever,
was a parody of E u rip id es’ M edea. P lanche’s brilliant burlesque, as
will be seen in the next chapter, was to inspire several im itations
throu g h o ut the history of the genre. T h e popularity of O vid’s
M etamorphoses will also becom e apparent. T w o exam ples are
Francis T alfo u rd ’s A ta la n ta , or the Three Golden Apples, an O ri
ginal Classical E xtravaganza (H aym arket 1857), w hich drew on
books 8 and 9, and Pluto and Proserpine; or the Belle and the
Pomegranate. A n E ntirely N ew and Original M ythological E xtra va
ganza o f the Oth Century (H aym arket 1858), inspired by book 6.
T h e A eneid also produced a fam ous burlesque, B u rn an d ’s Dido (St
Jam es’s T h eatre, 1860).
A lthough only one burlesque of an A ristophanic com edy seem s
to have been attem pted in perform ance, P lanche’s The Birds of
Aristophanes (1846), the w orks of all three G reek tragedians w ere
regularly b u rlesq u ed .46 A eschylus was favoured by R obert Reece
in Agamemnon and Cassandra; or, The Prophet and Loss o f Troy
(L iverpool, D ublin, and P ortsm outh, 1868), w hich featured a
w itty encounter in A gam em non’s bathroom , and in Prometheus;
44 Reproduced at the front of Planche (1845).
45 Ibid. 7, 11.
46 T here had been considerable precedent on the French stage for the b u r
lesquing of neoclassical adaptations of Greek and Senecan tragedy (on burlesques
of serious works inspired by Medea see below, Ch. 14), b ut very m uch less for the
straightforward burlesque of ancient plays to be found after the M endelssohn
Antigone.
F ig u r e 13.2 Fanny Reeves in the title role of R obert Reece’s extrava

ganza Prometheus; or the M an on the R ock! (1865).
or, the M an on the R ock! (N ew R oyalty T heatre, L ondon, 1865; see

Fig. 13.2). Som e of the o ther tragedies burlesqued during this
period w ere E u rip id es’ M edea, Iphigenia in A ulis, Bacchae and
Alcestis, and Sophocles’ Oedipus and Antigone. In order to acquire
a true flavour of the burlesque approach to G reek tragedy, it m ay
be useful to dw ell briefly upon a particularly clever exam ple, Frank
T alfo u rd ’s popular Electra in a N ew Electric Light. T h is was one of
the E aster entertainm ents offered to L ondon theatre-goers in
1859. T alfo urd, despite deeply upsetting his father by failing to
graduate from C h rist C hurch, O xford as a result of debt and
debauchery, was a student of Classics in possession of a ‘gay and
brilliant intellect ’.47
D uring the 1850s the electric carbon-arc, w hich delivered an
unprecedentedly brilliant light, began to be installed in L ondon
th eatres .48 T alfo u rd ’s title refers to the first occasion on w hich the
carbon-arc was used in a sustained m ann er in a B ritish theatre, in
Paul T ag lio n i’s ballet Electra at H er M ajesty’s T h eatre on 17 A pril
47 The Athenaeum, no. 1794 (15 M ar. 1862), 365.
48 Rees (1978), 65, 68-9, 72^1; Bergman (1977), 178-80.
1849. T h e ballet was subtitled The Lost Pleiade, for T ag lio n i’s
electric E lectra was unconnected w ith Sophocles: she was the
E lectra of ancient cosm ology, the Pleiad and m other of D ardanus,
w hose frequ en t invisibility as a star is explained by her conceal
m ent of her eyes at the sight of the ruins of T ro y (O vid, Fasti 4.
31-2, 174, 177-8). 49 T ag lio n i’s ballet culm inated in E lectra’s
ascent as a star, ‘so brilliant and far-piercing’ that it stunned the
audience, com pletely eclipsing the effect of gas .50 B ut despite this
reference to a previous theatrical hit, T alfo u rd ’s new electrified
E lectra was indeed the Sophoclean heroine.
T h e burlesqued Electra was ‘really a m agnificent affair’, as the
Illustrated London News o p in ed .51 It required at least a ru d im en
tary know ledge of Sophocles’ tragedy in order to un derstan d the
jokes. T h e fam ous scenes are hum orously recreated: E lectra’s
dialogues w ith C hrysothem is, her conflict w ith her m other, the
news that O restes has died after falling from his curricle, the urn
scene (com ically su bstitu tin g a tea-urn), and E lectra’s recognition
of her brother. B ut love interests supplem ent the plot, along w ith a
w restling m atch, a balletic divertissement, and star m usical turns
including th at staple of the popular theatre, the ‘laughing song’,
delivered as a trio to the tune Rose of Castile by TEgisthus, O restes,
and Pylades .52
T h e scenery com m issioned by the m anager of the H aym arket,
John Buckstone, o u tstripp ed all opposition: ‘Palatial cham bers,
sacred groves, curtained galleries, city squares, banqueting halls,
are all finely painted and adm irably set .’53 T h e costum es,
according to the droll playbill, w ere ‘derived from m ost A uthentic
sources ’ .34 T h e stage directions to the eyecatching fifth act illus
trate the up dated classicism typical of the m id-V ictorian G reek
tragic burlesque:
The Stage is crowded with P E O P L E engaged in various pursuits—Some are
looking at the exhibition of a classical ‘Punch and J u d y ’ . . . others are engaged
49 This Electra had come to represent the sun, and had figured in the m asque by
Ben Jonson offered as King James Ps ‘Entertainm ent in passing to his Coronation’
on 15 M ar. 1603. See Herford, Sim pson, and Simpson (1941), viii. 107.
50 Rees (1978). 67; G uest (1972), 139, 143 n. 3, 159.
51 I L N 34, no. 971 (30 Apr. 1859), 419.
52 Francis T alfourd (1859), 23-4.
53 IL N 34, no. 971 (30 Apr. 1859), 419.
54 Reproduced in Francis Talfourd (1859), 1—5.
witnessing the performance o f a Strolling Company of A C T O R S on a Thes
pian cart.bS
T his play-w ithin-a-play is sym ptom atic of the burlesque stage’s
tendency to provide a self-conscious com m entary upon the very
genre w hich it is subverting. W hen N em esis rises in the final
scene, she delivers a lecture on ancient theatrical practice:
I really cannot tell if all of you
Recall the old G reek rule of stage propriety—
W hich was— the audience having had satiety
O f crim e displayed and vengeance on it willed,
U pon the stage the actors were not killed,
But by some fanciful poetic means
W ere decently disposed of—off the scenes.
T h e m iddle and low er-class audience, even if it knew nothing
about G reek tragedy at the beginning of T alfo u rd ’s Electra, cer
tainly knew som ething by its end.
T h e theatre of burlesque w arm ed to the heroines of G reek
tragedy: T alfo u rd ’s E lectra, played by M iss Eliza W eekes, is cen
tral to this play, ju st as A lcestis had dom inated T alfo u rd ’s other
burlesque of G reek tragedy, Alcestis (S trand T h eatre, 1850; see
Ch. 15).57 T h e burlesque audiences relished transvestism , and
three other appealing young w om en played C hrysothem is, O res
tes, and Pylades. T h is ‘constellation of beauty and v iv a c ity ...
could not fail of extraordinary effect ’.58 B ut the burlesque actresses
needed to be m ore than p retty faces. T h e play involves a b reath
taking acceleration of p u nn in g lines. W hen E lectra enters in scene
1 , ‘her hair dishevelled, her dress torn and disarranged, shoes unsan
daled and down at heel’, she begins to lam ent,
A nother day has passed, and yet another
Brings w ith its light no tidings of m y brother. 59
R em arking self-consciously th at she resem bles a ‘classic heroine’,
she turns to the subject of her u nkem pt hair in a m anner only the
industrial revolution can illum inate:
55 Reproduced in Francis T alfourd (18 5 9), 29—30. 56 Ibid.34.

57 Francis T alfourd (1850). 58 I L N 34, no. 971 (1859), 419.
39 Francis T alfourd (1859), 11.
T hese locks of gold, w hen servants on me waited,
U sed to be carefully electra-plaited,
N ow all dis -Sheffield down m y shoulders flow.60
E lectra’s prom inence is not due to any deeper understanding of
our tragic heroine. T alfo u rd ’s uncritical adoption of the burlesque
gen re’s stereotypical caricature of the henpecking wife in his ch ar
acterization of C lytem nestra suggests that this is no fem inist read
ing of Sophocles’ play .61 B ut in W eekes T alfo urd had an actress of
virtuoso verbal agility, and it was her skill in singing, dancing and
delivering the fast-falling puns beneath the electric carbon-arc
w hich his audience prized.
L ong ago the ancient dram atist A ristophanes used father—son
conflicts to sym bolize the contem porary struggles betw een trad
itional and iconoclastic ideologies. T h e nineteenth century offers
us a real fath er-so n relationship encapsulating the difference b e
tw een the old and new ways of p u ttin g ancient G reek tragedies on
the stage. T h e young F rank T alfo urd was m agnetically attracted to
G reek tragic burlesque: he was a close friend of its inventor, B lan
chard, and becam e one of its best exponents. T h e attraction m ust
have been p artly O edipal: we recall th a t F rank T alfo u rd ’s father
T hom as, a radical M P , had been au tho r of the im p o rtan t 1836
tragedy Ion, a serious political appropriation of ancient dram a in
the theatre of reform . B ut his dissolute son Frank, sent dow n from
O xford to a bohem ian lifestyle in L ondon, produced som e of the
m ost irreverent of all the V ictorian burlesques of G reek tragedy,
thus saucily knocking the ancient G reek theatre from the very p ed
estal onto w hich his p u blic-spirited G eorgian father had elevated it.
CLASSICS AND POPULAR CULTURE

A review er of T alfo urd Ju n io r’s Electra in a N ew Electric Light felt
it was unnecessary to recount the plot, for ‘the classical story is, we
m ay take for granted, well know n .’62 A nother noticed that the
audience of H enry B yron’s Orpheus and Eurydice (S trand T heatre,
1864) ‘readily appreciated his classical allusions as well as the m ore
direct fun w ith w hich his scenes ab o u nd ed ’.63 T hese sources sug
60 Ibid. 12. 61 But see below, Ch. 15, for his burlesque of Euripides’ Alcestis.
62 IL N 34, no. 971 (30 Apr. 1859), 419.
63 IL N 44, no. 1239 (2 Jan. 1864), 19.
gest that a regular spectator of any social class, even if he or she had
never read a book, could theoretically have been acquainted w ith
the contents of the m ajor ancient epics, w ith at least som e G reek
tragedies, and w ith perhaps a dozen stories out of O vid’s M e ta
morphoses. But there w ere lim its: w hen F. T . T rail attem pted a
burlesque of O vid’s unfam iliar account of the ancient m arine-
dw elling G laucus in M etamorphoses 13—14, a review er said it
w ould not succeed, ‘being a burlesque of the classic story, w hich
is not so well know n as m any of the subjects caricatured by m odern
p layw rights .’64
A standard feature of burlesque was the display of G reek
lettering, usually in the form of a placard or inscription bearing
an E nglish phrase sim ply transliterated into the G reek alphabet.
T h is was presum ably intended to tem p t the spectators into
practising th eir skill in deciphering it. T h u s in B u rn an d ’s Venus
and A donis M ercury w aved a placard at Paphos railw ay station,
reading:
nA<f>02 ANA BAX $ O P AP4> A K P O Y N 65
A little know ledge of H om eric G reek also enhanced the pleasure in
attending. In B u rn an d ’s Ixion; or, the M an at the W heel (Royalty
T h eatre, 1863), three T hessalian revolutionaries are called Tonda-
pameibomenos (‘A nsw ering h im ’) Prosephe (‘he addressed’), and
Podasokus (‘sw ift-footed’) respectively, betw een them com prising
one of the m ore fam ous of all Iliadic form ulae. T h e program m e to
B u rn an d ’s Patient Penelope; or, The R eturn o f Ulysses (S trand
T h eatre, 1863) reproduced quotations from the Odyssey (the set,
representing Penelope’s room , was also decorated w ith various
scenes from G reek m yth to be serially identified by the audience ).66
A few G reek tag phrases are p art of the genre’s poetic repertoire:
in The Golden Fleece Planche p u nctu ated one q u artet w ith such
lexical item s as To kalon, Eureka!, and pros T h e o n f1 B ut puns in
L atin, requiring only the m ost elem entary know ledge and no
form al schooling in the language, are m ore frequent. A typical
exam ple is P lu to ’s self-adm onition durin g a quarrel w ith P ersep h
one in B yron’s O rpheus: ‘T h e suaviter in modo dropped m ust be | In
64 I L N 47, no. 1324 (15 July 1865), 47. 65 Burnand (1864), 28.
66 Burnand (1863a), 2-3. 67 Planche (1845), 8.
favour of th efo rtiter in re ’.68 B u rn an d ’s Venus and Adonis plays on
the w ords non est, on unus for ‘one’, on os for ‘countenance’, and,
m ore adventurously, in one dialogue:
Venus Oh, lost Adonis! he for w hom I pant, is . ..
Jupiter . .. confessio am antis?
Venus Yes! a man ’tis\69
O ccasionally m uch m ore elaborate quotations from L atin occur,
w hich can only have spoken to those w ho had actually studied
L atin at school. W hen T heseu s confronts the m inotaur in
P lanche’s The M arriage o f Bacchus (L yceum , 1848), he addresses
him thus:
M onstrum horrendum et informe ingens,
Prepare to get the soundest of all swingeings!
B ut even the quotations from classical authors tend to be p art of a
sm all repertoire of phrases from H orace, O vid, or V irgil, sim ilar to
th at deployed in parliam entary debate at the tim e. In the burlesque
theatre the effect was to debunk the practice, w hich was in fact
already w aning: G ladstone was considered old-fashioned because
of his predilection for quoting L a tin .71
D oggerel rhym ing verse was b u rlesq u e’s chosen poetic m edium :
Planche self-deprecatingly described the hilarious effect of his
classical burlesques as attrib u tab le to ‘persons picturesquely a t
tired speaking absurd doggerel ’.72 Puns w ere essential. Even the
stage directions, som e of w hich w ere reproduced in the p ro
gram m es, strove for p u nn in g effect; scene 1 of B.J. S p edding’s
Ino; or, The Theban Twins (S trand T h eatre, 1869) was set in ‘T h e
G ardens of A tham as at T hebes. Show ing the H au g h ty -C ultu re of
the G reeks ’.73 A m ongst the favoured verbal tricks was alliteration,
evident in the title of E dw ard N olan’s Iphigenia; or, The S a il!! The
Seer!! A n d the Sacrifice!! (1866). T h e genre is m arked by an arch
self-consciousness of its ow n conventions and enjoys disrupting
the dram atic illusion it half-heartedly creates: in B rough’s The
Siege of Troy H om er is the w ar correspondent of The Times new s
paper, discovered spying in the G reek cam p. H e is arm ed w ith a
telescope, a notebook, and a pencil, in ord er to record proceedings
68 H enry J. Byron (18 63), 22 . 69 Burnand (1864),18, 19, 24, 26.
70 Planche (1879), iii. 240. 71 W atson (1973), 17-21.
72 Planche (1872), i. 180. 73 Spedding (1869), 9.
for his forthcom ing epic.74 T h e ghost of E uripides, sim ilarly,
engaged in a dialogue w ith the ghost of Polydorus in C ranstoun
M etcalfe’s Hecuba a la M ode; or, The W ily Greek and the M odest
M aid, to lam ent ‘the way m y plays | A re m u rd ered by these actors
now adays’.75
SONG AND SPECTACLE

Song was central to burlesque, w hich drew not only on favourite
tunes from fam iliar operas, b u t also on the vast repertoire of
ballads, nursery rhym es, and form ulaic genres of popular song in
the E nglish language.76 T h e last group (later to be p lundered by
G ilb ert and Sullivan) included the ‘laughing song’, the catalogue
or ‘p atte r’ song, the ‘sw agger’ w here a (male) character introduced
him self, and songs about stock subject-m atter such as drinking,
the w eather, or nostalgia.77 T h e classical burlesques sim ply
adapted their m aterial to this conventional m usic: in B u rn an d ’s
A rion; or, The Sto ry o f a Lyre (S trand T h eatre, 1872), the m ythical
singer’s presence on the pirate boat inspires a breathtaking series of
parodies from opera, including a chorus ‘W e’ve com e to kill
A rion’, sung to a fam ous tune from G iacom o M eyerbeer’s Les
Huguenots (1836).78 In B rough’s The Siege of Troy U lysses, in a
Scottish accent, sings a form ulaic catalogue-song about piling up
chariots w ith loot, to the w ell-know n Scottish tune of Bonny
D undee ,79 T h e tone of the m usical dim ension of the genre is
beautifully exem plified by P lanche’s The Deep Deep Sea; or, Per
seus and Androm eda; an Original M ythological, A quatic, Equestrian
B urletta (O lym pic T h eatre, 1833), w hich used book 4 of O vid’s
M etamorphoses. H an d el’s appropriately titled W ater M usic was
used throu g ho u t, b u t at the clim actic m om ent w here Perseus
(M adam e V estris) entered ex machina on Pegasus, clutching M e
dusa’s head, the tun e to w hich (s)he sang the follow ing ditty was
74 Robert Brough (185 8), 8 . 75 M etcalfe (1893), 14.

Many of there were collected in the three-volum e songbook published by
Jones & Co., The Universal Songster, or Museum of M irth (London, 1835). See
also Bratton (1975).
77 Disher (1955), 25-46.
78 Burnand (1872), 13-15.
79 Robert Brough (1858), 418.
the universally fam iliar Ride a Cock Horse, a fam ous English
nursery rhym e:
Ride a w ing’d horse,
T he country across.
I’ve killed an old wom an,
Both ugly and cross;
Ringlets of vipers hung down to her toes.
H er nam e was M edusa, as all the world knows.
T h e equally im portant dance routines were a central p art of
burlesq u e.81 O ne review er of P lanche’s 1832 O lym pic extrava
ganza The Paphian Bower; or, Venus and A donis was so struck by
the brevity of som e of the fem ale costum es that he recom m ended,
only half-facetiously, that the Bishop of L ondon intervene.82 T h e
p rom inent fem ale legs of burlesque w ere connected w ith the con
vention of transvestism (see Figs. 13.2 and 13.3). It becam e cus
tom ary in burlesques, classical or otherw ise, to use an attractive
actress as a m ythical hero or fairy-tale prince (V estris as O rpheus),
and the Q ueen’s T h eatre production of F redrick Fox C ooper’s
burlesque of T alfo u rd ’s Ion in 1836 used actresses for all the
m ale roles, w hile a m an played the heroine, C lem anthe. T h en ce
forw ard the fem ale breeches role becam e a standard feature.83 It
was the burlesque (and pantom im e) th eatre’s analogue of the dan-
seuse en travesti, the ballerina w ho began to u surp the m ale rom an
tic lead in the corps de ballet in both Paris and L ondon from 1830
onw ards. It has been argued that this developm ent reflected the
transform ation of ballet from a courtly entertain m en t to fit the
tastes of the m arket-place and a new bourgeois and sub-bourgeois
public— broadly the sam e public w ho enjoyed b u rlesq u e.84
Som e burlesques w ere m ore m arked by m ildly naughty jokes than
others; R eece’s Prometheus, for exam ple, described Jove as ‘erratic
ally erotic’, and apparently encouraged its leading actress to assum e
sexually suggestive poses from her ‘bondage’ on the rock. B ut som e
of the w om en who played m ale parts in burlesque w ere considerable
perform ers. T w o of the m ost fam ous legs of all belonged to Priscilla
H orton, b u t she had perform ed in reputable productions of Shake
speare (she was the definitive A riel of her day), and possessed a
80 Planche (1879), i. 155-6. 81 Fletcher (1987), 9-33.
82 Cited in Appleton (1974), 74.
83 Fletcher (1987), 22; G arber (199 3), 176 . 84 Garafala (1993), 96.
F i g u r e 13.3 A nnie Bourke as M ercury in R obert Reece’s extravaganza

Prometheus; or the M an on the Rock! (1865).
rem arkable contralto capable of the m ost difficult opera, heard to

great advantage as the nightingale in Planche’s The Birds o f A ris
tophanes. She took num erous m ale roles in classical burlesque, from
Jason in The Golden Fleece to O edipus in the Brough b ro th ers’
‘w ildly inventive’ Sp hinx (H aym arket, 1849: Fig. 13.4).83 Indeed,
8S Stedm an (1969), 2—3 and n. 6. W illiam and R obert Brough (1849).

SCESE FROM T H E SEW EXTSATAGAKZA OP
F i g u r e 13.4 A scene from the Brough brothers’ extravaganza The

Sphinx (1849).
by the 1850s, both fem ale-to-m ale and m ale-to-fem ale transvestism
was routine in burlesque. O lder fem ale roles, such as C lytem nestra
or M edea, began system atically to be taken by m e n .86 T h e m ale
im personation of w om en had em erged from the even low lier
subculture of the public houses, the circus, and the transvestite
dem i-m onde around the fringes of popular culture associated w ith
sexual relations betw een m en.87
H en ry M orley gave a revealing account of the success of the
fem ale breeches roles w hen recording his response (or that w hich
he tho u gh t w ould be expected of him ) to B u rn an d ’s Ixion:
T he whole success of the piece was m ade by dressing up good-looking
girls as im m ortals lavish in display of leg, and setting them up to sing and
dance, or rather kick w retched burlesque capers.88
86 T he most famous male transvestite star of all was Frederick Robson of the
Olympic, whose perform ance as Medea in 1856 was legendary. See further Ch. 14.
87 Senelick (199 3), 82-5 . 88 Morley (1866), 7.
T h is distinguished professor also professed revulsion at the effect
of burlesque transvestism : M iss Pelham in Ixion, he w rites, looks
hideous w ith beard and m oustache, and ‘the w om an in her [should]
rise in rebellion’, w hile the H on. Lew is W ingfield, who dressed ‘in
petticoats and spoke falsetto as M inerva’, was guilty of conduct
unbecom ing in a gentlem an.89 B ut M orley’s professed revulsion
did not prevent him from attending burlesques, for his diaries
record his reactions to them alongside his records of evenings
spent w atching the w orks of Shakespeare and Racine.
D ancing and transvestite costum es co n trib u ted to one of the
m ost im p ortan t dim ensions of this type of theatre— as of all V ic
torian entertainm ent— the elem ent of spectacle. T h e ancient m yths
p rovided num erous opportunities for extravagant visual stu n ts.90
W riters and scenery designers of burlesque com peted w ith their
rivals at other theatres for the biggest gasp of w onder and approval
at their lavish scenery: a review er notes that in B yron’s Orpheus
(Fig. 13.5), for w hich M r F enton had created the scenery:
A t the sound of his [O rpheus’] lyre all obstacles vanish, rocks part, and a
tem ple appears, the beauty of w hich caused M r Fenton to have an ova
tion . .. T h is classical burlesque cannot fail of being a great success.
A t the end of Spedding’s Ino the heroine appears from the sea,
m ounted on a dolphin, and announces she is now a goddess; this
conclusion was im itated by B urnand in his A rion, w hen the hero
ascended to the M ilky W ay on a dolphin w hile strum m ing his lyre.92
A m anager fam ous for lavish spectacle was Jo hn Buckstone,
incum bent of the H aym arket theatre from 1853, w hen Planche
w rote M r Buckstone’s Ascent o f Parnassus to celebrate his ap point
m ent. T h is piece featured nine m uses and puns on the ‘H ellenic’
nam es of the L ondon theatres (the O lym pic, the G recian, the
Lyceum , etc.). T h e frequent changes of spectacular scenery (for
w hich research in Pausanias was conducted) included representa
tions of M ou n t Parnassus from a distance, D elphi, the Castalian
Spring, the h aunt of Pan, and the sum m it of Parnassus itself.93
89 Morley (1866).
90 For a brilliant discussion of the reasons behind the Victorian taste for theatri
cal spectacle see Booth (1981), especially 1—29.
91 IL N 44, no. 1239 (2 Jan. 1864), 19.
92 Spedding (1869), 46; Burnand (1872), 32.
93 Planche (1879), iv. 263-4, 291.
F ig u r e 13.5 Dom estic conflict in H enry B yron’s burlesque Orpheus

and Eurydice (1864).
Physical routines borrow ed from the circus and sporting com peti
tions w ere also regularly featured. In L em on’s M edea Jason has a
boxing m atch w ith O rpheus, and is also a skilled acrobat and knife-
swallower; in T alfo u rd ’s Electra O restes, played by a young
w om an, has a w restling m atch w ith L ycus m uch praised by the
press.94 B u rn and ’s Pirithoiis, the Son o f Ixion (N ew R oyalty
T h eatre, 1865) included a centaurom achy perform ed by a h o rse
back circus troupe; the H ades tableau in the final scene displayed
T antalus in a bath, Sisyphus as an acrobat, kicking a large ball
uphill, and Ixion turning his w heel.95
TH E INSOUCIANCE OF
CLASSICAL BURLESQUE
A n im portant factor in the ideological w orkings of classical b u r
lesque is the social and educational background of the genre’s
94 British L ibrary Add. M S 52960 L, 6; I L N 34, no. 971 (30 Apr. 1859), 419.
95 Burnand (1865).
authors. T h e m ajority w ere som ew hat rebellious or disaffected
m em bers of the m iddle class, and the term ‘bohem ian’ is regularly
found in the description of their lifestyles by contem poraries,
notably in the cases of T alfo urd, B urnand, and B lanchard.96 T h e
‘decadent’ authors of classical burlesque how ever fall into two
identifiable groups. Som e of them are from relatively prosperous
fam ilies, and had nom inally studied Classics at university. A t
Balliol College, O xford, in the 1850s, R obert Reece had produced
two farces ‘to the h o rro r of the au tho rities’.97 Francis B urnand, the
son of a w ell-to-do L ondon stockbroker, was educated at E ton and
C am bridge (w here he was m uch involved in com ic theatricals), and
flirted w ith a career in the church or the law. B ut w hen he fell out
w ith his father and left university, a career in the popular theatre
becam e an econom ic necessity.98 As we have already seen, ‘B ohe
m ian’ F rank T alfo urd failed to graduate from C hrist C hurch,
O xford after ru n n in g up huge d eb ts.99
T h e scholarly antiquarian Planche, w ho had not attended u n i
versity, was decidedly conventional and by no m eans disaffected.
But am ong the burlesque w riters there w ere other, m ore rebellious
non-university m en, w ho m ust have encountered Classics at
school. H enry Byron, although the son of the B ritish consul in
H aiti, becam e an actor before he was tw enty after failing in the
m iddle-class professions of m edicine and law .100 T h e brothers
W illiam and R obert B rough (like T hom as T alfourd) were the
offspring of a provincial brew er. A lthough they w ere educated at
a private school in N ew port, W ales, th eir fortunes w ere blighted
w hen th eir fath er’s business failed through his enthusiasm for
radical causes. R obert, the m ore talented w riter, w orked as a
clerk before finding success in the theatre. B ut he had apparently
inherited his fath er’s politics, publishing in 1859 the satirical Songs
o f the Governing Classes, w ritten from a radical perspective.101
Y et the m ildly rebellious authors of classical burlesque did not
use it as a platform for radical politics. T h e tru th is that the social
96 See e.g. on Talfourd, Burnand (1904), 387; on Blanchard, D N B xxii. 216.

97 Adderley (1887).
98 Burnand (1904), i. 322.
99 See Thom as Talfourd (1841—54), entries for Friday, 26 Oct. and M onday, 3
Dec. 1849.
100 Jim Davis (1984), 1-32.
101 O D N B vii. 967-8.
ferm ent and reform ing zeal of the theatre of the 1830s, w hich, in
the wake of the G reat R eform A ct of 1832 had perm itted experi
m entation even w ith republican ideas,102 was replaced soon after
the accession of Q ueen V ictoria in 1837 w ith a m uch m ore conser
vative stance, apparently unquestioned in burlesque. N olan’s A g a
memnon at H ome; or, The Latest Particulars o f that Little A ffa ir at
M ycenae (1867) actually goes out of its way to criticize political
radicals currently dem onstrating for parliam entary refo rm .103 In
addition, this piece is even m ore unpleasantly racist than m ost
b u rlesq u es,104 although jokes about ‘niggers’ w ere p art of the
genre’s standard repertoire. It is of course significant that A g a
memnon at Home was perform ed n o t in the popular theatre of
L ondon or L iverpool b u t on the am ateur stage of the ever-conser-
vative O xford U niversity. B ut a sim ilar conservatism m arks som e
of the great hits of the L ondon stage, including B u rn an d ’s Ixion, in
w hich m uch h um o ur is created at the expense of the ‘radicals’ of
ancient T hessaly, loosely m odelled on F rench revolutionaries.
Ixion’s anti-m onarchical wife is followed by a ‘C row d of Red
R epublicans, U nread R epublicans . . . appropriately crow ned w ith
m ob caps’.105 O ne of the revolutionaries, T ondapam eibom enos,
suggests som e revolutionary violence against K ing Ixion:
L et us break all the windows, and make plain
T he ‘R ights of M an,’ by reference to Paine.106
Y et the red revolutionaries of ancient T hessaly com e to an ineffec
tual end, casually struck m otionless by M ercury w hen their h u
m orous potential has been exhausted. T h e burlesque theatre m ay
have had its subversive dim ension, b u t explicit political radicalism
was alien to it.
N evertheless, burlesque occasionally im plies a m ild sym pathy
for reform in its audience, especially in the w orks of Frank T a l
fourd (the son of T hom as T alfo urd, M P for R eading and a staunch
su pp o rter of universal m ale suffrage).107 A pollo lam ents in the
prologue to his burlesque of E u rip id es’ Alcestis that people do
102 One of the more im portant of such writers was Francis T alfourd’s father
Thom as (see Ch. 11).
103 Nolan (1867), 12.
104 Ibid. 23.
105 Burnand (18636), 2.
106 Ibid. 8.
107 See IL N 15, no. 382 (28 July 1849), 52 and above, Ch. 11.
not believe in the gods any m ore, or w orship at D elphi’s altars: all
they can talk about these days is ‘the R ights of P ersons’.108 T h ere is
a vaguely cynical attitu de tow ards politicians, apparent in, for
exam ple, T alfo u rd ’s burlesque of Sophocles’ Electra. H ere the
co rru p t tyran t /E gisthus is characterized as a cynical m anipulator
of the people of A rgos. H e explicitly m akes fun of m onarchs’
tendency to use speeches com posed by their m in isters.109 B u r
lesque’s position on w om en is also am bivalent. D om ineering
wives are stock characters (usually played by m en). T h e m ost
terrifying is Ino in S p edding’s Ino, w ho batters her h usband A tha-
m as, ‘a w retched hen-pecked m em ber of the m atrim onial b an d ’.
H e confides to his guest TEetes that
A week or tw o of our connubial fights
W ould teach you w hat is m eant by w om en’s rights.110
Y et several burlesques do take the side of w om en in ancient
m yth— even of M edea— and this m ust, at least in part, be a re
sponse to the fem ale com ponent of the audience (see Ch. 14).111
T h e subversiveness of the genre, how ever, was expressed m ore
by its tone and stance than by its explicit content. T o burlesque
any ‘classic’ text is of course slightly subversive. B ut to travesty the
very content of the education w hich divided the classes and
fostered the elite, in front of a distinctively cross-class audience,
was a com plex procedure of som e ideological potency. T h e insou
ciant attitude of the generation of burlesque w riters in the 1850s
and 1860s is clear from their subtitles, w hich self-consciously
indicate disrespect for their sources: T alfo u rd ’s Alcestis; the O ri
ginal Strong-M inded W om an: a Classical Burlesque in One A c t
(S trand T h eatre, 1850) was further brazenly subtitled a most
shameless misinterpretation o f the Greek D rama o f Euripides. C las
sical burlesque is thus related to the serious critiques of classical
education w hich serious-m inded intellectuals w ere publishing at
108 Francis T alfourd (1850), ‘Prologue’. Since Talfourd disliked both religion
and his father’s political earnestness, the satire may be on both the Established
C hurch (which stressed duties and distrusted rights) and liberal politics (fashion-
able froth having obscured eternal verities).
109 Francis T alfourd (1859), 6, 7, 37.
110 Spedding (1869), 9-10.
Although women certainly attended classical burlesques, as well as acting in
them , unfortunately no source seems to be known which records a wom an’s re
sponses to this type of theatre in any detail.
the tim e,112 and to the hum orous accounts to be found in the w orks
of the com ic prose w riters. W hen C harles D ickens, for exam ple,
read his novels aloud in public recitations, he slightly adapted
them to heighten their dram atic effect. In the eighth chapter of
Nicholas N ickelby, the schoolm aster Squeers tells the pupils to
w hom he teaches E nglish spelling and philosophy, that a horse is
‘a quadruped; and q u ad ru p ed ’s L atin ’. But in the perform ance
version, D ickens added to this speech of Squeers a denunciation
of training in the ancient tongues: ‘ . . . or G reek, or H ebrew , or
som e other language th a t’s dead and deserves to b e’.113 T hackeray,
in the persona of M . A. T itm arsh , describes a journey to A thens,
and includes a hilarious attack on conventional adulation of an
tiquity. T itm arsh regards the ten years of Classics he endured as
‘ten years’ banishm ent of infernal m isery, tyranny, arrogance’. In
A ttica he was visited by the G reek m use, and explains that he could
not effect any reconciliation w ith her because he read her poets ‘in
fear and trem bling; and a cold sw eat is b u t an ill accom panim ent to
p o etry ’. A ncient H istory was ‘so d u ll. . . that w hen the brutal dul-
ness of a schoolm aster is superadded to her own slow conversation,
the union becom es intolerable’. People only ‘say they are en thu si
astic about the G reek and R om an authors and history, because it is
considered pro p er and respectable’.114
T h ere was a particularly strong opposition perceived betw een
Classics as it was experienced in schools and universities, and the
delights of the popular theatre. R enton N icholson (see further
below) com posed a song in 1853 to advertise the D ru ry L ane
Pantom im e, w hose w ords are supposed to be sung by young m en
released from the classroom and lecture hall:
L et H om er be banished, and Virgil laid down,
Academ ics be blow ed,— we have come up to to w n . ..
T he schoolm aster’s at hom e, his pupils abroad;
W ho cares for his cane? A nd who cares for his Rod?115
B urnand, sim ilarly, records a conversation w ith the ‘short, w iz
ened, d ried -u p elderly’ V ice-C hancellor of C am bridge U niversity,
from w hom he asked perm ission to stage three burlesques at
C am bridge in the 1850s. T h e V ice-C hancellor m isunderstood his
112 Stray (1998), 83-113. 1,3 See van Am erongen (1926), 47.
114 Thackeray (1846), quoted from Thackeray (1903), 272, 276.
115 Bradley (1965), 314. Cf. Ch. 16 n. 18.
request, assum ing th a t by ‘staging a play’ the young undergraduate
before him m ust have m eant a G reek or L atin d ram a.116 T h e
account im plies th at serious ancient theatre represents the estab
lishm ent, w hile burlesque is the m edium of sm art young rebels—
even tho u g h they w ere officially students of Classics.
T h e classical burlesques often m ake explicit their au tho rs’ own
resentm ent about their pedantic education: in V incent A m cotts’s
A riadne: or, The B ull! The B u lly!! A n d The B ullion!! (1870),
T h eseu s’ studious friend M entor loses his treatise on G reek verbal
roots, w hich has fallen ‘overboard’. T heseus suggests th at all
‘classic au th o rs’ be throw n overboard:
Away w ith Latin, G reek, and all such stuff,
For I’ve been over bored w ith them enough.117
In a sim ilarly satirical vein, M inerva in B u rn an d ’s Ixion w ants to
reject G anym ede’s application for the post of O lym pian b u tler on
the ground of his poor classical education:
For his situation
W e w ant com petitive exam ination;
H ow can he hand about the drinks that we brew
Unless he knows his Latin, G reek, and H ebrew ?118
Perhaps the m ost pow erful exam ple is constituted by the finale of
B u rn an d ’s Venus and Adonis. A donis sings a ‘spelling’ song about
the burlesqued ancient poet, Ovid:
Adonis (spelling): O, V, ov\ I, D , id—
O V ID was his name!
T o w hich the ensem ble (Pluto, Ju piter, V enus, M ercury, V ulcan,
A donis) respond:
M arked by cane
Very plain,
Each young swain
L aughs again,
W hen he sees
M ETA M ORPHOSES
R ight in the m iddle of the play bill, oh!119
116 Burnand (1880), 7-17. 117 Amcotts (1870), 8.

118 Burnand (18636), 18. 119 Burnand (1864), 50.
T h e burlesque thus rem inds its audience of the corporal p u n ish
m ent attendan t in schools upon the deciphering of O vid, and
points up the pleasure to be derived from revisiting the text of
the L atin epic in the theatre of burlesque laughter. F o r B urnand,
w ho at E ton had been m ade truly m iserable by G reek and L atin,
later recalled the great popularity of his burlesque Dido, w hich in
1860 ran for no few er than eighty nights. H e m editated that in
conceiving this assault on the Aeneid, ‘perhaps I was taking re
venge on the C lassics’.120
C L A S S IC A L B U R L E S Q U E AS C U L T U R A L
APPROPRIATION
It is possible to see in the com plex ideology of classical burlesque a
w itty subversion of classical education, w ith all th at m ight im ply
for an audience including m any people w ho had no access to the
privileges such an education conferred. Y et even if they w ere
ostensibly repudiating Classics, burlesques w ere sim ultaneously
appropriating the subject for their audience. N ineteenth -cen tu ry
classical burlesque belongs to that sub-category of burlesque lit
erature w hich com ic theorists identify w ith travesty— the ‘low
b u rlesq u e’ of a particular w ork or story achieved by treating it ‘in
an aggressively fam iliar style’.121 Such a ‘fam iliar’ treatm en t p ara
doxically im plies a form of cultural ow nership. T h e authors of
classical burlesque liked to display their know ledge of Classics to
their audiences, b u t it seem s that these audiences enjoyed the sense
of cultural possession w hich their ow n fam iliarity w ith som e
aspects of Classics, derived from or affirm ed in burlesque, then
bestow ed u pon them . V ictorians of all classes w ere, as Pearsall has
p u t it, sentim ental and aesthetically conservative, b u t they were
also sharp, cynical, and know ing;122 the subversively ‘know ing’—
even conspiratorial—tone of burlesque was sim ilar to that of the
slightly later V ictorian phenom enon of the m usic hall.123 T h ere is
an em phasis in classical burlesque on ‘know ing’ the details about
ancient culture, distinguishing G reek from L atin nam es, and
pointing out anachronism s. In The Golden Fleece M edea com plains
120 Burnand (1904), i. 144-7, 366. 121 Jum p (1972), 2.

122 Pearsall (1973), 15.
123 See Bailey (1994); cf. Schoch (2002) on Shakespeare.
that Eros is ‘vulgarly called C u p id ’; in L em o n ’s M edea Creon says
that M edea cannot follow a new career as a Vestal V irgin, as
G lauce suggests, because V estals ‘will be R om an institutions, |
N ot G recian’.124
T h e m ock-erudite tone of classical burlesque is also apparent in
its sem i-serious instruction in details of ancient m ythology, w hich
often takes the form of a rhym ing, punning, adaptation of an article
in L em p riere’s 1788 dictionary. In P lanche’s The M arriage of
Bacchus (L yceum , 1848), D aedalus sang a ‘p atter song’ w hich
escorted the audience on a breakneck journey through classical
history and m yth, w ith lines about H om er, H annibal, Cato,
Plato, Aeneas, Sardanapalus, D ido, Caesar, and P riam .125 In B ur-
n an d ’s Venus and A donis V ulcan sings a ‘catalogue’ song en u m er
ating Jove’s love affairs, ‘T h e re ’s Sem ele, L eda, E uropa, C allisto,’
etc. 126
.
Several classical burlesques m used know ingly upon ancient

stage conventions. P lanche’s 1845 The Golden Fleece was
prom pted by the im portant production of Sophocles’ Antigone,
accom panied by M endelssohn’s m usic and a sixty-strong m ale
chorus, w hich had been a huge success at Covent G arden that
season.127 C harles M atthew s, P lanche’s ‘C h o ru s’, explained:
Friends, countrym en, lovers, first listen to me;
I ’m the Chorus: W hatever you hear or see
T h at you don’t understand, I shall rise to explain—
I t’s a famous old fashion th a t’s come up again.128
By tw enty years later, in D ecem ber 1865, w hen P lanche’s adapta
tion of O ffenbach, Orpheus in the H aym arket, played at the H ay
m arket, the figure of P ublic O pinion could affirm in the prologue
that everyone, w hatever their social background, now knew w hat a
G reek chorus did:
O n this occasion I enact the Chorus.
T h ere’s not an urchin in this learned age,
B ut knows that on the old H ellenic stage
T h e C horus told the audience all the plot,
W hether there was one in the play, or n o t.129
124 Planche (1845), 9; Lem on (18 5 6), 13. 125 Planche (1879), iii. 248-9.
126 Burnand (1864), 13.
127 On the im portant Covent G arden Antigone see Ch. 12.
128 Planche (1845), 5. 129 Planche (1879), v. 239.
Sim ilarly, in T alfo u rd ’s Electra the audience heard about the
G reeks’ preference for keeping violence off stage. T h is brilliant
burlesque also featured a play-w ithin-a-play, ‘the perform ance of a
Strolling C om pany of A C T O R S on a T h espian cart’, thus con
firm ing in T alfo u rd ’s audience their know ledge about the origins
of G reek tragedy in the pre-classical era.130
C L A S S I C A L B U R L E S Q U E AS
SELF-D EFIN ITIO N
Y et alongside such passages, w hich reinforce a sense of fam iliarity
w ith pleasurable aspects of ancient culture, one of the m ost dis
tinctive features of classical burlesque was its creation of hum our
out of anachronistic references to the contem porary w orld of the
audience. In the eighteenth century com ic w riting for the stage had
ridiculed its characters; V ictorian com edy, on the other hand,
deliberately avoided overt m alice, and em phasized am iability and
fellow feeling betw een w riter and character. F rom the 1840s o n
w ards the prim ary source of w it and h u m o u r was regarded as
incongruity— the arbitrary juxtaposition of dissim ilar ideas and
m aterial— w hich was seen as giving rise not to an ‘insolent’ b u t to
a ‘congenial’ sense of su perio rity .131 T h ere was a beautifully stark
incongruity in juxtaposing classical m yths w ith references to
hailing cabs, or m aking A dm etus sm oke the cigars to w hich he is
addicted in T alfo u rd ’s burlesque Alcestis. Indeed, in 1870 Percy
Fitzgerald argued that in m ythological burlesque of the type p io n
eered by Planche, m irth is produced precisely by ‘a transposition
of the subject m atter into, or its contrast w ith, som e inappropriate
tim e or condition’. T h e successful burlesque h u m orist w ould try
to
reproduce his old Rom ans and Greeks as nearly as possible w ith the
weaknesses and conditions of our everyday life . .. knowing how inconsist
ent such old m anners and custom s are w ith present habits, he will exagger
ate the form er so as to make the discordance m ore startling.132
Review ers therefore often com plim ent authors who w rite b u r
lesques in w hich ‘the them e is classical, b u t scarcely the spirit of
130 Francis T alfourd (1859), 29-30. See further Hall (1999a).
131 Robert Bernard M artin (1974), 17, 22.
t t x ' i : F in'-i rrt:-. x;:w KXTBtvAC.txiSA o r " p as." a t t u p a m i.p h t t i u u t r k . —to:* wm -ieroxn p ao r.
F i g u r e 13.6 L andscape featuring the statue of Pan, in H enry Byron’s

extravaganza Pan; or, the Loves of Echo and Narcissus (1865).
the piece’, an approving contem porary description of B yron’s

clever P an; or, the Loves o f Echo and Narcissus (A delphi T heatre,
1865, see Fig. 13.6);133 and the outstanding success of the Brough
b ro th ers’ The S p hinx was a result precisely of its contrast of ‘au
th en tic’ classical scenery and costum es w ith the sm art, contem por
ary, updated riddles w hich CEdipus had to solve.134Exam ples
could be m ultiplied. A highlight of W ooler’s Jason and M edea
was C h iron ’s song about the G reat E xhibition of that year; in the
second scene of F rank Sikes’s H yperm nestra (L yceum T h eatre
1869), the D anaids play croquet in the A rgive palace garden; a
w om an in B u rn an d ’s A rion walks strangely because of her
‘G recian b en d ’— an allusion to a shape of profoundly u n -G reek
corseted fem ale costum e fashionable at the tim e.135
133 IL N 46, no. 1310 (15 Apr. 1865), 359.
134 I L N 14, no. 3566 (14 Apr. 1849), 244-5.
135 W ooler (1851), 27; Sikes (1869), scene 2; Burnand, (1872), 21: see Barton
(1937), 462. On ‘G reek’ fashions see further Ch. 16.
T h e presence in L ondon of the M etropolitan Police Force,
established as recently as 1829, features prom inently in burlesque:
in T alfo u rd ’s Alcestis the im ported figure of Polax the Policem an,
lover of A lcestis’ nurse, ‘is habited in a classic dress, w ith the
exception of his hat, cape, and staff, w hich are those of a m odern
policem an’.136 In Sikes’s Hyperm nestra D anaus is arrested by
M ercury and an atten dan t policem an.137 O ther m odern social
developm ents w ere deliberately inserted into the classical m ilieu;
in A m cotts’s Pentheus (1866), inspired by E u rip id es’ Bacchae,
Pentheus threatens Bacchus w ith com pulsory m em bership of the
tem perance m ovem ent, and a vow of abstinence;138 in B rough’s
The Siege o f Troy H elen is ‘the divorced wife of M enelaus,
m arried, u n d er the new act, to Paris’, a reference to the great
D ivorce A ct of 1857 (on w hich see fu rth er below , Ch. 14).139
T h ere was a particularly pervasive tendency to refer to m odern
technology. In A m cotts’s Pentheus Bacchus, w hen asked during
the earthquake if the gas is exploding, observes:
T o talk of gas so long before its age
Is really making light of history’s page.140
T h e T heseus of the sam e au th o r’s A riadne points out that diving-
bells ‘aren ’t yet invented’.141 T h e audiences seem to have found
intrusive references to m odern form s of vehicular tran sp o rt quite
hilarious. In S p edding’s Ino the G reek heroine pushes her tw ins in
a peram bulator; in a burlesque Jason and M edea Jason’s w ar-
chariot is draw n by T heseus and P irithous riding bicycles instead
of horses; in A m cotts’s A riadne T heseus arrives in C rete by steam
b o at.142 B urlesque betrays a particularly strong obsession w ith
railways: in B lanchard’s Antigone Travestie of 1845, C reo n ’s re
sponse to his problem s is to im agine taking the next train out of
T hebes and em igrating to N ew S outh W ales; P lanche’s The Birds
136 Francis T alfourd (1850), 12.
137 Sikes (1869), 62.
138 Amcotts and Anson (1866), 16.
139 Robert Brough (1858), 2. See also H. J. Byron (1863), 28, where Proserpine
declares she wants to sue for a divorce from Pluto on the ground of infidelity (he has
kissed 21 girls). In B urnand’s Venus and Adonis the audience is inform ed that Juno
has won a formal separation from Jove, who used to beat her, on the grounds of
‘cruelty and base desertion’: Burnand (1864), 9.
140 Amcotts and Anson (1866), 39.
141 Amcotts (1870), 8.
142 Spedding (1869), 13; Addison and Howell (1878), 4; Amcotts (1870), 7.
of Aristophanes (1846) satirizes plans to build a cross-C hannel
railw ay tunnel; L em on’s M edea features a scene at C orinth R ail
way S tation .143
So w hy did the V ictorians conjure up this bizarre theatrical
w orld w here m ythical G reeks and R om ans m ingled w ith police
m en and m odern railw ay stations? T h ey w ere of course interested
in all previous periods of history— in the m edieval era, the R enais
sance, and the epoch of revolution— as m uch as in G raeco-R om an
antiquity. Y et it was as no sim ple ‘m irro r’ that they used any
period of the past. T h e ir historical consciousness was a m ode of
se//-consciousness involving a com plex dialectical process by
w hich analogy becam e aw areness of difference. As C uller con
cludes, w hen the V ictorian A ge looked into the m irro r of history,
it saw not m erely itself reflected but also the whole panoram a of the
p a s t. . . Indeed, in the course of looking to the past it becam e conscious
of the distinctive characteristics of the present.144
F or the newly ‘historicist’ outlook of the V ictorian era gave rise to
the idea of ‘m o d ern ity ’ as it is now understood. It was through
thinking w ith history and ‘classic’ authors that the V ictorians
becam e conscious of the m eaning of their ow n m odernity, the
characteristics of their age. T h e conscious m odernization involved
in burlesque helped audiences to conceive w hat m ade them differ
ent from people of the past. T h e newly created im age of the
scientifically advanced, m odern, urban society was constructed
out of sym bols of w hat the G reeks and R om ans did not share
w ith m odernity— the policem en and steam engines central to the
V ictorians’ m etropolitan self-im age.
TH E V ICTO R IA N S AND COM IC EXPRESSION

T h e burlesque of classical texts and m yths m ust ultim ately be
placed in the context of the V ictorians’ profound taste for com edy,
to w hich their dom inant sense of affluence and progress seem s to
have provided a special b ackdrop:145 it was during the nineteenth
century th at it becam e socially unacceptable to be tho u g h t lacking
a sense of h um our, and the English sense of h u m o u r becam e an
143 Blanchard (1845); Planche (1846), 17; Lem on (1856), 7.

144 Culler (1985), 284. 145 Henkle (1980), 4-5.
im portant part of English self-definition. Indeed, w ith the excep
tions of the Irish and the A m ericans, all other nations were
regarded as existing in a state of hum ourless darkness.146 G ilbert
A bott a Beckett took pains to defend the contem porary taste for
com ic expression, even in w orks of instruction, as in his The Comic
H istory o f Rome (1852), although he is aw are that ‘Com ic L itera
tu re ’ is still despised in certain quarters, ‘since that class of w riting
obtained the popularity w hich has especially attended it w ithin the
last few years’.147 T h is entertaining volum e is enhanced by the
engraved illustrations by John Leech, w hich express perfectly the
spirit— and probably the direct influence of the scenic design— of
theatrical classical burlesque.
T h e taste for hum orous rew riting of classical stories penetrated
m iddle-class private theatricals. In 1865 tw o fam ous w riters of
b urlesque co-published a collection ‘Specifically W ritten for P e r
form ance in the T heatre-R oyal Back D raw ing-R oom ’. O nly one,
W illiam B rough’s Robin H ood, has a non-classical them e. T h e
others are his Phaeton; or, Pride M u st H ave a Fall, and B u rn an d ’s
Orpheus; or, the M agic Lyre, Sappho; or, Look Before You L eap !,
and Boadicea the B eautiful; or, H arlequin Julius Caesar and the
D elightful D ruid . 148 T h e book contains am using instructions for
the achievem ent of special effects: the sound of P haeton’s chariot
crashing could be created by throw ing flat-irons, bootjacks,
candlesticks, kitchen pokers, and a full coal-scuttle from a tea-
tray to the floor; C haron in Orpheus w ould look good in a sou’
w ester; there are suggestions for how to paint a scene-cloth
depicting the L eucadian Rock from w hich Sappho can leap.149
Staged burlesque was also popular in elitist contexts. St Jo h n ’s
College, O xford, m ounted several classical burlesques in the 1860s
w ith an all-m ale cast, including N o lan ’s infantile send-up of A es
chylus’ Agam em non, entitled Agam emnon at H om e.150 M eanw hile,
146 Robert Bernard M artin (1974), 6, 36; Cobbe (1863).
147 See a Beckett (1852), p. v. This author also wrote burlesques for the theatre.
148 Brough and Burnand (1865). This chapter has dealt with burlesques of
classical m yths, but many others staged scenes from ancient history, including the
lives of Alexander the G reat and Cleopatra, and from Bulwer’s novel The Last Days
of Pompeii.
149 Brough and Burnand (1865), 35, 40, 78. See M argaret Reynolds (2000),
250-43.
150 Nolan (1867). T he hum our relies entirely on jokes at the expense of women
and ‘niggers’, and lacks all the refined wit, puns, rhymes, and literary allusiveness
which graced the superior examples of this genre.
at Balliol College, a m uch funnier underg rad u ate reading Classical
M oderations follow ed by M odern H istory was w riting a burlesque
of E u rip id es’ Bacchae, an adaptation of O ffenbach’s L a Belle
H elene, and an O vid-inspired burlesque A riadne.151 T h e ban on
theatrical perform ances at O xford U niversity at this tim e m eant
that these classical burlesques had to be staged ‘m ore or less
su rreptitiou sly ’.192
Y et the spirit of classical burlesque was om nipresent: u n d e r
graduates and even their superiors w ere using varieties of parody
and burlesque in privately circulated texts w hich, paradoxically,
w ere confirming their m em bership of their elite. T h is practice can
be dated to at least as early as a puerile 1816 burlesqued translation
of E uripid es’ Alcestis, done line-by-line, as its author explains,
w ith num erals p rinted to ‘help ’ its readers throu g h the G reek of
G aisford. Its com ic rhym es and scatological h u m o u r are plainly
aim ed at teenage boys seeking to alleviate the boredom of
ploughing throu g h the original trag ed y .153 In 1843 an u n d erg rad u
ate at O xford published a self-styled burlesque of A eschylus’ P er
sians entitled The Chinaid, in w hich his stated object was ‘to invest
w ith ab su rd ity ’ his classical m odel. T h e recent O pium W ars sug
gested replacing X erxes w ith C hinyang, the E m peror of C hina,
and his chorus w ith opium -addicted court m andarins. A bout fifty
per cent of the text is fairly accurate translation of the original.1'74
Sim ilar in sp irit is T rev ely an ’s up dated version of A ristophanes’
Wasps, w hich is replete w ith esoteric references to fellow m em bers
of his C am bridge university clique, their alcoholic japes, and con
frontations w ith the police.155 Even the V ery Revd H enry L ong-
ueville M ansel, D ean of C hrist C hurch, O xford, chose classical
burlesque in a parody of A ristophanes’ Clouds w hen he w anted to
151 Pentheus: Amcotts and Anson (1866); Fair Helen: Amcotts (1866); Ariadne:
Amcotts (1870).
152 A handw ritten inscription, dated 1907, on the cover of the Bodleian Library’s
copy of Am cotts’s Fair Helen (1866) records that ‘In those days the dram a was
cultivated, m ore or less surreptitiously, in Oxford by a set of m en of whom Amcotts
was a leading m em ber’. On Oxford undergraduate theatricals see further Ch. 15.
153 Styrke (1816). A t the end the chorus address the reader, expressing their hope
that he has enjoyed it, ‘W hether you read the Greek, or smudge, tw itter and smirk |
At the blithe, jolly version of Issachar Styrke' (p. 97). See further Ch. 15.
154 Anon. (1843).
155 Trevelyan (1858), 8.
satirize the political and religious controversies afflicting O xford
U n iversity.156
In an im p o rtan t study of the all-pervasiveness of the com ic spirit
in V ictorian culture, R oger H enkle defines the V ictorians’ ‘com ic
attitu d e’ as the avoidance of the upsetting aspects of a subject, or a
reduction in the consum ers’ confrontation w ith its social im plica
tio n s.157 T h is is exactly w hat the burlesques of ancient m yth and
literature did w ith th eir harsher aspects. T h e ‘m oral distancing’ in
the burlesque theatre was partly m ade possible by the im person
ation of young m en by w om en, w hich allow ed the audience to
recognize and em pathize w ith the (often fam ous) player, and thus
to distance them selves from the fictitious character she was im p er
sonating. O restes the m u rd erer and vindictive O lym pian rapists
are rend ered innocuous, even charm ing, by being played by exag
geratedly ‘fem inine’ w om en.158 B ut m ore im portantly, the incest,
death, m urd er, rapine, and deviation from socially acceptable
form s of behaviour so fundam ental to classical m ythology are
ruthlessly censored in burlesque. In those dealing w ith M edea,
her children are either not killed at all, or are revivified by her
m agic. In The Siege o f Troy even H ector com es back to life after his
duel w ith A chilles. In T alfo u rd ’s Electra the hero O restes is spared
the guilt of actually killing his m other and uncle. Sappho b u r
lesques always followed the pattern set by the ancient variant of
her tale in w hich she was infatuated w ith a m an nam ed Phaon (see
above all O vid, H er. 15), by ‘correcting’ her sexuality. In B u r
n an d ’s Dido, the unbearable em otional pain of A eneid book 4 is
transform ed into an undignified squabble betw een a m ale drag
actor as D ido and A nna over Eneas, their T ro jan beau, played by
an attractive young w om an. 159
T h e w riters of com edy and com ic theorists w ere aw are that their
era was inim ical to tragic dram a. Som e even blam ed burlesque for
the dearth of serious dram a d uring this period, arguing th at it was
precisely the taste for burlesque of highbrow w orks w hich had led
to the b lurrin g of the line betw een true dram a and low en tertain
m e n t.160 Som e killjoy m em bers of the literary and intellectual elite
despised and avoided burlesque altogether. A n obituary of Frank
156 M ansel (187 3), 3 95-408. 157 Henkle (1980), 4-6.

158 George Taylor (19 89), 140. 159 IL N 36, no. 1017 (18 Feb. 1860), 155.
160 Percy Fitzgerald (1870), 142, 251.
T alfo urd in The A thenaeum regrets th at he ‘left the w orld w ith
little or no adequate w itness of his pow ers— the travestie and
burlesque in w hich he revelled show ing b u t one, and that the
poorer, side of his gay and b rillian t intellect.’161 In 1870 a w riter
who dream ed of a superior type of com edy disdains the intellects of
the spectators of burlesque, lam enting that the genre now failed to
tickle the brain, for the actresses ‘acting H ector and A chilles only
delight the eye’.162
In the late 1860s and early 1870s com m entators becam e increas
ingly restive about the state of com ic w riting, especially w riting for
the stage. T h ey yearned for m ore intellectual w it and less am iable
sentim entality in their hum our. T h e m ore perspicacious of them
could see that the burlesque seam was exhausted, and the well of
inventiveness, especially w hen it cam e to puns, had been drained
d ry .163 B urlesque’s death knell is sounded by a review er of Bur-
n an d ’s burlesque of A ntony and Cleopatra in 1873, w ho describes
the perform ance as thoroughly inane:
T he fact is that burlesque has been done to death, and the attem pt to raise
it from an occasional entertainm ent into a perm anent institution m ust
ultim ately fail.164
T h e public agreed, for burlesques— certainly classical burlesques—
die out at this tim e, except, indeed, for the ‘occasional en tertain
m ent’ at sm all or private theatres, such as M etcalfe’s clever b u r
lesque of E u rip id es’ Hecuba, perform ed privately as late as 1893.166
T h e pivotal m om ent was the first w ork on w hich G ilb ert and
Sullivan collaborated, Thespis, or the Gods Grown O ld (1871). It
includes num erous features typical of the classical burlesque: the
pseudo-G reek com ic nam es (T h esp is’ travelling players include
T im idion, T ipseion, Preposteros, and Stupidas), young w om en in
tights im personating O lym pian gods, T h esp is’ enum eration in Act
I of Jove’s sexual scandals w ith D anae, Leda, and E uropa, and his
recitation of the entry u n der ‘A pollo’ in L em p riere’s classical
dictionary.166 Indeed, it is possible to read the libretto of Thespis
161 ‘O ur Weekly Gossip1, Athenaeum, no. 1794 (15 M ar. 1862), 365.
163 R obert Bernard M artin (1974), 17, 38; Percy Fitzgerald (1870),149-99.
164 IL N 63, no. 1776 (13 Sept. 1873), 239.
165 M etcalfe (1893), perform ed at Vestry House, Anerley.
166 Rees (1964), 71, 93, 162, 134.
as a self-conscious satire on the conventions of the genre of the
classical burlesque. T hespis, for exam ple, is aw are that the V ictor
ian theatre had preferred its classics in burlesque form , declaring
th at as an actor he is rarely called upon to act the role of Ju p iter
these days, for ‘In fact we d o n ’t use you m uch out of b u rlesq u e.’167
Thespis was unsuccessful— too clever, it seem s for its audience,
who failed to u n derstan d either the m ore obscure classical allu
sions or the self-conscious com m entary on the genre intended by
its au th o rs.168 It was to be w ith Trial by Ju ry, w hich had a con
tem porary setting, that they w ere to m ake th eir nam e. A lthough
they adopted various settings for the subsequent w orks, from the
Japan of M ikado to the V enice of Gondoliers, they never again p u t
the G raeco-R om an w orld before th eir audience. O ther authors
sim ultaneously abandoned the rhym ing, p u nn in g subversion of
classical m ythology w hich had entertained L ondon audiences for
several decades: by 1888, and G eorge H aw trey ’s A ta la n ta (S trand
T h eatre), even the hallm ark rhym ing couplets of traditional b u r
lesque had been abandoned in favour of u p -to -d ate idiom atic prose
dialogue.169
Such ‘H ellenism ’ as did appear in G ilb ert and Sullivan’s subse
quent operettas was totally different from that of the burlesque
theatre— it was the pretentious H ellenism of the A esthetic m ove
m ent, w hich they m ocked in Patience in 1881. T h e A esthetes w ere
by the late 1870s turnin g for inspiration less to m edieval sources
and m ore to G raeco-R om an statuary and the paintings of A lm a-
T ad em a,170 w hich certainly co n tributed to the death of classical
burlesque. W atching popular entertainers dressed up as ancient
G reeks perhaps seem ed less hilarious than w atching progressive
m em bers of the educated classes doing so in all seriousness.171
A related developm ent was the new fashion for academ ic G reek
plays, beginning w ith the Agam emnon perform ed in G reek at
O xford in 1880 (see C hs. 15 and 16). By the 1890s ‘Classical
theatricals’ indubitably m eant academ ic G reek plays; an anonym
ous com edy O ur Greek P lay, perform ed in 1892, sends up an
167 Ibid. 120. See also the ‘m etatheatrical’ chorus in Act I, where the chorus sing,
‘H ere’s a pretty tale for future Iliads and Odyssies, | M ortals are about to personate
the gods and goddesses.’
168 See Baily (1973), 38-9.
169 Mackinlay (1927), 214.
170 O rm ond (1968), 38. 171 See Stella M ary Newton (1974), 58.
erudite curate w ho organizes a ‘G reek play’ at his local stately
h o m e.1/2 T h e fun in this piece is no longer at the expense of the
conventions of classical literature, as in the burlesque theatre, but
of a new convention— the contem porary fashion for serious p er
form ances of classical tragedies.
CLASSICS BEYOND TH E ELITE

B urlesque was by no m eans the only m edium of entertainm ent
through w hich uneducated people had access to classical culture in
the nineteenth century. T h ere w ere other types of popular diver
sion w hich treated the classics w ith m ore or less insouciance.
E xtensive use of a kind of L atin, for exam ple, characterized the
fam ous ‘Judge and Ju ry Society’ ru n at the G arrick ’s H ead H otel
in Bow Street, L ondon, by the publican, R enton N icholson. T h is
society conducted subversive m ock trials based on celebrated cases
of the day. T h e half-educated N icholson had him self spent tim e in
gaol, and was thus fam iliar w ith judicial L atin .173 T h e trials had a
w orking-class tenor, for N icholson liked trials involving the p ri
vate lives of aristocrats, bestow ing upon them new titles such as the
H on. V iscount L im pus versus the H on. Priapus P u lv erto n .1/4 T h e
fem ale parts w ere acted by m ale transvestites, and N icholson, w ho
always acted the judge, entertained his dem otic audience by ex
tem porizing in stream s of am ateur L atin, especially w hen su m
m arizing w hat an observer denounced as the ‘filthy particulars’ of
the cases.175
W orking-class access to classical m yth and history included the
entertainm ents offered by travelling show m en. T h e fam ous Billy
Purvis took his booth theatre around the circuit of n o rth ern race
tracks, in w hich he displayed phantasm agorias illustrating scenes
from classical m ythology, such as N ep tun e in his car w ith A m phi-
trite and T rito n s; P u rv is’s tro up e of actors also perform ed p ara
phrases of plays on classical them es, including The D eath of
A lexander the Great, w hich had been the su b-title of N athaniel
L ee’s fam ous The R iva l Queens of 1677.176 T h e m ost fam ous of all
early circus perform ers, A ndrew D ucrow , specialized in ‘hippo-
172 Anon. (1892).
173 Bradley (1965), pp. xi, 250—1, 291.
174 Charles Douglas Stuart and Park (1895), 8—10.
175 Ritchie (185 7), 80. 176 Bowman (1875), 137; M ayer (1971), 27-34.
dram atic’ enactm ents of H ercules’ labours, of A lexander the G reat
tam ing B ucephalus, of the rape of the Sabine w om en, and R om an
gladiators in co m b at.177 M ost of these w ere perform ed at A stley’s
T h eatre in L ondon, w hich was heterogeneous in its clientele: it
had a large w orking-class audience, and yet m iddle-class fam ilies
also took their ch ild ren .178 In the unlikely event of any of the
audience becom ing bored during the action, they could raise
their eyes to the ceiling (renovated in 1858), adorned w ith pictures
of N eptune, D iana, Cybele, A pollo, D aw n, and V enus, all riding
chariots draw n by appropriate anim als (peacocks for V enus, deer
for D iana).179
A telling source for the variety of avenues by w hich the L o n
doner in the 1840s had access to classical m ythology is the diary of
C harles Rice, by day a lowly p o rter at the B ritish M useum , g u ard
ian of celebrated G raeco-R om an antiquities for the m iddle and
u p per classes, b u t by night a tavern singer in the public houses of
central L ondon. O n 19 F ebruary 1840, at the A dam & Eve in St
Pancras Road, he was engaged to p u t his know ledge of ancient
sculpture to profitable use by delivering notices accom panying M r
L ufkeen’s delineation of The Grecian Statues, a series of acrobatic
poses based on classical statuary (a routine originally popularized
by D ucrow ), including ‘H ercules w restling w ith the N em ean
L ion ’.180 L ufkeen and Rice w ere entertaining people from the
lowest incom e bracket, bu t the w ork of the m ore fam ous D ucrow
was also acceptable to m iddle-class taste: one educated review er
could com pare his athletic poses w ith the w ork of ancient G reek
sculptors:
W hat god-like grace in that volant m ovem ent, fresh from O lym pus . .. to
convert his fram e into such fo rm s... as the G reek im agination m oulded
into perfect expression of the highest state of the soul, that shows that
D ucrow has a spirit kindred to those who in m arble m ade their m ythology
im m ortal.
Y et this form of entertainm ent, in o ther contexts, soon d e
veloped pornographic associations. F rom the 1840s onw ards
w ell-developed fem ale m odels in skin-tight ‘fleshings’ could be
seen in the popular poses plastiques, in w hich they im itated naked
177 Saxon (1978), 73, 109, 47. 178 East (1971), 37.
179 I L N 33, no. 946 (20 Nov. 1858), 488, 490. 180 Senelick (1997), 44-5.
181 Q uoted in East (1971), 37.
classical statues for the delectation of audiences w hich contem por
ary critics regarded as including the ‘w orst so rt’ of p erso n .182
Tableaux vivants such as D iana Preparing fo r the Chase, at L iv er
pool’s P arthenon Room s in 1850, provided a narrative of eroticized
fem ale beauty in w hich proletarian sexual voyeurism was legitim
ized by the use of classical m ythology.183 O ne of the m ore im p o rt
ant directors of such events was the sam e enterprising R enton
N icholson of the ‘Judge and Ju ry ’ society, w ho hired w orking-
class girls to enact scenes from classical m yth w hich he accom pan
ied w ith m ock-learned ‘lectures’.184 A contem porary critic
regarded R enton’s poses plastiques as m orally reprehensible, and
was displeased th at w om en w ere allow ed to join the audience.185
P ublic house entertainm ent, circuses, hippodram a, fairground
theatre, and poses plastiques w ould all, therefore, bear fu rth er in
vestigation to see w hat they can tell us about the uses of classical
culture by the population beyond the educated elite in n ineteenth-
century B ritain. B ut none of these diversions was as ideologically
com plex, as rich, and as challenging to the m odern interp reter as
the dazzling, cheeky, and surprisingly erudite phenom enon of the
m id-V ictorian classical burlesque. F or this im portant genre of
popular theatre transcended narrow class interests, repudiated
classical education and yet at the sam e tim e appropriated the
m ore pleasurable parts of its contents for ordinary people, and
helped them define their m odernity. O ur picture of nineteenth-
century classicism in B ritain will therefore surely rem ain incom
plete until the burlesque theatre takes its place as a serious subject
of study alongside the canon of great literary responses to the
G reeks and R om ans produced by and for the classically educated
elite.
182 See H olstrom (1967); Altick (1978), 345-9; George Taylor (1989), 47.
183 Tracy C. Davis (1991), 125. 184 Bradley (1965), 298-9.
185 Ritchie (1857), 80.
14
Medea and M id-Victorian
Marriage Legislation
PROBLEM ATIC MEDEA

E u rip id es’ M edea has penetrated to parts of m odernity m ost m y th
ical figures have not reached. Since she first rolled off the p rinting
presses half a m illennium ago, she has inspired hu nd reds of p e r
form ances, plays, paintings, and o peras.1 M edea has m urdered her
way into a privileged place in the history of the im agination of the
W est, and can today com m and huge audiences in the com m ercial
theatre. Y et in B ritain, at least, her popularity on the stage is a
relatively recent phenom enon. M edea has transcended history
partly because she enacts a prim al terro r universal to hum an
beings: that the m other-figure should intentionally destroy her
ow n children. Y et this dim ension of the ancient tragedy was until
the tw entieth century found so d isturbing as largely to prevent
unadapted perform ances. O n the B ritish stage it was not until 1907
that E u rip id es’ M edea was perform ed, w ithout alteration, in E ng
lish translation (see Ch. 17).
A lthough M edea’s connection w ith the B ritish stage goes back to
at least the 1560s, w hen Seneca’s M edea was perform ed at C am
bridge U niversity,2 she only exerted a subterranean influence on
Renaissance, Jacobean, and R estoration tragedy.'1 It is instructive
to contem plate the reaction to Sim on M ay r’s opera M edea in
Corinto, w hich caused a stir at the K ing ’s T h eatre in L ondon in
1 For the growing literature on the reception of M edea see e.g. M im oso-Ruiz
(1982), Uglione (1997), Clauss and Johnston (1997), 3—5; Hall, M acintosh, and
T aplin (2000).
2 Boas (1914), appendix 4.
3 For the probable influence of Seneca’s Medea on Shakespeare, see Purkiss
(1996), 259. Lines and sentim ents identical to some in Euripides’ Medea are spoken
by both Livia and Isabella in Thom as M iddleton’s Women Beware Women (c.1620)
and Joyner’s The Roman Empress (1670); see above p. 11 n. 28. T he anonymous
female author of a tragedy featuring an oriental m urderess acted at Lincoln’s Inn
Fields in 1698 knew Euripides’ M edea: ‘A Young Lady’ (1698), 49.
392 M edea and M id - Victorian
1826-8 as a result of the perform ance of G iud itta Pasta in the title
role.4 B ritish audiences w ere able to tolerate ‘u n n atu ral’ deeds of
violence m ore happily in the opera house (especially if the p er
form ances w ere in Italian) than in the E nglish-speaking theatre.
B ut even in M ey er’s opera, M edea’s culpability is dim inished by
having her conceive her barbarous plans u n der pressure from Egeo
(A egeus).3 H enry C rabb R obinson saw Pasta in 1828, and recorded
that the effect of the m u rd er scene was ‘overpow ering’. H e
w ondered w hat a great tragedienne m ight have m ade of the role,
w hile observing th at of all ‘G recian fables’ this particular one ‘has
never flourished on the E nglish stage’.6
R obinson had a point. E u rip id es’ M edea had presented an
alm ost im possible challenge to eighteenth-century sentim ent,
w hich abhorred m others w ho intentionally killed their children
(see Ch. 3). T h e only successful B ritish M edea in that century
was R ichard G lover’s, perform ed at D ru ry L ane in 1767,
in w hich M edea was redesigned as a near-perfect m other sent
tem porarily insane. B ut another reason w hy G lover’s play was
a success was that A ct III offered the audience a spectacular
sorcery scene of the type w hich they enjoyed in ballets. T h e
m ost fam ous M ed ea-entertainm ent was Jean-G eorges N ov erre’s
stunning ballet M edee, first perform ed at the W iirttem berg court
in 1762, and subsequently enjoying tours to V ienna, W arsaw ,
Paris, Italy, St P etersburg, and E ngland. N overre drew on E u rip i
des and Seneca, but his M edea (unlike G lover’s) was a truly
superhum an w itch, w ith aw esom e m agical pow ers. T h is ballet
was popular at the K ing ’s T h eatre in L ondon, w here C ontinental
entertainm ents featuring the ‘su pern atu ral’ configuration of
M edea continued to be perform ed u ntil the beginning of the nine
teenth cen tury .7
Y et M edea was nearly invisible in the B ritish theatre for several
decades. It was only after 1845, and especially 1856, that a stream
of dram as on the them e began to flow and did not dry up until the
late 1870s. If the virginal T h eb an A ntigone was the G reek tragic
4 Edward FitzGerald, letter of 16 June 1872, in FitzG erald (1889), i. 340

Anon. (1826). T he audience was provided with an Italian text and facing
English translation; in the latter he was called ‘CEgeus’ (ibid. 13, 19, etc.).
6 Robinson (1872), ii. 56. On Pasta’s perform ance see M argaret Reynolds (2000),
132—6, with fig. 10.
7 Noverre (1804), pp. iii f.; Roberdeau (1804), 34 and n.; G uest (1972), 150.
M arriage Legislation 393
figure who dom inated the 1840s and early 1850s (see Ch. 12), by
1857 she had relinquished ground to the abandoned m other from
Colchis. T h e heroine who represented the sanctity of fam ilial ties
was displaced by the one w ho represented their desecration. A n
exem plary fem ale who excited adm iration gave place to one who
inspired at best pity and at w orst revulsion. M edea was every
w here— in serious spoken tragedy, w itty sung burlesque, and p ro
letarian spectacular. She appeared in venues ranging from the
elegant O lym pic to the dow nm arket G recian Saloon. F or the first
tim e in this book a single G reek tragedy produced, w ithin the space
of a few years, a greater n u m b er of separate perform ed adaptations
in E nglish than any other G reek tragedy inspired during the entire
period 1660-1914.
In this chapter we shall discuss no few er than nine different
M edea dram as perform ed in B ritain betw een 1845 and the 1870s,
introducing num erous w om en perform ers w ho im personated
M edea (several of them foreigners, like E u rip id es’ Black Sea h ero
ine), along w ith a handful of m en. B ut above all we shall seek to
explain the causes— and som e effects— of this m id-V ictorian th e
atrical epidem ic. Sudden interest in a m yth previously regarded as
troublesom e dem ands explanation, and it will be found in thinking
about changes in the social perception of the actress, in conven
tions of theatrical transvestism , and in the early appearance of
‘fem inist’ ideas about w om en’s need for independence, prefiguring
by decades those m ore com m only associated w ith the N ew W om an
of Ib sen ’s dram as. T h e V ictorian burlesque M edea did things few
heroines in other im aginary contexts could yet dare or achieve—
she extracted herself, trium phantly, from a ruined m arriage, while
succeeding in keeping her sons alive, or cunningly coerced her
h usband into m ending his ways, or took the initiative to corres
pond w ith her love rival over financial arrangem ents, or argued
w ith cogency, w it, and panache that w om en’s lot was iniquitous.
T ragic dram atists, on the other hand, used m ore som bre m eans to
show how all the econom ic and legal cards w ere stacked against
w om en like M edea, who therefore deserved pity rath er than con
dem nation. T h e story of the V ictorian M edea is sufficiently com
plicated to require relating in chronological sequence, partly
because the plays tend to com m ent on their predecessors in a
self-conscious intertextual m anner. B ut the shape of the narrative
is above all determ ined by the m ost im portant reason for the
394 M edea and M id- Victorian
centrality of M edea at this tim e: the passing of an epochal series of
new laws regulating m atrim ony.
TH E IM PO S SIB IL IT Y OF DIVORCE
It now seem s astonishing th a t divorce was not a live issue in
m ainstream E nglish culture until the m iddle of the nineteenth
century, w hen the law of divorce still follow ed the canon law
derived from Rom e. All other P rotestant countries in E urope,
including Scotland, and in the A m erican colonies, had long m ade
legal provision for divorce. Y et it was not possible in E ngland
except by a private A ct of Parliam ent, an extrem ely unusual
m easure available only to the very rich and alm ost exclusively to
m en.8 Its rarity is illustrated by the A rchbishop of C an terb u ry ’s
lam ent in 1809 that the divorce rate had risen to a scandalous three
a year!9 A long w ith the absence of a divorce law, the eighteenth
century gave fathers absolute rights to custody of children of a
m arriage, regardless of w hich spouse was at fault and regardless of
the age of the children. F athers could also ban all contact betw een
children and their m others. T h is situation explains w hy E u rip id es’
M edea, who is determ ined th a t her h usband is to have no pow er
over th eir children, had to be so radically altered before the n in e
teenth century. It w ould have m ade m uch m ore unpalatable
view ing in such an ideological environm ent than in fifth-century
A thens, w here divorce was practised, even if, as M edea com
plained, it was not ‘respectable’ for w om en (236—7).
By the 1830s, how ever, hum anitarians w ere at last questioning the
absolute right of fathers to bar m others from all access to their
children, and the case of the celebrated C aroline N o rto n sw ung
public opinion in m o th ers’ favour. N orton, as the beautiful g ran d
daughter of the dram atist R ichard Brinsley Sheridan, cam e from a
fam ily that has been encountered several tim es in the course of this
book. She had her children forcibly rem oved by her jealous husband,
who in 1836 accused no lesser m an than the Prim e M inister, L ord
M elbourne, of adultery w ith his wife. A lthough the ju ry dism issed
the case, M r N orton cruelly exercised his right to bar his wife from all
access to her children until they reached the age of m ajo rity.10 In
8 Shanley (1981-2), 357. 9 W olfram (1987), 147.

10 Shanley (1989), 22-5; Chedzoy (1992), 170-3.
1837 the radical M P for R eading, T hom as T alfo urd (see Ch. 11),
introduced the In fan t C ustody Act. It was passed in 1839, at last
m aking it possible for w om en to receive custody of children under
seven, and visitation rights thereafter. T h e A ct is now seen as a
w atershed; for the first tim e it ‘stripped traditional unlim ited p atri
archal authority from the fath er’, and heralded all the reform ing acts
concerned w ith divorce and w om en’s p roperty w hich w ere to
follow .11 It also precipitated a debate on m arriage and w om en’s
rights w hich was to increase in im portance over the next decades.
T alfo u rd ’s patron L ord B rougham tried to reform divorce p ro
cedure in 1844.12 B ut there w ere fears that it w ould lead to the
im poverishm ent of abandoned wives and children. T h e debate in
parliam ent certainly inform ed various passages in the first of the
n ineteen th -cen tury M edea plays, P lanche’s The Golden Fleece; or,
Jason in Colchis and M edea in Corinth. T h is im portant dram a,
based on G rillparzer as well as E uripides and first perform ed in
1845 following the M endelssohn Antigone (see Ch. 12), inaug u r
ated a tradition of entertainm ents based on the M edea m yth w hich
lasted throu gh o u t the period of m atrim onial legislation, culm inat
ing in Jason and M edea: A Ram ble after a Colchian in 1878. In flu
enced by P lanche’s play, this burlesque was perform ed at the
G arrison T h eatre in W oolw ich tow ard the end of the fashion for
Classical b u rlesq u e.13 Planche’s The Golden Fleece was itself regu
larly revived after its first production in 1845, not least because of
the increasing topicality of M edea’s predicam ent.
TH E E N T ER PR ISIN G MEDEA OF THE

ENGLISH G OLDEN FLEECE
W hen the N ew W om an em erged in the dram a at the end of the
nineteenth century, one of the arenas in w hich she had been
prefigured in reality was, ironically enough, the acting profession.
T h e idea (not of course historically confined to V ictorian Britain)
that the prim a donna enjoyed unusual freedom was w idely ex
pressed in w om en’s fiction, journals, and m em oirs,14 and the ac
tress seem s to have enjoyed a sim ilarly privileged and/or
11 See Stone (1995), 178.

12 See ‘D ivorce’, The Law Review, 1 (1844—5), 353—81.
13 Addison and Howell (1872). 14 R utherford (1992).
396 M edea and M id-V ictorian
exceptional status. O ne such exam ple was the acting career of
H elen T ay lo r (stepdaughter of John S tu art M ill and daughter of
H elen T ay lo r M ill), w hich she pu rsued from the 1850s onw ards in
o rder to secure her independence. H elen Faucit, the fam ous
D ublin and E din b u rg h A ntigone, even m anaged to com bine
fam e w ith dom estic stability. O ne of the m ost striking features of
P lanche’s The Golden Fleece is the interplay betw een the dom inant,
pow erful figure of M edea the heroine, and the social identity of the
prom in ent actress-m anager, Eliza V estris, w ho played her.
V estris had becom e the first w om an to m anage a L ondon theatre
w hen she took over m anagem ent of the O lym pic T h eatre in 1831.
T ogether w ith Planche, V estris had staged the first of the classical
burlesques that w ere to prove so popular during the course of the
century (see Chs. 12 and 13); and her dark features and exotic
(Regency) past as a diva in Italian opera m ade her a suitable choice
for M edea, w hom she played ‘according to the approved style of
dishevelled tresses and severe costum e’.15 B ut it was not only her
previous professional appearances as prim a donna that m arked her
out as a free w om an; she could also be said to em body the ind e
pendence of m ind and body th at the role of M edea entailed in her
professional life beyond the stage. In her first curtain speech at the
O lym pic she proudly proclaim ed:
N oble and gentle— m atrons— patrons— friends!
Before you here a ventr’ous w om an bends!
A w arrior wom an— that in strife em barks
T h e first of all dram atic Joan of Arcs.
C heer on the enterprise thus dared by me!
T he first that ever led a company.
M adam e V estris (as she was som ew hat reverentially and exotic-
ally know n) took the p art of M edea in P lanche’s The Golden Fleece,
b u t as a regular actress in burlesque, her m ost com m on role was
the breeches part. In P lanche’s extravaganza she played opposite
Priscilla H orton as Jason, w ho (as we have seen) was like M adam e
V estris renow ned above all for her shapely legs.17 T h e reluctance
on the p art of V ictorian journalists to m ention m ale im personation
in interview s w ith the actresses has led com m entators to w onder
w hether this signals its relative unim portance or its perilous
15 IL N 6, no. 152 (29 M ar. 1845), 200. 16 Cited by Auerbach (1987), 58.
17 Fletcher (1987), 9.
n atu re.18 It m ay well be that ‘[t]ransexual casting was one way to
give w om en the sort of m ythic adventures [others im agined]’.19
F or like the N ew W om an of the 1890s, w hen Priscilla H orton
perform ed in P lanche’s burlesque of M edea, she w ore unfem inine
garb: not m ale attire, bu t a costum e that was sym bolically different
from the volum inous V ictorian petticoats. T herefore the burlesque
actress was not only a w om an of independent m eans throu g h her
p u rsuit of a career: by being clad in a costum e that foreshadow ed
the fam ous knickerbockers of the fin de siecle, she enjoyed a free
dom of m ovem ent that the norm ally restricted fem ale body could
never hope to share.
T h e recent T h eatre R egulation A ct of 1843 had concerned itself,
am ongst other things, w ith the dangers inh eren t in the am biguity
of cross-dressed roles. It has been suggested that it m ay be possible
to see a subversive consciousness at play beyond the evident sex-
appeal of the m ale im personations.20 If we look at The Golden
Fleece— and indeed the o ther burlesques of M edea w here m en too
(to borrow From a Z eitlin ’s phrase) ‘play the O th e r’21— it is clear
that there is, at least on som e occasions, a serious m anipulation of
V ictorian gender boundaries in the cross-dressed roles, w hich
raises questions th at com e to dom inate the stage at the tu rn of
the century (see Ch. 17).
If M edea the outsider transgressed boundaries, so too did
M adam e V estris; b u t unlike her G reek persona, Eliza V estris
crossed boundaries w ith pioneering spirit and apparently w ithout
blam e.22 F or the success of The Golden Fleece was partly due to the
piquancy of its casting of a publicly celebrated couple, soon to be
m arried (the second tim e for M adam e V estris)— the exotic for
eigner and C harles M athew s, an E nglish public-schoolboy— as
M edea and T h e C horus respectively.23
In a rew rite of the plot, M edea tu rn s out to have deceived both
chorus and audience by m erely p retending to have ‘flogged’ her
boys. Planche, as he explains in his A rgum ent to the play, has
chosen to ‘redeem the character of the unfo rtu n ate hero ine’ and
follow the historian A elian in m aintaining that the E uripidean
account of M edea’s infanticide was w ritten follow ing a bribe
18 Bratton (1992), 87. 19 Fletcher (1987), 31.

20 Bratton (1992), 88; Senelick (1993), 82. 21 Zeitlin (1996).
22 A ppleton (1974). 23 Ibid. 159-61; George Taylor (1989), 71-2.
from the C orinthians, w ho w ere them selves the guilty p arty .24
Like G rillparzer, Planche chooses to inform his audience of the
p re-history of M edea in order to present her case in the m ost
sym pathetic light. In P art I not only do we see Jason’s u tter
dependency on M edea for his early successes, we also learn that
it was Jason, not M edea, w ho killed A psyrtus w hen he 'L e t fly a
blow that w ould have felled an ox— | Black’d both his precious
eyes, before so blue, | A nd from his nose the vital claret drew ’.25
Planche, w ith his m ale chorus of one, has of necessity done away
w ith the ‘W om en of C o rin th ’ speech, replacing the general com
plaint of the E uripidean M edea w ith an account of personal griev
ance sung to the tune of ‘T h e Fine Y oung English G en tlem an ’.
T h is M edea has to p u t up w ith her absentee husband, w ho aban
dons h er and the children to a dubious fate in cram ped lodgings,
w hilst he is happily ensconced in the palace, lavishly entertaining
his royal m istress. B ut this poor M edea (because of the absence of
divorce legislation) cannot be shot of her thankless burden:
H e leaves m e to darn his stockings, and m ope in the house all day,
W hilst he treats her to see ‘A ntigone’, w ith a box at the
G recian play,
T hen goes off to sup w ith C orinthian T om , or whoever,
he m eets by the way,
A nd staggers hom e in a state of beer, like
(I’m quite asham ed to say)
A fine young G recian gentlem an,
O ne of the classic time.
M oreover, Planche’s m ale C horus, far from being sym pathetic to
M edea’s plight, delivers a deeply m isogynistic view of the perils of
C upid on a young m an ’s heart in the place of the E uripidean ode in
praise of m oderation.27
H ow ever, P lanche’s handling of the events of the plot w ould
seem to fly in the face of the C h o ru s’s assessm ent. N o t only does
his M edea draw the line at internecine killing, b u t she has little
difficulty in w inning over the audience to her side w ith an adver
sary in Jason, w ho is a drunken, cow ardly, and serial philanderer.
A nd w hen she turns to the audience in the last m om ents of the play
to appeal to the G ran d Ju ry — a punn in g plea, both to continue the
24 Aelian, Historical Miscellany 5. 21. 25 Planche (1845), 158.
26 Ibid. 161. 27 Ibid. 167-8; cf. Euripides, Medea 627-62.
theatrical ru n and to reach a judicial settlem ent in favour of the
w ronged w om an— there is little doubt th at the audience’s sym pa
thies are expected to lie w ith h er.28
A t the end of The Golden Fleece M edea triu m p hs in the
sense that she takes the children, alive and well, off to A thens in
h er chariot. B ut on the o ther h and she is the abandoned, ill-used
wife, w atching her h u sband alienated from herself and his children
by his passion for G lauce. T h e dram a thus explores, in a com ic
vein, the plight of w ives should divorce becom e accessible to h u s
bands w ho had tired of them . W hen Jason is annoyed w ith M edea’s
nagging, she says that he threatens her w ith ‘getting a Scotch d i
vorce’.29 F or w hile Jason w ould have found it virtually im possible
to divorce M edea in E ngland, divorce was already cheaply available
in Scotland on the grounds of both adultery and d esertio n .30 M ari
tal breakdow n is thus explicitly figured in The Golden Fleece as a
contentious issue, even w hile its pow erful leading actress was
know n to be about to enter m atrim ony w ith its leading actor. By
1850 the m ore general issue of w om en’s status— ‘the w om an ques
tio n ’, as it was called— began to dom inate public debate;31 it was
decided to set up a Royal C om m ission to investigate the problem of
the non-existent divorce law.
M EDEA AT TH E GRECIAN SALOON

T h e inauguration of the Royal C om m ission on D ivorce in 1850 is
reflected in the spectacular entertain m en t by Jack W ooler, Jason
and M edea: A Comic. Heroic. Tragic. Operatic. Burlesque-Spec
tacular E xtravaganza, perform ed at the proletarian G recian
Saloon in 1851.32 Like the plays by G rillparzer and Planche, Jack
W ooler’s Jason and M edea begins w ith the events narrated in the
th ird book of A pollonius R hodius’ epic Argonautica. W hereas
Planche com ically alludes to the stage conventions of G reek tra
gedy w hen he avoids enacting the capture of the fleece (‘Y ou’ll
think, perhaps, you should have seen him do it | B ut ’tisn ’t clas
sical— y o u’ll hear, not view it’),33 W ooler chooses to entertain his
audience w ith the very spectacles that Planche so tantalizingly
28 Planche (1845), 170-1. 29 Ibid. (1845), 20-1. 30 Stone (1995), 351.

31 Cvetkovich (1992), 46; C hristopher Parker (1995), 2. 32 W ooler (1851).
33 Planche (1845), 155.
denies. A ct I alone shifts from the clouds above O lym pus, to a
rocky and desolate island (w here the A rgonauts have landed), to
the city of A ietes (w ith the E uxine Sea behind), all w ith the help of
M ercu ry ’s w and. It then m oves on to H ecate’s tem ple at M edea’s
behest (‘M elt tow er and town! Rise, H ecate’s shrine! behold!’),34
before passing through the Field of M ars, the dragon’s lair and
ending up at the p o rt from w hich the A rgo escapes.
H ow ever, as w ith P lanche’s treatm en t of the m yth, the m ost
notable effect of including the background to the events in C orinth
is to enhance M edea’s case. A t the end of A ct I, w hen Jason has
overcom e the dragon w ith M edea’s aid, he proclaim s, parodying a
Byronic rhym e:3'’
T he fleece is mine— and it shall ever be a
Pledge of m y passion for m y own M edea.
B ut as soon as they arrive in Colchis, the philan d erer takes the
decision to break his pledge, to the popular tune of ‘Jeanette and
Jean o t’:
Com e conscience— I have loved you full a year
O ne can’t be constant constantly m y dear.36
Y et W ooler’s M edea has show n herself to be a m atch for m ale
tyranny from the first act, w hen she sings a song in defiance of her
father’s threats of restraint:
If all girls had m y spirit— they w ouldn’t thus be done—
I’d rather wed our butcher boy than ever be a nu n .37
Jason in C orinth seem s to have forgotten M edea’s pow ers of so r
cery, w hich enabled her to stage m anage events for h im in A ct I,
and w hich assist her now in m elting tow ers and tow ns, and co n ju r
ing devils in a darkened w ood. Like G rillp arzer’s M edea, W ooler’s
heroine is pushed to the lim its by the savage cruelties of a Jason,
who deliberately flaunts his latest conquest. Even C reusa pities
34 W ooler (1851), 287.

35 See Lord Byron (1970), 34: ‘Translation of T he N urse’s Dole in the Medea of
Euripides’ (June 1810): ‘Oh how I wish that an embargo | H ad kept in port the good
ship Argo! | W ho, still unlaunch’d from Grecian docks, | H ad never pass’d the
Azure rocks; | But now I fear her trip will be a | D am n’d business for my Miss
M edea’; cf. above, pp. 356-7.
36 W ooler (1851), 290,299.
37 Ibid. 28.
M edea’s public hum iliation, although her pity com es too late to
avoid the w rath of M edea, w ho contrives for her a com busted,
onstage end. T h is M edea m erely kills her rival, not her own (here
absent) children. T riu m p h an t M edea m agics herself away into the
ether w ith the help of a w hite sheet, leaving a cursing Jason to fall
and fatally crack his head. In the final m om ents of W ooler’s play
she re-em erges at the back of the stage in a chariot, agreeing to
revive Jason w ith the G olden Fleece if he will only take her back as
wife. T h e revived Jason ends the play w ith these u tterly im plaus
ible lines:
M y own dear M edea, all your grief is past
You were m y first love and shall be m y last.38
M arriage here at all costs is to be favoured over desertion, because
in 1851 an abandoned M edea still had no fu ture w hatsoever. Like
Planche, W ooler here offers to som e extent a patriarchal study of a
w om an in extremis, in w hich the m asculinity of her adversary is
how ever som ew hat m uted and com prom ised by the fact th at Jason
is a breeches role. In the final analysis, W ooler’s extravaganza
evades the plight of the separated wife, attem pting to negate the
real social im plications of the ancient m yth, by reuniting Jason and
M edea at its conclusion.
L E G O U V E ’S M E D E A (1 8 5 6 )
W hen the bill w hich was finally to introduce divorce arrived in
parliam ent in 1856, fem inists and their m ale supporters agitated
feverishly. F irst, they drew attention to the sexual double standard
im plied by the b ill’s differential treatm en t of possible grounds for
divorce for m en and for w om en, and secondly, they pointed out the
terrible hardship caused by m arried w om en’s inability to hold
property in their own nam e. O n m arriage a m an assum ed all legal
rights over his w ife’s property. W orse, he ow ned any p roperty she
assum ed thereafter, including earnings, rents, and incom e. T h is
led to the iniquitous situation in w hich even abandoned wives w ere
forced to hand over their m oney for the rem ainder of their lives.
T h ey w ere also debarred from rem arriage since divorce was im
possible. T h e debate continued throu g h o u t 1856 and both sessions
38 Ibid. 308.
of 1857, becom ing m ore im passioned as the m onths w ore on. T h e
bill cam e, correctly, to be perceived as a m easure w hich w ould alter
the legal status of w om en in an unprecedented m ann er.39 A nd
during the years 1856—7, M edea, the abandoned wife and m other
of G reek m yth, becam e one of the m ost ubiquitous heroines on the
L ondon stage.
If G rillparzer’s M edea lurked behind the burlesques of Planche
and W ooler, in 1856—7 it was partly a F ran co -Italian conception of
the heroine that fuelled the topical enthusiasm for her plight. In
June 1856 the diva A delaide R istori b ro u gh t an Italian translation
of E rnest L egouve’s new tragedy M edea to the L yceum (F ig . 14.1).
L egouve’s play spoke directly to the hearts of the L ondon public,
now so exercised by the reporting of the parliam entary debate on
divorce, precisely because, as one review er noted, Legouve had
m ade the ancient heroine m uch m ore accessible, tender, and p iti
able. H e had eschew ed ‘the grandeur of the E uripidean hero ine’
and had ‘contented him self w ith the dom estic interest of her m is
fortunes. T h e deserted wife, the distressed m other, alone
rem ained’.40
L egouve’s three-act F ren ch adaptation draw s on E uripides, al
though diluting M edea’s responsibility for the deaths of her sons.
She kills them , b u t her m otive is changed to an altruistic desire to
prevent the C orinthians from subjecting them to a crueller death
w hen they discover that she has m urd ered Jason’s new wife.
Legouve aim ed to do for M edea w hat Racine had done for E u rip i
des’ Iphigenia and Phaedra; he defined his w ork as ‘collaboration’
by a ‘tem porary p a rtn er’ w ith the original G reek m an of genius.41
T h e tragedy was w ritten for M adam e R achel, the fam ous French
actress w hose perform ance in R acine’s Phedre was held in in te r
national awe. B ut Rachel rejected the role of M edea on the ground
that this heroine was ‘u n n atu ral’, despite L egouve’s am elioration
of her crim e.42
Indeed, the role of M edea repelled m any actresses, w ho feared
that her reputation m ight becom e confused w ith their own.
Legouve, frustrated, offered the p art to A delaide R istori, R achel’s
39 Shanley (1989), 158.
40 IL N 29, no. 811 (19 July 1856), 65. T he reviewer was probably John H eraud
(see below).
41 Legouve (1893), ii. 47-8.
42 Genevieve W ard and W hiting (1918), 187.
F i g u r e 14.1 Adelaide R istori as M edea w ith her children, in Ernest

Legouve’s adaptation, c.1856.
Italian rival, who had also h itherto avoided acting M edea. She
explained to her public the reason w hy she had rejected the
M edea of 1814 by the D uca della Valle:
N ature having gifted m e w ith a high sense of m aternal love . .. I could not
present such a m onstrosity on the stage, and in spite of the pressing
requests of m y m anagers to interpret that role I was unable to overcome
m y aversion to it.43
B ut she agreed to do the L egouve version, because he ‘had
discovered a way to m ake the killing of the children appear both
ju st and necessary’.44 Indeed, throu g h o u t the last p art of
L egouve’s play, there is never any d o ub t th at M edea’s love for
her children exceeds her hatred for Jason. R istori took her im p er
sonation of M edea all over the globe, along w ith her o ther virtuoso
roles— M arie A ntoinette and both queens (althouth not sim ultan
eously) in S chiller’s M aria S tu a rt. B ut M edea was the heroine she
invariably perform ed on tour, in Spain, Portugal, N o rth A m erica,
A rgentina, and Brazil in addition to the m ost fam ous pro d uctio n in
L ondon in the sum m er of 1856.45
R istori was tall and statuesque, w ith chestnut hair, and acted
M edea in an im itation chiton and long blue cloak (Fig. 14.2). She
was p ro ud of the ‘attitu des’ she struck, for w hich she had studied
the N iobe groups in the U ffizi M useum in F lorence.46 H er M edea
was adm ired by all w ho enjoyed neoclassical theatre, including
G eorge H enry Lew es, w ho later w rote that the actress ‘com pletely
conquered’ him in the role: ‘T h e exquisite grace of her attitudes,
the m ournful beauty of her voice, the flash of her w rath and the air
of suprem e distinction w hich seem s native to her, gave a charm to
this perform ance w hich is unforgettable’.47
M A R K L E M O N ’S L I B E L L E D L A D Y
M edea had appeared in French burlesques since at least the early
eighteenth century; C h erub in i’s opera M edee (1797) alone had
inspired three parodies.48 It is this tradition that lies behind the
43 Ristori (1907), 175 . 44 Ibid.

45 Ibid. 42—3, 59, 72, 80, 107. T he translation, by Joseph M ontanelli, was
published to accompany R istori’s London perform ance, offering a parallel English
version by Thom as Williams: Medea: A Tragedy in Three A cts (London, 1856).
46 Ristori (1907), 179-81.
47 Lewes (1875), 44, 145.
48 Medea had been the anti-heroine in the parody of Longepierre’s Medee by
D om inique and Biancolelli, La Mechante Femme (1728); the Cherubini burlesques
were C. Sewrin’s La Sorciere (27 M arch), P. A. Capelle and P. Villiers’s Bebe et
Jargon (Theatre M ontasier, 28 M arch) and Citizen Bizet and H. Chaussier’s Medee
ou THopital des fous (Theatre de l’Ambigu, 15 April). See Travers (1941), 27, 111;
M acintosh (2000a), 12, (20006), 84.
A D E L A I D E R1S TOR1 AS M E D E A
F i g u r e 14.2 Adelaide R istori as M edea striking an attitude, in Ernest

Legouve’s adaptation, c. 1856.
appearance, shortly after L egouve’s tragedy had opened to great
acclaim at the T h eatre Italien in Paris on 8 A pril 1856, of the
burlesque of C ogniard, G range, and B ourdois entitled L a M edee
en N anterre (T h eatre des V arietes, 9 June). It is the m ultilingual
layers of the perform ance— that a F rench version of a G reek
tragedy is now being perform ed in an Italian translation in Paris—
that provide the source of m uch am usem ent. Sim ilarly, the fact
that the L ondon audience was being treated to an Italian tran sla
tion of a F rench version of a G reek tragedy did not escape the wit
of E nglish w riters. T w o burlesques reacting to R istori’s play
opened sim ultaneously on 14 July. T h e one at the A delphi was
by M ark L em on, the editor of Punch, and was entitled M edea; or, a
Libel on the L a d y o f Colchis. In its prologue C reon explains:
If your Italian scholarship’s com plete
A nd you can pay a guinea for your seat
Go, and applaud an artist truly grand
And don’t be proud because you understand.
But if your stock of choice Italian’s small
A nd the wife wants the guinea tow ards her shawl
Y ou’re better w here you are— Y ou’ll get a notion
O f w hat has throw n the tow n into com m otion.
W hile our M edea here is doubly strong
I t’s twice as m oral, and not half as long.49
T h a t L em o n ’s M edea is ‘twice as m oral’ is open to doubt, b u t it is
true that his audience is being offered a rem arkably close rendering
of L egouve’s version, albeit in another key.
B ut there the sim ilarities betw een the F ren ch burlesque and
L em o n ’s seem to end. In L a M edee en N anterre the characters
are all attached to a circus troupe, w ith C reon as the m anager of
the acrobats and C reuse as the high-w ire dancer; M edee is a
fortune-teller and Jason earns his living as a fairground w restler.50
W hilst L em on’s acrobatic and knifethrow ing Jason bears m ore
than a passing resem blance to his F ren ch counterpart, the two
English burlesques generally enjoy a m uch closer relationship
w ith their tragic sources.
L em o n ’s protagonist is hardened by the experience of poverty
and toil, and has little dem onstrable feeling for the children. W hen
Jason says that the children ‘w eigh im m ensely on m y m in d ’,
M edea com plains:
A nd so they ought, for it’s three years old chap
Since for those kids you’ve paid a single rap—
It’s difficult to say w hat brats were m ade for
Unless to teach us ‘C hildren m ust be paid for.’51
49 Lem on (1856), 1. 50 M im oso-Ruiz (1978), 485.
51 Lem on (1856), 26.
A fter Jason has threatened M edea w ith deportation (he cannot
afford the £2,000 necessary for a divorce) and claim ed custody of
the children, M edea begins to execute her revenge. W hen G lauce
com es to w arn M edea of her im m inent deportation, the princess’s
altruistic m otives are m isconstrued by M edea, w hose avenging
h and fatally daubs her victim ’s cheeks w ith black (poisonous)
face-paint. W hen the police arrive w ith a w arrant for M edea’s
arrest, Jason announces his intention of sending the children to
boarding school. M edea calls the boys over to bid them farewell,
and in a startling and unprecedented coup de theatre, she stabs
them both onstage for all to see:
Stay stop a w ord or two
C hildren come hither I am sent away
A nd therefore I have only this to say
T h at if your father thinks he’s served me out
H e’ll alter his opinion I’ve no doubt—
As witness this and this. [Stafts children there and noro]
T h e ‘m oral’, to w hich the Prologue refers, is the deeply ironic
coda th at is self-consciously appended to L em o n ’s play. Jason
unconvincingly claims to M edea:
Yes, had you kept this business off your hands
A nd like G riselda bowed to my com m ands,
I had forgiven you for my past desertion
A nd spent m y life w ith you w ithout coercion.
M edea apologizes for any ‘aggravation’ she has caused, pays rep
aration by restoring b o th G lauce (w ith the aid of a dam p towel) and
her boys (by ordering them to ‘look alive’). She is then m iracu
lously united in em brace w ith Jason, proclaim ing her ow n (signifi
cantly unreciprocated) undying love.
W hilst L em o n ’s play apparently raises questions m erely to side
step them in the final m om ents, w hat is new in his burlesque is an
attem pt to provide an exploration of, as well as an explanation for,
the hardening of feelings in M edea. T h e burlesque explores the
social reality w hich M edea w ould encounter if abandoned in V ic
torian L ondon rather than archaic C orinth. M edea has been forced
into training her children in pickpocketing because ‘one’s vile
husband no allow ance m akes’.34 Jason threatens to have her
52 Ibid. 16. 53 Ibid. 17. 54 Ibid. 6.
arrested, and dem ands she agree to a divorce, saying he will only
su pp o rt the children if she does so. E ven the com ic defence of
L em o n ’s M edea by O rpheus in A ct I has its serious edge:
A w om an’s face grows haggard who reflects
All day upon her husband’s base neglects.
A nd it don’t m end her tem per to consider
T h at th o ’ a wife she’s lonely as a widder.
As for the other charges you have filed
M y classical L othario— draw it m ild.55
Indeed, the plot of L em o n ’s burlesque h it too close to hom e. A nd
although W right was noted as one of the finest com edians of his
generation, as a m ale p erform er im personating M edea, he played
all too naturalistically. O ne review er rem arked that in M r W rig h t’s
M edea the audience saw only ‘the w ronged wife, the w retched
w om an, dem anding sym pathy, and forbidding lau gh ter’.56 D i
vorce, after all, was not yet a possibility in England.
R O B E R T B R O U G H ’S B E S T O F M O T H E R S
T h e partisan subtitle of the other B ritish burlesque of the
L egouve-R istori tragedy th a t year, w hich opened at the O lym pic,
was The Best o f M others, with a B rute of a Husband. Its author,
R obert B rough, thus located it contentiously w ithin the debate
about the abuse of w om en by hom e-abandoning husbands. Even
the program m e announced its connection w ith legislative co n tro
versy: the setting of Scene i, ‘A Palace near C o rin th ’, is described
as staging the ‘Factitious O pposition to a Proposed M easure for
L egalizing M arriage w ith a N on-D eceased W ife’s R ival.’57 O rp h
eus defends M edea: ‘W hen wives are bad, the husbands are to
blam e’, w arning Jason that his intention is illegal and am ounts to
bigam y; b u t Jason is defiant, telling the m instrel that ‘the m arriage
tie’s no noose to m e’.58
Like L em on, B rough places great em phasis on the pen u ry to
w hich M edea and the children have been reduced, as they too are
55 Lem on (1856), 5. S6 IL N 29, no. 811 (19 July 1856), 65.
57 For the program m e see Robert Brough (1856). T he joke refers to yet another
legislative controversy concerned w ith marriage, the long-running attem pt to
remove the ban on a m an m arrying his deceased wife’s sister. Bills on this issue
had been debated and defeated in both 1849 and 1856. See Shanley (1989), 41.
38 R obert Brough (1856), 8—10.
forced to beg for their survival. M edea’s begging p atter starts as a
rew rite of the ‘W om en of C o rin th ’ speech before taking on a life of
its own, in w hich the pathos engendered alm ost eclipses the com ic
realization th at M edea is offering a kind of confidence trick to the
passers-by:
M y G recian friends, w ith deep hum iliation
I stand in this disgraceful situation,
T hough unaccustom ’d publicly to speak,
I have not tasted food since T uesday week.
T hree sets of grinders out of work you see,
T hrough the invention of m achinery.
A landlord, as inclem ent as the w eather,
Has seiz’d our flock bed— we were out of feather.
Shoeless and footsore, I’ve through m any lands
W alked, w ith this pair of kids upon m y hands.
T he tear of infancy requests you’ll stop it—
{looking round) Bother! there’s no one looking at us— drop it!59
Jason subsequently explains to her that he will perm it her to
rem arry anyone th at she pleases, for ‘O ur separation equals a
divorce’. T h e burlesque enacts in ancient C orinth the type of
scenario w hich m any feared the divorce bill, if m ade law, w ould
precipitate. Jason insists th a t M edea m ust send him the boys as
soon as they are old enough to educate, a reference to the right
fathers had to custody over the age of 7. In the event this burlesque
saves the lives of both C reon’s new bride and M edea’s children,
w hile leaving anxiously suspended the issue of M edea’s future. But
C reusa prom ises that she will ensure that M edea gets perm anent
custody of the children, and th at she receives sufficient m oney.
T h e w om en thus find a way around the problem s inflicted on them
uby m en. 60
If we seem to be discussing too earnestly the social significance
of w hat was an inherently light-hearted com ic genre, it is im p o rt
ant to be aware th at the V ictorians them selves took it seriously.
T h e M edea burlesques are often discussed alongside the Italian-
language tragedy as if there w ere little generic difference betw een
the perform ances. Indeed, w hat is striking about English tragedy
and burlesque in general at this tim e is the extent to w hich the
separate genres becom e interm eshed in the m inds of audiences.
59 Ibid. 11. 60 Ibid. 22-3, 33.
G eorge H enry L ew es’s com m ents on R istori’s perform ance, p ar
tially quoted above, are illustrative in this regard. Lew es recalls of a
revival of this production that w hen R istori ‘co nquered’ him in the
role of M edea, ‘the conquest was all the m ore noticeable, because it
triu m p hed over the im pressions previously received from R obson’s
burlesque im itation’.61 T h e inference, of course, is that Lew es did
not see R istori as M edea during her first L ondon tour, w hereas he
had seen and been overw helm ed by the burlesque perform ance of
R obert B rough. B ut since R obson’s perform ance is here cited along
side th at of a leading tragedienne of the E uropean stage, L ew es’s
com m ents are also testim ony to the pow er and seriousness of R o b
son’s burlesque interp retatio n of the role. A nd the illustrations bear
testim ony to the uncanny resem blances betw een the tw o actors as
they perform ed M edea (com pare Fig. 14.3 w ith 14.2 above).
Elsew here Lew es explains the success of a revival of P lanche’s
The Golden Fleece w ith reference to the extraordinary self-discip
line of the actors, w ho w ere able to engender both hilarity and
credulity in the audience at one and the sam e tim e. B urlesque, in
L ew es’s form ulation, is rooted in the real w orld; and he m aintains
that the finest of burlesque acting can ‘show that acting burlesque
is the gross personation of a character, not the outrageous defiance
of all character; the personation has tru th , although the character
itself m ay be preposterously d raw n .’62 T h e degree of seriousness
attached to burlesque by the 1850s can also be gauged by the fact
that C am bridge undergraduates, according to B urnand, found it
difficult to distinguish betw een tragedy and burlesque. B urnand
recalls of his fellow thespians in the A m ateur D ram atic Club:
... at th at tim e [L ent T erm 1854] we probably m istook tragedy for b u r
lesque, and burlesque for tra g e d y ... we were constantly seeing R ob
son . .. w hen in his burlesque he touched the very boundary line of
trag ed y . . . 63
In B rough’s play, the penury of the deserted wife is underlined
in w hat is initially a hilarious begging scene. T h e younger of Jason
and M edea’s sons w ears a placard round his neck w ith the w ord
‘o rph an s’ in four ‘languages’: first transliterated into the G reek
alphabet ((padepXa;), then translated into F rench (Orphelins), Ital
ian (O rfani), and E nglish respectively. A nd at one point, M edea is
61 Lewes (187 5), 166 . 62 Ibid. 70 . 63 Burnand (1880), 23.

F i g u r e 14.3 Frederick R obson as M edea, in R obert B rough’s M edea;

or, the Best of M others with a Brute o f a Husband, c.1856.
driven to distraction by the plurality of linguistic options available
to her for revenge:
‘Sangue! sangue! Straziar spezzar suo cuore.’
W hich means, translated, som ething red and gory.
‘U nche di spaventos atroce strano’
— M urder in Irish! No— Italiano!
‘Ai! Ai! D ia mow Kephalas flox owrania,
‘By-ee tiddy moi zeen ete K urdos’—
Stop, th at’s Euripides!
‘D u sang! du sang!’
‘Briser torturer son coeur— oui!’
T h a t’s wrong!
I ’ve got confused w ith all these versions jinglish—
T h u n d er and turf!— A nd even th a t’s not E nglish.64
A closely related source of the h u m o u r in B rough’s burlesque
was precise parody of the conventions of R istori’s Italian school of
acting, for R obson found his ow n route to the ‘m elodram atic
abandonm ent or lashing-up to a certain point of excitem ent’ he
shared w ith his m odel. R istori w ent to see R obson, and com
m ented, ‘U om o straordinario’, as well she m ig h t.65 F o r R obson
indeed took the role of M edea m ore seriously than m ight have been
expected in a burlesque star, and was adm ired by the m ost intel
lectual of playgoers, including H en ry M orley, Professor of English
at U niversity College, L ondon, w hose account sits alongside his
reviews of im portant productions of Shakespeare. M orley praises
R obson’s ‘w onderful burlesque of M edea, w herein he seem s to
have reached the clim ax of success in personating jealousy by a
w ild m ingling of the terrible w ith the grotesque.’66 B urnand,
w riting som e years after the early perform ances, recalls R obson’s
‘best days at the O lym pic’, w hen he took the parts of Shy lock and
M edea w ith equal conviction.67 R obson’s M edea was actually
considered m ore truly tragic than R istori’s by som e educated
spectators, including C harles D ickens:
It is an odd but perfectly true testim ony to the extraordinary pow er of his
perform ance (which is of a very rem arkable kind indeed) that it points the
badness of R istori’s acting, in a m ost singular m anner, by bringing out
w hat she does and does not do. T he scene w ith Jason is perfectly terrific;
64 R obert Brough (1856), 25. 65 Sands (1979), 77; Sala (1864), 49.
66 Morley (1866), 95-9, 159 (entry dated 1 Nov. 1856).
67 Burnand (1880), 22-3.
and in the m anner in which the comic rage and jealousy does not pitch
itself over the float at the stalls is in striking contrast to the m anner in
which the tragic rage and jealousy does. H e has a frantic song and dagger
dance, about two m inutes long altogether, w hich has m ore passion in it
than R istori could express in fifty years.68
In the D u b lin perform ance ‘the passionate display of histrionic
p o w e r . . . w ell-nigh appalled by its terrib le earnestness and d esper
ation.’ R obson’s M edea was ‘sublim e in its savage intensity, and
life-like and hum an in its com m onplace features’. H e portrayed
‘the tigerish affection w ith w hich she regards the children she is
afterw ards to s l ay. . . through the m edium of doggerel and slang,
w ith astonishing force and vigour’.69
R obson won m ore sym pathy for M edea than any previous actor
on the B ritish stage. Perhaps the audience found it easier to deal
w ith M edea’s challenge to conventional notions of fem ininity
w hen the actor im personating her was a m an. Y et R obson’s passion
as M edea was touching and surprisingly ‘real’:
M r R obson was the M edea of vulgar life; and, in the climax of the interest,
he passed out of the burlesque alto gether. .. w ith an earnestness that
dissipated all m ockery, and m ade every heart in the house thrill w ith
painful sym pathy.70
Indeed there are constant shifts in tone and register that reflect the
hum an and superhum an sides of M edea herself. She pursues ven
geance w ith M arlovian gusto, b u t only after being been driven to
the lim its of endurance by the suprem ely arrogant Jason, w ho
pronounces his intention to strip her of her children as well as
her m arital status:
M edea (giving vent to her suppressed passion)
N ow drop it! I can’t stand it any longer!
Oh, gods celestial and gods infernal!
Oh, pow ers of m ischief—dark and sem piternal!
D em ons above, and deities below,
I ask ye sternly— isn’t this a go?71
68 Dickens (1965-2002), viii. 171, to M acready, 8 Aug. 1856.

69 The Freeman's Journal, cit. Sands (1979), 79; Sala (1864), 19, 49.
70 IL N 29, no. 811 (19 July 1856), 65.
71 Robert Brough (1856), 23.
She tries to sm other her feelings for her children at their farewell,
and (as w ith L egouve’s version) is reduced to a state of despair and
h u rt at the possibility that C reusa has poisoned their hearts against
their m other. W hen she reads the note th at they have b rought from
C reusa, w hich prom ises to restore the children and to give her
m oney, the stage direction describes her ‘wholly overcome by this
sym pathy, stands trembling— crushing the letter in her hand; then she
falls sobbing on her knees, embracing her two children, who have knelt
on each side’. T h e au th o r’s note to the acting edition of the text at
this point instructs all the characters that ‘the action m ust be
conducted [from now on until the e n d ] .. . as in tragedy’.72
In direct im itation of the French version, as B rough’s M edea
hears the rabble approaching, she enfolds her children in her robes
to protect them . W hen C reon threatens to seize the boys, it is
already too late as ‘M edea is seen standing alone, on steps . . . quiver
ing with emotion— reeking knife in her h a n d . .. ’. T h en the tragedy
finally gives way to w ish-fulfilm ent w ith the dagger turnin g into a
jester’s bauble as M edea is on the verge of killing Jason, and w ith
C reusa being b ro u g h t back on stage m iraculously revived.
H ow ever, w hat is different about M edea’s final speech in com
parison w ith the endings of W ooler’s and L em on’s plays, is that
B rough’s coda is not sim ply deeply ironic; it is a flagrant denial of
any such attem pts to rew rite the story of M edea. B rough’s heroine
turns to the audience in the final m om ents of the play, flanked by
her revived children, and exclaims:
W hat can a poor, lone, helpless woman do—
Battled on all sides— but appeal to you?
{To audience) M y plot destroyed— my damages m ade good.
T h ey ’d change my very nature if they could.
D o n’t let them — rather aid me to pursue
M y m u rd ’rous career the season through;
R epentance is a thought that I abhor,
W hat I have done don’t make m e sorry for.73
Behind the traditional plea for the audience’s su pp o rt is an u n
equivocal call for endorsem ent of all that the N ew W om an was
later to stand for: ‘T h ey ’d change m y very nature if they could. |
D o n ’t let th em ’ cries M edea, there on the L ondon stage, som e
sixty-tw o years before w om en over the age of thirty w ere finally
72 Ibid. 33 and n. 73 Ibid. (1856), 34.
granted the vote. R obert B rough, who had in the previous year
published satirical, radical verse w ith his Songs of the ‘G overning
C lasses’,74 is deliberately situating M edea at the forefront of the
early cam paign for w om en’s independence. A nd th at his burlesque
spoke to a whole generation of theatre-goers, and not ju st those
who had seen R istori’s perform ance, is borne out by the num erous
revivals of the play in the late 1850s and well into the 1860s, w here
the role of M edea attracted star perform ers other than R obson.75
T H E M O T H E R ’S T R A G E D Y
T h e last group of M edea plays to em erge, how ever, w ere in every
sense tragic dram as, and the heroine was in these invariably played
by a w om an. T h e first overlapped w ith the very last, tortuous
debates about the divorce bill, w hich continued to grind through
parliam entary debates into 1857, itself com peting for attention in
the new spaper colum ns w ith the sensational trial of one of the m ost
fam ous of all V ictorian m urderesses, M adeleine Sm ith. S m ith had
conducted a secret relationship w ith Pierre Em ile L ’A ngelier;
u n der Scots law at that date their intercourse, follow ing an engage
m ent to m arry, itself constituted m arriage. W hen her father sought
to m arry h er to som eone else, L ’A ngelier threatened to inform him
of the facts; instead he died of poison, alm ost certainly at her
hands. B ut a verdict of not proven was retu rn ed after a brilliant
defence by Jo hn Inglis, D ean of the Faculty of A dvocates; the
press and the public overw helm ingly su pp o rted her, seeing her as
taking ‘righteous revenge against an exploitative seducer’.76 T h is
reaction shows how m uch w om en’s vulnerability to m en— even if
it led them to m u rder— was now inform ing opinion.
T h e D ivorce and M atrim onial Causes A ct was finally passed at
the end of the long, hot A ugust of 1857.77 In legalizing divorce for
ordinary people, it rem ains the m ost im portant landm ark in B ritish
m arriage law. It also slightly lessened the unfairness w om en faced
by giving them m ore equal access to divorce (although full equality
74 See R obert Brough (1890).

75 Notably the actor-manager of the Grecian Theatre, George Conquest, who
appeared in a popular revival in 1861. See Hackney Archives Departm ent, Playbill
no. 467.
76 H artm an (1985), 52-4.
77 For a detailed account see Shanley (1989), 35—44.
416 M edea and M id- Victorian
was not secured u n til 1923), and protecting w om en’s property and
earnings from seizure by th eir form er husbands. O nce a m an had
abandoned his wife he could no longer expropriate her m oney.
C ustody of children could also now be aw arded to the m other if
the court saw fit (w hich in practice rarely happened). M edea w ould
now theoretically, at least, be able to keep the children if she could
persuade a judge it was in th eir interests; she could also rem arry or
earn m oney w ithout interference from her form er h u sb an d .78 But
the A ct also m ade it m uch easier for the Jasons of the w orld to leave
their wives for new partn ers, and to abandon their responsibilities
tow ards their offspring.
T h e details of these legislative m easures w ere being finalized in
the sum m er of 1857, w hen S adler’s W ells staged John H erau d ’s
M edea in Corinth. T h is offered a L ondon public draw n from across
the class spectrum the first of w hat was to becom e a series of m id-
V ictorian tragic M edeas in English. M ore system atically than even
B rough’s burlesque, H erau d ’s tragedy subjects the issues su rro u n d
ing the divorce bill to agonizing scrutiny through the m edium of the
m yth of M edea. H eraud, a liberal H uguenot by descent, and a
frequent guest of C arlyle,79 was convinced that ordinary people’s
sensibilities could be educated by the theatre. H e had led the cam
paign for the Repeal of the T heatrical P atents A ct in 1843, w hich
had broken the stranglehold of the paten t theatres, m aking it pos
sible to produce serious spoken dram a at theatres o ther than D ru ry
Lane, C ovent G arden, the H aym arket, and the T h eatre Royal in
each provincial tow n. H e had been supported in this by his friend
T hom as T alfourd, the instigator of the Infant C ustody B ill.80
H erau d ’s m ajor occupation was dram a critic of the Illustrated
London News, b u t he also w rote tw o other plays p u tting the pos
ition of w om en at the centre of the agenda, Videna; or, the M other’s
Tragedy (M arylebone T heatre, 1854), and W ife or no W ife (H ay
m arket, 1855). H e educated his daughter E dith enthusiastically,
encouraging her to read Schelling and Shakespeare in her early
78 T he Act would have transform ed the life of Helen Faucit’s m other H arriet,
who had always been the breadwinner of the family. After the failure of her marriage
she was condemned to live not only in poverty but ‘in sin’ w ith her new partner, and
her subsequent children suffered terribly from the stigma of illegitimacy. See
Carlyle (2000).
79 O D N B xxvi. 648-9.
80 Edith H eraud (1898), 91.
teens. She starred in her father’s 1857 M edea at S adler’s W ells, and
recalled that this version, w hich used far m ore E uripides than
Legouve, ‘was acknow ledged by the public press to be superior
to those that had preceded it’.81 T h e audience w ere greatly excited
by her ‘singularly pow erful acting’, and the production was tran s
ferred to L iverpool.82
Besides other productions, tw o years later H erau d ’s M edea was
revived at the thoroughly dem otic S tandard T h eatre on S h o re
ditch H igh Street in the East E nd. A fter renovations in 1850 and
1854, the S tan d ard had the largest capacity of any auditorium in
Britain; it could seat five thousand, tw o thousand m ore than D rury
L ane or C ovent G arden. T h e audiences included the poorest
residents of L ondon, who needed to pay only 3d. for the gallery.
T h e fantastic success of the theatre in the 1850s inspired spectators
to arrive on trains from up to tw enty m iles away. T h e m anager,
John D ouglass, was determ ined to bring theatrical Classics to the
m asses; in 1854—5 he staged Shakespeare and The Duchess o f M alfi.
M edea, starring E d ith H eraud, was p art of this highbrow p ro
gram m e, and scored one of D ouglass’s tw o great successes in
1859, ru nn in g for tw elve n ig h ts.83 T h is m eans that it was seen in
that year alone by up to 60,000 individuals.
E dith H eraud com m ented later on the unexpected success
enjoyed by the adapted ancient play in the theatre of the ordinary
w orking people of L ondon:
. .. one of the weekly papers rem arked that it was surprising that a play of
G reek origin should be acted at the East E nd— that it should be u n d er
stood, and its sentim ents frequently applauded. A nother trium ph . .. an
other instance of the good effected by the repeal of the Patents. N ot only
was the Shakespearian and poetic dram a enthusiastically welcom ed by the
m illion, but the severer G reek tragedy was kindly accepted and appreci
ated by them . O f the tru th of m y father’s theory that the stage was the
popular educator, w hat further proof was needed?84
T h a t the sentim ents in H erau d ’s tragedy on the them e of M edea
w ere ‘frequently applauded’ is hardly surprising given the clim ate
of the 1850s, w hen divorce and the iniquities suffered by w om en
81 Ibid. 128-9.
82 IL N 31, no. 873 (15 Aug. 1857), 163;/LTV 31, no. 876 (29 Aug. 1857), 219.
83 Allan Stuart Jackson (1993), 6, 112, 124.
84 Edith H eraud (1898), 128-9.
and children had rem ained at the top of the agenda consistently
since the Royal C om m ission was inaugurated in 1850.
H eraud transparently transfers contem porary discussion of di
vorce and w om en’s rights to the context of ancient C orinth. Jason
is in love w ith C reusa, b u t also w ants custody of the children.
C reon asks Jason w hat he is going to do about M edea. Jason
replies, ‘I publicly repudiate and divorce h er’, and asks C reusa to
adopt the children.83 Aegeus, in this version the voice of reason, is
m indful that the paternal prerogative over custody is no longer
uncontestable: he responds to Jason by asking him if he w ould defy
T he angry curses of a wronged wife?
T he malice of a deserted m other?
H er children’s cries, from her caresses snatched?86
T h e potential disadvantages of divorce for w om en are scrutinized
in a discussion betw een M edea and Jason, w hich draw s heavily on
the E uripidean interchanges betw een these estranged spouses.
Jason begs M edea to grant him a divorce, to ‘im m olate’ herself
for the sake of the children. G reece has apparently already passed a
D ivorce A ct, because Jason says to his wife, ‘By our laws, divorce
is not | As p erjury regard ed ’. B ut M edea apparently opposes the
im provem ent of access to divorce to philandering husbands:
Laws— laws— laws!
But justice so regards, who would not
W om en should suffer m ore than m an the wrongs
O f m an’s inconstancy.87
Jason responds by asserting his rights over the custody of children,
w ho will ‘find paternal refuge | ’N eath C reon’s p ala ce-ro o f. But
M edea delivers a scornful tirade expressing the w rongs of w om en
under G reek (English) law:
’T is safely planned.
Ingenious, too. Again your m an-m ade laws,
Fram ed to suppress the rights of subject woman,
By nature m eant to know but a first love,
Form ed like the swan to be one only mate.
T herein our sex is nobler far than yours . . .
M y boys, you say, will dwell in royal halls,
B ut what, m eanwhile, will be the m other’s doom ?88
85 John H eraud (1857), 17-18. 86 Ibid. 18. 87 Ibid. 20-5.
88 Ibid. 22.
Like m ost V ictorians, H erau d ’s M edea believes in w om en’s
‘n atural’ m onogam y. In the m id-eighteenth century w om en’s
sexual appetite had often been seen as potentially voracious (see
above, Ch. 3, pp. 89-90); by 1840, how ever, it had becom e the
com m on sense of the m iddle classes that nature had bestow ed upon
m en and w om en essentially different bodies and psychologies
b u t com plem entary roles.89 Y et she also supports w om en’s
rights, for the speech draw s attention to tw o injustices w hich the
1857 A ct was intended to alleviate— fath er’s absolute rights to
children over seven, and the blighted, m anless fu ture of separated
w om en. Jason is not allow ed to retain rights over the sons, for
Aegeus intervenes:
L et him who loveth not
H is offspring be the first to tear away
T he children from the m other.90
Jason then allows M edea to take one of the boys, although in the
event, terrified by their m o th er’s strange behaviour, they both
choose to go w ith Creusa.
Like L egouve’s version, H erau d ’s allows M edea to kill the chil
dren to save them from the C orinthians, b u t she blam es Jason
m ore em phatically for their deaths. H erau d ’s tragedy was success
ful in staging an E nglish-language tragedy derived from E u rip id es’
M edea because it was a provocative response to its tim es. It con
tinued to excite audiences at m ore m inor venues, and to enjoy
revivals for years at both the S tandard and at S adler’s W ells: it
was alm ost certainly H erau d ’s version of E u rip id es’ tragedy w hich
was still being ‘daringly presen ted ’ by ‘the dignified Jennie M au r
ice’ at Sadler’s W ells in 1873.91
TH E SU BJECTIO N OF W OM EN AND THE

M U RD ER OF C H ILD R EN
T h e divorce act of 1857 still left w om en w ith unequal access to
divorce, for w hich they could only apply on the ground of adultery
aggravated by incest, bigam y, or cruelty, w hile m en could divorce
their wives on the ground of adultery alone. B ut the sm all steps
89 Davidoff and Hall (1987), 149.

90 John Heraud (1857), 31.
91 IL N 61, no. 1714 (13 July 1872), 43; Arundel (1965), 164.
w hich the act had taken to equalize m en ’s and w om en’s rights
provoked the reconsideration of m arriage w hich rem ained a p ro m
inent feature of public discourse throu g h o u t the next tw o
decades,92 and affected the n ature of the fictions and m yths
through w hich the V ictorians defined them selves. E ven the m yth
of Perseus, M edusa, and A ndrom eda, consistently popular in V ic
torian art and literature, began to be interp reted and represented in
subtly different ways: in the m iddle of the century it had offered an
archetypal im age of idealized patriarchal m arriage, counterpoising
vanquished fem ale w ildness and idealized fem inine acquiescence.
B ut gradually the roles of M edusa and A ndrom eda altered, as
m arriage becam e seen as ‘a less definitive way to tam e w om an’s
dangerous pow er.’93
W om en’s rights received fresh su pp o rt in the o u tb u rst of
reform ing activity follow ing John S tu art M ill’s election to the
H ouse of C om m ons in 1865 and the publication of his im portant
essay (w ritten in 1861), The Subjection of W omen, in 1869.94 In this
essay M ill is alm ost certainly echoing E uripides, M edea 233—4
w hen he w rites th a t ‘the wife is the actual bond-servant of her
h u sb an d ’, yet w orse than a slave because she is unable to tu rn dow n
the ‘last fam iliarity’ of her h u sb an d .95 T h is decade saw the begin
nings of serious cam paigning for w om en’s suffrage, and fem inists
pressing for w om en’s rights to p ro p erty and child custody. As a
result, the M arried W om en’s P roperty A cts of 1870 and 1882 m ade
it possible for every m arried w om an to m ake a will w ithout her
h usb an d ’s agreem ent, and to hold property in her own nam e: the
Infan t C ustody A cts of 1873 and 1886 gave m others additional
rights to appeal for custody of their children.96 It is interesting to
see the w idening gap at this tim e betw een (male) academ ic w riting
on M edea, and the progressive fem ale authors w ho w ere reassess
ing her from a sym pathetic standpoint. A learned editor of M edea
could in 1873 still inform his schoolboy readers that E uripides
disliked w om en, w ho included
persons w ith base and evil m inds, persons whose profligacy was shameful,
whose daring was great, whose ability to plot and intrigue for m ischief was
92 Shanley (1981-2), 3 5 6 . 93 M unich (1989), 32-7.
94 For a recent edition with useful introduction, notes, and bibliography see
M ansfield (1980).
95 Ibid. 55, 57.
96 Shanley (1989), 14.
unequalled. T h e quality rem ains to some extent in the race to the present
day, as we see in the use of wom en as spies &c. by Russia.97
As late as 1887 a m ale translator of M edea excises M edea’s first
m onologue ‘w ith an eye to the dram atic effect’.98 Y et the (uncut)
translation of M ill’s associate A ugusta W ebster, a pro m in en t cam
paigner for w om en’s suffrage and education, was published in
1868, and in her poetic m onologue M edea in A thens the heroine
insightfully com m ents on her relationship w ith Jason.99 W ebster
was persuasive: the review er of her translation in the Athenaeum
can now write:
. . . the subject, if not grand, is one of general interest, being confined to no
tim e, place or class of society. It is also one w hich a lady m ight naturally be
expected to handle w ith success as she m ust be able to enter fully in to the
feelings of the unfortunate heroine in her distressing condition.100
Sim ilarly, in A dam Bede (1859) G eorge E liot com pares H etty
Sorrel, a victim of seduction and an infanticide, w ith M edea; in
Felix H olt (1866) the analogy w ith M rs T ransom e, w hom her
form er lover Jerm yn w ishes to sever from her son, is ironically
developed.101
M edea continued to appear regularly on the L ondon stage, in
both burlesques and tragedies, throu g h o u t this period of hectic
legislation. Parliam entary debates w ere of course not the sole ex
planation. By the 1860s sensational m u rd er trials, especially those
involving w om en m otivated by revenge, had becom e a public
fascination. Y et even this developm ent was connected w ith social
change. C rim inologists have perceived a p attern w hereby m urders
by w om en durin g this period w ere increasingly practised for
reasons connected less w ith a desire for respectability or w ith
life-threatening poverty, b u t w ith ‘new — and disappointed— ex
pectations about their status and rights w ithin m arriage’.102
W om en w ere ardent follow ers of the tw ists and turns of the trials.
R obert Altick has rem arked upon the ‘striking V ictorian paradox’
97 John Hogan (1873), p. xxv.

98 Blew (1887), p. ix.
99 W ebster (1868), (1870), 1—13. See Hardwick (1997), 2-4. On W ebster’s
political activity see Leighton (1992), 164—201.
100 Athenaeum, no. 2135 (26 Sept. 1868).
101 Jenkyns (1980), 115-17, 125-7, H urst (2003), 103-37.
102 H artm an (1985), 263.
w hereby m iddle-class w om en, b rought up to pride them selves on
the delicacy of th eir sensibilities, and to faint at the thought of
drow ning a kitten, revelled in the gory details of m u rd er trials.103
Sim ilar fascinations m ark the fiction of the period. T he ‘fad
genre’ of the 1860s and early 1870s was sensational fiction, related
to stage m elodram a; im portant exam ples w ere M ary Elizabeth
B raddon’s L a d y A u d ley ’s Secret (1862), W ilkie C ollins’s The
W oman in W hite (1860), and Ellen W ood’s East Lynne, first serial
ized in the N ew M onthly M agazine in 18 60.104 T h e success of these
novels, m any of w hich w ere w ritten by w om en, rested on their
assertive heroines, and their display of ‘fem ale anger, frustration,
and sexual energy’,105 all of w hich w ere of course also offered by
the story of M edea. L ady A udley is a golden-haired m urderess.
Isabel Vane in East Lynne is the archetypal heroine of sensational
ized ‘m aternal m elodram a’, w hich squeezed every drop of em otion
out of m oth ers’ separations from their offspring:106 locked in a
loveless m arriage and obsessed by her h u sb an d ’s adultery, she
actually abandons her children. F o r the fem ale protagonists of
this fiction are often depicted as escaping from th eir fam ilies and
repudiating conventional ideals of m otherhood and fem ininity
throug h ‘illness, m adness, divorce, flight, and ultim ately,
m u rd er’.107 M edea perhaps no longer seem ed so very different
from o ther heroines in popular culture.
A nother issue w hich m ade M edea seem relevant was anxiety
about child-killing. V ictorian fiction and m elodram a had always
enjoyed dw elling on the lachrym ose deaths of children (one need
think only of L ittle N ell),108 b u t ch ild -m u rd er was different. In
the early 1860s the public was stunned to learn that no few er than
298 coroners’ verdicts of wilful m u rd er of children found dead on
the streets of L ondon w ere given betw een 1855 and 1860. Scores
of ch ild ren ’s corpses— m ostly infants— w ere found abandoned in
the city every year, and in ‘T h e F unction of C riticism at the
Present T im e’ (1864), M atthew A rnold cites a case of alleged
103 Altick (1970), 42.

104 Cretkovich (1992), 15—22. For a discussion of Lady A udley’s Secret see
Bernstein (1997), 73-103.
105 Showalter (1977), 182.
106 Cvetkovich (1992), 112-13.
107 Showalter (1997), 182-3.
108 Auerbach (1990), 24, 96. For a comprehensive study, see M cDonagh (2003).
infanticide as a rem inder of the realities th at reside behind self-
satisfied m yths about V ictorian cu ltu re.109 T h e Infant Life P ro
tection A ct of 1872 tried to curb the inordinately high nu m b er of
infant deaths; a serious debate was u n der way w hether these
children died because of their m o th ers’ poverty or culpable irre
sponsibility.110
It is in this context that tragedies on the them e of M edea
rem ained popular: they w ere alm ost all adaptations, like H erau d ’s,
of E uripides com bined w ith Legouve. T h e durability of L egouve’s
version was a result of its com patibility w ith n in eteenth-century
notions of fem ininity. O ne review er (perhaps H eraud) noted ap
provingly that Legouve had tried to ‘hum anize’ the terrifying
heroine,
and to bring her and her acts w ithin the sphere of our m oral sentim ents.
H e is careful from the beginning to make her exhibit the feelings of
m aternity to an excessive degree; and attributes the catastrophe to a revolt
of those feelings... . T here is in this a natural m otive supplied, w anting in
the original story.
Legouve was felt to have ‘im proved’ on E uripides by m aking
M edea’s prim ary m otive the ‘n atu ral’ one of m aternal love, rather
than the apparently ‘u n n atu ral’ reactions to her faithless spouse of
sexual jealousy, w rath, or vindictiveness.
T h e barbarian heroine becam e p art of the repertoire of touring
fem ale virtuoso actresses, and thus was often played in L ondon by
appropriately foreign perform ers. In 1861, for exam ple, two dif
ferent actresses played versions of L egouve’s tragedy at m ajor
L ondon theatres. T h e A m erican M atilda H eron did not im press
in her own E nglish-language version at the L yceum in A pril of th at
year; she alienated her audience by her stiff, C ontinental, style of
acting. E dw ard B lanchard felt it ‘very b ad ’.112 B ut the sm aller,
gentler A vonia Jones, described variously as A m erican or A u stra
lian, did rath er b etter at D ru ry L ane in N ovem ber.113
109 Shanley (1989), 87, 90; Arnold (1986), 145-6.

110 Hoffer and H ull (1984); see also Rose (1986), 35—45.
111 IL N 28, no. 804 (7 June 1856), 619.
112 I L N 38, no. 1086 (27 Apr. 1861), 389; H eron (1861); Blanchard (1891), i. 256;
see also IL N , loc. cit.
113 IL N 39, no. 1116(9 Nov. 1861), 469; Blanchard (1891), i. 263.
M E D E A IN T H E 1870S
T h e m ost exotic actress to appear as M edea after R istori was
M adam e Francesca (Fanny) Janauschek, of C entral E uropean
provenance, who starred in a version of G rillp arzer’s, rath er than
L egouve’s, treatm en t at the H aym arket in 1876. In her p erfo rm
ance the em phasis was m uch less upon the divorce issue. M edea’s
ethnicity had not been a preoccupation of the earlier V ictorian
theatre (although it is possible that there was a racial elem ent in
the ruse em ployed by M edea in M ark L em on’s 1856 burlesque,
w here she had daubed her rival’s com plexion w ith toxic black
p ain t).114 Y et Janauschek’s interpretation of G rillp arzer’s trilogy
(w hich was w ritten against a background of pogrom s in A ustria)
now spoke to contem porary experiences of em pire rather than to
issues of gender, for she em phasized the barbarous, oriental ch ar
acter em bodied in G rillp arzer’s H asidic M edea, contrasted w ith
the civilized C reusa. T h is version never even asks w hether the
children m ight prefer to be w ith their natural m other rather than
w ith Jason’s w hite-skinned new bride: Jason insists, and C reusa
agrees, that the children self-evidently m ust not ‘grow to m anhood
in a | Foreign, barbarous clim e’.115 T h is type of M edea consist
ently attracted the painters of the period, w ho neglected E u rip id es’
abandoned m other in favour of the visual potential offered by the
exotic sorceress of the Argonautica and her derivatives in, for
exam ple, C harles K ingsley’s The Heroes (1855) and W illiam M o r
ris’s L ife and D eath o f Jason (1867).116 M adam e Janauschek’s
failure to present herself as her h u sb an d ’s victim m ay have been
one reason for her unpopularity, and she fu rth er estranged an
audience used to sym pathizing w ith M edea by the declam atory
style she favoured. T h is w ent dow n well in G erm any, A ustria, and
Russia, b u t was disliked in E n glan d .117
F o r in tragedy the B ritish w anted a p retty M edea w hom they
could pity. T h e curious flipside of V ictorian sexism , w hich was
confused about w om en’s com petence as m oral agents, was the
reluctance to find them crim inally responsible for infanticide.
114 Lemon (1856), 16 (see also above, p. 407).

115 Anon. (1876), 21. For G rillparzer’s Hasidic M edea see M acintosh (2000a),
13-14, 19-21.
116 K estner (1989), 40, 45, 55-6, 170.
117 M aude (1903), 161-2.
Betw een 1849 and 1877 only three fem ale child-m urderers
suffered capital p u nishm ent in B ritain, the m ost fam ous being a
real-life M edea. A nn L aw rence’s execution caused a sensation in
1864, after she vented her rage on her four-year-old son w hen she
found that her lover was u n faith fu l.11s L aw rence died because she
was too like E u rip id es’ vindictive M edea and too unlike L egouve’s
altruistic m other. T h e V ictorians needed M edea to be a ten der
m odel of m aternal devotion, and favoured the lovely young Isabel
B atem an in the role, w hich she perform ed w ith rem arkable success
in W illiam G o rd on W ills’s tragedy M edea in Corinth in the
sum m er of 1872 at the L y ceu m .119 A n engraving appeared in the
Illustrated London N ew s (Fig. 14.4), significantly reassuring its
readership that B atem an ‘shines in the display of m otherly em o
tio n ’.120
John H eraud, as dram a critic of the Illustrated London News,
com pared W ills’s play, his own, and E u rip id es’, objecting w ith
som e justification that W ills’s rhetoric was flo rid .121 Y et his play
was adm ired by others: a ‘distinguished’ critic com plim ented him
on the way he had ‘skilfully rem oulded the m atter afforded him by
E uripides, a n d . .. ably fitted the action to the requirem ents and
the condition of the m odern stage’.122 F or W ills had indeed ‘re
m o ulded’ the play to create an em otional dram a w hich spoke to his
audience’s concerns about divorce. T h is adaptation is unusual (and
perhaps m ore tru e to the way in w hich E u rip id es’ play was u n d e r
stood by its original audience of A thenian m ales) in presenting
both spouses as individuals w ith understandable problem s.
M edea speaks scornfully of Jason’s hypocritical use of argum ents
from the ch ild ren ’s w elfare to disguise his ow n self-interested
m otives, ‘m outhing here of love and care paternal, | T h e interests
of thy children as thy m otives’. Y et Jason is stranded in a loveless
m arriage to a heathen, a ‘barbarian cursed of our G ods, | A nd by
our G recian laws I m ay divorce h er’. C reon, how ever, has read the
118 Rose (19S6), 76—7; see also Patrick Wilson (1971). One Rebecca Sm ith had
been executed in 1849 after adm itting to killing no fewer than eight of her children
(Rose, 76).
119 Blanchard (1891), ii. 414. Bateman was born in America and came to England
in her teens. For a less favourable review, see Cook (1883), 214—17.
120 I L N 61, no. 1715 (20 July 1872), 65.
121 IL N 61, no. 1714(13 July 1872), 43.
122 U nfortunately this critic is not nam ed in the source citing these words, which
is Freem an Wills (1898), 90.
F ig u re 14.4 Isabel Batem an as M edea (1872)
1857 D ivorce A ct, and w arns Jason that he cannot divorce M edea,
w ho has com m itted no fault, w ithout her consent, ‘F or this is vital
in our G recian law ’.123
123 W. G. Wills (1872).
T h e last im portant V ictorian M edea was G enevieve W ard, an
A m erican-born artist, educated in E urope (Fig. 14.5). O ne of her
first tragic roles was M edea, w hom she acted in a version of
L egouve’s tragedy in D ublin, L iverpool, H ull, and L ondon b e
tw een 1873 and 1876. H er perform ance was enhanced by her
contralto voice, stately figure, and intelligence.124 W ard certainly
saw the connections betw een M edea and the contem porary debates
about w om en’s rights, w hich during the 1870s had begun to focus
on the issue of m arital violence. T h is led to the passing in 1878 of
the M atrim onial Causes A ct, w hich added assault to the grounds
on w hich a w om an could legally separate from her husband. W ard
asked herself how M edea w ould react if she was the victim of
battering, and assum ed that she w ould not have tolerated the
kind of everyday abuse m eted out to w orking-class B ritish
w om en by their husbands. In one production the 4-year-old
daughter of the property m an was to play M edea’s younger child,
b u t becam e frightened. W ard reports that her m other endeavoured
to soothe her, ‘a sad-faced w om an, w ho probably accepted all
hardships and ill-usage from her law ful m aster as m eekly as
M edea fiercely resented her w rongs’.125
PREFIGURATIVE MEDEA
Perform ances of plays about M edea disappeared at the tim e of the
passing of the last pieces of significant V ictorian m arriage legisla
tion in the early 1880s. T h is period coincided w ith the tran sfo rm
ations in attitudes to G reek tragedy w hich are to be the subject of
the next two chapters— they entailed the death of classical b u r
lesque, a grow ing dislike of the neoclassical school of adaptation
exem plified by Legouve, and academ ic experim ents w ith p erfo rm
ing G reek dram a, unadapted, in the ancient language. T h e o u tra
geous M edea did not appeal to those w ho selected the plays for
124 Gustafson (1881), 119, 130.

12s Genevieve W ard (1881), 127—8. Another American, Charles Bristed, who
studied Classics at Cam bridge in the 1840s, was scandalized by the treatm ent of
women in England. It was the standard practice of English gentlemen, he writes, to
abuse working-class women sexually, and he has seen more brutality to women than
in any other European country except Russia. ‘T he cases of aggravated assault and
battery upon women that come before the London police-magistrates are positively
startling in num ber and degree’ (Bristed (1852), 347 and n.)
F ig u r e 14.5 Genevieve W ard, c.1875. R eproduced courtesy of the

APGRD.
educational productions: suitable pedagogical m odels of fem inin
ity w ere identified in Alcestis or Antigone.
In subsequent chapters it will also be seen th at the burlesqued
and tragic M edeas of the m id-V ictorian era prefigured the appear
ance of the N ew W om an on the B ritish stage at the end of the
nineteenth century. Far from being an interloper from S candi
navia, prototypes for this N ew W om an, so w idely associated w ith
Ibsen, are there in the m id-V ictorian B ritish plays based on
M edea. B ut the burlesque M edea, in particular, is far from sim ply
the traditional victim of m elodram a; on the contrary, as is typical
of the heroines of the burlesque tradition that adopted her so
readily, she has cunning, resolve, and experience behind her that
enable and indeed force her to break out of the traditional V ictor
ian fem inine m ould. Collectively these m id-V ictorian M edeas are
also the ancestors of the E dw ardian M edea adopted by the Suffra
gettes (see below , pp. 511—19) and of the m any h u n d red M edeas to
have argued th eir cases on the stages of the w orld since the
W om en’s L iberation M ovem ent of the early 1970s.
T h ere have been m any productions over the last three decades,
including the com m ercial successes achieved by D iana Rigg in the
1990s and Fiona Shaw in the th ird m illennium . W hen the story of
M edea’s recent stage appearances com es to be w ritten, connections
will be draw n betw een the upsurge of interest in E u rip id es’ tra
gedy and legislative activity around sex discrim ination, equal pay,
equal opportunities, divorce, child custody, and, m ore recently,
w ives’ retaliation against abusive husbands. B ut M edea’s relation
ship w ith legislative change has had a rath er longer history. By the
end of the V ictorian era she was already a veteran, having spent
over half a century in the vanguard of the cam paign for w om en’s
em ancipation.
15
Page versus Stage: Greek Tragedy, the
Academy, and the Popular Theatre
E duard D evrient, the actor w ho took the p art of H aem on in the

Potsdam prem iere of the M endelssohn Antigone in 1841, refers to
the pivotal nature of the production:
T he ancient tradition shifted w ith this perform ance out of the narrow
world of bookish study into the wide open ground of live art, accessible
to all.1
W hilst the im pact of the M endelssohn Antigone in B ritain was
enorm ous and long-lasting, its consequences w ere in m any ways
different from those of the G erm an-speaking w orld. It did not lead
in any unequivocal sense to G reek tragedy being im m ediately
transported ‘into the w ide open ground of live art, accessible to
all’. T h ere w ere in its wake, as we have already heard, a n u m b er of
serious productions of M edea, w hose success and ‘accessibility’
w ould have been unim aginable w ithout the collective m em ory of
the 1845 Antigone. T h e fact that a F ren ch version of an ancient
G reek play being perform ed in Italian on the L ondon stage w ith
Legouve’s M edea should have aroused such genuine interest (and
the burlesque responses to this are fu rth er testim ony to this) can
only be explained w ith reference to the 1845 precedent; and
equally, the ‘vernacular’ M edea of John H eraud, w hich was in
m any ways ‘accessible to all’ w ith its long ru n at the Standard
T h eatre,2 cannot be considered independently of the M endelssohn
Antigone.
H ow ever, as w ith the Legouve M edea, there was no easy tran si
tion from page to stage consequent on this m ilestone Antigone.
It resulted instead in the invention and developm ent of the
hugely popular form , the G reek tragic burlesque (see Ch. 12).
1 Cited in Fischer-Lichte (1999a), 4.
2 See Ch. 14; and for the social diversity of the audience at the Standard and other
East End theatres, see Davis and Emeljanow (2001), 52-4.
Page versus Stage 431
As T heodore Alois Buckley, Fellow of St Jo h n ’s College, O xford,
points out wryly in the none too laudatory preface to his tw o-
volum e translation of E u rip id es’ extant plays, ju st as A ristophanes
surpassed E uripides in the fifth century so now it is the burlesque
w riter rather than the tragedian w ho holds sway in the theatre in
Britain. W riting in 1850, Buckley observes truculently:
If the reader discover the painful fact that the burlesque w riter is greater
than the tragedian, he will perhaps also recollect that such a literary relation
is, unfortunately, tiy no m eans confined to the days of Aristophanes.
It was not until the 1870s that the B ritish theatre could be said to
have caught up w ith the G erm an-speaking w orld in its relationship
to G reek tragedy. It was only, then, for exam ple that a B ritish
classical scholar of Boeckh’s standing was to involve him self in a
p roduction (albeit now an am ateur one) of an ancient G reek play,
w hen Professor Lew is C am pbell began his series of perform ances
in S t A ndrew s and E din b u rg h together w ith Professor and M rs
Fleem ing Jenkin. A nd it was only som e thirty years later that a
B ritish academ ic was to lend his expertise to a professional p ro
duction of a G reek play, w hen G ilbert M u rray ’s translations began
to be perform ed at the C ourt and Savoy T h eatres in L ondon from
1907 onw ards (see Ch. 17). T h is is not to say th a t there had been no
perform ance tradition w ithin the academ y (on the contrary,
Sam uel P a rr’s school theatricals at Stanm ore and R ichard V alpy’s
at R eading are testim ony to the vigour of that tradition); b u t there
had been no serious involvem ent in the perform ance of G reek
plays w ithin B ritish universities since the Renaissance. T h e p ro
hibitions on perform ance in general in O xford have already been
m entioned (Ch. 12); and around the m iddle of the nineteenth
century, there are clear signs that young classical scholars at both
O xford and C am bridge, including at least tw o w ho w ent on to
becom e celebrated burlesque w riters, F rank T alfo urd and A. C.
B urnand, felt acutely fru strated w ith these prohibitions.
In this chapter we seek to explain w hy G reek tragedy cam e into
vogue in the 1880s. As Pat Easterling, C hris Stray, and M ary
Beard have show n,4 the changes in the classical curriculum tow ards
3 Buckley (1850),‘Preface’.
4 Easterling (1999), 27-48; Stray (1998), 149-54; and m ore generally, Beard
(2000), passim.
432 Page versus Stage
the end of the century w ere m ost influential in this regard. T h e
increasing understanding of the ancient w orld in its entirety— the
m ove away from a narrow ly philological understanding of
antiquity and an em brace of w hat was term ed Altertumswissenschaft
in G erm any— although slow er to take root in Britain than else
w here in E urope, dictated the developm ents in the B ritish classical
curriculum in the 1880s. By now the general interest in classical
archaeology beyond the academ y (afforded especially by high-
profile excavations that w ere closely docum ented in the national
press) was form ally acknow ledged w ith the endow m ent of C hairs in
the subject w ithin the universities. F u rth erm o re, the arrival of
w om en w ithin higher education, w hose school curriculum had
often included the enactm ent of ancient plays, cannot be excluded
from any attem pt to explain the extraordinary efflorescence of
perform ance of G reek plays at this tim e.
H ow ever, developm ents in the professional theatre also m ade
th at flow ering possible. T h e rise of N aturalism was in m any ways
indebted to the attention to acute detail pioneered by Planche in
his burlesques of G reek tragedy; and the revivals of G reek plays,
despite their evident parallels w ith and influence on other deliber
ately non-naturalistic perform ance styles (notably Sym bolism ),
need to be considered in relation to theatrical N aturalism . Frank
Benson, who had perform ed C lytem nestra in the 1880 production
of Agamemnon at Balliol College, O xford, im m ediately recognized
a com m on endeavour, w hen he was inspired by the 1881 visit to
B ritain of the Saxe-M einingen C om pany to take his ow n com pany
on to u r w ith the Oresteia in 1883.5 Indeed, it was very m uch an
aw areness of theatrical developm ents elsew here in E urope at this
tim e— and the consequent realization that B ritain needed to find
ways of m atching these— that also led to experim ents w ith G reek
tragedy. W hen the C om edie-Franqaise visited the G aiety T h eatre
in 1879 for a season, M atthew A rnold was sufficiently riled by the
contrasts betw een the French and the B ritish theatrical traditions
to call for a serious E nglish national theatre.6 S hortly after,
w hen Lew is C am pbell saw the French tragedian, Jean M ounet-
Sully in the role of O edipus, he asked him self: ‘W hy can we not
5 On the impact of the Saxe-M einingen Co. on Benson, see Stokes (1972), 35 n.
Trew in (1960), 30.
6 Arnold (1879); Stokes (1972), 4.
have the like of this in E ngland?’7 A nd even if it was to be som e
years before a professional com pany w ould m o u n t a sim ilarly
successful production in E ngland, C am pbell’s efforts in Scotland
began the laying of the foundations for such a production.
N ot surprising, then, any attem pt to explain w hy G reek tragedy
becam e so fashionable in B ritain from the 1880s onw ards m ust
delineate a confluence of factors both w ithin and beyond the acad
em y— the w idening of the classical curriculum , the inclusion of
w om en, as well as the broader developm ents w ithin the profes
sional theatre w hich allow ed for both the pow er of the burlesque
and fostered an interest in m usic dram a. B ut it is, above all, the
result of the interplay betw een popular and high-brow culture
d uring this period— in a crude sense, betw een stage and page— a
relationship (though largely agonistic) that has very often been
overlooked. It is R obert B row ning, who had vainly tried his fo r
tunes on the professional stage only to lose out to w riters of
burlesque and m elodram a, w ho provides in m any ways the catalyst
for the change w ith his ‘page’-based engagem ents w ith G reek
tragedy. F or B row ning’s rew orkings of G reek tragedy, especially
his Alcestis and his tran script of the Agamemnon, acted as the spur
for the next generation to m ake G reek tragedy (as D evrient
claim ed happened m uch earlier in the G erm an-speaking w orld)
‘accessible to all’. A nd ju st as B uckley’s plaint in 1850 presupposes
a negative corollary betw een the tragedian and the burlesque
w riter in the popular theatre, we find that corollary reversed once
E uripides, A ristotle’s ‘m ost tragic’ of w riters, regains respect
w ithin the academ y in no sm all m easure through B row ning’s p i
oneering efforts to cham pion his cause.
TH E POWER OF BURLESQUE: A LCESTIS AND

THE STRO N G-M IN D ED WOMAN
In the sam e year that saw the appearance of T heodore Alois
B uckley’s edition of translations of E u rip id es’ nineteen extant
tragedies, w hich included his adm onition that burlesque w riters
m ay well exceed in pow er and m agnitude those w ho produce the
‘serious’ dram a, a burlesque was m ounted at the S tran d T h eatre
that m ay well have lent credence to his observation. F or the play
7 Lewis Campbell (1891), 328.
was based on E u rip id es’ Alcestis and was com posed by the classic
ally educated F rank T alfo urd to considerable com m endation. T a l
fo u rd’s burlesque of Alcestis was not the first such attem pt in
English: he m ay well have know n the 1816 burlesque version of
the play by Issachar Styrke, designed to provide the reader of the
1806 O xford G reek school edition of G aisford w ith an am using
(and not entirely reliable) crib, w ith line references to the G reek
text appearing alongside his burlesque (see Ch. 12). W ith its n u
m erous interpolations and deliberate m isrepresentations, Styrke’s
edition was clearly not to be relied upon by any G reekless student.
N or w ith its often lam e doggerel does it pretend to any literary
value. B ut w hat does m ake Styrke’s burlesque w orthy of som e
serious consideration, how ever, is the fact that it can be considered
to provide an early exam ple of the counterview to the ennobling
tendency in portrayals of A dm etus (as had been seen, for exam ple,
in T h o m so n ’s E dw ard and Eleonora; see Ch. 4). A lthough Styrke’s
alternative view m erely highlights aspects already inherent in the
E uripidean prototype, it becom es increasingly com m on in n in e
teen th-cen tury burlesque versions, w hich anticipate (and perhaps
even determ ine) tw en tieth -cen tury readings of E uripides’ play.
A nd it was undoubtedly the generic disturbances in this play,
w hich m ade the task of the burlesque w riter a particularly easy one.
T alfo u rd ’s version was subtitled ‘the O riginal S trong-M inded
W o m a n . .. a sham eless m isinterpretation of the G reek dram a of
E u ripides’, and w ith its brazenly u p fro n t and w ayw ard Alcestis it
was indeed a far cry from the E uripidean prototype. T alfo u rd ’s
A lcestis has every reason to give up on A dm etus and go off w ith
D eath:
F or life with him was nothing but a curse
And though I took him ‘for better or for w orse’.
T he w orld can’t surely w onder I forsook him , for
I found him such a deal worse than I took him for.8
Y et w hilst T alfo u rd ’s Alcestis is ‘a sham eless m isinterp retatio n ’ of
her G reek prototype, his representation of A dm etus m erely m ag
nifies em bryonic traits discernible in E uripides. T alfo u rd ’s A dm e
tus is not only an excessively self-regarding buffoon, ‘weak in
intellect’9 and strong on self-satisfaction; he is also a financial
8 Francis Talfourd (n.d.), 15. 9 Ibid. 1.

incom petent who has ru n up debts w ith O rcus/D eath that he is
unable to repay. A lcestis m ay as well ‘do the heroine’10 and die in
this version, because an im pecunious m arriage for a w om an in
m id-V ictorian B ritain was little short of a death sentence.
A lthough T alfo u rd ’s burlesque is unusual in not being tied to a
particular production of a G reek play, it is clearly responding to a
nu m b er of classically inspired productions— serious and b u r
lesque— at this tim e in L ondon that gained their im portance in
the light of pressing political and social issues. As we have seen in
the previous chapter, the debate about divorce legislation in E n g
land lent profound resonance to num erous m id-V ictorian b u r
lesque productions of M edea, in w hich E uripides’ protagonist is
rendered an abandoned wife rath er than m onstrous infanticide.
C onsideration of the m arital state had led to regular recourse to
the E uripidean tragedy of m arital breakdow n from at least the
1830s, and the debate inevitably led in tu rn to that other E u rip i
dean expose of m arital relations, the Alcestis.
T h e highly popular early-nineteenth-century poet, Felicia
H em ans, obliquely engaged w ith that debate in 1831, w hen she
chose to render into E nglish A lcestis’ leave taking of her fam ily.
Eight years before the passing of the In fan t C ustody A ct (granting
m others custody over children u n der seven years in the event of
separation or divorce), H em ans, who was herself an abandoned
wife, translated A ct I, Scene ii of A lfieri’s 1798 version, Alceste, in
w hich the dying m other rem inds her h usband of the w oeful negli
gence of newly m arried fathers and the perils that aw ait children at
the hands of those who are not their b irth -m o th ers. It was Frank
T alfo u rd ’s father, T hom as N oon T alfo urd, w ho w ould be been
responsible for this first im portant piece of legislation in the
em ancipation of w om en (see Ch. 13). H ere som e tw elve years
later in the younger T alfo u rd ’s burlesque, we find A lcestis p u b
licly scrutinizing the institution of m arriage itself, pronouncing
after her resurrection at the end to the popular air of ‘Roisin
the B eau’:
W e have come to a happy conclusion—
A happy conclusion?— W ho knows!
K ind friends don’t destroy the illusion
B ut let all be couleur de rose'P
10 Ibid. 10. 11 Ibid. 27.
If T alfo urd senior had chosen to com m ent upon the politics of the
decade follow ing the R eform Bill of 1832 w ith a ‘serious’ rew rite of
E uripides’ Ion, his son (in tune w ith a generation for w hom , in
Buckley’s term s, ‘the burlesque w riter is greater than the tra
gedian’) chose to push the boundaries of the debate about m arriage
in the serio-com ic form th a t was holding sway on the m id-
V ictorian stage.
H eroic tragedy had enjoyed a b rief revival in the 1830s w ith the
plays of B ulw er-L ytton and T hom as T alfo urd (see Ch. 10); and in
the hands of these playw rights, the ‘dom estication’ of the ancients
had perhaps reached its lim it. B ut w ith the advent of serious
burlesques of G reek tragedy, the traditional burlesque w eapon of
dom esticating in order to deflate is used to m ore than com ic effect.
Frank T alfo u rd ’s burlesque version gives us an intriguing insight
into a period in theatre history w hen ‘serious’ dram a in E nglish
rarely left the page. W hat is striking about this and other b u r
lesques is not so m uch that they kept a m em ory of G reek tragedy
alive on the B ritish stage at this tim e, b u t that they did so to a
broadly based audience; an audience, m oreover, that included
those w ho w ent on to becom e involved in the 1880s revivals.
As we have already heard, the playw right, and editor of Punch,
F. C. B urnand claim s w ith hindsight that he and his fellow u n d e r
graduates at the tim e found it difficult to distinguish betw een
tragedy and burlesque (see Ch. 14). W hilst T alfo u rd ’s Alcestis
m ight not have boasted a perform ance to m atch F rederick R o b
son’s in B rough’s M edea; or, the Best o f M others with a Brute o f a
H usband som e six years later (1856), it did (like B rough’s version)
enjoy num erous revivals w ith F rank him self (who had m ade his
theatrical debut at the H enley R egatta as L ady M acbeth) in the
p art of A lcestis (Fig. 15.1).12
H ow ever, it is im portant to stress th at at their m ost successful,
the burlesques at this tim e w ere barely distinguishable from (and,
on occasions at least, clearly able to outstrip) the very objects they
sought to travesty. If R obson could outperform the Italian tragedi-
12 H is presum ed relation W . T alfourd also appeared in the 1851 revival at the
Royal Soho Theatre in the part of Orcus (see the details on the playbill in Fig. 15.1).
T here were also revivals in 1850 in New York, for which see T . Alliston Brown
(1903), i. 287, who refers to a production of Alcestis in Septem ber 1850 at M itchell’s
Olympic, ‘a very popular place of entertainm ent’, and then in London in 1853; see
T alfourd (n.d), which cites the prologue from the revival on 24 Nov. 1853. For
T alfourd’s undergraduate theatricals, see M ackinnon (1910), 21-7.
I D m SOHOKELLY’S.)THEATRE, ( L a t e M is s
M O N D A Y , J U L Y 7th, 1851.
AMATEUR PERFORMANCE,
I K A I D O F A C H A K X T A B X JB I H S T I T U T I O H ,
Mrs. M I L N E R G IB S O N .
ssionat ADDRESS, written by M r. Swam* W a m w , will bo

spoken by the Author!
iJWKK W B C B wru. BE PSE8BKTEO,
ALCESTIS; OB,
T H E O R I G I N A L S T R O N G - M IN D E D W O M A N .
By FRANK TALFOURD. Esq.
Apollo - Captain GORDON. Orctw - Mr. W. TALFOURD.
Hercules - Mr. W. HALE. Admetus - Mr. R. OR RIDGE.
Pols* - Mr. ALB AN Y FONBLANQUE, Jon. Aleestis - Mr. F. TALFOURD.
P h c e d r a ................................ Mr. F. HERBERT.
Two Children.
To he followed by aDrama, by J. I
POOR COUSIN WALTER.

& Argent Buoyant - Mr. THORNTON HUNT, Jasper H elto n - Mr. R. ORRIDGE.
Philip Hazelton - Mr. AL B A N Y FONBLANQUE, Jun.
Walter Hswlton - Mr. G. H. LEWES.
Helen - Mrs. G. H. LEWES. Dame Bridget - Mrs. FREDERICK.
After the Drama, an ENTRE-ACTE will be performed by
Mr. A LB ER T SM ITH,
!‘ A few Sketches of Character picked up on the Route of the Overland Mail.”
The whole to conclude with SHsai»AX*s Farce of
TH E
Sir Fretful Plagiary •
C- RMrI TTH O RIN TCO N .H U N T.
Dangle - Mr, FA RRELL Sneer - Mr. W. HALE
Puff - Mr. T. KNOX HOLMES. Prompter - Mr. F. HELBERT.
Mre. Dangle - Mrs. G. H. LEWES.
Character* In the Tragedy,
Lord Bnrteigh - • Mr. & . GBRIBGE.
Governor of Tilbury Fora - Mr. F. TALFOURD. Earl of Leicester - Captain GORDON.
Sir Walter Raleigh - Mr. ALBANY FONBLANQUE, Jon;
S r Christopher Hatton - Mr. FREDERICK.
Beefeater, Mr. SYDNEY W HITING. Don Ferolo Whiekwandos, Captain EVERARD.
Sentinels - Mews. EVANS and T. SMITH.
First Nisce - Mra. LEG A FLETCHER. Second Niece
Confidant - - - - Madame PULZKY.
Director - - - - - - LORD W IhlilA M LENNOX.

S tage M anager - - - - - - Mr. BENDER
D oor* to be opened a t half-past S tem ; Perform ances to eommmce at Bight.
Carriages to set down with the hones heads towards Soho Benare. To taka op the
tJ ib a t 3Segm a.______________^ _______ r _______________
Printed b, W. I. Oolbosss, t, PiincmStrael. Leicester Square.
F ig u r e15.1 Playbill for a revival of Frank T alfourd’s Alcestis; or, the

Original Strong-M inded W oman (1851).
enne A delaide R istori, perhaps the English theatre should attem pt
G reek tragedy au naturel after all. Indeed, it m ay well have been in
part T alfo u rd ’s burlesque challenge that led to the serious p ro d uc
tion of Alcestis, w hich was m ounted at S t Jam es’s T h eatre in 1855.
If the com m ercial theatre was often quick to seize upon that p o ten
tial, the undergraduate generation bought up on R obson at the
O lym pic and elsew here was particularly well placed to foster it.
Brough seized upon the b u rlesque’s ability to cross generic b o u n d
aries (for his instructions to his actors to tran sp o rt the burlesque
into the realm s of its elevated target see Ch. 13) and the younger
generation of undergraduates in the audience (w ho flocked dow n to
L ondon from O xford and C am bridge to catch R obson and his
contem poraries at the A delphi T h eatre in the Strand) w ere very
obviously inspired by this exam ple to go on to m ount serious
productions of the tragedies them selves som e years later. B ur-
n an d ’s fellow thespian in those early years of the A m ateur D ram atic
C lub, John W illis Clark, becam e responsible for organizing the
early productions in C am bridge in the 1880s. A nd although B ur
nand him self was enjoying a successful career as a burlesque play
w right in L ondon at the tim e of the revivals of G reek plays at
C am bridge, he was a prom inent m em ber of the audience on the
first night of G reek plays in L ondon in the 1880s (see Ch. 16).
T hese classically trained undergraduates w ere also undoubtedly
best placed to recognize fu rth er connections betw een the classical
burlesques and the G reek plays. W ith G reek tragedy’s com bin
ation of speech and song having been only recently rediscovered
w ith the M endelssohn Antigone, it was the burlesque (w ith its
fusion of w ords and m usic) that was best equipped, paradoxically,
to initiate audiences into the form of the original.
M U S I C T H E A T R E : H E N R Y S P I C E R ’S
A L C E S T I S (1 8 5 5 )
T alfo u rd ’s burlesque of Alcestis follow ed Planche in his Golden
Fleece, in its paratragic response to the operatic tradition. T h e
G reat E xhibition of 1851 had led to an increased sophistication
am ongst m em bers of the L ondon audiences, w ho w ere now often
draw n from a w ider (and often foreign) constituency.13 H ere in
13 Davis and Emeljanow (2001), 197 ff.
T alfo u rd ’s burlesque, L u lly ’s fam ous passage in A ct 4 of Alceste,
‘II faut passer to t ou tard!’, w ith a com ic C haron is parodied by
T alfourd in the duet betw een O rcus and A lcestis as they sink dow n
through the trap door in the stage to the air of ‘M y skiff is on the
shore’. A nd five years later w hen H en ry S picer’s Alcestis was
perform ed at St Jam es’s T h eatre, one of Spicer’s m ain concerns
was to bring the m usic of G luck’s Alceste to the audience’s atten
tion (Fig. 15.2). H enry M orley, the close friend of C harles D ickens
and later Professor of E nglish at U niversity College L ondon, who
was present on the opening night, attributes the play’s success in
equal m easure to the enduring appeal of its subject, to the classical
acting of C harlotte V andenhoff in the title role, and to G luck ’s
choruses.14
It was not ju st the presence of C harlotte V andenhoff (who
played the first A ntigone, see Ch. 12) that alluded to the M endels
sohn Antigone at C ovent G arden ten years earlier. Spicer’s use of a
chorus of sixteen singers— eight m ale and eight fem ale voices—
recalls the (adm ittedly m uch larger) chorus of that perform ance.15
Spicer’s play owes m ore than a passing debt to H ippolyte L ucas’s
version seen at the O deon in Paris som e eight years earlier, and on
som e occasions is no m ore than a translation from the F ren c h .16
L ucas’s A ct I owes m uch in its tu rn to A ct I of the libretto to the
French version of G luck’s opera by M arie-F ranfois-L o uis G and
L eblanc D u R oullet; and the choral m usic by A ntoine E lw art was
no d o ub t inspired by the M endelssohn exam ple that had caused an
equal stir w hen it was staged in Paris in 1844. H ow ever, Spicer
m akes it clear in his prologue that he is n o t adopting a classical
set— in other w ords, he is deliberately eschew ing the staging
em ployed at C ovent G arden in 1845 for the M endelssohn Antigone
that was generally considered to be the first attem pt at replicating
a G reek theatre in recent theatre history (see Ch. 12). Spicer
com m ents:
T h e fixed ‘scen a’, w ith its th re e en tran ce s, th e ch o ru s, o scillating b etw een
p it an d stage; th e cu rta in lo w ered n o t lifted , at th e co m m en c em en t o f th e
p lay etc. etc th ese d etails, th o u g h m o re accep tab le to th e classic eye,
14 Morley (1866), 107.
15 In the Potsdam premiere, by contrast, there were only 15 chorus members.
16 Lucas (1847), pp. vii f. Pheres has no role in either Lully’s Alceste (1674) or
H andel’s Admeto, re di Tessaglia; and m ore im portantly, he is om itted from the
more recent Italian (1767) and French (1776) versions of Gluck’s Alceste.
m ra m n n iN n im u M iT ta ,
ST. JAim M IIL € tj£ i p r t c a l -p la p .
MRS. SEYM O UR.
ALCESTIS
mrnmMim v u ts * i *»J ^ S S i k xv w
« « * '■ ' T H IR • « T H IE K S «U M I T i M
AL
»
C E SMT IS
lu g , ■■»« ¥ i t m a esq .
»MEMLy SP-
“ U , SU .IciL * - ». * 3“ g jg S M l*
CLOCK,
oft™ 1 m .Ik Wori. Aa CWknW t M »
m mt M S J l J L s L U L U ? * *
t in C W n i i * S rti*AcN Amrio to N ^ U g W w t o « f t k i o d i k t M
Ik* Chora* will ceuU t of 6 0 T«lc««. 5

S I R H. R. BISHOP* la £011 C h e n s of C O V tkes
of tw «
Finding th u A r> « tn i m « rirk « a b y »>
i'U .ri in h» b rtc ili ; «od rew ire d for uww
non,
ftorw.
•mums* fcratatnnto
»
Mr. » * * * V I I I L I 1 t
•»thfeThaafet)
W. c n o r i l ,
k
Brunt**, * Me. I t C i t T .
Jtoesc r W routing forward (n w ( « the feted King, h« noble wife,A m iiib, «*•<•«, - - Me. H I I I I I T ,
rat. - Me.- «. HtVIKB.*, KhMdmiuo * W*. iOMto,
of P»n«», King of loiftw.prumrmdy nrftmtmwd to be (be rirtrro. Cottoww. . » t. RtiStlS, itt,i - Mr. r. S08.
lo «h< > m w ofthe grroi Giwk astksr. AsNBTn. though o.erwheimrd with mm, - - «— V l * n 1 II II t f,
torwwe, » iadwwd to nreept Ibrnoble swrififr*: n m b m is (one measure re- (Who itoapjrtwSr «*«e®d !« « • < h»i F»ni«Aaaoartaeo btto.-
deem**!, by the grantnn and delicate tnwpiiaKty whh whirft be • d a w the - - • (CfcjflVtoWH*.*■*>! - w— «* E T ,
apwreodj ill-timed tint of ; nuvfelly roacralmg from hit hem-nett
**«y tew ofthe mMbrttmr which hs« befellea lit.bouv tad realm,
the moh weed wot be aaO.ip.tri la the ipumt language of the old Greek
rltoras t
“ Msayarr the (wm. of the deed, of the ; and many <-
t%e Coe &Me « f Awun*. iiludratrag the .irtue. of met., enanee, tnd t,
tw aptiatity. h n h e rn tn m p ecial ferorrtr t o w ,,- f.n rig n dnutuiitb. A emwd
t«* tearm. The grain of Gt-eea .Hottntrd « . iadWrreat libretto be Cue

*.**». To one Logltd, rt.gr. A w m t bn hitherto been a dranger.
I* ha* not been denned wewan to adhere rlom* to the coowmtomal e W
■RMCMMOto. The feted -n o n ." with *» three . atranm ; the dram. tooJU-
?i#B hdwoe* pit titd Mage; the curtain towered not lifted, at the c M a n e n m i
rT T*rt?<i,n‘<*veSwnw’M"•*»,hB>«'« «*• change

OfOft 1%. Ac. kt- t then data.!*, though Non- aeeeattW.- la the dtsac rye.
o t seen*, m otew rrr. » « a c t a ak iH w a t o th e toew o lt , Y n m e v n i m n t n u a e owe
t*t*m m u “rtaw-panrter," tad other, « writ*. vwnograpin aod perae&»,- ■■VKtttt •Vim m e i u c t
thpagtelt it pabejin, that the ra-.tnwo. ore of the urirnt tbruro roaSaud thew
chaagg.te On «de jemw, -
— ----«.*ch f a « o f wWrhpw ‘
r»IW fen. befog piiufed aa triaa-
'
THE
u i eAPAHTMEHT
i n . »• n>e c( n rOFt ALCESTIS
t by o.ne
* » ^ 1 £ ^ P 5 R !S P * M S R
b the modern vf
LAURA SEYMOUR.
F ig u re 15.2 Playbill for Henry Spicer’s Alcestis (1855).

scarcely compensate for the varied inconveniences to which they give
rise.17
W hat Spicer w anted, and felt th at the ‘classic’ set w ould deny him ,
was the freedom (that he noted was even available to the ancients) to
follow the essentially m odern operatic tradition in its change of
scene. Like G luck before them , both L ucas and Spicer adopt a
17 Spicer (1855), p. iv.

three-act structure for their play: they begin outside the palace of
A dm etus and the tem ple of Apollo, before m oving inside the palace
for the death scene; and they end up outside the city at night, by
A lcestis’ tom b and the Cave of D eath. U nlike the M endelssohn
Antigone and unlike the Legouve M edee, w hich cam e to L ondon
the follow ing year, Spicer’s Alcestis was indeed no authenticating
revival; it was instead a w ell-intentioned attem p t to w ed the aural
aesthetics of G reek dram a to the visual expectations of V ictorian
m elodram a. Indeed w hen O rcus appears in ‘grow ing lurid light’
from his cave in A ct III, approaches the tom b and is suddenly
confronted by H eracles before their off-stage tussle in the cave, the
audience at S t Jam es’s w ere being treated to on-stage spectacle, to
w hich the m id-nineteenth century spectator was accustom ed. T h e
im age, largely through the operatic tradition, was to rem ain pow erful
enough to serve as the subject for L ord L eighton’s painting ‘H ercu
les W restling w ith D eath for the Body of A lcestis’ (c. 1869-70).18
H ow ever, unlike T alfo u rd ’s burlesque, S picer’s Alcestis is not a
version to expose the trials and tribulations of the m arital state; it
is, if anything, a version that prom otes the value of m arital fidelity
at a tim e w hen its frequent absence was com ing u n der public
scrutiny. N um erous debts notw ithstanding, it is the changes
m ade by Spicer in his version w hich are significant; and in m ost
cases, the slight alterations m ade by Spicer to L ucas’s play are
done w ith a view to reducing the dom estic touches in the French
and m aking it m ore faithful to the G reek of E uripides.
Spicer clearly did not w ish to reproduce the E uripidean irony in
his presentation of A dm etus; instead in m arked opposition to the
burlesque tradition, he sets out to im prove upon the E uripidean
prototype. Spicer’s A dm etus (unlike E u rip id es’ protagonist) does
not him self actively seek a w illing su bstitu te for his own death: it is
A lcestis here who does the seeking, convinced that: ‘Y ou will not,
shall not, p erish .’19 Even before her search turns out to prove vain,
18 For another study of the figure of Alcestis in the visual arts around this time
see Burne-Jones’s ‘Love Leading Alcestis’ (1863; sketch Ashmolean M useum ,
Oxford; watercolour Birmingham City M useum and A rt Gallery, no. 13’04).
M uch earlier, Edward Hodges Baily had won the Royal Academy’s gold medal in
1811 for a model of a sculptural group ‘Hercules restores Alcestis to A dm etus’: E B J'
iii. 221.
19 Spicer (1855), 8. Spicer is following the operatic tradition, and especially
W ieland’s libretto for Anton Schweitzer’s music, which was staged in W eim ar in
1773. See L. P. E. Parker (2003), 12-15.
A dm etus expresses his doubts that anyone will be found w illing to
relinquish the pleasures of life for another. T h is is an A dm etus
who is not only principled; he is prescient as well.
W hen S picer’s A lcestis enters in the last throes of life, we are
never allowed to forget that this is a m arriage born of love not
convenience. A lcestis urges A dm etus:
U ntw ine
T hy loving grasp, dear husband. Lay me down
Here, at thy feet. All strength hath left me now,
M ine eyes are gathering darkness, [sinks down on couch]20
A nd w ith the early arrival of H ercules in A ct I— w hen it is only
A d m etu s’ fate that has been determ ined and needs to be kept from
the untim ely guest— even the ‘deception’ required is far less p o
tentially am biguous, since it is only his ow n fate that the king needs
to deny. H ippolyte L ucas had follow ed A lfieri in redeem ing
Pheres in his version,21 b u t Spicer goes a step fu rth er in rem oving
A dm etus’ father from the play altogether until the very last scene.
H ere Pheres arrives in the final m om ents of the play w ondering
why A dm etus had kept everything from him , adding how he
him self w ould have been a fitter ransom .22 W ith A dm etus’ reply:
‘W ell I knew | Y ou w ould so deem it, fath er’,23 the audience of
S picer’s play never have to d o ub t A dm etus’ integrity, and by
im plication the appropriateness of the reunion of m an and wife at
the end of the play. T o confirm the legitim acy of the rem arriage,
Spicer’s A lcestis is granted a voice, and after greeting the earth and
T hessaly, calls out:
O, A dm etus
Clasp me, again, thy wife, twice w edded ... 24
A L C E S T I S ON TH E PAGE
It was in p art because such spectacles w ere so com m onplace in
n in eteenth-century theatre th at the next im p o rtan t Alcestis,
R obert B row ning’s B alaustion’s A dventure (1871), was never
20 Spicer (1855), 13. 21 Lucas (1847), pp. vii f. 22 Spicer (1855), 22.
23 Ibid. 23 . 24 Ibid. 22.
designed for the stage at all.25 But Brow ning also w rote the w ork in
p art because he felt audiences w ere being denied direct access to
E uripides him self: ever since Schlegel’s dam nation of E uripides in
his Lectures on D ram a at the beginning of the century, classical
scholarship had denounced the tragedian as decadent, dangerous,
and w ordy.26 A nd as we have seen, all recent stage versions of
E uripides’ tragedies w ere m ediated by other com peting and/or
‘im proving’ sources (S picer’s Alcestis by way of H ippolyte Lucas;
and the M edeas in subsequent years by way of b o th Legouve and
G rillparzer); and in the case of T alfo u rd ’s burlesque, w hat was on
offer was ‘a sham eless m isinterp retatio n ’ of the G reek prototype.
By the tim e B row ning published Balaustion ’s A dventure in 1871, he
had long given up on the professional stage. Indeed, he had com e
round to the A ristotelian view expressed by Balaustion, the n arra
tor of his version: ‘W ho hears the poem . . . sees the play.’27
In B row ning’s dram atic m onologue, Balaustion tells how,
follow ing the disaster of the Sicilian E xpedition, she was able to
save herself, her com patriots, and the good nam e of A thens by
reciting E uripid es’ Alcestis to an audience of Syracusans. Balaus-
tio n ’s solo rendering of the play includes her com m entary on the
action, and closely charts the progress of A dm etus from selfish
bungler to w orthy hero. A t the death-bed of A lcestis, Balaustion
perceptively com m ents:
So he stood sobbing: nowise insincere,
But som ehow child-like. .. none heard him say,
However, w hat would seem so pertinent,
‘T o keep this pact, I find surpass m y power:
Rescind it, M oirai! G ive m e back her life,
A nd take the life I kept by base exchange!’
25 T here were a num ber of other poems about Alcestis around this time: in 1859 a
revised edition of The Hellenics by W alter Savage L andor appeared, which included
the dram atic dialogue entitled ‘Hercules, Pluto, Alcestis, A dm etus’; m ore closely
contem porary with Browning is the Pre-Raphaelite fascination, exemplified in the
Burne-Jones sketch and watercolour, in W illiam M orris’s poem ‘T he Love of
Alcestis’, in part 3 (vol. ii) of his epic Earthly Paradise (1868; Browning heavily
criticized it) and in Francis T urner Palgrave’s ‘Alcestis: A Poem ’ in his collection
Lyrical Poems (1871).
26 O n 19th-c. scholarly reception of Euripides, see generally M ichelini (1987);
and Behler (1986), 335-69.
27 R obert Browning (1940), 9. For Browning’s early career in the theatre, see
James Hogg (1977).
28 Robert Browning (1940), 23.
Sim ilarly the scene betw een A dm etus and Pheres is adm irably
explicated w ith the illum inating observation that : ‘So, in old
Pheres, young A dm etos show ed, | Pushed to com pletion: and a
shudder ran, | A nd his repugnance soon had vent in speech.’29 A t
the end of this scene, Balaustion observes that after Pheres had left,
A dm etus was ‘ . O nly half-selfish now , since sensitive . . . ’;30 and
henceforth he begins to grow in stature until he is w orthy of his
wife in the resurrection scene:
A ble to do, now, all herself had done,
Risen to the height of her: so hand in hand,
T h e two m ight go together, live and die.
B row ning’s version of Alcestis is not sim ply an account of the
grow th in A dm etus’ m oral statue; it is m ore im portantly an ac
count of the creative process itself, w ith Balaustion as the p o et/
m aker, who can alter her audience’s perceptions of both herself
and her fellow crew m em bers, and the subjects of her narrative
through her pow er as narrator.
‘O ne thing has m any sides’,32 she rem inds her audience; and she
uses this as a cue to offer a (second) com pletely new version of
E uripides’ play, in w hich an enlightened A dm etus rules (unlike
his ancestors) for his people alone. W hen it becom es evident that
this new , m uch im proved A dm etus is to die, A lcestis m akes a deal
w ith A pollo to allow her h usband to live and to continue his good
w ork. W hen A dm etus finds out about the term s of the deal, he vainly
refuses to accept on the grounds that ‘ . . . we tw o prove one force and
play one p art | A nd do one th in g ’; and since ‘[th o u ]. . . w ast to m e as
spirit is to flesh’, it is the flesh th a t m ust die.33 H ow ever, w hen this
‘sp iritu al’ side of their union does perish w ith A lcestis’ dem ise, ‘her
w hole soul entered into h is’.34 A nd w ith P ersephone’s refusal to
g rant A lcestis residence in the underw orld on the grounds that now,
as A dm etus’ soul, she cannot die while he is alive, we are offered a
m etaphysical affirm ation of m arital endurance.
D espite and even because of the evident biographical echoes of
B row ning’s version— w ith the deceased E lizabeth B arrett
B row ning being conflated w ith both A lcestis (as eternal partner)
and B alaustion, the K ore figure (as poet/m aker)— B alaustion’s
29 Ibid. 37. 30 Ibid. 43. 31 Ibid. 62. 32 Ibid. 65.

33 Ibid. 68 . 34 Ibid. 70.
A dventure acted as the catalyst for a revival of interest in the
paradigm atic perfect wife. W hen the Irish playw right, John
T o d h u n ter w rote his stage version of Alcestis eight years later,
his deb t to B row ning is m ade explicit w ith a direct quotation
(‘Still, since one thing m ay have so m any sid e s. . . one m ight
m ould a new | A dm etos, new A lkestis’) serving as epigraph to the
play. A nd T o d h u n ter begins his play as if it w ere an attem p t to
translate B alaustion’s second retelling of Alcestis into dram atic
form . In A ct I, Scene i, we w atch the final throes of A dm etus’
utopian rule in T hessaly being overshadow ed first by A lcestis’
presentim ents and finally by heavenly portents.
T h e debt, or rather hom age, to B row ning here in T o d h u n te r’s
play in m any ways determ ined its subsequent history as closet
dram a.35 H ow ever, despite its G reek subject, T o d h u n te r’s late
nineteenth -cen tu ry Alcestis owes m ore to Shakespeare in both its
m ood and language than it does to G reek tragedy. As T o d h u n ter
him self points out in his Preface, he had not intended to w rite a
G reek play at all; his T hessaly bears as m uch resem blance to its
real setting as Shakespeare’s Bohem ia did to the real Bohem ia; and
his introduction of the (underdeveloped) subplot concerning the
relationship betw een Aegle and H ercules in A ct I, no less than his
choric street scene at the start of A ct II, aligns his play w ith
Shakespeare and the B ritish tradition.
Y et T o d h u n ter’s debts are not ju st to Brow ning and Shake
speare. A fter Alcestis has duly pledged herself as su bstitu te to
A pollo, her revivifying kiss of A dm etus gestures tow ards T h o m
son’s eighteenth-century version (see Ch. 4). A nd w ith A dm etus’
irrationally violent reaction to A lcestis’ altruistic act— ‘T h o u hast
not play’d | T h e w hore w ith death?’36— the ‘realist’ burlesque
presentation of A dm etus the ingrate im m ediately com es to m ind,
35 T odhunter’s play does not appear to have been staged: it was not used in either
of the two productions of Alcestis in 1910—11, both productions associated w ith the
U niversity of London. T he first, by students of Bedford College and University
College on 16—19 Feb. 1910 in South Villa, Regent’s Park, used a translation by the
Vice-Provost of Eton, D r W arre-C ornish (see Ch. 17nn. 107, 129); the second,
staged by W illiam Poel (Ch. 17) in D ecem ber 1911 (M arble Hall, Im perial Insti
tute, South K ensington), used a translation by Francis H ubback of T rinity College,
Cambridge. T his production was also staged in the Little T heatre, London U ni
versity, 3-9 Jan. 1912 and then later in April 1914 for the Religious Dram atic
Society in the Ethical C hurch, Bayswater.
36 T odhunter (1879), 54.
as well as the irascible L eontes of Shakespeare’s The W inter’s Tale.
Indeed, this A dm etus has m uch to learn from his wise wife; but
unlike his com ic counterparts, he is a king w ho ruled over a utopian
T hessaly, and at least has the capacity to learn. A lcestis urges him
to live and to love the sun, and to appreciate his second b irth as she
will appreciate hers in the air. A bove all, T o d h u n te r’s A dm etus
m ust learn to accept her gift of life as a m other to a son:
T hou art my child
Pledged to live bravely for me, or I die
In vain and D eath stands victor.37
A fter the death of A lcestis, A dm etus’ education proper begins as
he too learns the im portance of parenthood in the cloyingly senti
m ental encounters he has w ith his children (i I . ii, 111. iii). H ere in
the scene w ith Pheres, there are no indignities, only A dm etus’
asides, w hich show how hard he finds it to bear condolence.
A fter his eventual reunion w ith Alcestis, there is a celebration of
Love w hich recalls the operatic tradition; b u t this is clearly a
celebration of the pow er of fam ilial (as opposed to strictly conjugal)
love. T o d h u n ter provides us w ith an A dm etus w ith prom ise rather
than any unim peachable perform ance; and it is this qualified h ero
ism in A dm etus alone that is to m ake E u rip id es’ play and m odern
rew orkings of it of interest to audiences in the p o st-Ib sen ite w orld
of the new century (see Ch. 17).
FROM PAGE TO STAGE: ARCHAEOLOGY AND

TH E VIEW ING CU LTU RE
In the sam e year as B row ning’s Balaustion’s Adventure, the
scholar-poet Lew is C am pbell w rote a sh orter poetic rew orking of
E uripides’ tragedy entitled ‘A dm etus and A lcestis’.38 A lthough the
poetic tradition of including the figure of A lcestis in verse cannot
be considered independently from M iltonic veneration (see Ch. 4),
the tim ing of C am pbell’s ow n sh ort version (dated 27 Septem ber
1871) w ould im ply at least a partial response to B row ning’s d ra
m atic m onologue. A lthough C am pbell was later to express som e
doubts about B row ning’s rew orkings of the classics— even later
confessing to a preference for T en n yso n ’s w ork— he never doubted
37 Ibid. 64. 38 Lewis Campbell (1914), 5-8.

B row ning’s seriousness as a classical scholar.39 A nd his use of the
three separate poetic voices here— the narrative voice as well as
those of A lcestis and A dm etus— w ould im ply that C am pbell (like
o ther poets of his generation) had learnt m uch from B row ning’s
developm ent of the dram atic m onologue.
In m any ways, like T o d h u n ter, C am pbell’s poem is responding
to B alaustion’s invitation to her audience to ‘m o u ld ’ the m ain
characters anew. In C am pbell’s version, as in B alaustion’s second
retelling, A dm etus is here redeem ed by the fact that ‘H e had loved
life for noble ends’ and did not (unlike his E uripidean counterpart)
seek A lcestis as a substitute. T oo late does A dm etus discover her
secret com pact w ith Apollo; and follow ing her death, he begins,
albeit reluctantly at first, ‘to labour am id ceaseless pain ’.40 But
slowly ‘the hum bled m onarch’ finds he is guided by a strong
aspiration: ‘O h loved too late! if thee I m ay not see, | L et m e be
w orthy still of follow ing thee!’41 Ju st as the spirit of B row ning’s
A lkestis had entered into A dm etos, so now C am pbell’s peerlessly
benign ruler is guided by ‘the m ystic effluence of his guiding star |
T h e prom ise of his future, felt from far’.42
C am pbell’s ‘A dm etus and A lcestis’ was by no m eans the last
tim e that he was to respond to B row ning’s engagem ents w ith
G reek tragedy. Like Brow ning, he was com m itted to the desire
to bring G reek tragedy to a w ider audience; b u t unlike the older
B row ning, C am pbell was enthralled by the theatre, and sought to
bring the ancient plays to new audiences through the m edium of
perform ance. C am pbell expressed on m ore than one occasion his
genuine excitem ent at seeing the raw reactions of students and
others upon their first encounters w ith G reek dram a. O ne notable
response he records was th a t of the novelist, R obert L ouis S teven
son, who upon rehearsing for the p art of the m essenger in Sopho
cles’ Trachiniae (for a production m ounted in E d in b u rg h and later
at St A ndrew s in 1877) was overw helm ed by his first glim pse of
w hat he felt was the evident superiority of Sophocles’ pow ers even
39 See Cam pbell’s comments in ‘T he H igher H um anism ’, ibid. 332: ‘ ...M r

Browning’s classicism is almost pedantically displayed. But this is excusable, be
cause M r Browning was an enthusiastic Greek scholar’; and for his preference for
T ennyson see his letter of 16 Apr. 1907 printed ibid. 434.
40 Ibid. 7.
41 Ibid. 8.
42 Ibid. 8.
to Shakespeare’s.43 C am pbell’s translations of both Sophocles and
later A eschylus, although often originally pro m p ted by the occa
sion of local perform ance, w ere eventually to have a m uch w ider
im pact. In an obituary of C am pbell in the Cornhill M agazine in
D ecem ber 1908 by one of his close colleagues, L eonard H uxley, we
hear how a poet-scholar like C am pbell m ay well m eet ‘w ith a
sm aller m easure of scholarly appreciation in this country than he
m ight well have expected’ on account of his translations. H uxley,
how ever, adds by way of am ple com pensation:
Nevertheless, he has a way of coming into his own at last. How many
thousands in recent years have had revealed to them the essential spirit of
Greek tragedy, and have joined in a special revival of the threatened
classics simply from hearing or reading these poets’ translations of the
poets, while the conscientious prose of the grammarian passes them by,
and is only used for textual study.44
Since 1863 C am pbell had been Professor of G reek in the U n i
versity of S t A ndrew s and together w ith his wife, Frances P itt
C am pbell, and w ith the help of M rs Baynes (wife of T hom as
Spencer Baynes, editor of the n in th edition of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica) he had form ed first T h e Shakespeare Society and later
the S tudents D ram atic Society. By the 1870s and throu g h o u t the
1880s, the readings and plays directed by C am pbell w ere the ‘m ain
features of the social circle’ in S t A ndrew s and E dinburgh; and for
Stevenson, at least, these theatricals provided the only excitem ent
during his undergraduate years in E d in b u rg h .45 T h e C am pbells’
principal friends in E d in b u rg h w ere Professor and M rs Fleem ing
Jenkin, who shared their passion for ancient G reece and for the
theatre; M rs Jenkin was considered ‘an am ateur actress of unusual
capacity’.46 Fleem ing Jenkin was a professor of engineering at
the U niversity of E dinburgh, and the young Stevenson was one
of his pupils. F rom 1873 onw ards, Jenkin staged a n u m b er of
G reek plays in translation in his private theatre at 3 G reat S tu art
Street, E d in b u rg h .47 In 1877 w hen Stevenson took the p art
of m essenger in Sophocles’ Trachiniae, M rs Fleem ing Jenkin was
D eianeira in C am pbell’s translation. T h is was a Sophoclean play
43 e.g. ibid. 193 . 44 Ibid. 452-3.

45 Eve Blantyre Simpson (1898), 208—9.
46 Leonard Huxley in Lewis Campbell (1914), 461.
47 Fleeming Jenkin had earlier directed Frogs, see Baker-Penoyre (1898), ii. 324.
close to C am pbell’s heart, and one w hich he claim ed to have
defended against the false im putations of Schlegel (as B row ning
was to do w ith E uripides) since at least 1848;48 and now in 1877 the
Trachiniae could, in effect, ‘defend’ itself in a perform ance of
C am pbell’s translation.
Jenkin was particularly interested in the ancient w orld in its
entirety and spent m uch tim e researching the costum es and sets
for his productions (Fig. 15.3).49 In this sense, he was very m uch in
tune w ith the spirit of the age w hich follow ed the excavations in
southern E urope w ith great interest. The Illustrated London News,
w hich like Punch was launched in the 1840s, reached a circulation
of 140,000 copies per week by 1852, w ith at least three readers per
copy.50 It gave over large am ounts of space to photographs and line
draw ings of archaeological sites; and throu g h o u t F ebruary and
M arch of 1877 there was intensive coverage of S chliem ann’s ex
cavations at M ycenae. O n 24 F ebruary 1877, in an account of the
discovery of the so-called ‘D eath M ask’ of A gam em non, we detect
a bizarre shift in register as the co rresp o n dent’s highbrow rep o r
tage gives way to m undane trivia:
. .. and if his brother was like him it is little to be w ondered at that H elen
should have preferred Paris.51
W ith such a degree of dom estication, it was im possible not to feel
involved in the events of the H ouse of A treus as they w ere
unfolding in front of the reader’s eyes.
In a letter of 1876 B row ning said he intended to publish his own
version of A eschylus’ Agam emnon w ith photographs of Schlie
m ann ’s recent excavations at M ycenae; and as T o n y H arrison has
pointed out, there is a definite ‘craggy’-ness about B row ning’s
language in his translation.52 In B alaustion’s A dventure Brow ning
had sought to offer E urip id es’ Alcestis to his audience w ith a
running com m entary; in the final section of his Aristophanes’
Apology (1875), he had offered E u rip id es’ Heracles Furens to his
reader w ithout any com m entary w hatsoever— it was, so to speak,
E uripides pure and sim ple, for a generation w hose E uripides had
48 L etter of 29 M ar. 1905 in Lewis Campbell (1914), 419.
49 Jenkin (1887), esp. 35^14.
50 See Altick (1989), 146. I am indebted to Debbie Challis for this reference.
51 I L N 70, no. 1963 (24 Feb. 1877), 185.
52 H arrison (2002), 14-15.
F i g u r e 15.3 D raw ing by Fleem ing Jenkin illustrating the correct

draping of the ancient G reek female peplos (1874).
been beset by m ediators.53 A nd now w ith the publication of his
Agamemnon, Brow ning was situating him self on the opposite side
to M atthew A rnold in the hotly contested cu rren t theoretical
debate about translation that had been granted both prom inence
and intensity by A rnold in his lectures ‘O n T ran slatin g H o m er’
(1861-2). In m arked contrast to A rnold’s ideal of elevated dom es
tication, B row ning sought to convey the spirit of A eschylean tra
gedy throu g h pushing the E nglish language to its lim its, w riting (as
he proclaim ed in the Preface) in ‘as G reek a fashion as E nglish will
b ear’ w itho u t doing it ‘violence’.34 W ith his adoption of G reek
syntax, B row ning clearly explored the potential of the English
language in ways rem arkably sim ilar to those being tested by that
other (at the tim e unknow n) Balliol poet, G erard M anley H o p
kins.35 M ost, how ever, found B row ning’s tran script (as he called
it) ‘unreadable’ (A ugusta W ebster claim ed that at least A eschylus’
text rem ained to guide the hapless reader); and it is significant that
w hen Fleem ing Jenkin review ed it in The Edinburgh Review in
1878, he claim ed that its m ain shortcom ings derived from its
fundam ental un perform ability .36
It was, perhaps, inevitable th at C am pbell’s efforts then turned
tow ards producing a ‘perform able’ translation of the Agamemnon
for his next production w ith Fleem ing Jenkin, w hich took place in
E dinburgh in M ay 1880, one m onth before the m uch m ore fam ous
production of the play in ancient G reek perform ed in the hall of
Balliol College, O xford. T h a t the O xford Agamemnon was
m ounted at Balliol was, sim ilarly, inevitable, given the very close
ties th at existed betw een C am pbell and B enjam in Jow ett, M aster
of the College since 1866.57 C am pbell had been at Balliol as an
undergraduate w ith a prestigious Snell E xhibition, w hich was
designed to bring b righ t young Scotsm en to the College.
Jo w ett’s tim e as M aster at Balliol (and later as V ice-C hancellor of
53 See Riley (200S) for an excellent account of Aristophanes’ Apology as an

attem pt to offer the reader an unm ediated taste of Euripides.
54 O n the 19-c. debate about translation generally, see Hardwick (20006), 23-42;
on Browning’s translation, see M atthew Reynolds (2003).
35 H arrison (2002), 11 also notes the parallels between Hopkins and Browning.
H opkins’s poetry was not published until 1918, and it is significant that when he
tried to publish his work during his lifetime, he m et with strong resistance on the
grounds on its unreadablity.
56 W ebster (1879), 66-79; Jenkin (1878), 409-36.
57 On Jowett, generally, see Prest (2000), 159—169.
the U niversity) was characterized by his com m itm ent to w idening
access in accordance w ith the Scottish higher education m odel; and
w ith the arrival of the highly intelligent young E xhibitioner C am p
bell at Balliol in 1849, began a lifelong intellectual and social
partn ership betw een them . C am pbell, like Brow ning, was later
m ade H onorary Fellow of Balliol; and the bronze m em orial plaque
erected in C am pbell’s m em ory by the chapel door in the college
proclaim s: ‘F o r m ore than forty years the friend of B enjam in
Jow ett and of Balliol’.
W hen Jow ett had heard of C am pbell’s appearance as A ntony
alongside M rs Fleem ing Jen k in ’s C leopatra in a production of
Shakespeare’s A ntony and Cleopatra in M ay 1879 (just over a
year before the O xford Agamemnon), he had joined others in send
ing C am pbell a ‘chaffing’ letter.58 Jo w ett’s later concern that a
proposed to u r of the O xford Agamemnon m ight be deleterious to
the characters involved w ould suggest th at he was especially anx
ious about potential hostility from those for w hom all theatricals
w ere im m oral an d /o r dangerous. In O xford these anxieties w ere
p articularly associated w ith cross-dressed perform ances follow ing
a scandal in 1869-70, w hen an O xford undergraduate well know n
for his perform ances in drag was charged w ith ‘obscenity’ in
L o n d o n .59 W hatever the reason for Jo w ett’s ‘chaffing’ letter to
C am pbell upon hearing of his form er p u p il’s perform ance as
A ntony— w hether it stem m ed from the apparent indecorum of a
Professor of G reek consorting on the stage w ith the wife of a fellow
Professor or not— C am pbell’s defence of am ateur theatricals per se
m ust have been sufficiently robust. F or the follow ing year w hen
Jow ett was approached about a Balliol production by tw o N ew
College undergraduates, F rank Benson (who w ent on to becom e
the fam ous actor-m anager) and the H on. W . N . Bruce, he readily
agreed to allow a perform ance of the Agam emnon in G reek to take
place in the hall at Balliol.
O scar W ilde claim ed th at he had first suggested the project, and
th at he had allocated the parts and designed the costum es and the
scenery.60 T h ere m ay well be m ore than a grain of tru th in this,
58 Huxley in Lewis Cam pbell (1914), 461; and more generally, see Shepley
(1988).
59 M ackinnon (1910), 59; and for the London scandal of 1869—70, see Carpenter
(1985), 14.
60 Ellmann (1987), 101-102.
even though Benson never m entions W ilde’s involvem ent, and
even though there are other claim s that the scenery used a draw ing
by the late B urne-Jones and that the costum es w ere designed
by Professor W . B. R ichm ond.61 W hat is significant about
these claim s, of course, is the fact th at retrospectively, at least, the
undo ub ted success of the 1880 Agam emnon m ade it w orthy of close
association. Indeed W ilde’s close friend, R ennell R odd (who w ent
on to appear in The Sto ry o f Troy in L ondon 1883) assisted w ith
the painting of the scenery; and W ilde him self rem ained a keen
observer of the 1880s revivals, even if he did not participate in
person (see Ch. 16).
T h e 1880 Balliol Agam emnon becam e the first production of a
G reek tragedy in the original language to receive serious critical
consideration since the Renaissance; and there was a clear attem pt
in O xford to reflect aspects of the ancient theatre that w ere com
patible w ith m odern expectations (for this reason, there w ere no
masks). In that sense this was no ‘archaeologizing’ production tout
court; as one satisfied review er p u t it, the set and costum es were
instead suggestive of antiquity ‘and that is sufficient’.62 T h e tw o
fold division of the stage space (as w ith the 1845 A ntigone) was
designed to keep actors and chorus separate (Fig. 15.4); and the
m usic was com posed by the organist of M agdalen, W alter P arratt,
for the beginning of the parodos alone, and consisted of a few
austere bars. T h e choral delivery was controversial, w ith the alter
nation betw een m onotone recitation and dialogue am ong the
C horus m em bers generally not deem ed a success.63 T h e acting
parts, by contrast, w ere m uch praised w ith Benson as C lytem nes
tra, W . L. C ourtney (later the theatre critic of the D aily Telegraph)
as the w atchm an, and W . N . Bruce as A gam em non. Benson espe
cially earned critical plaudits, w hich are surely acknow ledged (if
not actually being celebrated) in the painting of C lytem nestra by
Jo hn C ollier of 1882.64
T h e production as a w hole was m uch acclaim ed by leading
figures of the day, and it w ent on to be perform ed at E ton,
61 M ackinnon (1910), 61.

62 Cambridge Review, 9 Feb. 1881.
63 See M ackinnon (1910), 60-1; and the otherwise favourable review in the
Cambridge Review, loc. cit.
64 Collier’s Clytemnestra, in the Guildhall A rt Gallery, London, is reproduced in
M acintosh, Michelakis, Hall, and T aplin (forthcoming, eds.).
F ig u r e 15.4 Final scene of the Agamemnon in Balliol H all, Oxford,

(1880).
H arrow , and W inchester; it was also perform ed for three nights at

St G eorge’s H all in L ondon, w here it was seen by an enthusiastic
G eorge E liot, and no lesser lum inaries than H enry Irving and
Ellen T erry , w ho w ere eventually to becom e B enson’s em ployers
at the L yceum T h eatre in 1882. B row ning, w hose controversial
translation had propelled A eschylus’ text into the critical lim elight,
and who had been an H onorary Fellow of Balliol since 1867,
was appropriately in the audience on the first night in O xford as
Jo w ett’s guest. A nd the O xford Agam emnon led to a renew ed
interest in A eschylus’ play and in B row ning’s translation, in
particular, w ith the general public (during a perform ance in
C am bridge the subsequent year) reportedly struggling to follow
the G reek w ith B row ning’s abstruse Agam emnon on their knees.65
65 Cambridge Review, loc. cit.

W O M E N IN T H E A C A D E M Y
Benson was responsible for num erous revivals of the O xford p ro
duction; and w ith his ow n com pany, he w ent on to tou r A ustralia
and the colonies w ith a production of the Oresteia (see Fig. 15.5),
w hich led in tu rn to new productions of A eschylus’ Agam emnon
being perform ed in the E nglish-speaking w orld (notably in Sydney
in 1886). G reek dram a was all the rage in the 1880s, and it was
arguably the Alcestis— as had been the case at the beginning of the
century (see Ch. 4)— that was considered the m ost suitably edify
ing of G reek plays for school productions. Indeed the choice of the
Agamemnon as the inaugurating play in O xford was not always
(despite S chliem ann’s excavations) considered an obvious choice.
O ne review er com m ented:
. .. it would have been wiser to begin w ith a dram a w hich is less intensely
lyrical and has m ore psychological interest than the Agamemnon, such,
perhaps, as the M edea of Euripides, the Antigone of Sophocles.66
F i g u r e 15.5 Scene from Eumenides from Frank Benson’s touring p ro

duction of the Oresteia (1905).
66 Ibid.
If the choice of Agamemnon was in large m easure due to the
fascination w ith the discoveries at M ycenae and H issarlik and the
debate engendered by B row ning’s transcript, then the increasing
interest in the ‘psychological’ G reek plays— and especially those
plays w ith strong fem ale roles— was very closely related to the
grow ing participation of w om en in educational establishm ents.
C am pbell and his wife w ere deeply com m itted to the education
of w om en before it becam e a ‘p o pu lar’ rallying point; and w ithout
their involvem ent, St L eo n ard ’s School for girls in St A ndrew s
w ould not have com e into existence at that tim e.67 A fter having
w atched a perform ance of the Antigone in his ow n translation at the
school in June 1903, C am pbell explained that som e th irty years
previously w hen he had begun w ork on the translation, he had
im agined ‘som e [female] eleve of the H igher education im person
ating A ntigone’, adding that now his intended perform ers had
finally given his text life.68 A nd w hen A lan M ackinnon, the found
er of the O xford U niversity D ram atic Society, com m ents on the
im pact of the 1880 Agam emnon in O xford as a w hole, he w rites:
The excitement spread even to North Oxford, and fluttered the dovecotes
of the Woodstock and Banbury roads, where the educated lady was in
those days really a new woman, and this form of ‘education made pleas
ant,’ an excellent opportunity to make a trial of strength, with a first
exhibition of newly-acquired culture.69
D espite M ackinnon’s som ew hat scoffing tone, his N ew W om an
h ungry for m ore of this ‘new ly acquired cu ltu re’ was to have a
significant im pact on the perform ance history of ancient plays over
the next two decades (see Ch. 17).
Before joining the L yceum T h eatre in 1882, Benson was invited
by the new ly appointed H eadm aster of B radfield College, the Revd
H erb ert B ranston G ray, to stage a perform ance of Alcestis at
the school. T h e choice of A lcestis in a boys’ school no doubt
stem m ed from the M iltonic privileging of the play for pedagogic
purposes; b u t it was also B row ning’s rew orking that kept E u rip i
des’ play very m uch in vogue.70 T h e H eadm aster took the p art of
67 See Edward Caird (Jowett’s successor at Balliol) in 1893, in Lewis Campbell
(1914), 470.
68 Ibid. 405-6.
69 M ackinnon (1910), 60.
70 In the first part of the 20th c., the Alcestis continued to be perform ed by
schools, and especially girls’ schools. And when Bournem outh G irls’ High School
A dm etus, b u t the participation of both Benson (as A pollo) and
C ourtney (as H eracles) provided an evident link w ith the earlier
O xford Agamemnon. T h e production is particularly significant in
hindsight because it led eventually to the establishm ent of regular
triennial productions of G reek plays at B radfield from 1890 o n
w ards, w hen the open-air G reek theatre, m odelled on the theatre at
E pidaurus, was com pleted. T o geth er w ith the G reek plays at
O xford and at C am bridge from 1882, the G reek play at Bradfield
College in B erkshire was to becom e another notable date in the
social calendar.71
In 1886, w hen a n u m b er of productions of G reek plays in
L ondon becam e involved in the cam paign to broaden w om en’s
education (see Ch. 16), the girls of Q ueen’s College, H arley Street
(founded by the C hristian Socialist F. D . M aurice in 1848) p e r
form ed the Alcestis in a production deem ed by the review er in The
Graphic (18 D ecem ber 1886) to be ‘the first representation in
L ondon of a G reek play by lady stu d en ts’ (Fig. 15.6). T h ree
years previously G irton College, the new ly founded w om en’s col
lege at the U niversity of C am bridge, had staged its pioneering
production of Sophocles’ Electra, d ubbed by the Illustrated
London News ‘the first tim e that a G reek dram a was acted by
w om en’,72 w ith Janet Case as an extrem ely pow erful E lectra. T h e
significance of the event did not go unm arked: the front page of
The Graphic carried an engraving of a sketch of Electra and the
chorus.73 Janet C ase’s perform ance earned her the p art of A thena
tw o years later in the C am bridge production of the Eumenides— an
unparalleled achievem ent until well into the tw entieth century,
w hen w om en w ere finally allow ed to p erform in the C am bridge
G reek play.74
produced the play in 1903, they used a version that included excerpts from Brown
ing’s Balaustion's Adventure (and the music by H enry Gadsby, which had been
especially w ritten for the Queen’s College production of Alcestis in London in
1886).
71 See D uncan W ilson (1987), 107 for a sense of the cultural significance of the
Bradfield Greek play in the first decade of the 20th c. T he Alcestis received its first
production in Bradfield’s Greek theatre in 1895 and it remained (together with
Antigone and the Agamemnon) in the repertoire until the First W orld W ar, being
perform ed again in 1904 and 1914.
72 IL N 83 (1883), 527.
73 See further Hall (1999a), 291-5.
74 See Easterling (1999), 28-30.
F ig u r e15.6 A performance of Alcestis at Queen’s College, Harley

Street, London (1886).
In 1887 the O xford U niversity D ram atic Society (O U D S ) used

a sim ilarly cross-gendered casting in their production of Alcestis in
ancient G reek. Prohibitions on m en assum ing fem ale roles at
O xford (set dow n by Jow ett him self as V ice-C hancellor) led to
the p art of A lcestis being played w ith m ixed success by the then
increasingly notable classical scholar, Jane H arrison, w ho
happened to be giving a course of lectures in O xford at the tim e.
H arriso n ’s perform ance (som ew hat curtailed ow ing to her refusal
to appear as a corpse in the m iddle of the play) received a m ixed
response, w ith critics assum ing that her ‘sch o larsh ip . . . o u t
stripped her dram atic pow er’.75 H ow ever, despite the apparent
shortcom ings of H arriso n ’s perform ance, the production as a
w hole proved enorm ously popular and played to full houses en ab
ling O U D S to rid itself of its financial crisis for the first tim e.
O ne of the striking features of the production was the set and the
costum es, purchased from John T o d h u n ter,76 w hose play Helena
75 See M ackinnon (1910), 129-30.
76 For details of the sale of the set, see the T odhunter Papers, U niversity of
Reading, M S 202/1/1, fos. 362-7.
in Troas had been produced the previous year in L ondon, and
w hich was arguably one of the m ost im portant stagings of a clas
sically inspired play in the last p art of the nineteenth century (see
Ch. 16). Helena in Troas had been perform ed at H engler’s C ircus
in a G reek-style theatre, especially designed for the production by
the architect, E. W . G odw in. It was W . L. C ourtney, by now at the
D aily Telegraph, who funded the 1887 Alcestis; b u t it was T o d
h u n ter who oversaw the initial set design and ‘induced them to
board over the stalls for the chorus’.77 A nd in m arked contrast to
previous productions of ancient plays, on this occasion the chorus
of fifteen m ale voices, w hich sang to C .H . L loyd’s m usic for flute,
clarinet and harp, was deem ed a great success. H ow ever, despite
acquiring the G odw in set, this was (far less than the Agam emnon of
1880) no archaeological production. In m any respects it recalled
the m elodram atic staging of Spicer’s 1855 Alcestis at St Jam es’s
T h eatre in L ondon, w ith D eath entering via a trap -d o or enfurled
in steam , and A pollo m aking his precarious entry on trick w ires.
A ttending the G reek play in O xford was for m ost audience
m em bers (as was the case in L ondon w ith T o d h u n te r’s Helena in
Troas) a fashionable event. Indeed the bew ildered response of the
review er from Punch to w hat was m ore than a dose of highbrow
academ ic fare m ay well have been representative (Fig. 15.7).
U n d er the title ‘ “ V ery O riginal G reek at O xford” by an U n
tutored C orrespo n d en t’, the review er explained:
T hough I have not had a classical education, yet I have had a very fair
theatrical one, and I rem em bered the title years ago at, I think, the
H aym arket.78
A lthough this particular review er is hiding behind a m ask of ig
norance— he was in fact the classically trained and highly success
ful burlesque playw right, F. C. B urnand— his claim to having been
b ro u gh t up on classical burlesque w ould no doubt have been
w idely shared by audience m em bers (the reference here is u n
doubtedly to T alfo u rd ’s Alcestis, and its revivals). N ow being
offered G reek dram a au naturel for the first tim e, m any m em bers
of the audience inevitably responded favourably to those lan d
m arks in the production that had been im ported from high V ictor
ian m elodram a.
77 T odhunter to H erbert H orne, 27 Nov. 1887 (T odhunter Papers, U niversity of

Reading, M S 202/1/1).
78 Punch, 92 (28 May 1887), 264.
Classic Costume revived at

Oxford.
F i g u r e 15.7 Punch cartoon ‘Classic Costum e Revived at O xford’ (1887).
T w o years later, a graduate of G irto n w rote an article entitled

‘G reek Plays at the U niversities’ in the m agazine W om an’s W orld
(1888), in w hich she m aintains th a t the Alcestis is a suitable choice
of play for w om en to perform :
W hat could be m ore touching than the picture of the self devotion of
Alcestis in obedience to her ideal of wifely duty, or the gradual unfolding
of the character of A dm etus under the influence of sorrow?
E u rip id es’ play concerning the perennial them es of death and
m arital fidelity is clearly being prom oted as the perfect pedagogical
tool. B ut by now the w orld of academ e is no longer screened from
the broader social considerations that are being aired on the p ro
fessional stage in L ondon. A nd w ith the know ledge that the editor
of W om en’s W orld was in fact the playw right, O scar W ilde, it
w ould not be w ide of the m ark to infer that ‘the gradual unfolding
of the character of A dm etus u n d er the influence of sorrow ’ was not
79 ‘A G raduate of G irton’ (1888), 127.
entirely devoid of ironic intent. W hilst the choice of the Alcestis for
perform ance in a girls’ school or w ithin a w om en’s college m ight
assuage even the m ost ardent anti-fem inist w ith its subject-m atter,
w ith its ironic p o rtrait of A dm etus, E u rip id es’ play (as was to be
the case w ith so m any G reek plays over the next tw o and a half
decades) could equally well provide am ple food for tho u g h t for the
em ergent N ew W om an.
i6
London’s Greek Plays in the 1880s:
George W arr and Social Philhellenism
O n 13 and 15 M ay 1886 at 9 p.m . ‘T h e Story of O restes’, billed as
‘A n abridged E nglish version of the O resteian T rilogy of A es
chylus’, was perform ed in the P rin ce’s H all, Piccadilly, u n der the
patronage of the Prince and Princess of W ales. T h e proceeds of
these two perform ances, together w ith those from a series of scenes
of tableaux from H om er entitled The Tale o f Troy on the afternoon
of 14 M ay, form ed ‘a contribution tow ards a U niversity E ndow
m ent F u nd , w ith the object of enabling K ing ’s College and U n i
versity College, L ondon, to extend and cheapen the higher
collegiate education, w ith a view to qualify them for the functions
of a T eaching U niversity’.1
T h e follow ing week, a rival production of a new classically
inspired play by John T o d h u n ter, H elena in Troas, took place at
H engler’s C ircus, A rgyll Street. T h e proceeds from T o d h u n te r’s
play w ent to the equally deserving charitable cause, the newly
founded B ritish School of A rchaeology at A thens, and the event
sim ilarly attracted the patronage of the Prince and Princess of
W ales.2
A survey of the tw o cast lists m ay not ring m any bells to those
acquainted w ith the L ondon stage in the 1880s (M r and M rs
B eerbohm T ree and H erm ann V ezin— all in Helena in Troas—
are the only professional actors), b u t to those interested in the
history of classical scholarship and the history of the perform ances
of G reek dram a in particular, they provide a rich m ine. S urprising
1 T here is a copy of the program m e attached inside the British Library copy of
W arr and Crane (1887).
2 A copy of the program m e is in the production file at the Theatre M useum ,
London. T odhunter had offered the proceeds to the British School a year earlier.
See Richard Jebb’s letter to T odhunter, 11 Feb. 1885: ‘I am extremely obliged to
you for the kind gift of your dram a, ‘Helena in T roas’, and not less for the proposal
that it should be perform ed for the benefit of the British School at A thens.’ [MS
202/1/1, fos. 310—13, Reading University Library]. For an account of the produc
tion, see Stokes (1972), 52—6.
London’s Greek Plays in the 1880s 463
collocations of nam es are found: from T o d h u n te r’s list, we find the
artist Louise Jopling together w ith the form er art student, C on
stance W ilde (better know n as M rs O scar W ilde) both acting as
assistants to H elen;3 in The S to ry o f Orestes, we find E ugenie
Sellers (better know n u n der her later m arried nam e, E ugenie
Strong, and in her capacity as assistant director of the B ritish
School in R om e)4 listed as an A rgive M aiden alongside D orothy
D ene (the m odel for Sir Frederic L eighton’s last m ajor paintings),
w ho took the p art of C assandra.3
T h e H engler’s C ircus event was clearly distinguished from the
perform ances at the P rince’s H all both on account of its superior
venue and the professionals am ong its cast m em bers. B ut w hat is
striking about both productions is the calibre and range of ex p ert
ise co ntrib u tin g behind the scenes. In the case of T o d h u n te r’s
play, it was the presence of the architect tu rn ed stage-designer E.
W . G odw in th at guaranteed public attention. G odw in’s G reek
theatre in the V itruvian m ould had been expressly designed for
the production; and w ith its circular orchestra and central thymele
neatly fitted into the circus arena at H en g ler’s, it included a raised
stage in accordance w ith the prevailing archaeological orthodoxy.6
D espite the anachronistically intrusive curtains— a point that did
not escape the review er for Punch1— the set was w idely adm ired,
even by those w ho had m isgivings about both the play and the
production (Fig. 16.1).8
F or the perform ances at the P rince’s H all, it was the engagem ent
of such lum inaries from the art w orld as Sir Frederic L eighton,
E. J. Poynter, G . F. W atts, and W alter C rane for the designing of
3 See Jopling (1925), 179-80.

4 For a fascinating account of the life of Eugenie Strong and her relationship to
Jane H arrison, see Beard (2000).
5 For a brief account of D ene’s life and her relationship to Leighton, see C hris
topher W ood (1983), 75-9 and below, pp. 482-4.
6 This remained the prevalent view until 1896, with the publication of Dorpfeld
and Reisch (1896).
7 See Punch, 90 (19 May 1886), 261: ‘the curtains rise,— a concession to m odern
ism, surely vexing to the classical souls of Professors Godwin and T odhunter
8 T he Punch reviewer’s comments (loc. cit.), the tone notwithstanding, are fairly
representative of the detractors: ‘I hope the British School of Archaeology at Athens
has profited considerably more than I have by the perform ance of M r T odhunter’s
Helena in Troas ... [Nonetheless] M r Godwin, FSA ... has to be congratulated on
his success in reproducing the most perfect im itation of a Greek theatre ever seen in
London.’
464 London’s Greek Plays in the 1880s
AN ILLUSTRATED W E E K L Y N EW SPAPER
Rtjgnttnti «>' 1 k'ciespaftr J SATURDAY, JUNIE 5. lS86
"H EL EN A IN TRIM S. AT H EN O LER S C IR C E S -T H E M A T H O r tENONE
F ig u r e 16.1 Scene from John T o d h u n ter’s Helena in Troas (1886).
the scenery and tableaux th at secured public recognition of the

seriousness of the endeavour (Fig. 16.2).9 B ut perhaps the m ost
intriguing of all of those involved behind the scenes is the som e
w hat shadow y figure of Professor G eorge C harles W inter W arr,
the m an responsible for the abridgem ent of A eschylus’ trilogy and
the author of The Tale o f Troy, and the m ind and body behind the
production as a whole.
W arr had been at K ing ’s College since 1874 w hen he joined the
D ep artm ent of Classics as a lecturer, and he had been prom oted to
9 T he tableaux had already been staged before in 1883 in W arr’s The Tale of
Troy. See Hearnshaw (1929), 318; Beard (2000), 37-53; and below, pp. 466-7.
F ig u r e 16.2 Scene depicting C lytem nestra awakening the Furies in

G eorge W arr’s The Story of Orestes (1886).
the C hair of Classical L iteratu re in 1881.10 Since the perform ances

at the P rin ce’s H all w ere very m uch his own creation, it is not too
far from the tru th to refer to this seem ingly fringe event in M ay
1886 as K ing ’s College’s first attem pt to bring A eschylus’ trilogy
to the general public. Indeed, the rehearsals for the C horus, at
least, took place in the M usic Room of the L adies’ D ep artm ent of
the College in K en sin g ton .11 In this chapter we seek to retrieve
10 T he bald details of W arr’s life can be gleaned from Who was Who 1895—1915, i
(6th edn. 1988); Ball and Venn (1913); and Venn (1954), s.v. W arr, George Charles
W inter.
11 See M inutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee o f the Ladies’ Depart
ment, 16 Feb. 1886, 10—11 (K ing’s College London Archive, KW /M 2). T he pro
duction of a Greek play has been an annual event at K ing’s since 1953, and since
1988 has formed a part of the London Festival of G reek Drama.
W arr from the w ings, so to speak, and to give an idea of the
m ultifarious nature of 1880s social philhellenism .
GEORGE WARR
W arr had also been responsible in som e senses for staging K ing’s
first G reek play som e three years earlier in 1883 w hen The Tale of
Troy was given tw o ancient-G reek and tw o English-language
perform ances in a private theatre in the hom e of L o rd and L ady
Freake, in South K ensington. L ord Freake, a m em ber of K ing’s
College C ouncil, had offered his house to W arr after his fellow
m em bers had refused to allow w om en to perform in the G reat H all
in the College. Since W arr had decided to m ount the production of
The Tale o f Troy in order to provide funds for a perm an en t site for
the L adies’ D ep artm ent of K ing’s College in K ensington, there
was considerable irony and no sm all am ount of w ilful obstruction
in the C ouncil’s decision.12
In o ther quarters, the w orthy cause to w hich the p ro d uctio n ’s
proceeds w ere destined w orked very m uch in W arr’s favour; the
1883 cast list included M r and M rs B eerbohm T ree as Paris and
H elen respectively, as well as M rs A ndrew L ang, J. K . Stephen,
and L ionel T ennyson am ongst its m em bers. M aud T ree (nee H olt,
and form er pupil of Q ueen’s College, H arley S treet, w here she had
learnt G reek and m ade her d ebut in a G reek tragedy) later recalled
‘a beautiful collie, the gift of Professor G eorge W arr, who
christened him A rgus, in rem em brance of one of our feats [in his
play]’.13 Indeed, G odw in (who was then draw ing up plans for his
own G reek theatre) was sufficiently interested in the project not
only to attend the E nglish language perform ance of the play, but
also to accom pany B eerbohm T ree to C rom w ell H ouse on at least
12 Hearnshaw (1929), 318. See Minutes of the Executive Committee of the Ladies’
Department of K ing’s College, 31 M ay 1883,101-2 (K ing’s College, London Archive
KW /M 1), which, in addition to congratulating W arr ‘upon the em inent success
which had crowned his labours’, also refers to the desire to stage repeat perform
ances in the G reat Hall at K ing’s and the need to enlist Lord Freake’s help in this
m atter; and the M inutes of 8 June (106—7) again refer to hopes for performances at
the College in the Autum n. Lord Freake’s death shortly after this no doubt m eant
that persuading the Council was an unlikely prospect (cf. Hearnshaw (1929), 439).
13 For M aud T ree’s early years at Q ueen’s College, see Foulkes (1997), 154, 163;
for her memories of W arr, see M rs Beerbohm Tree, ‘ “ H erbert and I ” : A Trivial,
Fond Record’ in Beerbohm (c. 1918), 21.
three occasions to w atch him take p art in the rehearsals; and G o d
w in referred to ‘these representations . .. [as] am ong the greatest
artistic delights ever provided for L ondon society.’14
By 1886 the picture had altered considerably, w ith W arr’s p e r
form ances upstaged in m any ways by the professionalism su r
rounding Helena in Troas. B ut despite the evident superiority of
the Argyll S treet project, there was clearly som e anxiety on T o d
h u n ter’s part, w hen he w rote to G odw in on 18 M ay: ‘W arr w ants
to have our theatre for a perform ance of his “ O restes” !!! H e is
going to w rite to you on the subject. O f course he must not get it for
love or m oney. Fancy him m uddling w ith his am ateurs over our
stage.’1'1 A nd behind T o d h u n te r’s acerbic com m ents lurks m ore
than a tinge of insecurity about a perceived rival: T o d h u n ter, it
should be recalled, had failed altogether in getting his first attem pt
at a classically inspired play, his Alcestis of 1879, on the stage (see
Ch. 15).
T h e distinguished classical scholar Jane H arrison, w ho took the
p art of Penelope in the 1883 production and who was to take the
p art of A lcestis at O xford the follow ing year (see Ch. 15), is said to
have spoken of W arr w ith hindsight as ‘a M r Pickw ick’ unable to
contain a ‘bevy of high-spirited beautiful young ladies w ho rustled
and “ bussled” on every side’.16 A nd T o d h u n te r’s picture of W arr
‘m ud d ling ’ over the stage w ith his ‘am ateurs’ in 1886 m ay well
echo H arriso n ’s view. F u rth erm o re, W arr’s fru strated attem pts to
silence the voluble enthusiasm for D orothy D en e’s perform ance as
C assandra did not escape the m ordant w it of the review er from
Punch:
A graceless youth knocked his stick against the floor. T he Professor leaped
to his feet: ‘H ow dare you do it! N o applause!’ W hereat their Royal
H ighnesses roared w ith laughter, the schoolm aster conquered, the O res-
tian Trilogy dragged its slow length along ... 17
14 See G odwin’s diary, 22 M ay-6 June 1883 inclusive (V&A Archive of A rt and
Design, AAD 4/8-1980); and the (unsourced) article by Godwin in the E. W.
Godwin Collection, Theatre M useum , Box 2: Program m es and Cuttings.
15 T odhunter to Godwin, 18 May 1886 (E. W . Godwin Collection, Theatre
M useum , Box 8: Helena in Troas/M isc. Correspondence).
16 I am indebted to both M ary Beard and Chris Stray for this reference, which
comes from the M irrlees Notebook and draft biography, H arrison Papers, Box 15,
Newnham College, Cambridge. T he account of the 1883 theatricals is partly based
on Elinor Paul’s letter and diary w ritten r. 1934. See Beard (2000), 183 n.15.
17 Punch, 90 (19 M ay 1886), 261.
W hilst W arr’s efforts w ould appear on the one h and to lend su p
po rt to H arriso n ’s picture of the bum bling professor, the review
er’s com m ents here (as w ith H arriso n ’s assessm ent) are not free of
hauteur. A nd although the term ‘schoolm aster’ in this context m ust
be m easured alongside the headline to the review, ‘T h e School
m aster A broad’— a direct allusion to com m ents by the distin
guished founder of L ondon U niversity, L o rd B rougham 18— a
derogatory note is clearly sounded. W arr had m ade the bizarre
w ritten request in the program m e for the audience to refrain
from applause during the perform ance; and his interventions,
how ever com ical, clearly reflect a som ew hat m isguided effort on
his p art to get the audience to listen to A eschylus’ w ords rath er
than sim ply view the play as a series of tableaux vivants.
Indeed, H arriso n ’s sim ple-m inded Pickw ickian character turns
out to have been a rem arkably energetic and m ultifaceted perso n
ality. W arr was prim arily a scholar, w ith im peccable academ ic
credentials, w inning the prestigious Porson Prize as an u n d e r
graduate at C am bridge in 1868, and placed th ird in the F irst
Class of the Classical T rip o s in 1869.19 H is published w ork, m ore
over, dem onstrates th a t he was fully engaged w ith the latest devel
opm ents in his field. H arrison m ay well have found his theatricals
faintly am using, b u t he found m uch of note in her work; and in his
com m entary on the Oresteia th at accom panied his translation in
1900, he credits her insights on num erous occasions.20
Follow ing a ‘m ost distinguished’ record at the Royal Institution
School L iverpool and an equally distinguished undergraduate
career at C am bridge, he joined the Classics D ep artm ent at
K ing’s after a brief spell teaching at S t P aul’s and elsew here.21 It
18 Cf. Brougham’s speech at the London M echanics’ Institute, 1825: ‘Look out,
gentlemen, the schoolmaster is abroad!’
19 O ther honours and prizes at Cambridge listed in Venn (1954) include,
T ancred Scholar (1865), First Bell Scholar (1866), Foundation Scholar at T rinity
(1867), M em ber’s Prize (1868), W inchester Reading Prize (1869). See further the
testimonials on W arr in the Archives at University College, London (Classics, 1876,
M —W), written in support of his double application for the Chairs of Greek and
Latin respectively in 1876.
20 W arr (1900), 186, 190, 200, 204 refers to two articles by H arrison in Journal of
Hellenic Studies, one in vol. 19 and another in vol. 20; and on 215, he refers to her
introduction and commentary in Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens
(London, 1890). In the preface, p. xi, he also expresses his debt to recent research
by H arrison, Verrall (usually in dissent), Wilamowitz, and Wecklein.
21 A. T . Brown (1924), 58 cites the Revd James Lonsdale’s m em ory of George
W arr and his elder brother H enry (who became a distinguished barrister on the
was m ost probably connections from his ow n school days that
secured him the lectureship at K ing ’s L ondon in 1874: a form er
A ssistant M aster at the Royal Institution, the Rev. Jam es L o n s
dale, had only relatively recently vacated the C hair of Classical
L iterature in 1870.22
W arr had been elected Fellow of T rin ity College, C am bridge, in
1870, four years before the K ing ’s appointm ent, b u t he had not
been adm itted to the Fellow ship after declining to take the oath of
allegiance to the C hurch of E ngland. H is involvem ent in the
M ovem ent for the A bolition of U niversity T ests durin g 1871,
w hich successfully sought to o v erturn the ruling that m em bers of
the C hurch of E ngland alone w ere able to m atriculate, seem ed
inevitable. T h is principled act of dissent was clearly one that
radically changed his predicted life pattern. H is tu to r from his
C am bridge years, R obert B urn refers to it in his testim onial w rit
ten in support of W arr’s double application for the C hairs of G reek
and L atin at U niversity College, L ondon in 1876:
I regret very m uch that his conscientious scruples, for w hich I have the
highest respect, should have prevented him from accepting a Fellowship,
and I feel that C am bridge thereby lost a scholar who would have been a
valuable teacher and lecturer in Classics.23
D uring his early years in L ondon, W arr had been at the heart of
the L iberal establishm ent as Secretary to the C obden C lub; and
connections m ade at this tim e clearly proved helpful and long-
lasting. G ladstone was P resident in 1870, and the Prim e M in ister’s
attendance at one of the G reek perform ances of W arr’s The Tale at
Troy som e years later, in 1883, m ay well have ow ed som ething to
their w ork together in the C lu b .24 It was during this tim e that W arr
N orthern circuit) as being amongst the Revd W illiam Dawson T urner’s ‘most
distinguished pupils’. W arr also taught at T rinity College, Cam bridge in 1871,
and from 1872 at G arrick Cham bers, where he prepared pupils for the classical
papers in the Indian Civil Service examinations (a duty he continued to perform
during his time at K ing’s). See too Hearnshaw (1929), 310—311.
22 Hearnshaw (1929), A. T . Brown (1924).
23 Testim onial dated 12 Apr. 1876 (Archives, n. 17). Cf. W arr’s comments in his
letter of application dated 28 Apr. 1876: ‘It is recorded in the Cam bridge U niversity
Calendar that I was elected but not adm itted a Fellow of T rinity College in 1870. I
should state that I declined admission on the ground of the sectarian tests which
were then in force.’
24 T here appears to be some confusion about the dates of W arr’s period of office:
according to Venn (1954) and Who was Who (1988), he was Secretary 1869—73;
m ade the acquaintance of the artist, W alter C rane, who designed
the C obden bookplate in 1875; and in 1887, in an extrem ely h an d
som e two volum e edition of the perform ance texts of both The Tale
of Troy and The Sto ry o f Orestes and the m usical accom panim ent,
C rane’s engravings of the tableaux and the set designs w ere rep ro
duced.2'1
W arr’s political radicalism had clearly been fostered during his
years at the Royal Institution, u n der the tutelage of the liberal
Broad C hurch headm aster and form er pupil of T hom as A rnold,
the R evd W illiam D aw son T u rn er. T u rn er, w ho spent the last
years of his life w orking in L ondon hospitals for the poor, was
believed during his years as headm aster to have discreetly kept
m any free places for prom ising b u t im poverished p u pils.26 W arr
shared D aw son’s principles, w ith his ow n passionate com m itm ent
during his career to extending the access of higher education to
include m em bers of the low er m iddle and w orking classes as well
as to w om en. H e becam e involved in the N o rth of E ngland C ouncil
for the H igher E ducation o f W om en, and gave a series of ‘highly
esteem ed’ lectures ‘to the w orking people and o th ers’ in R och
dale.27 H e played a central role in the form ation of the L ondon
Society for the E xtension of U niversity teaching in 1876, w hich led
to U niversity lecturers taking their learning to the suburbs and
allowing w om en to attend their classes for the first tim e. In 1879
W arr was lecturing on A ncient H istory at the ladies’ d epartm ent in
South K ensington; and he was at the forefront of the cam paign to
set up a perm anent college for the higher education of w om en, to
be know n as K in g ’s College for W om en. As we have heard, the
1883 production of The Tale o f Troy was m ounted to raise funds
for the new building in South K ensington; and in 1888 W arr
arranged for a share of the profits for Echoes of H ellas to be donated
to the L adies D ep artm ent of the College.28
whereas Brock (1939), 82, lists 1873-77. For Gladstone’s attendance at The Tale of
Troyy see Hearnshaw (1929), 492.
25 For Crane’s bookplate, see Brock (1939), 24; for the performance texts, see
W arr and Crane (1887).
26 A. T . Brown (1924), 31.
27 See the testimonial from James Stuart, Professor of M echanism and Applied
M echanics in the University of Cambridge, 17 Apr. 1876 (Archives, n. 17).
28 T he net proceeds of the performances am ounted to an impressive £652. 19s.
6d. O ther contributors included Anna Swanwick (£30), Gladstone (£100), F. W.
M aitland (£5), Lord Freake (£100), Miss M. Gurney, John Ruskin (5 gns.). See
In the 1880s w ith his productions of G reek plays, W arr shows
him self to be a deft m ediator betw een the visual, theatrical, literary
and m usical w orlds, w ith friends and acquaintances in p re
em inent circles. It is tem pting to see his schooldays as having
prepared him for this unusually broad brief: the Royal In stitu tio n
in D aw son T u rn e r’s tim e was as keen on equipping its pupils w ith
a detailed know ledge of m odern as well as ancient culture, w ith
m odern languages playing as prom inent a p art in the school c u r
riculum as L atin and G reek. A recu rren t em phasis in the testim o
nials su bm itted by W arr’s referees for his application for the
C hairs of G reek and L atin at U niversity College, L ondon is the
breadth of his learning in m odern as well as ancient literature; and
the range of literary allusion in his w ork w ould appear to bear this
o u t.29 A nother unusual strength of T h e Royal In stitu tio n in
T u rn e r’s tim e was the art departm ent, w ith the so-called ‘draw ing
boys’ form ing an elite group. As a prizew inner for draw ing on at
least one occasion, W arr w ould have had his picture exhibited on
Speech D ay together w ith the school’s ‘R oscoe’ collection of Ital
ian and Flem ish m asters.30
It seem s to have been the influence of W arr’s m ain p artn er in the
1883 production, C harles N ew ton (keeper of G reek and R om an
A ntiquities at the B ritish M useum from 1861 to 1885 and Yates
Professor of Classical A rchaeology at U niversity College, L ondon
from 1880 to 1888) that led to the involvem ent of m em bers of the
artistic establishm ent such as L eighton, Poynter, and W atts.31 But
it m ust be recalled th at W arr had already know n W alter C rane, at
least, for som e years; and his own, by no m eans inconsiderable
background in the visual arts, m ust have m ade him unusually well-
placed to co-ordinate such a large-scale collaborative project.
As scholar, radical, and socialite of sorts, then, W arr’s w ide-
ranging agenda invites com parison, perhaps, w ith the life of his
younger contem porary, the m uch b etter know n, and rather m ore
The Calendar of K ing’s College, London for 1886—7 (London 1886), 99. For Echoes of
Hellas, see M inutes of the Executive Committee of the Ladies’ Department of K ing’s
College 4 May 1888, 37 (K ing’s College, London Archive, KW /M 2).
29 See e.g. the comments of A rthur Holmes (dated 1872), H enry Jackson, and
H erbert K ynaston (both 1876; above, n. 17). In his commentary on the Oresteia
(London, 1900), there are frequent references to M ilton, Shakespeare, Tennyson,
and others.
30 A. T . Brown (1924), 37.
31 Hearnshaw (1929), 492.
distinguished, classical scholar G ilb ert M urray. Clearly M u rray ’s
m arriage into the H ow ard fam ily elevated him into a sphere that
W arr could only glim pse, b u t never enter (see fu rth er Ch. 17).
W arr’s ow n social separation from the South K ensington circles
that the G reek productions p u t him in touch w ith no doubt lurks
behind Jane H arriso n ’s im age of the bum bling M r Pickwick, and
behind the patronizing tone of som e of the reviews of the 1886
p ro d uctio n .32 M oreover, in m arked contrast to M u rray ’s upw ardly
m obile m arriage, W arr’s ow n m arriage to C onstance Em ily,
daughter of T hom as K eddy F letcher of U nion D ocks, Lim ehouse,
in 1885 was probably a socially am biguous m atch for the son of a
L iverpool clergym an. A lthough it is uncertain w hether C onstance
was one of W arr’s E xtension students, it w ould be safe to infer that
h er fam ily circum stances w ere not dissim ilar to those of the stu
dents who attended the extension lectures at T oynbee H all and
elsew here in the 1880s.33
Such noticeable social divisions notw ithstanding, M urray and
W arr shared com m on ground. M u rray ’s first translations of G reek
plays— the 1902 volum e of E uripides’ H ippolytus, Bacchae, and
A ristophanes’ Frogs th a t so im pressed G eorge B ernard Shaw and
his contem poraries (see Ch. 17)— appeared as V olum e III in a
series of verse translations, w ith com m entaries and notes for E n g
lish readers, th at was edited by W arr him self. W arr’s own (u n
abridged) translation of the Oresteia form ed the first volum e in
1900; and in the Preface, his opening rem arks convey popularizing
sentim ents that M urray w ould have no doubt endorsed. W arr
w rites:
C onsidering the obvious advantages offered by the com bination of trans
lation w ith com m entary, it is strange that the field of G reek and Rom an
32 For M urray, see Francis W est (1984) and D uncan W ilson (1987). For H arri
son’s comments, see n. 16 above. Note that at this point W arr is cast as a gauche
bachelor, but w ithin two years he will have m arried Constance Fletcher. Cf. further
the tone of the testimonials w ritten for W illiam W ayte, who was appointed Profes
sor of Greek in 1876 after W arr’s unsuccessful application. W hereas W arr’s referees
have only known him in a professional capacity, W ayte’s referees have often known
him personally since their time together at Eton (Archives, n. 17).
K ing’s College Archive contains no lists of extension students. For a profile of
the students at Toynbee Hall in the mid 1880s, see Toynbee H all, Whitechapel:
Second Annual Report of the Universities Settlement in East London (Oxford, 1886),
passim-, and the comm ent (p. 6) that in 1884 all the major newspapers were full of
accounts of life in the East End.
literature has been so far neglected in this respect that the classics— the
basis of literary education in our schools and colleges— are still, so to
speak, sealed books for all but students of G reek and L atin. By those
who do not possess the key to the originals they are read, if at all, w ith
little real appreciation, while it is to be feared that the m ajority even of
those who have acquired the key at m uch expense of tim e and labour make
hardly any subsequent use of it.
T he difficulty seems to be m et m ost sim ply and directly, not only for the
‘English reader’, but for the m ore or less instructed student, by thoroughly
annotated translations, giving to the latter the m eans of w idening the area
of his early reading and following it up in after life, so to make the ancient
literature a perm anent possession. T ranslations on these lines from the
G reek have the further recom m endation that they go far to fill the gap and
bring continuity into the classical work of the ‘m odern side’ w hich is
restricted to L atin.34
For W arr, translation (together w ith com m entary) was vital to
w iden the audience of the ancient texts; it served not only to
educate the G reekless reader, b u t also (as he was m ore than m ade
aw are w hen he prep ared students for the Indian Civil Service
exam inations)35 those public school boys w hose grasp of G reek
rem ained lim ited and/or non-existent since they had rem ained on
the ‘m odern side’ and learnt only L atin at school.
In his com m entary W arr chooses to cite Prometheus B ound in a
translation by A ugusta W ebster; this is no d o ub t significant given
W ebster’s radical agenda in her translations from the G reek, to
gether w ith her high degree of scholarship.36 B ut it is im portant,
above all, to situate W arr alongside the other rather b etter rem em
bered pioneers in the area of translation, R ichard Jebb and espe
cially Lew is C am pbell (see Ch. 15). A nd w hat is notable about
their translations, as w ith M u rray ’s to com e, is that they either
derive directly from the recent revivals, or (as w ith Jeb b ’s p rim ar
ily scholarly and pedagogical translations) they reflect at the very
least a new aw areness of an essentially perform ative context. 37
34 W arr (1900), pp. ix f.

35 See n. 21 above; and the testim onial from W illiam Baptiste Scoones, Garrick
Chambers (24 Apr. 1876): ‘T he stud ents... are young m e n ... drawn from the
upper Form s of the public schools but occasionally backward and requiring m uch
guidance.. . ’ (Archives, n. 17).
36 W arr (1900), pp. xlvii—xlix. For W ebster, see Flardwick (2000a), 68—81.
37 Jebb’s translations of Sophocles, with text, comm entary, and translation were
published from 1883 to 1895, and Lewis Cam pbell’s A Guide to Greek Tragedy for
W HY TH E ORESTEIA?
In the In troduction to W arr’s translation of the Oresteia— though
we should note th at it was w ritten som e ten or so years after his
production— we find a striking account of the trilogy:
. .. we see in the story of Cassandra the history of the ‘Sybil’— the woman
w ith that faculty of divination, w hich the Greeks as well as the T eutons
had discovered in the female sex— crushed out by the D elphic priesthood.
T he same jealousy, w hich denied honour and worship to wom en, is felt in
Apollo’s ruling that the m other is naught, that the father’s blood alone
runs in the child’s veins, that a m other’s blood may be shed by her son,
provided he is absolved w ith that of a pig by a m an ‘who expiates
for bloodshed’. T he trium phant plea of A thena, that she was bom w ithout
a m other, reflects the same hostility. She herself is, in a sense, the coun
terpart of the D elphic divinity— another em bodim ent of the Hellenic
m asculine intellect im posing its ordinances w ith a quasi-sacerdotal au
thority.38
N otw ithstanding that W arr is w riting in the wake of the English
discovery of Ibsen and in the early waves of the w om en’s suffrage
m ovem ent, his com m entary seem s decidedly strident in tone
(‘m asculine intellect im posing its ordinances w ith a quasi-sacer
dotal au tho rity ’). It is not, m oreover, w ithout passing resem blance
to the early-nineteenth-century evolutionary reading of the play by
J. J. Bachofen in Das M utterrecht (1821), w ho argued that the
trilogy enacted the historical overthrow of a m atriarchy by a p atri
archal system of order.
T h at W arr chose to highlight the them e of gender in the trilogy
in term s rem arkably fam iliar to late tw en tieth -cen tury ears is by no
m eans surprising in the light of his fem inist sym pathies during his
tim e at K ing’s. It also seem s clear from his com m ents w hy he chose
to represent aspects of the three A eschylean plays, rath er than, as
had been the trend previously, perform one play in its entirety. For
him , the trilogy is concerned w ith the ascendance of this ‘H ellenic
m asculine intellect’, and to break it up into its constituent parts is
to obscure this im p o rtan t m essage. Indeed, in a w ritten response to
a dam ning review of his play in The Athenaeum , w hich objected
English Readers appeared in 1891. For Jebb’s interest in revivals, see his introduc-
tory comments to each of the volumes.
38 W arr (1900), pp. xlii f.
prim arily to the cram ped stage conditions at the P rin ce’s H all,
W arr countered the review er’s objections to his abridgem ent in
precisely these term s: ‘M y object has been to rescue the T rilogy
from the dislocation to w hich it has h itherto been subjected.’39 F or
W arr, as his com m ents in the 1900 edition of his translation con
firm , the m eaning of the Oresteia can only be broached through
contem plation of its full trilogic sweep.
H ow ever, there w ere other less urgently radical reasons that
w ould have also prom pted his decision to m o u n t a production of
the Oresteia. E ver since Schlegel’s lectures on G reek dram a
reached the E nglish public through translation in 1815, A eschylus
had enjoyed the reputation of being a kind of honorary Shake
speare: a rugged, tow ering genius. Indeed, A eschylus’s strength
was increasingly deem ed to be his very deviation from the classical
ideal form ulated by W inckelm ann. F or R uskin, for exam ple, A es
chylus shared w ith Shakespeare the grotesque elem ent that he
adm ired in G othic architecture.40 By 1886 in a review of a concert
of S tan fo rd ’s m usic for the 1885 C am bridge Eumenides, the w riter
looks to A eschylus as a guide needed in a venal age. H e refers to the
po et’s
passionate sym pathy for the noblest types of hum an ch aracter. .. and his
profound belief in the inevitable and inexorable N em esis w hich waits
upon w rong d o in g . .. a faith w hich in this opportunistic age of shifty
politics and harum -scarum m orality seem to be fast dying out altogether.
T he other day ‘O restes’ [m eaning ‘T h e Story of O restes’] was ably im per
sonated and rapturously received at C am bridg e. . . 41
B ut perhaps equally im portant, the V ictorian privileging of
H om er should be invoked in order to account for W arr’s choice
of the Oresteia. T h e frieze of the A lbert M em orial (1871—2) gives
m ore space to H om er than to Shakespeare; and H om er has clearly
toppled the native artistic giant by 1891, w ith Shakespeare hum bly
deferring to his ancient G reek m aster in a Punch cartoon.42 G lad
stone fam ously set aside two tables in his library, one for H om er
and one for the Bible; and he w rote four studies on H om er in w hich
39 The Athenaeum, no. 3057 (29 May 1886), 725 in response to no. 3056 (22 May
1886), 690.
40 Ruskin (1851—3), iii, ch. 3, para. 67; Jenkyns (1980), 88.
41 Pall M all Gazette, 17 M ay 1886, 3-4.
42 Punch (1891). Thanks to Chris Stray for drawing this to our attention; see
further T urner (1981), 135-86.
he argued his belief in the historical reality of the poem s: Homeric
Synchronism (1876) drew on S chliem ann’s recent discoveries at
H isarhk to corroborate his thesis. Schoolboys knew of H om er
either directly or through popular anthologies, and in the visual
arts scenes from the H om eric epics w ere standard. A nd the H o m
eric w orld is both privileged and dom esticated in this late V ictorian
context: in A lm a-T adem a’s A Reading from H om er (1885), for
exam ple, we find the ‘classical’ figures lounging around in w hat
is essentially (as R ichard Jenkyns has pointed out) a V ictorian
draw ing-room , albeit one w ith m arble fu rn itu re.43
It is hardly surprising, then, that W arr’s first attem pts in 1883 to
involve his students from the E xtension classes at K ing ’s in dram a
should have focused on H om er. A lthough the 1883 cast of The
Tale o f Troy contained even m ore socialites than we find in the
revivals of 1886— in 1883, Sitw ells, M rs A ndrew L ang, and M rs
Bram Stoker appear am ongst other notables— W arr’s original in
tentio n had been for a predom inantly, if not exclusively, stu d en t-
based project; and his efforts to stage the play in the college bear
this o u t.44
A privileging of H om er also accounts, in p art at least, for the
early choice of tragedies for perform ance in G reek at O xford and
C am bridge from 1880 onw ards, w hen the T ro jan W ar and its
afterm ath predom inated. As we saw in the previous chapter, the
first such production was the Agamemnon, perform ed at Balliol in
1880; C am bridge follow ed w ith the A ja x in 1882 and the Eum en-
ides in 1885. In the sam e year, F. R. Benson, the organizer of the
1880 O xford Agam emnon, now a professional actor, m ounted a
touring production of the Oresteia w ith his Shakespeare C om pany
w hich proved enorm ously popular, both at hom e and abroad.43
A nd T o d h u n te r’s Helena in Troas (published before the 1886
production) enacts the events betw een the ending of the Iliad and
the start of E uripides’ Trojan Women. W arr’s choice, then, of the
m ost obviously G reek tragic ‘sequel’ to the H om eric epics, the
Oresteia, as the basis for his second dram atic perform ance was a
natural one.
43 Jenkyns (1991), 239.
44 See above, n. 11.
45 T he Company perform ed The Orestean [sic] Trilogy of Aeschylus at the New
Theatre, Cam bridge for 6 nights in M ay/June 1885 (Progamme in Cambridge
Greek Play Archive). See further Trew in (1960), 143—44.
TRAGEDY AND ARCHAEOLOGY
In the previous chapter, we have spoken of the pow er of the
classical burlesque at its best to enable it to rival (and on occasions
at least to outstrip) the very objects it sought to travesty. M ore
over, the burlesque, w ith its fusion of w ords and m usic, w ent
som e way tow ards giving its audiences an idea of the form of the
original. B ut G reek tragic burlesques did not sim ply recapture
the form of the G reek plays. T h ey w ere also at the forefront of
the m ovem ent tow ards historical accuracy in scenic and costum e
design. J. R. Planche, w ho has already been m entioned as the
author of a highly successful burlesque The Golden Fleece, was
also a leading founder of the B ritish A rchaeological A ssociation
in 1843 (a splinter group from the Society of A ntiquaries). T h e
extravaganzas he p u t on w ith Eliza V estris at the O lym pic w ere in
m any ways forerunners of the N aturalistic plays of the 1880s. B ut
they can equally well be seen as forerunners of the revivals of
G reek tragedies in the 1880s; and the fact that the m ost im portant
stage designer of the late nineteenth century, and the designer of
T o d h u n te r’s Helena in Troas, E. W . G odw in, was a disciple of
Planche bears this out.
F rom 1869 the restored R om an theatre at O range in Provence
played host to productions by the C om edie-Frangaise; and G o d
win was at the forefront of B ritish experim ents w ith alternative,
classically inspired, perform ance spaces. H e had been involved in
1884 and 1885 in open-air productions in S urrey,46 and it was now
a desire to replicate the ancient G reek perform ance space that had
led him to H engler’s C ircus. In an article that form ed p art of a
series on ‘A rchaeology on the Stage’ in the D ram atic Review, G o d
w in advocates that critics should ignore the action of the play, and
‘give undivided attention to the external [sic] of architecture and
costum e’.47 W hen review ers com m ent on T o d h u n te r’s play, it is
very often as if they were adhering to G odw in’s dictates: it is the
set and costum e that com m and their attentions alm ost to the
exclusion of the play-text proper. Jane H arriso n ’s extravagant
praise of T o d h u n te r’s play in a letter to the playw right’s wife is
representative:
46 See Stokes (1972). 47 Dramatic Review, 8 Feb 1885.

I was little prepared for the vision of beauty that m et our eyes on M onday.
T he chorus seated against the w hite m arble is a sight I shall never forget.48
A nd w hen a review er com m ents on The Sto ry of Orestes, praise is
given to the overall effect of scenic design:
Very great care, m oreover, had evidently been taken, and several of the
tableaux were as effective as any scene from a G reek play yet perform ed
here. T he sleeping furies about O restes, in their flam e-coloured garm ents
and green serpentine headdresses, their faces covered w ith cleverly con
trived masks, were first-rate, and w hether their leader was a m an or a
wom an nobody could be sure.49
It was Schlegel, of course, who m aintained that G reek tragedy
was sculptural, and this observation was now here m ore keenly felt
than in the 1880s. T h e revivals at C am bridge w ere closely linked
w ith the rise of archaeology as a discipline.50 In 1884 the new
university m useum , w hich contained a collection of 600 or so
plaster casts of G reek and R om an sculptures, was officially
opened. T o d h u n te r’s play was not unique in being m ounted in
aid of the new ly established B ritish School of A rchaeology at
A thens; a planned production of Sophocles’ Antigone at Bradfield
College in 1886/7, w hich never in fact m aterialized, sim ilarly
intended its proceeds to go to the B ritish School in A thens.51
T h e 1880s revivals of G reek tragedy w ere veritable Gesamt-
kunstwerke. W hilst it was the m usic that endured in the public
m em ory in the long ru n in the case of the M endelssohn Antigone,
at the tim e of its first appearance at C ovent G arden in 1845 it w'as
the scenery and costum es that im pressed audiences (see above). So
w ith the 1880 revivals: there m ay well have been subsequent
concerts of the m usic that had been w ritten expressly for the
productions— as was the case w ith S tan fo rd ’s m usic for the E u
menides at C am bridge in 1885, w hich was perform ed at the third
R ichter concert in 18865~— b u t again, it is the visual dim ension of
48 T odhunter Collection, University of Reading Library (Ms 202/1/1, fos.
327-30).
49 Pall M all Gazette, 14 May 1886, 3.
50 Easterling (1999), passim-, Beard (2000), 37—53.
51 L etter to Oscar Browning from N. B. Gray, 21 May 1886 (Oscar Browning
Papers, K ing’s College Cambridge; a copy deposited by Chris Stray is in the
Archive of Performances of Greek and Roman Dram a, University of Oxford).
52 The Academy, 29, no. 733 (22 May 1886), 371; Pall M all Gazette, 18 May
1886, 3^1.
the productions th at predom inates in the reviews of the 1880s
plays. As M artin Booth has persuasively argued, V ictorian stage
spectacle and stage pictorialism are very m uch a p ro d uct of w hat
was essentially a ‘view ing’ cu ltu re.53 A udiences w ent to the theatre
to see enactm ents of fam ous paintings— genuine tableaux vivants.
A nd L ouise Jopling’s com m ents on her role in the G o d w in -
T o d h u n ter production are revealing in this regard:
for the pediment, I was instructed [by Godwin] to drape and seat, half a
dozen figures in the same attitudes as those on the frieze of the Parthenon.
The poor things had to remain without moving during the whole time the
play was in progress. They were attired in unbleached calico draperies,
which simulated the white marble, just tinged with age, wonderfully well.54
W arr’s productions, then, are very m uch in tune w ith these
broader concerns of the period. B ut it was clearly his coup (w ith
the help of N ew ton) in securing the services of the m ost highly
regarded m em bers of the B ritish art w orld that m ade his p ro d uc
tions significant to L ondon society. T h e assistance of C harles
W aldstein, who was Secretary to the C am bridge G reek Play,55
was also a valuable asset in dealing w ith the art establishm ent.
W aldstein’s w ork on Phidias and R uskin gave him obvious stature
am ongst the m em bers of the Royal A cadem y. As the A cadem icians
had sought to capture the classical w orld on canvas, they w ere now
equally eager to participate in the general attem p t to recreate its
dram a on the stage; and A lm a-T adem a had already been to C am
bridge to see the A ja x in 1882.56 If n in eteenth-century stage his
tory is in large m easure an account of the art of perfecting stage
pictorialism , the paintings of this period in tu rn seem increasingly
to invoke the stage. B ut as M rs T ree recalled m any years later of
the 1883 production, it was, above all, the actors w ho ‘all loved to
be the w illing slaves of all the great artists of the day’.57
SOCIAL H E L L E N IS M VERSUS
THE NEW WOMAN
T h a t G eorge W arr could m ake such inroads into high society at
this tim e was substantially due to the increasingly fine line betw een
53 Booth (1981), 1—29. See further Altick (1978), passim.
54 Jopling (192 5), 289 . 55 Easterling (1999), 32 . 56 Ibid. 38.
57 M rs Beerbohm T ree in Beerbohm (r:.1918), 18.
aesthetic and w hat one m ight term social H ellenism . In 1884 the
A rgyll Street store of M essrs L iberty & Co. m ounted an exhibition
of ‘artistic and historical’ costum es designed by no lesser authority
than E. W . G odw in him self; and in an account of the show in the
Pall M a ll G azette, the social, scholarly, and aesthetic spheres
coalesce:
[the historical costum es] are m ore for fancy dresses than everyday wear, as
our clim ate will scarcely allow ladies to wear the garm ent of ancient
Greece, how ever picturesque they may look in the background of soft
silks w hich drape the walls of the exhibition ro o m s.. .. T he first was a
G reek robe .. . from a vase in the British M useum c.350 B C ; the second,
th ird and fourth also G reek costum es of different periods, im itated from
vases at the British M useum .58
T h is was a tim e w hen leading artists enjoyed alm ost u n preced
ented social-standing and w ealth. Sir Frederic L eighton was the
m ost extrem e exam ple of the w ell-heeled, w ell-connected painter
of the period: in the last decade of his life he was granted a peerage
(the only E nglish artist ever to have received the honour), and after
his death he was given full funeral honours at St P aul’s. B ut he was
not alone in his receipt of public recognition: successful artists
often appeared in m agazines and books, am idst the grandeur of
their vast, opulent studios.59 In 1885 the Royal A cadem y hosted a
ball w here the ladies w ent attired in G reek chitons w ith fillets in
their h air.60 T h e diary section of the Pall M a ll G azette w ittily and
tartly captures this social H ellenism in its rep o rt of the first p e r
form ance of T o d h u n te r’s play a year later:
Argyll Street was dum bfounded at the sight of the sm art people who
besieged the doors of H engler’s C ircus yesterday afternoon ... Sir F red
erick \sic\ Leighton was there, a spruce Olym pian; M iss Fortescue looked
like an artist’s m odel as she passed the P resid en t... and rank, wealth and
beauty were all represented. ‘H ow pretty, dear! but oh, this nasty incense!’
‘Q uite too charm ing’ ‘H ow those flowing draperies would becom e m e,’
‘A re they not ju st a little— you know?’ and so on.61
58 Pall M all G azette, 2 M ay 1884.

59 Wood (1983), 30—32. Leighton’s own studio was so large that he was able to
host musical concerts there.
60 G aunt (1952), 144.
W arr’s 1883 production at L ord and L ady Freake’s hom e,
Crom w ell H ouse, spaw ned the phrase ‘South K ensington
H ellenism ’; and by 1886 m any review ers had grow n w eary of the
distinct class of L iberty-gow ned ladies w ho flocked to the G reek
plays (see Fig. 16.3). The A cadem y's review er of the M ay 1886
plays caustically dism isses the new fashion as ‘th at H ellenic
craze w hich has succeeded the craze for blue and w hite china,
and w hich, so far as the general public is concerned, will last
F i g u r e 16.3 F ash io n p late ad v ertisin g ‘H e lle n ic ’ c o u tu re (1888).

as long.’62 T h e review er was a little w ide of the m ark w hen he
predicted the im m inent passing of social philhellenism : it was still
sufficiently alive a decade later, in 1896, to provide the target for
G ilbert and Sullivan’s The G rand Duke. A nd as late as 1910, L ady
D iana C ooper can still refer to the G reek rage in evening dress.63
B ut the classically inspired changes in fashion w ere by no m eans
entirely associated w ith upper-class frivolity. T h e H ealthy and
A rtistic D ress U nion, w hich advocated dress reform in close asso
ciation w ith the political em ancipation of w om en, prom oted the
G reek style as well. In 1893 in the first issue of its journal Aglaia,
the title page by the designer H enry H oliday (who also w orked on
the 1883 and 1886 productions of W arr) show ed three V ictorian
w om en in G reek robes; and there w ere illustrations in the inside
pages show ing the contrasts betw een ancient, m edieval, and
m odern dress by H oliday and W arr’s close associate W alter
C rane. O ther nam es from the 1880s revival— Louise Jopling and
G. F. W atts— also lent them selves in support of the H ealthy and
A rtistic D ress U n io n .64
It w ould, of course, be erroneous to claim that the revivals of the
1880s afforded in any sense a m anifestation of w hat G eorge B er
n ard Shaw was provocatively to label in 1891 the ‘unw om anly
w om an’, b etter know n by the slightly later coinage the ‘N ew
W om an’ (see Ch. 17). But it is equally im portant not to overlook
the fact that Frederic L eighton lent his su pp o rt to The Tale of Troy
because of his keen interest in the idea of a L adies’ D ep artm ent at
K ing ’s College.65 A nd his (apparently innocent) relationship w ith
his m odel D orothy D ene, w ho took the p art of C assandra in The
Story of Orestes, is in som e ways confirm ation of his fem inist
sym pathies.
T h e ‘discovery’ of D ene from the public’s point of view really
began w ith her appearance in W arr’s play, w hen she received
glow ing reviews for her perform ance as C assandra. She had turned
dow n a ‘m erely w alking character’ in T o d h u n te r’s play, and
rightly so, it seem s, since the review ers w ere unanim ous in their
praise of her interpretation of a difficult, m ajor role:
T he chief feature of the perform ance was the rem arkable acting of M iss
D orothy Dene as Cassandra. W e are inclined to think it was the best piece
62 The Academy, 29, no. 734 (29 May 18 86), 3 86-7 . 63 W ood (1983), 30.
64 Ibid. 29-30. 65 Hearnshaw (1929), 492.
of acting... that we have seen from an English actress for a long time. Miss
Dene has great personal charm, but nobody expected from her a perform
ance so powerful, so finished, and so self-controlled. It was not the least
Greek, but we do not hesitate to anticipate from it a high position for her
on the English stage.66
In the Illustrated London News she is praised for being ‘lost in the
passion of her personation’, for playing ‘C assandra w ith real
f i r e. .. ’. In the estim ation of the review er, D ene ‘is evidently an
artist of considerable prom ise’; and her interpretation of the role,
her ability to lose her ‘identity in the c h a ra c te r. . . and [b e ]. .. ab
sorbed in the contem plation of a great subject’, is considered
exem plary and an object lesson from w hich the professional
players in the production (nam ely the T rees) could learn.67
If the discovery of D ene began w ith her interpretation of the role
of C assandra in W arr’s play, her ‘discovery’ by the art w orld had
begun som e tim e earlier in 1879, w hen she was introduced to
L eighton and W atts as a m odel for p o rtrait studies.68 F rom a
poor East E nd background, she confided to L eighton her am bition
to be an actress; and it was L eighton w ho had funded her training
and followed her acting career enthusiastically. She does not
appear to have enjoyed m uch success on the stage after her start
ling perform ance as C assandra, b u t she rem ained in the public eye
as L eigh to n ’s principal m odel for all his m ajor paintings in the
final decade of his life.
In a fascinating study of V ictorian actresses and the m yth of
Pygm alion and G alatea, G ail M arshall sees the relationship b e
tw een L eighton and D ene as representative of w hat she term s the
nineteen th-centu ry G alatea-aesthetic.69 D ene is L eighton’s G al
atea, desired and desirable in her sculptural state; and her acting
career significantly ended follow ing the death of her benefactor.
O ne m ight infer m uch from the D ene—L eighton exam ple about the
questionable m orality of the Pygm alion role— one that Shaw was
to probe som ew hat later in his play of th a t nam e.70 Born as the East

67 IL N 88, no. 2412 (22 May 1886), 524. Cf. the engraving of Dene in contem -
porary dress alongside the review of the play in Punch, 90 (19 May 1886), 245.
68 For an account of D ene’s life, see W ood (1983), 75—9.
69 M arshall (1998), 172.
70 Leonee Orm ond has also suggested that Leighton’s relationship with Dene lies
behind Shaw’s play. See ibid. 216 n. 84.
E nd girl A da Alice Pullen, she was then transported into the
heights of fashionable L ondon society as ‘D orothy D en e’ by her
benevolent, patriarchal benefactor, only to discover that ‘origins’
still m atter even in the m ost seem ingly egalitarian circles. D ene
found this out m ost cruelly w hen W alter and M ary C rane, both
professed socialists, nevertheless broke off their son’s engagem ent
to her on class g ro u nd s.71 N o t only, then, are D en e’s experiences
clear evidence of the perils of re-fashioning an individual in an
unchanged w orld, they are also representative, as M arshall d em
onstrates, of an im p o rtan t aspect of the ‘view ing’ culture and its
treatm ent of actresses in general.
Lily L an g try rose to stardom in the last q u arter of the nineteenth
century in large m easure on account of her looks, and she had not
unsurprisingly been the first choice for the part of H elena in
T o d h u n te r’s play.72 O scar W ilde is said to have taken h er under
his w ing— rather as L eighton had done w ith D ene— w hen she
expressed a desire to learn m ore about the ancient w orld, and
about ancient G reece in particular. W ilde regularly attended Sir
C harles N ew ton ’s lectures at K in g ’s College, L ondon w ith L an g
try in 1881, and it is said that students w ould w ait outside the
building and cheer w hen the social lum inaries em erged from their
cab. O n one occasion durin g N ew ton ’s lecture, L angtry is said to
have sat facing the audience as a living exam ple of A ttic beauty.
She was deem ed to possess the sm all upper lip and rounded chin
th at was so highly valued in G reek sculpture, and her beauty as
m uch as (or even m ore than) her acting ability accounted for her
success on the stage.73
As M arshall says of V ictorian actresses in general, they have the
sculptural m etaphor im posed upon them ; and the desirability of
the actress lies precisely in the fact th at it is the m ale gaze that
determ ines the sexual potential of the otherw ise inanim ate body.74
In the 1880s, w ith increasing anxieties about hom osexuality and
m ale effem inacy follow ing the increase in inform ation about b irth
control and the attendant drop in the b irth rate in the previous
decade, fem inine virtues of all kinds w ere prom oted. M arshall sees
71 Wood (1983), 78.
72 She features prom inently in the Prospectus to Helena in Troas (Godwin
Collection, Theatre M useum , Box 8: Helena in Troas/Nlisc. Correspondence).
73 Ellm ann (1987), 70; W ood (1983), 30. See further Beatty (1999).
74 M arshall (1998), 1-7.
this desire to prom ote the fem inine aspect in w hat was feared an
increasingly effem inate society to lie behind the rise of the social
standing of the actress durin g this perio d.7S
T h a t the actress is granted life and potency throu g h the m ale
spectator’s gaze is felt now here m ore keenly than in accounts of the
1880s revivals of G reek plays. T h e dram a critic of The Academ y
m akes the follow ing observations about T o d h u n te r’s play:
B ut the chief charm as well as the chief novelty lay in the part of the
chorus, upon whose training no pains had been spared. T h eir singing, we
have been told, was technically not free from blame; but it would be
im possible to pick any other fault in the perform ance. T hough there was
no attem pt at dancing, their intricate w indings over the orchestra, their
rhythm ical waving of their bare arm s, and the grace of the w hite garm ents,
strangely affected the im agination.76
E ven though this particular chorus does not appear to have done
w hat a G reek chorus w ould be expected to have done— nam ely
sing and dance— it is still considered to have given a near faultless
perform ance. T h e languor of the w riter’s last few lines here, to
gether w ith the neat counterpoint betw een the potentially erotic
‘bare arm s’ and the chaste ‘grace of the w hite garm ents’, leaves the
reader in no d oub t as to how this particular review er’s im agination
was ‘strangely affected’. A nd the detractors of the G o d w in -
T o d h u n ter endeavour m etaphorically tear back the garm ents and
expose the play as a vehicle for sham eless titillation of the m ale
spectator. H ere is the Illustrated London News:
Society is ransacked for comely m aidens, w ith stately figures and classical
profiles, to patter about m arble pavem ents w ith sandalled feet, and to
m eander around the thym ele, or altar, perfum ed w ith incense. . . and
there has been a generous display of classically m odelled neck and white
arm. 77
N o do ub t it was the potentially highly charged nature of the
audience-actor dynam ic in revivals of G reek plays that led to the
prohibitions on cross-dressed roles at O xford, w here m en w ere not
allowed to take w om en’s roles. T h is led to Jane H arriso n ’s being
invited to take the p art of A lcestis in the 1887 production of
75 Ibid. 92—4-; see also Dowling (1994).

76 The Academy, 29, no. 733 (22 M ay 1886), 370.
77 IL N , no. 3056 (22 May 1886), 524.
E uripides’ play (w hich as we heard in the previous chapter coinci
dentally em ployed the set designed by G odw in for H elena in Troas
the previous year).78 A nd C am bridge’s prohibitions on w om en
taking part in the G reek play (w hich w ith one notable exception
in 1885, w hen Janet Case of G irto n played A thene in the Eumen-
ides, lasted until 1948,79 w hen w om en becam e m em bers of the
U niversity) m ay well have had m ore to do w ith the dangers inh er
ent in w hat M arshall calls the G alatea-aesthetic than it did w ith the
status of w om en w ithin the university.
It w ould, perhaps, be unfair to reduce these revivals to vehicles
for the purposes of dem eaning their fem ale participants. In some
senses the plays w ere sim ply hijacked by a social elite unw illing or
unable to appreciate any deeper significance behind the occasions.
W arr’s com m ents on A thena’s em bodying ‘the H ellenic m asculine
intellect im posing its ordinances w ith a quasi-sacerdotal au th o r
ity’,80 for exam ple, do not seem to have struck any review er of The
S to ry o f Orestes as either significant or relevant to the play. F or
m any critics, as we have seen, it is the equally (or indeed m ore)
im portant peripheral action that com m ands their attention.
T h ese productions, it seem s, m ay well be best understood as
being, like W arr him self, thoroughly representative of the 1880s in
general— a culture in transition. W arr was a radical who rubbed
shoulders w ith the E stablishm ent. B ut unlike C rane, for exam ple,
he seem s to have lived by his principles in his w ork and personal
life. T h e 1880s revivals are poised on the threshold of a new era
that was to recognize that going back was the only sure way to go
forw ard. A nd it is interesting to hear w hat one such pioneer
w aiting in the w ings, the poet-playw right, W . B. Yeats has to say
about one of these revivals. A lthough he did not see H elena in
Troas, Y eats knew the play well and recognized the im portance
of the 1886 production in the developm ent of m odern dram a:
[T o d h u n te r’s] so n o ro u s verse, u n ited in th e rh y th m ica l m o tio n s o f th e
w h ite ro b ed ch o ru s, a n d th e so lem n ity o f th e b u rn in g in cense, p ro d u c e d a
sem i-relig io u s effect n ew to th e stag e.81
W ith o u t the 1880s experim ents of W arr and his co ntem porar
ies— experim ents indeed w ith all their vagaries— the next
78 Carpenter (1985), 44—5 . 79 Easterling (1999), 28.

80 W arr (1900), pp. xlii f. 81 Yeats (1989), 36.
generation w ould never have taken the bold leaps into extending
the range of m odern dram a in E nglish that they w ent on to take.
Y eats’s dance dram as from 1914 onw ards drew no less on G reek
tragedy than they did on Japanese N oh dram a; and his collabor
ator, G ordon Craig, the son of E. W . G odw in, acknow ledged his
parentage m ost significantly in his reverence for his fath er’s u n d e r
standing of classical G reece. T h is should be reason enough to w rite
W arr back into theatre history, and to restore his efforts and those
of his students at K ing ’s College, L ondon, to the public m em ory.
17
The Shavian Euripides and the Euripidean
Shaw: Greek Tragedy and the New Drama
In an essay entitled ‘T h e W om anly W om an’ published in The

Quintessence o f Ibsenism (1891), G eorge B ernard Shaw refers to
the quickly fading rom antic ideal follow ing com pletion of the
m arriage cerem ony. Shaw inform s us that:
T h e wife finds that her husband is neglecting her for his business; that his
interests, his activities, his whole life except that one part of it to w hich
only a cynic referred before her m arriage, lies away from hom e; and that
her business is to sit there and m ope until she is wanted. T hen w hat can
she do? If she com plains, he, the self-helper, can do w ithout her; w hilst she
is dependent on him for her position, her livelihood, her place in society,
her hom e, her very bread . . . 1
A little fu rth er on in the essay, Shaw goes on to com pare the sites of
endurance that aw ait each party:
T he dom estic career is no m ore natural to all wom en than the m ilitary
career is natural to all men; and although in a population em ergency it
m ight becom e necessary for every able-bodied wom an to risk her life in
childbed ju st as it m ight becom e necessary in a m ilitary em ergency for
every m an to risk his life in a battlefield, yet even then it would by no
m eans follow that the child-bearing would endow the m other w ith dom es
tic aptitudes and capacities as it would endow her w ith m ilk.2
In 1891 Shaw ’s unnam ed paradigm is, of course, N ora H elm er
from Ibsen ’s The D oll’s House, w hich had only recently received its
first L ondon production tw o years earlier in 1889. B ut the details
of these passages— the w andering husband versus the encaged
wife; the collocation of childbed and battlefield— bear m ore than
a passing resem blance to M edea’s fam ous ‘W om en of C o rin th ’
speech in E u rip id es’ tragedy. A nd w hen Shaw approaches the
clim ax of his excursus, it is as if it is the exam ple of M edea herself,
1 Shaw (1986), 59. 2 Ibid. 60.
Shavian Euripides, Euripidean Shaw 489
the paradigm atic transgressor of duty, that is pointing the 1890s
w om an tow ards abandonm ent of the m yth of the ‘w om anly
w om an’. Shaw w rites:
. . . unless wom an repudiates her wom anliness, her duty to her husband, to
her children, to society, to the law and to everyone but herself, she cannot
em ancipate h erself...
T h e links betw een M edea and the N ew W om an w ere regularly
m ade from the 1890s onw ards, and it was the ‘discovery’ of the
radical ‘W om en of C o rin th ’ speech that m ade those connections
both p ertin en t and possible. All previous adaptations in E ngland,
w hich drew on either the Seneca, G rillparzer, or Legouve m odels
had om itted that speech; and it m ay well have been this serious
om ission that led to A ugusta W eb ster’s decision to publish her
m uch adm ired translation of M edea in 1868 (C h. 14).
T h e perceived affinities betw een the M edea of ‘W om en of C o r
in th ’ speech and the m anifesto of the N ew W om an, how ever, w ere
not always seen as positive. T h e w riter M ary Coleridge com m ents
on the parallels in a diary entry of 1894 w ith m ore than a tinge of
disapproval:
M edea is thoroughly fin de siecle; says she w ould rather go into battle
three tim es than have a baby once, pitches into m en like anything. But
there’s too m uch W hitechapel about her. H ow are you to be seriously
interested in a wom an who has m urdered her father [sic] and boiled her
father-in-law before the play begins? So different from the gentle Phaedra,
and the w onderful Antigone and H elen.4
O pponents of the N ew W om an, how ever, w ere to receive their
m ost prom inent advocate in 1895, w hen M ax N ordau in Degener
ation provided, am ongst other things, a sharp riposte to the advo
cates of the Ibsenite ‘unw om anly w om an’. N ordau explains:
W ith Ibsen wom an has no duties and all rights. T he tie of m arriage does
not bind h e r . .. W om an is always the clever, strong, courageous being;
m an always the sim pleton and coward. In every encounter the wife is
victorious, and the m an flattened out like a pancake.. . W ith Ibsen she
has even overcom e her m ost prim itive instinct— that of m otherhood— and
abandons her brood w ithout tw itching an eyelid w hen the caprice seizes
her to seek satisfactions elsew here.5
3 Ibid. 61.
4 M ary E. Coleridge (1910), 235. Thanks to Isobel H urst for this reference.
5 N ordau (1895), 412.
490 Greek Tragedy and the N ew Drama
N o rd au ’s nom inal defier of duty is again N ora H elm er, b u t as w ith
Shaw, he could equally well be offering his reader a com m entary
on the last two encounters betw een the E uripidean characters of
Jason and M edea.
T h e links betw een E uripides and Ibsen w ere regularly com
m ented upon at the beginning of the new century. T h e theatre
m anager and critic J. T . G rein described E uripides in 1904 as ‘the
poet Ibsen of his day’.6 Sim ilar views hailed from academ ic circles
w ith Lew is C am pbell describing E uripides as ‘Ib sen ist’ in a letter
to a friend early in 1906.7 T h e previous year, in the preface to his
translation of E uripides Electra (1905), G ilb ert M urray had
pointed to sim ilarities betw een E uripidean and Ibsenite psych
ology. Indeed for M urray, E uripides was an honorary contem por
ary: ‘I alm ost feel he expresses m y own beliefs: rational, liberal,
hum ane, fem inist.’8
M oreover, w ith the Scandinavian E uripides receiving his m ost
prom in en t and successful cham pion in B ritain in the person of
G eorge B ernard Shaw, it was perhaps inevitable that Shaw him self
cam e to be seen as the E uripides of the E nglish-speaking w orld.
Follow ing the study by G ilb ert N orw ood entitled Euripides and
Shaw in 1921, w hich focused prim arily on their com m on interest
in the dram a of ideas, the perceived links betw een E uripides and
Shaw becam e com m onplace. B ut the association was being m ade
m uch earlier: an author of a book on E uripides published in 1911
opens w ith these questions:
T h at Euripides is a ‘m odern’ requires no proof. Does he not, w ith Prof.
G ilbert M urray for interpreter, find his natural place on our stage by the
side of our newest and brainiest dram atists? Is he not fam iliar to all Fleet
Street as the ‘G reek Ibsen,’ the ‘A ttic Shaw’? A re not his plays an inex
haustible m ine of tags for the Fem inist and other w orkers for G reat
Causes?9
H ow ever prevalent these observations w ere at the tim e, discus
sion of such interconnections today is generally confined to q ues
tions of w hat the m oderns did to the ancients. In other w ords, it is
not E uripid es’ influence on either Shaw or Ibsen that is deem ed
6 Sunday Times, 29 May 1904, 6.

7 Lewis Campbell (1914), 423, letter of 30 Jan. 1906.
8 Cit. Francis W est (1984), 69.
9 Salter (1911), 9.
significant, b u t the ways in w hich E uripidean scholarship of the
tim e was influenced by responses to the contem porary play
w rig hts.10 H ere in this chapter, by contrast, the focus will be on
the various and im portant ways in w hich G reek dram a exerted a
profound influence on the m odern play of ideas; and we shall see
how the concept of the E uripidean Shaw is not ju st tenable,
b u t central to an understanding of Shaw ’s play of 1905, M ajor
Barbara.
W e have already seen the extent to w hich the forebears of
the N ew W om an can be found in the m id-century burlesques
of M edea (Ch. 14). W e have also seen the ways in w hich a
generation b ro ugh t up on burlesques of G reek tragedy w ent on
to becom e involved in the am ateur revivals of G reek tragedies
in E dinburgh, O xford, C am bridge, and L ondon from the 1870s
onw ards (Chs. 15 and 16). Shaw is, perhaps, the m ost interesting
link w ith these two earlier phases of G reek tragedy’s production
history in B ritain. As a theatre critic in late-V ictorian L ondon,
he had am ple o p portunity to learn about the m echanics of V ictor
ian com ic form s.
Shaw ’s close friend and colleague at the C ourt T h eatre was
the classicist G ilbert M urray; and M urray was the m ajor source
of Shaw ’s ideas on G reek tragedy as Shaw him self was quick to
acknow ledge. L ater in his life, he explained: ‘T h an ks m ainly to
G ilb ert M urray, I know as m uch as anyone need know of the
ancient G reek d ram a.’11 T h e Shavian E uripides, as we will see in
this chapter, is really M u rray ’s E uripides. A nd Shaw was no doubt
am used to learn that M urray owed his first nam e to his m o th er’s
uncle, who was the father of the form idable and w itty lyricist W . S.
G ilbert. G ilbert him self was w idely acknow ledged as the true
successor to the father of the classical burlesque, J. R. Planche;
and now, in a sense, the m antle is being passed on as Shaw finds
out, through his close contacts w ith M urray, how the burlesque
tradition can be developed for serious political ends. If the classical
burlesque died a death around 1870 (see Ch. 13), it was now at the
tu rn of the century being reincarnated in the Shavian play of ideas.
M any years later in 1933, w hen M urray published his study on
10 See, e.g. Lloyd-Jones (1982), 195—214, esp. 199—201 for the influence of Ibsen
on W ilamowitz’s scholarship.
11 Holroyd (1988-92), iii. 400.
A ristophanes, he significantly dedicated it to Shaw: ‘lover of ideas
and hater of cruelty, w ho has filled m any lands w ith laughter and
w hose courage has never failed.’12
M URRAY AND SHAW

It was largely on account of G ranville B arker’s productions of
M u rray ’s translations at the C ourt T h eatre from 1904 onw ards
th at the G reek exam ple becam e w idely know n in Britain. W hen
Frank Benson retu rn ed w ith his com pany from their tou r in 1905,
it was B arker’s theatrical experim ents w ith M u rray ’s version of the
H ippolytus that led him to seek a L ondon venue for his own
p roduction of the Oresteia
T h e influence of M u rray ’s translations on Shaw ’s oeuvre in
form al term s was extensive: in his play G etting M arried, and to
som e extent in A ct III of M ajor B arbara, Shaw ’s avoidance of
form al act divisions is an obvious debt to the G reek exam ple; and
in his resistance to the form al ending of the ‘w ell-m ade’ play in
favour of plays w hose denouem ents very often look tow ards the
future, Shaw clearly has the aetiological endings of num erous
ancient plays in m ind. B ut it was also the content of certain ancient
plays, as they w ere m ediated throu g h M urray, that was to have a
p rofound effect on Shaw ’s creative aesthetic.
T h eatre historians m ay well have overlooked the influence of
G reek dram a on the Shavian play of ideas, b u t Shaw chose to m ake
his debt to the leading expert on classical dram a explicit. In the
epigraph to M ajor Barbara (1905), Shaw w rites:
N B T he Euripidean verses in the second act of M B are not by me, nor
even directly by Euripides. T hey are by Professor G ilbert M urray, whose
English version of The Bacchae came into our dram atic literature w ith all
the im pulsive pow er of an original work shortly before M B was begun.
T he play, indeed, stands indebted to him in m ore ways than one.14
Shaw ’s deep respect for M u rray ’s literary skills and for his tran sla
tions of G reek dram a, in particular, rem ained unchanged th ro u g h
out his life despite obvious changes in public taste. A lthough
12 M urray (1933), p. v.
13 Benson’s Oresteia was eventually staged at the suburban Coronet Theatre in
M arch 1905. See The Academy, 68, no. 1714 (11 M ar. 1905), 242—3.
14 Shaw (1960).
T . S. E liot’s dam ning criticism of M u rray ’s translations in his essay
‘E uripides and M r M u rray ’ has now becom e orthodoxy, on its first
appearance in A rts and Letters in 1920,15 E liot’s essay did little
dam age to M u rray ’s reputation as a fine translator for his age. But
tw enty years later, w hen M u rray ’s translations had been falling
from fashion for at least a decade, and his values no longer seem ed
to suit the tim es, Shaw m ade the extraordinary claim th at the
translations w ere the only w orks from the turn-of-th e-cen tu ry
flow ering of theatre in English that w ere likely to survive.16
Shaw ’s deb t to M urray at this point in his career, at least, cannot
be overstated; and in m any ways, M u rray ’s role is analogous to the
one played by N ietzsche to W agner som e years earlier. It m ay well
be by no m eans fortuitous to invoke the N ietzsche—W agner rela
tionship in this context, particularly since Shaw him self was both
fascinated by and indebted to them both in his ow n career. In 1898
w hen he was w orking on The Perfect W agnerite (1898), an in ter
pretation of W agner’s R ing cycle, he was living dow n the road from
M urray in Surrey; and in 1903 Shaw spoke of Schopenhauer and
N ietzsche as being ‘am ong the w riters w hose peculiar sense of the
w orld I recognise as m ore or less akin to m y ow n’.17
It is im portant to stress that Shaw never assum ed tow ards
M urray anything like the kind of lofty, rath er patronizing role of
the (elder) W agner tow ards the (young) N ietzsche;18 on the co n
trary, their personal relationship was one of m utual respect and
rem ained so throu g ho u t th eir lives.19 Instead, it is the intellectual
stim ulus and authority that M urray was able to offer Shaw that
resem bles N ietzsche’s influence on W agner. In both cases classical
scholars w ere able to provide theatre practitioners w ith ideas that
w ere already starting to coalesce in the dram atists’ ow n m inds. T h e
M urray -S h aw relationship m ay not be as fam ous (nor indeed as
infam ous) as the G erm an counterpart, b u t it was definitely m ore
enduring and m ore profitable in the long term . W ith o u t Shaw ,
M urray w ould not have gained the kind of access to and ‘inside’
15 T . S. Eliot (1950), 46-50.

16 Francis W est (1984), 100.
17 H olroyd (1988—92), ii. 3—4; and for the quotation, see Shaw Papers, British
M useum , 1931-2.
18 For a full discussion of the Nietzsche—W agner relationship, see Silk and Stern
(1981).
19 See H olroyd (1988-92), index, s.v. M urray, Gilbert.
know ledge of the professional theatre that he needed; and m ore
im portantly perhaps, w ithout M urray, Shaw w ould not have been
as adventurous, nor have offered such serious intellectual chal
lenges, at this stage in his career.
P roductions and readings of particular G reek plays can be seen to
have had, in retrospect, inordinate influence on the subsequent
history of ideas. T h e m ost notable exam ple is F reu d ’s attendance
at the fam ous C om edie-Frangaise production of Oedipus R ex in the
1880s, w ith Jean M ounet-S ully in the title role, w hich can now be
seen to have been responsible for shaping tw entieth-century defin
itions of self (see Ch. 18). A nd although nothing can quite m atch
th at event, there are at least tw o occasions w hen readings of G ilbert
M u rray ’s translations of E u rip id es’ plays can also be seen, in retro
spect, to have had w ide-ranging consequences in the tw entieth
century. T h e first is the im pact th a t M u rray ’s reading of his tran s
lation of the H ippolytus at N ew nham College, C am bridge, in F eb
ruary 1901 had on B ertrand R ussell’s philosophical system .20 T h e
second is M u rray ’s reading of a selection of his translations later
th at year at a Fabian Society m eeting, w hen Shaw was so over
w helm ed that he urged M urray to seek im m ediate publication.21
In 1902 M u rray ’s translations of the H ippolytus, Bacchae, and
Frogs w ere published as the th ird volum e in the pioneering series
edited by G eorge W arr (see Ch. 16), w hich com bined translation
w ith an introduction and com m entary. M u rray ’s experience in
preparing lectures for his students durin g his tim e as Professor of
G reek at G lasgow from 1889 had led him to share w ith both
C am pbell and W arr a concern for the need of the w ide availability
of good translations (see Chs. 15 and 16). Follow ing his retirem ent
on the grounds of ill-health from the C hair of G reek at G lasgow in
1899, M urray was to spend the next five years m aking E uripides’
plays available to a range of different audiences: to scholars
(through his O xford Classical T ex t edition of the plays);22 to
readers w ithout G reek (through his published translations); and
eventually, through the productions of his translations on the
professional stage, to a w ide theatre-going public throu g h o u t B rit
ain and the E nglish-speaking w orld. Ju st as Shaw the dram atist
was being introduced to new audiences at the C ourt T h eatre
20 M onk (1996), 135-8. 21 Francis W est (1984), 72.

22 See Easterling (1997).
through B arker’s productions of his plays, so Barker w ith M u r
ray’s m ediation was introducing the sam e people to E uripides at
the special m atinee perform ances. A nd if the L ondon venue was in
Sloane Square, the rural retreat around C hurt, H indhead, and
H aslem ere in Surrey— w here M urray, Shaw , and B arker all had
houses for a tim e— m ade th a t extraordinary interchange of ideas
and energy not ju st possible b u t intensely fruitful.
M U R R A Y ’S H I P P O L Y T U S
T w o years after the publication of M u rray ’s first collection of
translations, the H ippolytus was staged by B arker in M ay 1904 at
the L yric T heatre. Barker, w ho had w ritten and produced several
plays based on N ew W om en, was keen to m ount the ancient m yth of
Phaedra, the w ould-be adulterous/incestuous step-m other. Barker
him self had w orked closely w ith the theatre producer W illiam
Poel; and m ost of his actors had either w orked w ith Poel, or (like
Poel) trained w ith B enson’s com pany. H ere at the L yric T heatre,
the production was generally received w ith ‘polite encourage
m ent’,23 although M ax B eerbohm , a great adm irer of the B radfield
G reek play and also a notorious anti-fem inist, not surprisingly
objected to the fact that the indoor space and proscenium arch
at the L yric reduced the play to a ‘m odern story’. F or B eerbohm ,
the attraction of E uripides and his contem poraries was not
their contem porary resonances; instead it was (despite M u rray ’s
‘excellent’ translation) their very distance from the real (both
linguistic and them atic) that gave them value for m odern
audiences.24
F or m ost com m entators, how ever, it was felt that B arker’s p ro
duction had m arked a w atershed in B ritish theatre. F or the none
too disinterested critic W illiam A rcher (his com pany, the N ew
C entury T h eatre, had co-sponsored the production w ith the
Stage Society), H ippolytus in M u rray ’s translation had restored
‘beauty and deep poetic feeling’ to the th eatre.2’ A nd the diplom at
and poet W ilfrid Scawen B lunt recorded in his diary: ‘A t the end of
[the production] we were all m oved to tears, and I got up and did
w hat I never did before in a theatre, shouted for the author,
23 K ennedy (1985), 23 . 24 Saturday Review, 4 June 1904, 716.

25 Holroyd (1988-92), ii. ii. 96.
w hether for E uripides or G ilb ert M urray I hardly knew .’26 Both
A rth u r B ourchier at the G arrick T h eatre and the producer
W illiam Poel w ere keen to stage the play. B ut w hilst H ippolytus
was in production at the L yric, Sophocles’ Electra was being
perform ed by G reek actors w ith m oderate success at the C ourt
T heatre; and Barker, w ho had earned plaudits not sim ply for his
role in the direction of the H ippolytus, b u t also for his appearance
as the m essenger, learnt th at the leaseholder of the C ourt T h eatre
had expressed a desire to produce G reek plays on a regular basis.27
T h is fortuitous tim ing led to the start of the extraordinary
flow ering of productions of E uripides and the N ew D ram a in the
first public theatre to stage ‘serious’ plays, w hen B arker began his
partnership w ith the business m anager Paul V edrenne at the C ourt
T h eatre in O ctober 1904. B oth Shaw and M urray w ere staunch
supporters of the theatre, together w ith a m otley collection of
Fabians, fem inists, and avant-garde theatre practitioners. T h eir
su pp o rt did not ju st take the form of supplying plays for p erfo rm
ance: they w ere also on occasions ready to offer considerable finan
cial su ppo rt to this daring en terp rise.28
T h e revival of the H ippolyus at the C ourt T h eatre opened on 18
O ctober; and if B eerbohm had bem oaned the confines of the
m odern theatre space at the L yric, now on an even sm aller stage,
the original chorus of eight w om en was increased to tw elve plus the
leader, Florence F arr, who accom panied w ith the strains of her
psalteries. E ven though F a rr’s chanting had particularly im pressed
W . B. Y eats, both B arker and M urray grew to dislike w hat they felt
was her precious ‘art for a rt’s sake’ approach.29 B ut w hatever the
shortcom ings of certain aspects of the production, the H ippolytus
was generally considered to be a success; and w hen it was revived
in M arch 1906, it was advertised in the popular pictorial weekly,
the B ystander w ith the disclaim er: ‘Y ou will like it w ithout any
necessity of posing as an earnest stu d en t of the d ram a.’30 G reek
tragedy, thanks to the com bined efforts of M urray and Barker, was
no longer the exclusive preserve of the private theatres in the
E nglish-speaking w orld; and E uripides, in particular, was now
truly ‘p o pu lar’.
26 Holroyd (1988-92), ii. ii. 97. 27 Ibid. 97. 28 Kennedy (1985), 24.
29 For an account of the problem s experienced by Barker and M urray with the
chorus in general, see ibid. 42—4.
30 The Bystander, 11 Apr. 1906, 72.
M U R R A Y ’S B A C C H A E
W hat im pressed Shaw, in particular, about M u rray ’s 1902 collec
tion of ancient plays was his translation and com m entary upon the
Bacchae, and the extent to w hich the play (in M u rray ’s reading)
explored religious experiences and questions of m oral identity in
term s rem arkably sim ilar to Shaw ’s own. T h ro u g h Shaw ’s ac
quaintance w ith M u rray ’s Bacchae, he discovered how classical
scholarship could illum inate tw en tieth -cen tury political concerns.
Like Shaw , M urray had been led to believe by his Irish ancestry
that religion could never be considered independent of politics.31
In the Intro du cto ry Essay to the 1902 volum e, M urray con
cluded th at the m ain m essage of E u rip id es’ Bacchae was that:
T he kingdom of H eaven is w ithin you— here and now. You have but to
accept it and live w ith it— not obscure it by striving and hating and looking
in the w rong place.
T h e play, according to M urray, was offering a sim ple, liberating
m essage that the godhead is w ithin you. M urray, it should be
recalled, was w riting against the nineteen th -cen tu ry view of D io
nysus as a kind of p ro to -C h rist w ith E uripides, the lifelong atheist,
now recanting at the end of his life. B ut M urray was also w riting in
contradistinction to contem porary readings of the play (by W ila-
m ow itz, V errall, and N orw ood) that hailed Pentheus as the em
bodim ent of reason duped by the m ountebank D ionysus.
In M u rray ’s In tro du cto ry Essay, we find an interesting colloca
tion of D ionysus, the pagan (‘the G od of all high em otion, in sp ir
ation, intoxication’33), w ith D ionysus, the p ro to -C h rist (‘H e has
given m an W ine, w hich is his Blood and a religious sym bol’34).
A lthough it is clearly M u rray ’s ow n teetotalism that prevents him
from resisting the nineteen th -cen tu ry C hristianizing tendencies of
his subject entirely, m uch of w hat M urray has to say about D io
nysus is new and very close to the discussions of the C am bridge
R itualists and Jane H arriso n ’s w ork in p articular.35 W hilst the
31 See Jean Sm ith and Toynbee (1960), 25—6 for M urray’s account of his Irish
ancestry.
32 M urray (1902), p. lxvi.
33 Ibid., p. lix. Cf. Easterling (1997). W e are indebted to Professor Easterling’s
close reading of the passage in the next couple of sentences.
34 M urray, loc. cit.
3:> Easterling (1997).
content is clearly in line w ith developm ents close to hom e, the
term inology on occasions shows a surprising sim ilarity to discus
sion m uch furth er afield. W hen M urray states that ‘ . . . he [D io
nysus] gave to the Purified a m ystic Joy, surpassing in intensity
that of m an, the joy of a god or a free w ild anim al’,36 it is the
N ietzschean echo that resounds through his w ords. In m arked
contrast to his debt to Jane H arrison w hom he gratefully acknow
ledges in the Preface (‘O n points of ancient religion I have had the
great advantage of frequent consultation w ith M iss J. E. H a rri
son’37), any deb t to N ietzsche w ould have to go unacknow ledged.
F or not only w ould it have involved a severe break w ith the
classical establishm ent as a w hole, it w ould also have precipitated
a breach w ith his m uch-respected and highly valued colleague,
W ilam ow itz, w hose authorship of the first devastating review of
The B irth of Tragedy had guaranteed N ietzsche’s ostracism .38
It was not until 1908 that M u rray ’s Bacchae received its p re
m iere at the C o u rt T h eatre, w hen it was staged not by Barker, b u t
by his form er m entor W illiam Poel. Barker was away in Ireland at
the tim e, and his wife L illah M cC arthy (who was prevented by
V edrenne from starring in her h u sb an d ’s productions) took the
o p po rtu n ity to ask Poel to stage the Bacchae w ith herself as
D ionysus. Poel had adm ired M u rray ’s H ippolytus, b u t found his
translations generally and his Bacchae in particular, distinctly non-
dram atic.39 H e agreed to the project only on the condition that
M urray allow him to take certain liberties w ith his translation.
A lthough M urray had gallantly agreed, w hen he eventually saw
w hat Poel had done not ju st to his translation, b u t above all to the
text of E uripides, he refused to allow the production to run beyond
the first tw o m atinees. It was not sim ply the highly static nature of
the production (the seated chorus of M aenads m oved only once
throu gh o u t the entire tw o hours!) that concerned M urray; it was
prim arily because Poel’s V errallesque reading of the play had
rem oved all the m ysticism surrounding D ionysus (w hat Poel felt
w ere the E uripidean ‘digressions’), and had reduced the play to a
‘rational’ satire tout court.40
36 M urray (1902), pp. lix f. 37 Ibid., p. vii.
38 Silk and Stern (1981), 95-109 . 39 Speaight (1954), 168.
40 Ibid. 173. It is im portant to stress that although M urray’s scholarship differed
in many ways from Verrall’s own, they were in fact close friends, having m et
originally in Switzerland in 1894, one year before Verrall’s highly influential and
deeply controversial study entitled Euripides the Rationalist (1895).
T h at M u rray ’s Bacchae had to w ait until 1908 for its first p ro
duction was, perhaps, not surprising since Shaw ’s M ajor Barbara
of 1905 (w hich was the first play expressly w ritten for production
at the C ourt T h eatre) was in m any ways a rew orking of his version
in its first tw o acts. A nd w ith its clear allusions to A ristophanes’
Frogs in its th ird act, M ajor Barbara can be considered a trib u te to
that 1902 volum e of M u rray ’s translations, w hich had so en
thralled Shaw in 1901.
TH E SHAVIAN EURIPIDES
T h e understated N ietzschean echoes in M u rray ’s reading of the
Bacchae w ould have been both obvious and exciting to Shaw; and
M u rray ’s liberating interp retatio n of the play struck a particularly
strong chord in Shaw for w hom the only solution to society’s ills
was to rely on strident action— the Shavian socialist m ust be a
realist and grapple w ith reality, rather than resort to idealized
visions of that reality. T h at M urray had translated a play about
religion, if not any conventional ‘religious’ play, was of especial
interest to Shaw. In his conclusion to the ‘Preface to M ajor B a r
bara' , he w rites:
A t present there is not a single credible established religion in the world.
T h at is perhaps the m ost stupendous fact in the whole w orld.41
L ike the Bacchae, Shaw ’s play explores one recent ‘alternative’
to the established religions; and like the Bacchae, w hich M urray
had show n to be no m ere denunciation of the D ionysiac religion,42
Shaw ’s treatm ent of the Salvation A rm y is not w ithout sym pathy
and respect. Shaw was not the first to recognize the links betw een
the A rm y of C hrist founded by W illiam Booth in 1878 and the
D ionysiac cult of ancient G reece. In 1894, M ary Coleridge had
observed:
T here is m uch m ore real religion in the Bacchae of E uripides [than, for
example, in the Life of D r Pusey], w hich is sim ply glorious— a sort of Greek
Salvation of A rm y business, all drum s and cym bals and ecstasy . . . T h ere’s
no real tipsiness as far as I can make out. T he Hallelujah lasses get
drunk on the wine of the spirit, not the wine of the grape.43
41 Shaw (1960), 49. 42 M urray (1902), pp. liv ff.

43 Coleridge (1910), 233.
500 Greek Tragedy and the N ew Dram a
T h a t Shaw was not alone in m aking these connections makes his
own case in the preface th at m uch m ore topical and convincing;
b u t unlike Coleridge, Shaw is not ju st interested in the ‘ecstatic’
affinities. F or him , it is the political parallels that m atter. A lthough
at the end of his play, the A rm y of C hrist is show n ultim ately to be
no different from the established religions Shaw so vehem ently
rejected, he is at pains to stress its apparent links w ith the ancient
cult of D ionysus.
In its populist appeal, and even in its m ilitant fight against
poverty, the Salvation A rm y resem bles the ty ran ts’ religion that
cam e to unsettle the orthodoxy of the oligarchs in the archaic
G reek w orld. T h e tam bourines, tru m p ets, and drum s carried by
the soldiers of C hrist as they process throu g h the East E nd of
L ondon are clearly seen by Shaw to be akin to the trappings of
the dancing M aenads of ancient G reece (see Fig. 17.1). C usins, the
collector of religions, explains to U ndershaft in A ct II:
It is the arm y of joy, of love, of courage. .. It picks the w aster out of the
public house and makes a m an of him : it finds a w orm wriggling in a back
kitchen, and lo! a woman! M en and wom en of rank too, sons and daughters
of the H ighest. It takes the poor professor of Greek, the m ost artificial and
self-suppressed of hum an creatures, from his meal of roots, and lets loose
the rhapsodist in him; reveals the true w orship of Dionysos to him ; sends
him down the public street drum m ing dithyram bs.44
Like the D ionysiac faith, the gospel of the A rm y is in som e senses
the great leveller, a truly dem ocratic religion. B ut although Shaw
him self was genuinely m oved by the A rm y’s bands and singing,45
he is at pains to em phasize its political shortcom ings. As w ith the
m ystery cults at the end of the fifth century B C , the arm y’s gospel
m erely provides an escape from the evils of reality, b lu n tin g the
insurrectionary tendencies am ongst the m asses w ith the prom ise,
not of a heaven on earth, b u t bliss in eternity. W hat had attracted
Shaw to the D ionysiac— the m essage that ‘T h e kingdom of H eaven
is w ithin you’46— is not ultim ately to be found throu g h the Salva
tion A rm y. As Shaw says in the ‘Preface’ of 1906, the A rm y will
very soon lose its radical edge and join the ranks of other estab
lished churches.4/
44 Shaw (1960), 93-4. 45 Cf. ibid. 29 and Holroyd (1988-92), ii. 108.
46 M urray (1902), p. lxvi. 47 Shaw (1960), 30.
THE SK ETC H. fe e >3. 1905
THE SALVATION ARMY ON THE STAGE :

"MAJOR BARBARA," AT THE COURT.
I. MR. OSWALD YORKE AS BILL WALKER. *'■ MR. CRANV11A8 BARKER AS ADOLPHUS CUSINS.
i. MISS WYNNE MATTHISON AS MRS. BAINES. 4. MISS ANNIE RUSSELL AS BARBARA UNIJERSHAPT. 5. MISS DOROTHY MINTO AS JENNY HILL.
6. MR. LOUIS CALVERT AS ANDREW UNDERSHAFT- 7. MR. DAWSON MILWARD AS CHARLES LOMAX.
P M epxM i »r L. It. ih lh .
FIGURE 17.1 ‘T he Salvation A rm y on the Stage’ in Shaw ’s M ajor

Barbara (1905).
F or the true m odern co unterpart to D ionysus— M u rray ’s cold,
savage, and inhum an god48— Shaw found the brazen capitalist,
arm s m anufacturer, A ndrew U ndershaft. Like D ionysus, U n d er
shaft— the u nderm iner, the m ineshaft49— defies norm al categories
and boundaries. T h e destructive/creative entrepreneur had n u m er
ous real-life m odels, the tw o m ost notable being A lfred N obel, the
patentee of dynam ite in 1867, who subsequently endow ed the
Peace Prize in 1901, and Friedrich A lfred K rupp, the Prussian
cannon-king, whose paternalistic welfare system for w orkers in
Essen was adm ired w orld-w ide, b u t who som e thirty years on was
to be a prom inent N azi sym pathizer. T h e G reek god, D ionysus,
em bodied Shaw ’s concept of the Life-force: energy w ithout m oral
ity; a potential for both good or evil, depending on w hat its recipient
decides to do w ith it. W e create, as Pentheus does to som e extent,
either a god or a devil in accordance w ith how we use the divine
energy, or the Life-force. A nd U ndershaft’s chilling am orality
makes him the m odern em bodim ent of that energy.
Like the Bacchae, M ajor Barbara is in this sense a play about the
contrasts and contradictions inh eren t in certain religious experi
ences. T h ro u g h o u t the ‘Preface’, Shaw highlights the confusions
that result from these contradictions: the Salvation A rm y officer
and the theatre-goer are really kindred spirits yet both fail to
recognize each other, one denouncing the o ther as a reveller, the
o ther as a killjoy.50 A nd although Shaw does not spell out the
D ionysiac connection, it is as celebrants of the G reek god that
they are, in fact, one: they each w orship D ionysus, yet in each
case they w orship him in one of his different guises. A nd for Shaw ,
for w hom m eans are often starkly at odds w ith ends (for exam ple
he m aintained th at socialism could be secured throu g h arch ind i
vidualism ; liberation, very often as here, throu g h m ass d estruc
tion), the D ionysiac experience becam e a kind of m etaphysical
equivalent of the Shavian dialectic.
If this is E uripides speaking through M urray to the urgent needs
of the m odern w orld, M u rray ’s contribution (as we have seen in
48 M urray (1902), pp. liv—Ivi.

T he Greek verb Ka.TaoKa.TTTa)— noun KaTaoKafir/— meaning ‘to underm ine’ may
well lie behind ‘U ndershaft’, especially since it is often translated as ‘to raze’.
Although it is not used in Bacchae, it is regularly used to describe the effects of an
earthquake.
50 Shaw (I960), 24.
the epigraph to the play) is fully acknow ledged by Shaw . T h e
biographical parallels betw een M urray and C usins in the play are
regularly noted; b u t the E uripidean/S havian play is M u rray ’s cre
ation in o ther ways too. F or M urray did not sim ply provide Shaw
w ith intellectual stim ulus for M ajor B arbara; he also provided him
w ith help during the com position itself.51 A ct III proved p articu
larly taxing for Shaw , and although he com pleted the first tw o acts
w ith relative ease, the last act was subject to num erous rew rites
before the play was produced in N ovem ber 1905.
A fter Shaw had com pleted a first full draft of A ct III, he visited
M u rray ’s house in O xford in O ctober to seek his approval. T h e
M urrays and G ranville B arker (who was also present) expressed
their disappointm ent at w hat they felt was the ou trig h t victory of
the U ndershaft principles. M urray offered Shaw m ore dialogue to
strengthen C usins’s case; and although none of M u rray ’s dialogue
appears to have been incorporated into the final version, his sug
gestion that U ndershaft should becom e m ore of a representative of
cosm ic forces than a free agent is clearly heeded:32 U ndershaft in
M ajor Barbara is m ore god than m an in the last act, less a debater,
and m ore of an im personal presence. H e has becom e, under M u r
ray’s direction, w hat Shaw him self had told the actor, Louis C al
vert, earlier that year th at U ndershaft should be, ‘diabolical, subtle
and gentle, self-possessed, pow erful and stu p en d o u s.’53
T h e ostensible reason for Shaw ’s visit to the M urray s’ house for
a reading of the play was to avoid offence to the fam ily.54
A ccording to one of M u rray ’s biographers,33 Shaw failed to p re
vent offending the w om en in M u rray ’s fam ily, w ho did not take
kindly to having aspects of their personal lives caricatured on the
stage. T h ere are, how ever, as w ith U ndershaft, num erous m odels
for the Shavian characters; and it is, perhaps, p ertin en t to invoke
Shaw ’s com m ents in this regard:
O ne never really makes portraits of people in fiction. W hat happens is that
certain people inspire one to invent fictitious characters for them , w hich is
quite another m atter.56
51 See Albert (1968), 123-40; and Dukore (1981), pp. xv—xix.

52 D uncan W ilson (1987), 110 . 53 H olroyd (1988-92), ii. 106.
54 Ibid. 108. ss Francis W est (1984), 104.
56 Holroyd (1988-92), ii. 104.
L ady B ritom art, w ith her libertarian W hig principles and personal
despotism , is clearly ‘insp ired ’ by M u rray ’s form idable m other-in-
law, the C ountess of C arlisle;57 and the real-life separation of the
Earl and C ountess of Carlisle u ndoubtedly lies behind the
B ritom art—U ndershaft relationship. M oreover, Shaw is said to
have jokingly told M urray that he had considered calling his play
M u rra y’s M other-in-L aw .58 In the case of B arbara there are n u
m erous possible sources: Beatrice W ebb appears the m ost likely
candidate, the rich m an ’s daughter w hose conscience took her to
experience life at the hard edge in the E ast E nd of L o n d o n ,59 b u t
som e critics have found both the actress E leanor R obson and
M u rray ’s ow n wife, L ady M ary, in the character.60 In the case of
C usins, M urray him self was the prim ary inspiration (although
elem ents of the actor G ranville B arker and K ing G ustavus A dol
phus of Sw eden are evident too).61 W hen C usins recalls his gift of a
gun to a form er pupil w ho w ent to fight for the G reeks against the
T u rk s, Shaw is draw ing on a real-life incident w hen M urray gave a
revolver to his pupil H . N. B railsford in 1897 for the same
reason.62 M u rray was clearly flattered rath er than offended by
his portrait; and the inclusion of the com m ent from Stephen
w hen the play was in rehearsal, ‘C usins is a very nice fellow,
certainly: nobody w ould ever guess that he was b orn in A u stra
lia’,63 is surely confirm ation of the fact that the connections w ith
M urray w ere to be b o th deliberate and obvious. T h a t the nam e
C usins suggests the relative ‘cousin’ as well is perhaps a rem inder
that A dolphus’ position in the play is related to the playw right’s
ow n.64 Like C usins, Shaw is faced w ith the problem of how the
intellectual can engage effectively w ith the w orld.
If C usins represents Shaw ’s ideal position, it is, perhaps, im
p o rtant to stress that U ndershaft, in the opinion of a n u m b er of
com m entators, represents rather too m any aspects of the Shavian
position in practice.53 A nd it is this som ew hat unholy alliance that
has led to problem s of interp retatio n from the start. L ike M ilton
before him , and m any others since, Shaw takes the devil’s party,
the line goes, w ith rather too m uch readiness and zeal. Beatrice
57 G rene (1984), 85 . 58 Francis W est (1984), 100; Holroyd (1998), 107.
59 Holroyd (1988—92), i. 263, ii. 101. 60 e.g. Francis W est (1984), 104.
61 Holroyd (1988-92), ii. 107-8 . 62 D uncan W ilson (1987), 110.
63 Dukore (1981), xviii. 64 Holroyd (1988-92), ii. 108.
65 See esp. G rene (1984), 84—100.
W ebb found the ending a chilling exam ple of ‘the triu m p h of the
unm oral’;66 and according to another com m entator, Shaw ’s evi
dent adm iration for U ndershaft leads to a dilution of the C usins
case and a profound im balance in A ct I I I .67 A detailed survey of
the play w ith reference to its source, how ever, together w ith some
reference to M u rray ’s biography, will show that these problem s
are far from insurm ountable.
E U R I P I D E S VS. D I O N Y S U S :
M A J O R B A R B A R A A N D T H E 1902 V O L U M E
T h a t Shaw m ay have intended his play to have been a version of
the Bacchae, and not sim ply a play inspired by E u rip id es’ tra
gedy, seem s clear from early drafts.68 C usins at first was con
ceived as a tw in to C holly L om ax w ith the nam e of D olly
T ankerville (a w ould-be Pentheus perhaps); and although T an -
kerville disappeared from the plan once Shaw began w riting,
P enth eus’ role is there, at least in em bryonic form , in the person
of Stephen w hen he refuses to join the participants of the A rm y
ritual at the end of A ct I and rem ains alone in the library. Like
M urray in the 1902 Intro du cto ry E ssay,69 Shaw w ould have
found P enth eu s’ position untenable; and in accordance w ith S ha
vian dialectics, it was m uch m ore im portant to find a serious
contender to m eet the D ionysiac force. If C usins is no Pentheus,
w hich G reek character is he based upon? F rom A ct III onw ards
he is referred to as E uripides by U ndershaft. W hat Shaw is
offering us at the end of his play, it w ould seem , is his own
version of another play in the 1902 volum e, A ristophanes’
Frogs. A nd w ith the Bacchae lying behind its first tw o acts, and
the Frogs behind its third , M ajor Barbara becom es a trib u te to
the 1902 volum e.
T h e echoes of the Bacchae in A ct I are them atic and straig h tfo r
w ard; w ith A ct II the deb t is explicit and rather m ore intriguing.
In this act there are a series of encounters w hich resem ble the
scenes betw een Pentheus and D ionysus in E u rip id es’ play. T h e
66 Cited by H olroyd (1988-92), ii. 101.
67 G rene (1984), 95-100.
68 Cf. T horndike (with Casson) (1960), 157: ‘It does seem possible that Shaw
planned M ajor Barbara as a Euripidean drama
69 M urray (1902), pp. lvi f.
first is B arbara’s near spell-binding effect on Bill W alker w hich is
only prevented by the interrup tion of C usins’s d ru m r o ll/0 T his
episode is clearly designed to confirm her U ndershaft inheritance:
B arbara’s spiritual pow ers are as considerable as her fath er’s, ju st
as earlier, her organizational skills had proved as effective as those
of her m other. T h e spell-binding scene p ro p er71 is divided into
two parts: in the first p art U ndershaft has the first and last w ord as
he confidently expounds his religion to the w ould-be anthropolo
gist, C usins, and ends on a resounding ‘yes’, w hose cadence, as
Shaw notes, ‘m akes a full close in the conversation’.72 B ut the
U ndershaft position of superiority finally gives way to one of
equality w hen he recognizes an affinity w ith C usins at the end
of ro un d two:
Cusins. T he business of the Salvation Arm y is to save, not to wrangle about
the nam e of the pathfinder. Dionysos or another w hat does it m atter.
Undershaft [rising and approaching him] Professor Cusins: you are a m an
after m y own heart.
Cusins. M r U ndershaft: you are, as far as I am able to gather, a m ost
infernal old rascal; but you appeal very strongly to m y sense of ironic
hum our.
Undershaft mutely offers his hand. They shake.73
Ju st as D ionysus at line 811 in E u rip id es’ Bacchae sees a weakness
(w hich is really an affinity) in Pentheus at an analogous point in the
play, w hen Pentheus expresses his desire to spy on the M aenads, so
too the affinity perceived by U ndershaft here m ight well be con
strued as a kind of m oral flaw in C usins as he confesses for the first
tim e to endorsing any m eans for noble ends (‘ .. . D ionysos or
another w hat does it m a tter’74). C usins rem ains horrified by his
pact w ith the devil (M ephistopheles, M achiavelli, he calls him
follow ing the alm ost ritual handshake here), b u t U n d ershaft’s
pow er over C usins seem s absolute: ‘D ionysos U ndershaft has
descended. I am possessed’, he tells the appalled B arbara at the
end of the act.73
In A ct III the new relationship of equals betw een U ndershaft
and C usins is confirm ed by C usins’s new title, E uripides. Like the
first p art of the Frogs, the first p art of the act constitutes the
p reparation for the descent to H ades— Perivale S t A ndrew s is
70 Shaw (1960), 91. 71 Ibid. 75-98 . 72 Ibid. 57. 73 Ibid. 95.
74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 109-10.
envisaged as a kind of hell on earth. D u ring the agon in A ct III
C usins now resem bles the robust and confident E uripides of A ris
tophanes’ play as he skilfully bargains for his salary and conditions
of em ploym ent w ith U n d ershaft.76 W hen he claim s that U n d e r
shaft is pow erless after all being ru n by the cannon-w orks rath er
than running it him self (‘I have m ore pow er than you, m ore will.
Y ou do not drive this place: it drives y o u . . . ’77), this discovery
reduces the Shavian D ionysus to the level of his A ristophanic
counterpart. F rom now on there is no serious debate betw een
E uripides and D ionysus (‘ . .. Bah! you tire m e, E uripides, w ith
your m orality m ongering’, he adds after som e vain attem pt to
regain his position of ascendancy78). H aving tired of reason, all
that is left to U ndershaft are his piercing eyes and heady rhetoric
w ith w hich he tries to hypnotize B arbara.79
In this Shavian rew rite of the Frogs, E uripides has w on the
argum ent. A nd w hen C usins and B arbara are left alone together
tow ards the end of the play we see the extent of th eir victory:
C usins’s strength is revealed in his realization that ‘all pow er is
spiritual’, and that pow er for good necessarily entails the pow er for
evil as w ell;80 and B arbara espouses the essence of the D ionysiac
message w hen she proclaim s that ‘T h ere is no w icked side: life is all
one.’81 T h eir way of life, B arbara declares, is ‘through the raising
of hell to heaven and of m an to G od, throu g h the unveiling of an
eternal light in the Valley of T h e Shadow ’.82 Perivale St A ndrew s,
the hell on earth, will becom e throu g h their guidance a heaven on
earth: death will not be an end in itself, b u t a way tow ards a new,
b etter way of life. T h e m essage that M urray found in the Bacchae,
that ‘T h e kingdom of H eaven is w ithin you’, will be revealed
through the tutelage of C usins and Barbara. If Perivale St
A ndrew s and its inhabitants are to undergo a reb irth of the kind
that M urray and his fellow C am bridge R itualists found in the
D ionysiac religion, C usins’s rebirth as the new U ndershaft rep re
sents the victory of the new year-daem on over his predecessor.
T h a t C usins and B arbara will successfully rise to the challenge
set by U n d ershaft to m ake w ar on w ar by taking over the cannon-
w orks, and th at they will ru n it according to their ow n principles,
seem s certain. U ndershaft m ight think he still sets the agenda
76 Ibid. 137-9 . 77 Ibid. 139. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 140.

80 Ibid. 150. 81 Ibid. 151. 82 Ibid. 152.
w hen he has the last w ord and orders E uripides to start w ork at six
the follow ing m orning, b u t the silence of C usins is surely one of
hopeful dissent rath er than silent subm ission.83 U ndershaft, like
D ionysus, m ay well rem ain pow erful and diabolical in hum an
term s until the end of the play, b u t the com bined strengths of
C usins and B arbara (M ind and S pirit respectively) have g uaran
teed that the w ildness of D ionysus has now been held in check as it
was throug h institutions and rituals during the fifth century BC in
A thens.
M A K I N G WAR ON WAR: T R O J A N W O M E N
M u rray ’s subsequent career in the League of N ations Society
(from 1915), the League of N ations U nion (from 1918) and then
the League of N ations itself (from 1920) show ed ju st how success
ful he was in m aking w ar on w ar. B ut Shaw ’s stage direction at the
start of M ajor Barbara describing C usins as ‘a m ost im placable,
determ ined, tenacious, intolerant perso n ’84 on his first appearance
was not unrelated to M u rray ’s public conduct at the very begin
ning of the century.
In response to his increasing revulsion against the events of the
Boer W ar, M urray had published an essay in The International
Journal o f Ethics in 1901, arguing th a t the interaction betw een
states on an international level is subject to none of the m oral
restraints th at apply w ithin an individual com m unity. Pow erful
nations, he m aintained, inevitably sink into subhum an, barbaric
treatm ent of their enem ies and rivals.85 H is opposition to the war,
founded in m oral conviction th a t the Boers had justice on their
side, led him to sponsor the S outh A frican C onciliation C om m ittee
(w hich recognized that E uropean im perialism in A frica was the
root cause of the crisis) and to give the then significant donation of
£100 to the Boer W om en and C hildren ’s H ardship F u n d .85
It can be no coincidence th at only the second E uripidean play
staged by B arker, in M u rray ’s translation, was The Trojan Women.
83 Shaw (1960), 153 . 84 Ibid. 62.
85 M urray (1901), where it is described as an ‘expression of the feelings of the
Liberal m inority during the Boer W ar’.
86 D uncan Wilson (1987), 73—4. It is im portant to stress that M urray’s oppos
ition to the w ar was on ethical-liberal hum anitarian grounds and not, as was the case
with socialists such as W alter Crane, fuelled by revolutionary anti-im perialism . See
K aarsholm (1989).
A fter testing the response to the play by reciting extracts from the
translation to the Socratic Society of B irm ingham in N ovem ber
1904, M urray was delighted w hen the play was given eight m atinee
perform ances at the Royal C ourt in A pril of the follow ing year.
T h e production, how ever, was not as successful as the 1904 H ip
polytus. M urray said that it was too harrow ing, and one critic
found the play ‘too m onotonously painful, and in the scenes of
the child, positively heartbreaking.’87 B ut M ax B eerbohm criti
cized it, rather, for being far too ‘penitential’.88 Indeed, the stance
of the play, im plicitly sym pathetic to the Boers, m ust have been
troublesom e. M u rray ’s old O xford friend L eonard H obhouse, a
com m itted L iberal thinker, could not even bear to w atch it. O n 5
M ay, a week after the last perform ance of Trojan W omen, H o b
house w rote to M urray explaining w hy. T h e reason was sim ple:
the production was too chillingly rem iniscent of the suffering of
the Boers at B ritish hands. T h is particular play ‘revived troubles
that lie too n ear’.89
L eonard H o bhouse’s politics w ere shared by his sister Em ily, to
w hom he was very close. It had been E m ily H obhouse who had
m ade history by her exposure of the scandal of the South A frican
concentration cam ps. In late 1900, her attention had been draw n to
the plight of the Boer w om en and children, dying in great num bers
of disease and starvation in the cam ps, w hich the B ritish had built
to house them after destroying their houses and property by L ord
K itch en er’s fam ous ‘scorched earth ’ policy. It was her tou r of the
cam ps south of B loem fontein in 1901 that alerted other B ritish
liberals to the near-genocidal level of suffering. W hen she
returned, she w ent to see the leader of the opposition, H enry
C am pbell-B annerm an, and poured out to him for tw o hours ‘the
detailed h orrors of those cam ps, the desperate condition of a
b u rn t-o u t population . . . the people deprived of clothes, bedding,
necessities, the sem i-starvation in the cam ps, the fever-stricken
children lying upon the bare e a rth . .. the appalling m o rtality .’
C am pbell-B annerm an was outraged, and continually m u ttered
w hile she spoke, ‘m ethods of barbarism , m ethods of b arb arism ’.
O n 14 June, he delivered one of the m ost fam ous political speeches
of the tw entieth century, w hich instantly becam e know n as his
87 T L S 14 Apr. 1905, 21. 88 The Saturday Review, 22 Apr. 1905, 520-1.

89 L etter cited in D uncan W ilson (1987), 106 with n. 15.
510 Greek Tragedy and the N ew D rama
‘M ethods of B arbarism ’ speech after the fam ous w ords he used to
denounce the governm ental policy of interning Boer w om en and
children, resulting in a death-rate of nearly half the internees:
‘W hen is a w ar not a war? W hen it is carried out by m ethods of
barbarism in South A frica.’90
O f all G reek tragedies only Trojan W omen and Hecuba present
their audience w ith w om en and children deported to prisoner-
of-w ar cam ps w hile their hom es burn. O nly Trojan Women
features the corpse of a tiny child in such a cam p. A nd from all
the ancient literature, only Trojan W omen contains the line w hich
could have inspired C am pbell-B annerm an’s fam ous phrase, w hen
A ndrom ache, the m other of that tiny child, bitterly denounces the
‘G reek inventors of m ethods of b arb arism ’ ( T ro. 764). T h is p ara
doxical apostrophe was fam ous already in antiquity, and had been
m uch quoted ever since.
W hether or not C am pbell-B annerm an was consciously rem inding
his political audience of E u rip id es’ play, that speech m ust have
rem inded M urray of Trojan W omen. H is version and its 1905
production w ere certainly seen by the E dw ardians as exem plifying
his bold ‘pro-B oer’ political stance.91 T h a t the Boer W ar was
a m ajor im petus behind the C ourt T h eatre Trojan Women is also
suggested by the absence of any previous perform ance history for
this tragedy. Since the Renaissance always in H ecuba’s shadow ,
Trojan Women had been singled out for particular derision by
A. W . Schlegel. W hen Berlioz w anted to w rite an opera about the
fall of T ro y , he chose not E uripides b u t the A eneid as his source. It
took the Boer W ar, and G ilb ert M u rray ’s idiosyncratic reading of
E uripides, to m ake the Troja?i Women socially resonant.
T h e 1905 Trojan Women also had a m ajor im pact on discussion
of E uripides in the academ y. Perhaps the single m ost im portant
book about E uripides ever w ritten, M u rray ’s Euripides and his Age,
first published in 1913, contained interpretations of the plays
resulting from his experiences of translating them and seeing
them staged in E dw ardian L ondon. H e interprets Trojan Women
as a protest play in w hich E uripides denounced the im perialist
policies and cruelty of his fellow A thenians tow ards the popula
90 For the quotations from Emily Hobhouse and Cam pbell-Bannerm an, see the
chapter ‘M ethods of Barbarism ’ in John W ilson (1973), 342—56.
91 Salter (1911), 9.
tions of G reek com m unities w ho had rebelled against the
A thenian em pire, especially the islanders of M elos in 416 B C .92
T h is pathbreaking interpretation was b orn out of M u rray ’s own
equation of the A thenian and B ritish em pires, and of T ro y w ith the
T ransvaal: he m ight ju st as well have been speaking of the U nionist
governm ent as the ancient A thenians w hen, in the ‘Intro du cto ry
N o te’ to the published translation, he described the state as ‘now
entirely in the hands of the W ar P arty ’, and ‘engaged in an en ter
prise w hich, though on m ilitary grounds defensible, was bitterly
resented by the m ore hum ane m in o rity ’.93 T h is specific act of
identification w ent on to inform not only the m any pacifist and
anti-im perialist perform ances w hich took place during the tw enti
eth century, bu t every single scholarly discussion of the play.
A cadem ics m ust always either agree w ith M urray or argue against
his view. T h e 1905 Trojan W omen, if not particularly successful as
theatre, thus provides an outstanding exam ple of the necessity of
excavating perform ance history in order to illum inate not only
intellectual history, b u t scholarly controversies w ithin the C las
sical academ y.
SUFFRAGETTE MEDEA
T h e discovery of the N ew W om an, as we have seen, was coincident
w ith the discovery of E u rip id es’ M edea and in particular M edea’s
‘W om en of C o rin th ’ speech. T h e Barker production of M u rray ’s
translation of M edea, w hich opened on 22 O ctober 1907, was the
fourth of his pathbreaking productions of E u rip id es’ tragedies and
it followed the Electra w hich opened on 16 January 1906. T h e
M edea, staged at the Savoy T h eatre, was deliberately perform ed
against the upsurge of public interest in the m ovem ent for
w om en’s suffrage.
In 1907 G ilbert M urray was a Fellow of N ew College, O xford,
before his appointm ent to the Regius C hair of G reek in 1908.
A lthough he was later to distance him self from the m ilitant w ing
of the w om en’s suffrage m ovem ent, he had supported its aim since
1889. H e believed that the ancient G reeks w ere ‘the first nation
92 M urray (1913), 126-36.

93 M urray (1905), 6. ‘U nionist’ was the name of the combined Conservative and
Liberal U nionist party.
512 Greek Tragedy and the N ew D rama
that realized and protested against the subjection of w om en’,94 and
the actress Sybil T h ornd ik e recalled him saying th at M edea ‘m ight
have been w ritten ’ for the w om en’s m ovem ent.95 B arker’s en th u si
asm for M edea is even less surprising, since he had both w ritten
and staged controversial plays offering radical social com m entary,
especially on w om en’s issues, from the beginning of his career. By
the tim e M edea opened he had been inform ed of the banning of his
own play W aste, due to follow M edea: the censor required the
deletion of references to an abortion, saying that the author m ust
‘m oderate and m odify the extrem ely outspoken reference to the
sexual relations’.96 B ut another reason for the choice of M edea in
1907 was the new perform ance venue: w ith the com pany’s m ove to
the m ore capacious Savoy, B arker was anxious (as he explained in a
letter to M urray in the early sum m er) to find ‘som ething sensa
tional’ w ith w hich to open th ere.97
M urray and B arker m ay have been influenced by the success of
M ax R ein h ard t’s Berlin production of M edea, in W ilam ow itz’s
translation, in 1904.98 B ut the political clim ate m ust also have
m ade M edea an attractively ‘sensational’ choice. In 1906 E m m e
line P ankh u rst had m oved the W om en’s Social and Political U nion
(W S PU ) from M anchester to L ondon and inaugurated the m ove
m ent for w om en’s suffrage. T h e L iberal P a rty ’s landslide victory
in the 1906 general election gave the m ovem ent hope that its goals
w ere attainable. T h e first W om en’s P arliam ent m et at C axton H all
in F ebruary 1907, and in M arch W illoughby D ickinson’s Private
M em b er’s Bill, w hich w ould have given the vote to som e w om en,
provoked a divisive debate. T h e bill was defeated, sparking a huge
dem onstration by w om en of all classes. T h e first m ass arrests of
suffragettes shocked the public: no few er than sixty-five served
sentences in H ollow ay P rison.99
S u p p o rt for the m ovem ent grew rapidly throu g h o u t 1907, w hen
thousands of m eetings w ere organized, and the Q ualification of
W om en A ct, w hich enabled w om en to sit on borough and county
councils, w hetted the appetite for suffrage.100 T h e cam paign in
spired B arker in A pril of that year to produce the first of the whole
series of suffrage plays w hich flourished on the com m ercial stage
94 D uncan W ilson (1987), 9 . 95 Thorndike (1936), 74.
96 Purdom (19 5 5), 54-70 . 97 Salmon (1986), 239.
98 Flashar (1991), 124-6. 99 Atkinson (1996), 127.
100 Pankhurst (1931), 223; David M organ (1975), 46.
until 1914, Votes fo r Women, by the Ibsen-influenced E lizabeth
R obins, w ho was on the governing com m ittee of the W S P U .101
Barker had told its author that he was ‘strongly prejudiced in
favour of its subject’.102 T h is im passioned piece was staged at a
suffragette m eeting in T rafalgar Square, described by one re
view er as ‘the best stage m anaged and original scene we have had
in the theatre for m any a day’.103
T h at for B arker there was a clear continuum betw een such social
realist dram a and E uripidean tragedy is evidenced in this p ro d uc
tion not least by his handling of the crow d scenes, w hich was
strikingly rem iniscent of his staging of the G reek chorus in his
recent productions at the C o u rt.104 A nd w hen U niversity College
L ondon and B edford College m ounted a join t production of E u
ripides’ M edea in G reek at the Botanical G arden of U niversity
College on 13-15 June 1907, the topical resonances did not go
u n m ark ed .105 T h is was the first of a n u m b er of productions
staged u n d er the auspices of B edford College in aid of the
W om en’s College’s B uilding F und; and the first in w hich Ethel
A braham s was to star to considerable acclaim . A braham s, together
w ith m any m em bers of the cast and com m ittee, was to rem ain a
tireless cam paigner on behalf of w om en’s rights; and her p erfo rm
ance in the p art of D eianira in Sophocles’ Trachiniae at the C ourt
in 1911 earned praise from no lesser activist than E m ily D avison,
w ho in her review in the cam paigning paper Votes fo r Women
found that ‘T h e anti-suffragist argum ent th a t w om en do not
fight receives its criticism in this play.’106
101 Stowell(1992), 2-5, 9-30.

102 Cit. ibid. 12 from the Vedrenne—Robins correspondence at the H arry Ransom
H um anities Research Centre, University of Texas at Austin.
103 IL N 130, no. 3547 (13 Apr. 1907), 546.
104 Kennedy (1985), 59-60.
105 See especially the review in the Daily News, 14 June 1907.
106 A lthough there was a performance of the I T in Greek as early as 1887, it was
in the early 20th c. that the productions of Greek plays were m ounted in aid of the
Building Fund. Sophocles’ Electra was perform ed on 15—17 July 1909 at the
Aldwych T heatre in Cam pbell’s translation, with Miss E. Calkin as Electra; Alcestis
was perform ed on 16—19 Feb. 1910, in English in South Villa, Regent’s Park, with
Ethel Abrahams as the eponymous heroine in a translation by Gerald W arre
Cornish; and the Trachiniae was staged at the C ourt Theatre on 6—8 July 1911,
directed by G. R. Foss with Abraham s as Deianira in Cam pbell’s translation.
Abrahams was also the author of Chiton and Himation. Greek Dress: A Study of
the Costumes Worn in Ancient Greece (London, 1908). Emily Davison’s review of
Trachiniae was in Votes fo r Women, 14 July 1911.
T h e acting version of the L ondon U niversity M edea included
M u rray ’s very recently published translation facing the ancient
G reek .10/ B oth M urray and B arker w ere keen supporters of the
Bedford G reek plays; and it m ay well have been the success of
the B edford experim ent that confirm ed their choice of play for
O ctober at the Savoy, w hen the actress E dyth Olive em erged from
her house in C orinth and lectured the audience on the injustices
suffered by w om en at the hands of m en (Fig. 17.2). O ne review er
rem arked on how surprisingly ‘h u m an ’ M edea was for an ancient
play, and com plim ented O live on w inning the audience’s sym
pathy, despite looking ‘so bizarre w ith her dark com plexion and
hair and her reddish robes’ and her ‘intense’ declam ation.108 She
was well supp o rted by H u b e rt C arter as Jason and Lew is Casson as
the m essenger, fresh from a role in Votes fo r W omen, and also from
perform ing the G host of D arius in his own sym bolist production
of The Persians in a prose translation by B. J. Ryan at T e rry ’s
T h eatre in A p ril.109
M edea not only offered the authority of classical dram a to a
contem porary cause, b u t can be understood, like Votes fo r
Women, as one of the founding dram as in the prolific genre of
suffragette plays and songs w hich w ere placed before the public
from 1907 onw ards.110 In Euripides and his Age, M urray w rites of
E uripides both in a fifth-century context and in E dw ardian B rit
ain:
T o us he seems an aggressive cham pion of women; m ore aggressive, and
certainly far m ore appreciative, than Plato. Songs and speeches from the
M edea are recited today at suffragist m eetings.111
M edea did indeed becom e intim ately associated w ith the suffra
gettes: after the L ondon production, passages from the play
form ed p art of the repertoire of special texts— especially m ono
logues and poem s— that m em bers of the A ctresses’ Franchise
League prepared for perform ance at suffragette m eetings from
the m ost elegant of u p per m iddle-class suburbs to the E ast E nd
107 T here is a copy of the acting version of the text, with the parallel text of
M urray (1906) in the Bedford College Archive in the Royal Holloway, University of
London Archives (PP1/4/3/5).
108 IL N 131, no. 3575 (26 Oct. 1907), 588.
109 IL N 130, no. 3546 (6 Apr. 1907), 518. See Devlin (1982), 43.
110 See the catalogue in Atkinson (1992), 65-6.
1,1 M urray (1913), 32.
F I G U R E 17.2 E dyth Olive as M edea (1907).
of L o n d o n .112 T h e passages m ust have included M edea’s first

m onologue and the strophic pair on the m isogyny of m an-m ade
m yths (410-30), w hich M urray described as celebrating ‘the
com ing trium p h of W om an in her rebellion against M an ’.113
112 Holledge (1981), 60-1, 80-1. 113 M urray (1906), 86.

516 Greek Tragedy and the N ew D ram a
E dyth Olive had w on the role despite opposition from L illah
M cC arthy, and despite M u rray ’s ow n interv en tion .114 M cC arthy
was a notable suffragette, later becom ing the V ice-P resident of the
A ctresses’ Franchise L eague,115 and often m arched u n der the
L eague’s banner, w hich sported ancient G reek m asks of tragedy
and com edy (Fig. 17.3).116 Barker, m eanw hile, had reservations
about Olive, w hom he had previously described as ‘m orally hoy-
denish, full of ideals and illusions . . . she is essentially girlish in her
m ovem ents and in the particular abandon w hich characterizes her
m ethods’.117 B ernard Shaw had also cruelly described her, after
her realization of the crazed C assandra of Trojan W omen, as too
w arm and vulgar to be cast as a ravishable v irg in .118 B ut these
qualities had been m ore successful in the roles of the protagonist of
M u rray ’s translation of Andromache, produced by the Stage Soci
ety in 1901,119 of the sym pathetic C lytem nestra of E u rip id es’
Electra, and above all the sexually driven Phaedra in the H ippoly
tus. O n the strength of these perform ances she w on the p art of
M edea.
M edea shared w ith the burgeoning genre of suffrage dram a a
serious exam ination of the issue of m otherhood, now seen as both
the principal elem ent in the regulation of fem ale sexuality and a
source of fem inine pow er.120 N evertheless, the play was found
disturbing. The Graphic doubted the plausibility of M edea’s cal
culating infanticide. ‘W ere she sane’, the review er argued, her
concern for her children w ould have had to stem her anger. But
M edea, of course, is so sane that she inform s the audience that
w hile she knows perfectly well th at w hat she is going to do is
w rong, her anger m akes her do it (1078-9— in G ilb ert M u rray ’s
translation, ‘Yea, I know to w hat bad things | I go, b u t louder than
all thoughts doth cry | A nger’).121 T h e review er insists that al
though we have to adm ire the ‘trem endous quality’ of M edea’s
hatred, ‘we are not able to feel that it is a living possible h atred ’.
M edea’s actions are sim ply ‘not convincing as the outcom e of the
situation in w hich she is placed’.122
114 K ennedy (1985), 29. 115 Tickner (1987), 130; Pankhurst (1931), 284.
116 T ickner (1987), 254.
117 L etter to M urray, 14 Dec. 1904, in Salmon (1986), 231.
118 W est (1984), 93. 1,9 M urray (1900), W est (1984), 293-5.
120 Stowell (1992), 4-5. 121 M urray (1906), 61.
122 The Graphic, 26 Oct. 1907, 567.
F ig u r e 17.3 Banner of the A ctresses’ Franchise League (c.1911).

T h is view of E u rip id es’ M edea had been prevalent until the
tw entieth century. In 1893 even the m ost liberal of Ibsenite critics,
W illiam A rcher, is unable to support an em otionally charged
rep o rt of infanticide on the stage, w hen Florence Bell and E liza
beth R obins’ play A la n ’s W ife was produced anonym ously.123 B ut
som e now saw m aternal infanticide in a different light. M urray
him self regarded M edea’s child-killing as realistic:
Euripides had apparently observed how com m on it is, w hen a w om an’s
m ind is deranged by suffering, that her m adness takes the form of child-
m urder.124
Cicely H am ilton, a prom inent author of suffragette dram a,
attacked the idealization and m ystification of the m o th er-ch ild
bond in her polem ical tract M arriage as Trade (1909). She reveals
that she has frequently heard w om en, both in inform al conversa
tion and special m eetings, discussing the death sentence for m ater
nal infanticides. H am ilton has been surprised to discover that the
sym pathy ‘invariably and unreservedly’ lay on the side of the
m o th er.123
Sylvia P ank h u rst recalled how the great stirring of social con
science in 1906 had led to econom ically privileged w om en noticing
the hardships of w om en in the low er classes: ‘W om en raised above
the econom ic struggle by w ealth and leisure, and the relatively
sm all n um b er of successful professional w om en’, including ‘the
few actresses and m usicians at the top of their tree’, began to feel
solidarity w ith the ‘starved and exploited m em bers of their sex’.126
T h e focus was on a n u m b er of tragic cases of poor w om en ‘w hich in
other days m ight have passed unnoticed’, b u t w ere now used to
point the m oral of w om en’s inferior status:
Daisy L ord, the young servant sentenced to death for infanticide; M argaret
M urphy, the flower-seller, who, after incredible hardships, attem pted to
poison herself and her ailing youngest child . .. Julia Decies, com m itted to
seven years’ penal servitude for throw ing vitriol at the m an who betrayed
and deserted her; Sarah Savage, im prisoned on the charge of cruelty to her
children for whom she had done all that her m iserable poverty would
perm it. By reprieve petitions, by propaganda speeches and articles, the
nam es and the stories of these unfortunates were torn from their obscurity,
to be branded upon the history of the w om en’s m ovem ent of their day.127
123 G ardner (1992), 9. 124 M urray (1906), 94.
125 H am ilton (1909), 210-13. 126 Pankhurst (1931), 225-6. 127 Ibid.
T h e dism al crim es of these m odern M edeas— infanticide, violence
against their husbands, child abuse— w ere now seen as caused by
their social status. E ven intentional ch ild -m u rd er by w om en was
now being seen as connected w ith m ale irresponsibility: like D aisy
L o rd and M argaret M urph y , M edea could now kill her children
w ith prem editation and be given, at least in the progressive theatre,
a sym pathetic hearing.
If M edea could now be herself in full tragic guise for the first
tim e on the B ritish stage, how did her anti-self A lcestis fare in the
clim ate of increasingly radical suffragism ? W ith her overw helm ing
sense of duty to her husband and her children, she of course
confirm ed rath er than underm ined w hat Shaw term ed the m yth
of the W o m an ly W om an’. In m arked contrast to M edea and the
other strong fem ale roles from E uripidean dram a w hich regularly
appeared on the stage in B arker’s productions of M u rray ’s tran sla
tions from 1904 onw ards, A lcestis hardly surprisingly never m ade
an entry u nder B arker’s direction. A lthough there w ere tw o p ro
ductions of this E uripidean play betw een 1910 and 1911— one in
aid of the B edford College B uilding F u n d and the second under
the direction of B arker’s m entor, W illiam Poel— both of these w ere
inform ed, m ore or less, by V errall’s ironic reading of the play.128
Indeed, only a deliberately ironic and deceptive wife (w ho does not
indeed die) was plausible in the Ibsenite w orld of strong, inde
p endent wom en.
It is, m oreover, significant that M urray, w ith his close associ
ation w ith the N ew D ram a, did not translate Alcestis until 1915.
W hilst the V errall—Poel solution was (consciously or not) an over
bold attem pt to im pose the plot of Shakespeare’s W inter Tale upon
E uripides’ dram a, M u rray ’s interp retatio n of the Alcestis was
rather m ore straightforw ard. F or him , it was the w ork of a young
playw right; it was, he continued, ‘ . . . as if m ore enjoym ent and less
suffering had gone to the m aking of the Alcestis than to that of the
128 After seeing the production in aid of the Bedford College Building Fund in
February 1910 in G erald W arre Cornish’s translation, Poel asked a Cam bridge
graduate called Francis Hubback (who was to die in the First W orld W ar) to write
him a version. T he play was perform ed in Decem ber 1910 on the G rand Staircase at
London University, and revived in January 1911 at the Little T heatre, London, and
at the Ethical Church, Bayswater in April 1914. For details, see Speaight (1954),
170-8.
later plays.’129 A gainst the background of the cam paign for
w om en’s suffrage, E u rip id es’ dram a of the selfless and ultim ately
silent wife seem ed som ehow irrelevant and, perhaps, even deeply
unhelpful, except of course to those who m ight hail the G reek
heroine as the ideal ‘W om anly W om an’ against w hom the N ew
W om an was being defined.
129 M urray (1915), p. xvi. Barker did, however, have plans to stage Alcestis on an
American tour in 1914, but these failed to materialize. See K ennedy (1985), 181.
i8
Greek Tragedy and the Cosmopolitan Ideal
W e can understand Pericles better than we understand

Palm erston.
G. Norwood, Euripides and Shaw (London, 1911), 2.
Som e tim e in early 1915, after several years of direct involvem ent
in the C am bridge G reek play, John S heppard of K ing ’s College,
C am bridge, concludes the Preface to his translation of Oedipus
Tyrannus w ith the follow ing com m ent: ‘If you d o u b t w hether in
these days G reek tragedy still m atters, you m ay learn the answ er in
Paris.’1
T h e ‘answ er’ to w hich S heppard is referring is the startling
perform ance of CEdipe Roi by the then legendary tragedien of the
C om edie-Frangaise, Jean M ounet-Sully. M ounet-S ully had been
responsible for reintroducing Sophocles’ play into the repertoire of
the C om edie-Frangaise in 1881, and betw een then and the tim e of
S h ep p ard ’s com m ent in 1915 M ounet-S ully had m ade in excess of
100 appearances in the title role. H is fam e as O edipus had spread
throu gh o u t E urope, as the French troupe toured the continent
bearing the civilization of France, and m ore particularly acting as
custodians of ancient G reek dram a. In 1899, after the com pany
had perform ed CEdipe R oi in the T h eatre of D ionysus in A thens
u nder the aegis of the F rench A rchaeological Society in A thens,
M ou n et-S ully ’s carriage was unhitched from its horses and borne
aloft by a ju b ilan t crow d through the streets of A thens: ‘L ong live
M ounet-Sully! L ong live France!’ chanted the ecstatic crow d. A nd
sim ilar cries greeted him in R om ania.2 N ation and star actor becom e
inseparable in the m inds of foreign audiences: O edipus was re
incarnated as an honorary F renchm an, or, m ore im portantly,
1 Sheppard (1920), p. xi.

2 See M ounet-Sully (1917) generally; Sideris (1976), 148-58 on his reception in
Greece; and Loliere (1907), 396 for Romania.
522 Greek Tragedy and the Cosmopolitan Ideal
through the pow er of M ou n et-S u lly ’s interpretation of Sophocles’
tragic role, O edipus had becom e E verym an.
O w ing to the disruption of the w ar years, S h ep p ard ’s ow n tran s
lation of Oedipus Tyrannus did not in fact appear in p rin t until
1920, som e four years after the death of M ounet-S ully at the age of
75 years old. B ut give or take these few years, w hat is especially
striking about S h ep p ard ’s com m ent is th at he is referring to a
production of a G reek play that first appeared in the repertoire of
the C om edie-Franpaise over fifty years previously. A lthough the
great M ou n et-S u lly had not appeared in those early perform ances
from 1858 onw ards— G effroy, the acclaim ed successor to the
leading actor of the revolutionary years, T alm a, took the p art of
O edipus— and despite som e notable changes to the set and m inor
changes to the chorus in the 1881 revival, the CEdipe R oi w hich
S heppard saw in Paris was essentially the sam e as the Qddipe R oi
that opened on 18 Septem ber 1858 in the translation of the poet
and playw right Jules Lacroix.
F or Sheppard, then, M ou n et-S u lly ’s perform ance was proof
that G reek tragedy still m attered; and the form al beauty of the
production dem onstrated to him th a t ‘G reek dram a, not bolstered
up by sensationalism , and not w atered w ith sentim entality, has
pow er to hold and m ove a m odern audience.’ T h e F ren ch p ro d u c
tion, in S h ep pard ’s view, stood in stark contrast to the ‘lavish,
barbaric, tu rb u len t’ production of Oedipus R ex directed by the
celebrated A ustrian director, M ax R einhardt, w hich had opened
at C ovent G arden in L ondon in January 1912.3 A ccording to
Sheppard, R ein h ard t’s actors:
raged and fum ed and ranted, rushing hither and thither w ith a violence of
gesticulation w hich in spite of all their effort, was eclipsed and rendered
insignificant by the yet m ore violent rushes, scream s and contortions of a
quite gratuitous crowd.
S heppard was not alone in objecting to the crow d of about a
h u n d red extras that was used in the L ondon production (see
Fig. 18.1), som e of w hose m em bers literally invaded the audience’s
space as they entered through the auditorium . W hat offended
Sheppard m ost was th at R ein h ard t’s production was a kind of
‘total theatre’ assaulting the audience’s senses on every level; and
3 Sheppard (1920), pp. x f., ix.
4 Ibid., p. ix.
Greek Tragedy and the Cosmopolitan Ideal 523
F i g u r e 18.1 John M artin-H arvey as O edipus in M ax R einhardt’s

Oedipus Rex (1912).
instead of clarity— as had been the case w ith the M ounet-S ully
production— R einhardt b rought only obscurity, sum m ed up best,
according to Sheppard, by the palace at the opening of the play that
was a ‘black cavern of m ystery’.3
R ein h ard t’s production, w hich had opened in M unich in S ep
tem ber 1910, had originally used the G erm an translation of H ugo
von H ofm annstahl. H ofm annstahl had already provided the li
b retto for S trauss’s E lektra (1909), w hich had shocked and en
thralled audiences by show ing G reek m yth as savage and
prim itive.6 A nd here in the production of Oedipus R ex, audiences
w ere being offered fu rth er evidence of N ietszchean-inspired in
sights into the ancient G reek w orld, w ith the collective D ionysiac
5 Ibid. Cf. the reviewer in The Theatre Journal, 14 (1911), 56—60, who noted the
symbolic significance of the use of light and darkness in the production: ‘O ut of the
darkness into which they [the chorus] disappear comes all the ill-fortune that besets
Oedipus, bit by bit, until finally, overwhelmed by an accum ulation of tragedies,
blind, powerless and deserted, he is driven into the darkness himself, followed by
the same mob, which does not even touch him now, for fear of pollution.’
6 G oldhill (2002), 108-77.
experience being held som ew hat precariously in check by the
A polline action on the raised platform .
T h a t the R einhardt production defined itself in opposition to the
French GIdipe R oi was undoubtedly the case. L illah M cC arthy
(who had played D ionysus in Poel’s Bacchae in 1908; see Ch. 17)
and who took the p art of Jocasta in the L ondon production of the
G erm an/A ustrian play, com m ents in her m em oirs th a t the C om e
die-Frangaise production
was cold, classical. Chorus: two w om en dressed in French classical style.
N o m ovem ent, the figures of the actors m otionless, carved in marble.
N othing lived in it except M ounet-Sully, for whose superb acting no
praise would be extravagant, but oh! for a R einhardt to breathe into the
other actors breath of life.7
Lillah herself received plaudits for her perform ance as Jocasta (see
Fig. 18.2); and w hilst the startling perform ance of John M artin-
H arvey in the title role did earn him praise from m any quarters, his
earlier experience as a star in m elodram a seem s to have denied him
the gravitas accorded to his French counterpart. W hilst M ounet-
Sully’s m ovem ents and gestures earned him w ide acclaim , for
M artin-H arvey, it was his voice th at attracted attention: in the
N ietzschean equation that the R einhardt production so vividly
represented, the individual had been subsum ed by the overw helm
ing D ionysiac collective.
T h at the classical establishm ent in B ritain and elsew here in
E urope in the first p art of the century should have favoured the
French over the G erm an/A ustrian production is hardly surprising
given the ostracism afforded to N ietzsche and N ietzschean-in-
spired scholarship at this tim e.8 M oreover, it w ould not be wide
of the m ark to claim that the hero-centred readings of G reek
tragedy, w hich were to last for at least the first half of the tw entieth
century, are linked in im portant ways to L acroix’s version of
GZdipe R oi as it was m ediated through the pow ers of M ounet-
Sully. But there is som e irony, although perhaps no coincidence,
in the fact th at it is France— the country best know n for its cham
pioning of the collective over the individual in the political realm —
that should have chosen to celebrate the em battled G reek hero,
crushed through his ow n noble endeavour. Y et there is perhaps
7 M cCarthy (1933), 302.
8 See Silk and Stern (1981).
F i g u r e 18.2 E dm und D ulac, Lillah Borne by the Wings of Love from the
Wings of the Stage (c.1921).
even greater irony in the fact that it was this French production
that afforded that m uch m ore fam ous A ustrian, Sigm und Freud,
the o p portunity to explore the individual psyche,9 ju st at the tim e
w hen m any of his com patriots w ere beginning to be wooed by the
exponents of the ideology of the collective that was to take its m ost
pernicious form in the first half of the tw entieth century.
In the previous chapter we saw how the content of G reek tra
gedy influenced the m odern play of ideas; here in this chapter, we
see how the form al features of the ancient exam ple w ere to provide
inspiration to m odern theatre practitioners. If B arker had had
reservations about the chorus in his early productions of E uripides
(see Ch. 17), once he had travelled to B erlin to see the rehearsals for
R ein h ard t’s Oedipus R ex in the Z irkus S chum ann in 1910, he
found a m odel to em ulate. T w o m onths after the Oedipus R ex
appeared at C ovent G arden in January 1912, Barker staged M u r
ray’s Iphigenia in Tauris at the K ingsw ay T heatre; and for the first
tim e not only w ere the choral groupings and delivery to his satis
faction, they also delighted those m em bers of his audience w ho had
been sim ilarly initiated w ith the help of the E uropean m odel.
H ow ever, the R einhardt exam ple, as S heppard him self is partly
acknow ledging in his preface of 1915, was to carry w ith it perils as
well as potentialities. N o t least was R ein h ard t’s ‘people’s th eatre’,
w ith its inclusive agenda in term s of class and physical spatial
relations, eventually reform ed and deform ed as it served as the
m odel for the N azi m ass rallies in the 1930s.10 B ut in the first
decade of the tw entieth century in L ondon, the perils of R ein
h ard t’s ‘people’s th eatre’ w ere conceived less in term s of its p olit
ical than its m oral potential.
T h e insistence on the physicality of the p erform er— the naked
bodies w hich steam ed throu g h the darkened auditorium carrying
torches at the opening of the play— provoked horrified reactions
am ongst the audience m em bers accustom ed to view stage action
safely contained behind the proscenium arch. M ou n et-S u lly ’s ges
tures m ay have been greatly prized, and he m ay well have m ade his
final dram atic exit throu g h the auditorium , b u t his acting style was
always essentially sculptural (Fig. 18.3). In the F rench production
the body was m erely a m eans of conveying the cerebral and the
9 For the impact of this production on Freud, see Ernest Jones (1953), 194.
10 Fischer-Lichte (19996).
F I G U R E 18.3 H . Bellery-D esfontaines, engraving of Jean M ounet-Sully

as O edipus in the Comedie-Franipaise production of Qldipe Roi.
em otional qualities of the protagonist; w hereas in the R einhardt
production the sheer physical presence of the actors was a central
p art of the perform ance.
F or R einhardt, as was the case for the pioneers of m odern dance
who both adm ired and in tu rn influenced his w ork, m ovem ent (as
opposed to voice) was the prerequisite for the perform er. T h e
dance experim ents of both Isadora D uncan and M aud A llan at
the beginning of the century w ere hailed as revivals of the ‘totality’
of ancient G reek dance, com bining expressive qualities w ith a
religious/spiritual and educative function. F or m any critics,
W . B. Y eats’s fam ous (and som ew hat later D uncan-inspired) q ues
tion ‘Flow can we know the dancer from the dance ?’11 was a m easure
of this ‘m od ern /an cien t’ p attern of m ovem ent. B ut w hilst this new
corporeality initially engendered am azem ent w ithin the audience, it
also eventually b ro u gh t m oral outrage and scandal. N either
D uncan nor A llan was able to sustain her high status as ‘serious’
dancers in the post-w ar w orld; and this was in no sm all m easure on
account of their ow n personal tragedies. B ut their eclipse from high
cultural circles was also sym ptom atic of the A nglo-Saxon w orld’s
retreat from its b rief rapprochem ent w ith E uropean culture and
w hat cam e to be perceived as the ‘cosm opolitan’ corporeality that
R ein h ard t’s theatre had so dem onstrably em bodied.
UNDER THE BLUE PENCIL

T h e E dw ardian era ushered in a new E uropeanization, w hich led
in m any (essentially patriarchal) circles to a nostalgia for a ‘health
ier’ tim e, w hen ‘m o d ern ’ problem s (often of a sexual nature) did
not exist. N ew frank discussion about gender roles and sexuality in
general fuelled these anxieties, as they had done in the last tw o
decades of the nineteenth cen tu ry .12 T h e E nglish retreat from
w hat was increasingly considered to be E uropean cosm opolitan
decadence was, perhaps, best illustrated during this period w ith
reference to its instutionalized m oral custodians, and not least its
theatre censor, the L ord C ham berlain.13
T h e T h eatre R egulation A ct of 1843, w hich gave the L ord
C ham berlain the pow er to ban any play (old or new) and to rescind
11 Yeats, ‘Among School Children’, The Tower (1928), in Yeats (1962), 130.
12 Hynes (1968), 132-71.
13 Ibid. 212-53.
any licence already granted, was generally im plem ented w ith ref
erence to m oral rather than political criteria. U n d er Section 14 of
the A ct, the L o rd C ham berlain had the pow er to stop any
perform ance in the interest of ‘good m anners, decorum or the
public peace’.14 H ow ever laughable this m ay seem to us, it m ust
be rem em bered that V ictorian audiences them selves jealously
guarded the notion of strict public m orality, and thus perceived
the pow ers to protect that m orality as necessary rather than as a
repressive m easure.
W hat was, how ever, perceived to be increasingly absurd about
the legislation during the last quarter of the nineteenth century was
the fact that an individual— in theory the L o rd C ham berlain h im
self, in practice his A ssistant, the E xam iner of Plays— should be
granted absolute authority over m atters of decency and decorum .
A nd not only did the L ord C ham berlain’s right of silence continue
to prove irksom e to individual playw rights w hose plays w ere re
fused a licence (as had been W illiam Shirley’s experience w ith his
Electra in 1762; see Ch. 6); it was also increasingly resented th a t no
questions at all relating to the L ord C ham berlain’s decisions could
be m ade in the H ouse of C om m ons because his nam e appeared on
the Civil L ist. F urth erm o re, the unsystem atic and often inconsist
ent m ethod th at the E xam iners of Plays adopted in their w ork
turned m ore and m ore w riters tow ards active opposition. W hen
G ranville B arker’s new play W aste, w hich dealt w ith the dalliance
of a m arried politician, was denied a licence in 1907, the play-
w right-director spearheaded a counteroffensive against the
Censor. O n 29 O ctober The Times published a letter signed by
Barker and other prom inent opponents of the C ensor including
Shaw , Y eats, Synge, and G ilb ert M urray highlighting the ab su rd
ities of the system ; and eventually in 1909 a Joint Select C om m it
tee of the H ouse of L ords and the H ouse of C om m ons was set up to
investigate the state of theatre censorship in Britain.
A lthough betw een 1895 and 1909 out of som e 8,000 plays su b
m itted for licence only th irty w ere ban n ed ,15 am ongst the thirty
was Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus, w hich was being w idely read by
schoolboys and had been perform ed by undergraduates at C am
bridge in 1887. A m easure of the arb itrary and inconsistent nature
14 On the 1843 Act, see Fowell and Palm er (1913), 373. On stage censorship in
Britain generally, see de Jongh (2000).
15 Findlater (1967), 79.
of the licensing procedure at this tim e is the fact that the Exam iner
of Plays from 1895 to 1911, G eorge A lexander R edford, consist
ently refused to license Sophocles’ play, and yet happily granted a
licence to A ristophanes’ Lysistrata, a com edy that was considered
sufficiently ribald for subsequent E xam iners to deny it a licence on
a n u m b er of occasions during the interw ar p erio d.16
T h e experience of Sophocles’ play at the hands of the B ritish
censor can be charted from 1886 onw ards, w hen the cam paign to
abolish theatre censorship began to gather m om entum . As we saw
in Ch. 1, the incest and parricide had been deem ed problem atic
from at least 1808, w hen Scott referred to the ‘incestuous passion,
[which] carries w ith it som ething too disgusting for the sym pathy
of a refined age’.17 W hen the Shelley Society m ounted a p ro d uc
tion of Shelley’s controversial play about incest, The Cenci, at the
G rand T h eatre, Islington, som e seventy years after it was w ritten,
the subject-m atter was deem ed indelicate even if the play itself was
seen as an interesting period piece. A n editorial in The Era insists
that ju st because G reek dram a has becom e very voguish,
. .. we m ust beware of m istaking a passing craze for a national artistic
developm ent. It would not do (to take a parallel instance) to suppose that
because The Cenci has been placed on the stage and listened to w ith
attention, not to say avidity, by a mixed audience of old m en, young
m en, and m aidens, th at our public taste in m atters of m orality had becom e
sufficiently degraded to perm it of the sin of incest form ing a com m on and
acceptable m otif for a m odern dram a.18
Indeed there w ere others, as we will see, w ho deem ed the ‘public
taste in m atters of m orality’ to be so delicate th a t the inclusion of
‘the sin of incest’ in any dram a was problem atic.
W hen the Shelley Society th ru st The Cenci into the lim elight,
they established a sim ilarly high profile for Sophocles’ tragedy on
account of their shared treatm ent of incest. A nd from 1886 until
1910, w hen Sophocles’ play was finally granted a licence after
m uch public pressure— The Cenci had to w ait u ntil 1922 to receive
one— the fates of these tw o plays w ere inextricably linked, featu r
16 See the letter from Barker to M urray dated August 1910 in Purdom (1955),
113: ‘You know I suppose that the Little Theatre opens w ith the Lysistrata—
blessed by Redford.’
17 W alter Scott (1808), vi. 121.
18 The Era, 22 May 1886. See Ch. 16 for the taste for ‘Greek’ plays in London at
this time.
ing prom inently in alm ost every im portant debate concerning
theatrical censorship. F u rth erm o re, it m ay be argued th a t it was
the eventual prising apart of the tw o plays th at led to the dilution of
the case against censorship in 1910, w hen the increasingly splin
tered opposition was left w ithout a cause celebre around w hich to
rally.
T h e linking of the plays was perhaps inevitable given that both
plots involved incest and parricide. A lthough Shelley drew on
Sophocles’ Electra as well during his com position of The Cenci
(see Ch. 6), in the Preface to the published edition of the play, he
refers to the O edipus plays, although he him self refrains from
pointing to the obvious them atic parallels.19 A nd the m em bers of
the Shelley Society followed his exam ple in their Prologue (w ritten
by the author of Alcestis and Helena in Troas, John T o d h u n ter),
sim ilarly invoking the Sophoclean precedent w ithout draw ing ex
plicit parallels betw een the tw o plays.20 F u rth erm o re, a glance at
the Evidence given to the Joint Select C om m ittee in 1909 shows
th at not only had the tw inning of the plays becom e habitual by this
tim e, b u t th at the two playw rights w ere now enlisted in the cause
against censorship as w ell.21 W hen the playw right H en ry A rth u r
Jones was unable to attend the Joint Select C om m ittee to give
evidence in person, he issued a vitriolic pam phlet in w hich S opho
cles and Shelley had becom e byw ords for the absurdity of the
licensing system . Jones w rites: ‘T h u s the rule of C ensorship is
“ G ag Shelley! G ag Sophocles! License M r Sm ellfilth! License
M r Slangw eazy!” . . . ,22
19 A lthough Shelley does not refer explicitly to their them atic parallels, he was
fully aware that such parallels would not be missed. Thom as Love Peacock, who
had vainly subm itted the play to Covent G arden at Shelley’s request, doubted
w hether The Cenci would have been granted a licence anyway because other treat
ments of incest (including D ryden and Lee’s Oedipus) had been banned from the
stage in recent times. See W oodberry (1909), pp. xxxiii-xxxv.
20 See A. and H. B. Form an’s Introduction to Shelley (1886). As well as his
Alcestis and Helena in Troas (on which see Chs. 15 and 16 respectively), T odhunter
had also w ritten a study of Shelley in 1880.
21 See Censorship and Licensing (1910), passim.
22 Jones’s pam phlet, w ritten in the form of a letter to H erbert Samuel, Chairm an
of the Joint Select Committee, is reprinted in Censorship and Licensing (1910),
199-203 (quotation p. 201). Perhaps the most notorious figure behind the Slang
weazy tendency is none other than the future Exam iner of Plays, Charles H. E.
Brookfield. His play, Dear Old Charlie (an adaptation of Eugene Labiche and
Alfred-Charlem agne Delacourt’s 1863 Celimare, Le Bien A im e) is invoked in the
It is extrem ely difficult to assem ble the evidence for the case for
censoring Sophocles’ play, particularly since the evidence given by
G eorge R edford, E xam iner of Plays, to the Joint C om m ittee in
1909 is terse, to say the least. R edford was asked w hy a version of
the Oedipus by the D aily Telegraph dram a critic (and form er
O xford don who was involved in the 1880 Agam emnon at Balliol;
see Ch. 15), W . L. C ourtney, had been refused a licence. W hen
asked by M r H arco u rt if an alleged im propriety had led to the
banning of C o u rtn ey ’s version w hilst the Oedipus of D ryden and
Lee was apparently exem pt from such strictures, R edford replied:
‘M r C o u rtn ey’s version was su bm itted and it was considered;
M r D ry d en ’s version was not considered.’23 H arco u rt’s line of
enquiry here is an attem pt to ascertain the extent to w hich p rece
dent determ ined the fate of newly subm itted plays. A nd it is clearly
precedent in the case of Oedipus Tyrannus that is affecting its
fortunes at the hands of the censor. F or the analogy w ith The
Cenci, and the refusal of a licence to O scar W ilde’s Salom e in
1893— W ilde’s play rem ained unlicensed until 1931— m eant that
any play dealing w ith incest in any shape or form was deem ed
indecent and u n fit for stage representation.24
It m ay seem incredible to us th at Sophocles’ tragedy can be
reduced to a play about incest tout court, b u t anxieties concerning
consanguineous sexual relations had becom e increasingly acute
throu gh o u t the first few years of the century culm inating in the
passing of T h e P unishm ent of Incest A ct of 1908. Before 1908—
w ith the exception of the interregnum years (see Ch. 1), and in
m arked contrast to Scotland, w here incest had been a crim e since
1567— incest in E ngland and W ales had been dealt w ith by the
ecclesiastical courts, despite num erous attem pts to m ake it a crim
inal offence.
evidence to the Joint Select Comm ittee as an example of the inconsistencies in

the censorship (ibid. 93). Dear Old Charlie was licensed for performance at the
Vaudeville Theatre, where it played for 92 performances from 2 Feb. to 21 Mar.
1908. T he play caused considerable offence on account of its apparent amorality in
its depiction of a serial cuckolder, who causes considerable consternation to the two
husbands he has cuckolded, when he decides to settle down and get m arried to a new
lover.
23 Ibid. 68.
24 T here were other plays involving incestuous relationships that were also
banned at this time: thus Gabriele D ’A nnunzio’s La citta morta—which Eleonora
Duse had tried to stage in London— was denied a licence in 1903.
T h e new legislation of 1908 undoubtedly lurks behind the lud i
crously ‘literalist’ reading of Sophocles’ tragedy proffered by the
E xam iner of Plays, w hich can be found in the copy of M u rray ’s
translation of Oedipus Tyrannus th a t was su bm itted to the L ord
C ham berlain’s Office in N ovem ber 1910. O n the first page, in the
list of dramatis personae, Jocasta is described as ‘Queen o f Thebes;
widow of Laius, the late king and now wife to Oedipus’. ‘N ow wife to
Oedipus’ is underlined in blue pencil— the only such underlining in
the text— and the reason for this becom es clear from R edford ’s
com m ent in his letter to L o rd Spencer, the cu rren t L o rd C ham
berlain. R edford w rites:
I have read the G ilbert M urray version. In m any respects it differs from
M r C ourtney’s treatm ent, but it follows the classic story throughout, and
the character of Jocasta ‘now wife of O edipus’, is represented and the well
know n situations of the play are retained.
R edford’s com m ents are overw helm ingly naive— indeed by im ply
ing that a version of O edipus w ithout Jocasta w ould be p erm is
sible, he m ight as well be asking for a H am let w ithout the ghost;
b u t w hen the C om ptroller of the L ord C ham berlain’s Office,
D ouglas D aw son, w rote to m em bers of a recently form ed A dvisory
Board to seek their advice concerning the M urray translation, he
broadly adopted R edford’s term s. D aw son writes:
Som e years previously a translation of the same dram a was m ade by M r
W . L. C ourtney and was refused a licence for stage perform ance on the
ground that it was im possible to put on the stage in England a play dealing
w ith incest. T here was a precedent for the action w hich the L ord C ham
berlain took on this occasion in the refusal of successive L ord C ham ber
lains to license ‘T he C enci’.26
So jealously did they guard their role as the custodians of public
m orality that the incum bents of the L ord C ham berlain’s Office
w ere in danger of confusing representation w ith im itation. F o r as
H enry A rth u r Jones w ryly observed at the tim e:
Now, of course, if any considerable body of Englishm en are arranging to
m arry their m others, w hether by accident or design, it m ust be stopped at
once. But it is not a frequent occurrence in any class of English society.
23 George Alexander Redford to Lord Spencer, 10 Nov. 1910, Lord Cham ber
lain’s Plays’ Correspondence File: Oedipus Rex 1910/814 (British Library).
26 Douglas Dawson to Sir Edward Carson, 11 Nov. 1910, ibid.
T hroughout the course of m y life I have not m et m ore than six m en who
were anxious to do it.27
It is surely this shift in attitudes tow ards incest that accounts for
the m arked change in M u rray ’s scholarship on Sophocles’ play. In
1897 in A ncient Greek Literature, M urray reads the incest m otif in
the play literally com plaining th at ‘Sophocles is always harping on
it [the incest] and ringing the changes on the h ero ’s relationships,
b u t never thinks it o u t . .. \ 28 B ut by 1911 in the Preface to his
translation, and all too consciously aw are of the ban on the play
(owing to the over-literal readings of the C ensor) that has only ju st
been lifted, M urray apologizes for his earlier view and offers an
anthropological explanation of the incest: now, in his estim ation,
the characters of Jocasta and O edipus bear som e traces of the E arth
M other and the M edicine K ing respectively.29
D E F Y IN G T H E BAN
As efforts had been m ade to stage Shelley’s The Cenci, attem pts
w ere underw ay to stage Oedipus Tyrannus in L ondon. T h e first
attem pt seem s initially, at least, to have been unrelated to any
political cam paigning. In 1904 Sir H erb ert B eerbohm T ree—
inspired by M ounet-S ully— sent his Secretary at H is M ajesty’s
T heatre, Frederick W helen, to ask R edford about the possibility
of m ounting a production of Sophocles’ tragedy in L ondon. D es
pite the precedent of the undergraduate production in C am bridge
in 1887, R edford said that a L ondon production was out of the
question. 30
27 Cit. Fowell and Palm er (1913), 275 n. 1. One of those ‘six or seven’ may well
have been Shaw, who confessed to M urray to comm itting m other—son incest in his
own ‘dream w orld’: ‘I very seldom dream of my m o th er... but when I do, she is my
wife as well as my m other. W hen this first occurred to me (well on in m y life), what
surprised me when I awoke was that the notion of incest had not entered into the
dream: I had taken it as a m atter of course that the m aternal function included
the wifely one; and so did she. W hat is m ore, the sexual relation acquired all the
innocence of the filial one, and the filial one all the completeness of the sexual
o n e... if circumstances tricked me into m arrying m y m other before I knew she was
m y m other, I should be fonder of her than I could ever be of a m other who was not
my wife, or a wife who was not my m other.’ Cited in H olroyd (1988-92), i. 20.
28 M urray (1911, 239); and for comment, Easterling (1997), 119.
29 M urray (1911), p. v.
30 Censorship and Licensing (1910), 68.
T re e ’s inform al inquiry led to a flurry of activity. F irst and m ost
significantly, W .B. Y eats seized the o p po rtu n ity to use the ban as a
m eans of p utting the A bbey T h eatre in D ublin on the theatrical m ap
of the E nglish-speaking w orld w hen it opened at the end of the year.
T h e L ord C ham berlain’s Office had no jurisdiction in D ublin; and
it was recognized by the founders of the A bbey th at there could be no
m ore effective beginning to a national th eatre’s career than to stage a
play w hich w ould enable the theatre to go dow n in history as the
cham pion of intellectual freedom : Ireland w ould liberate the clas
sics from the English tyranny. W hen Y eats announced the estab
lishm ent of the A bbey T h eatre in 1904, he added:
Oedipus the K ing is forbidden in L ondon. A censorship created in the
eighteenth century by W alpole, because som ebody has [«'c] w ritten against
election bribery, has been distorted by a puritanism w hich is not the less
an English invention for being a pretended hatred of vice and a real hatred
of intellect. N othing has suffered so m any persecutions as the intellect,
though it is never persecuted under its own name.
Y eats’s interpretation of R edford’s ‘real hatred of intellect’ m as
querading behind a ‘pretended hatred of vice’ is highly apposite
because com ical treatm ents of unorthodox sexual relations were
routinely licensed by the L ord C ham berlain’s Office. A nd the
banning of Sophocles’ tragedy was confirm ation for Y eats that
England was the m ean-spirited stifler of the intellect that Ireland
w ould proudly defy.
A lm ost im m ediately, Yeats w rote to M urray asking him to w rite
a translation of Sophocles’ play for the new ly founded Irish
th eatre.32 M urray was w orking on E uripides at the tim e and had
been since late 1890s; he found Sophocles conventional in com pari
son;33 and as we have already heard, he had deep m isgivings about
Sophocles’ handling of the incest them e in the Oedipus Tyrannus.
H e w rote to Yeats, declining his invitation on the grounds that the
play was ‘E n g lish -F ren ch -G erm an . . . all construction and no
sp irit’, w ith ‘nothing Irish about it’.34 H ow ever, Y eats’s letter
clearly opened up new areas of concern to M urray:
31 Yeats, ‘Samhain: 1904’ in Yeats (1962), 131—2.
32 Yeats to M urray, 24 Jan. 1905 in the Bodleian Library, reprinted in Clark and
M cG uire (1989), 8-9.
33 Easterling (1997), 119; and see Ch. 17.
34 M urray to Yeats, 27 Jan. 1905 in Finneran, H arper, and M urphy (1977),
i. 145-6.
I am really distressed that the Censor objected to it. It ought to be played
not perhaps at H is M ajesty’s by T ree, but by Irving at the Lyceum , w ith a
lecture before . .. and after. A nd a public dinner. W ith speeches. By C ab
inet M inisters.35
T h e banning of such a significant play, according to M urray,
should be taken to heart by the B ritish establishm ent. A nd, indeed,
som e years later w hen he had com pleted his ow n translation of
Sophocles’ proscribed tragedy, M urray (then Regius Professor
of G reek at O xford) appropriately becam e the person to take the
play to the h eart of the establishm ent, w hen it was his play that was
used in the celebrated R einhardt production at C ovent G arden in
1912.
W hile Y eats was trying to find a suitable translation for an
A bbey production, Shaw ’s The Shewing up o f Blanco Posnet fell
victim to the stringencies of the L ord C ham berlain’s Office in
1907, and it was decided to stage his play at the A bbey as w ell.36
A lthough Shaw ’s play w ent ahead successfully (despite threats
from the L ord L ieutenant of Ireland to revive his pow ers of
censorship), the plan to stage Oedipus Tyrannus lost som e of its
initial force w hen cam paigns in L ondon to produce the play looked
as if they w ould upstage those at the A bbey.37 A nd it was not until
1926, after Y eats had com pleted his version of the play, that the
A bbey T h eatre finally staged Sophocles’ tragedy.
A nother actor-m anager, John M artin-H arvey, had (like Sir
H erb ert T ree) been inspired by M ou n et-S u lly ’s perform ance as
O edipus; and it was M artin-H arvey w ho had approached C o u rt
ney to produce a free version of the play.38 As a form er classical
scholar w ith an intim ate know ledge of the professional stage,
C ourtney was an ideal choice. B ut despite his im peccable creden
tials, C o urtn ey ’s version was (as we have seen) denied a licence by
R edford. So significant was the ban that the rejected play was
subm itted as evidence before the Joint Select C om m ittee in 1909;
and its presence guaranteed that a high profile was granted to
G reek tragedy in general, and Sophocles’ play in particular
throu g h o ut the proceedings of the C om m ittee.
35 M urray to Yeats, 27 Jan. 1905 in Finneran, H arper, and M urphy (1977), 145.
36 Findlater (1967), 101—2; Clark and M cGuire (1989), 14-5.
37 Clark and M cG uire (1989), 17-18.
38 M artin-Harvey (1933), 391^-03.
R obert H arcourt, the M em ber of P arliam ent w ho had in tro
duced the T h eatres and M usic H alls Bill designed to abolish
censorship, was determ ined to keep the Sophoclean scandal at
the forefront of the C om m ittee’s concerns. Even Sir H erb ert
T ree, who (like m ost actor-m anagers of the tim e) was against
abolition per se, none the less adm itted u n der H arco u rt’s assiduous
questioning that the L o rd C ham berlain’s stance over the Oedipus
Tyrannus was clearly m istaken.39 W hen the half-m illion-w ord
report on the C om m ittee’s findings and recom m endations
appeared in N ovem ber 1909, the frequency w ith w hich references
to Sophocles’ play occurred m ade it inevitable that a production
w ould be m ounted in L ondon before too long.
By the m iddle of 1910, tw o leading theatre m anagers w ere
planning to stage Oedipus Tyrannus.40 Sir H erb ert T ree, u n
deterred by R edford’s previously negative response, was again
hoping to m o u nt a production at H is M ajesty’s T heatre; and
H erb ert T ren ch , the new M anager of the T h eatre Royal in the
H aym arket, had approached M urray for his alm ost com pleted
translation of Sophocles’ tragedy.41 M u rray ’s involvem ent in the
1909 cam paign, together w ith his close friends and colleagues,
B arker and Shaw , had u ndoubtedly led him to a tem porary rejec
tion of E uripides in favour of a translation of Sophocles’ now
notorious play. W hen T ren ch sent M u rray ’s translation to the
L ord C ham berlain’s Office, R edford was all set to retu rn it to
T ren ch w ith the custom ary rejection based on precedent. W hen
R edford w rote to the L ord C ham berlain for his seal of approval, he
added:
M r T rench and D r G ilbert M urray are opponents of the office, and no
doubt desire to m ake capital out of a prohibition of an ancient G reek
classic so fam iliar to every school boy etc etc.42
It was these w ords that m ust have sounded a w arning to the L ord
C ham berlain’s C om ptroller, D ouglas D aw son, for he acted
sw iftly, telling R edford to inform T ren ch that the play was u n der
review. M u rray ’s translation was to be granted the dubious dis
39 Censorship and Licensing (1910), 74.

40 See the Barker—M urray correspondence in Purdom (1955), 99—102.
41 See M urray to Barker, 6 Aug. 1910 in Purdom (1955), 112.
42 Redford to Lord Spencer, 11 Nov. 1910. Lord Cham berlain’s Plays’ C orres
pondence File: Oedipus R ex 1910/814 (British Library).
tinction of being the first play to be referred to the new ly appointed
A dvisory B oard.43
All the m em bers of the Board felt that a ban w ould be hard to
sustain, although the retired actor-m anager Sir John H are recom
m ended that ‘the greatest caution should be exercised and the
m atter very seriously and deliberately considered in all its bearings
before a licence is g ran ted .’44 Professor W alter Raleigh from
O xford, how ever, injected som e com m on sense into the debate
w hen he pointed out— as neither side for obvious political p u r
poses had done before— that ‘any supposed analogies’ w ith The
Cenci ‘should [not] be allow ed to have w eight’ because the trea t
m ent of incest in both plays is of such a different order and
degree.45
T h e recom m endations of the A dvisory Board w ere heeded and
M u rray ’s translation of Sophocles’ play, entitled Oedipus, K in g of
Thebes, was finally granted a licence on 29 N ovem ber 1910. A nd
perhaps by no m eans coincidentally, on the sam e day the L ord
C ham berlain’s Office issued a licence for S trauss’ opera, Salome,
w hich used W ilde’s play (albeit in the G erm an translation of
H edw ig L achm ann) as the basis for the libretto, and the opera
was perform ed a few days later at the Royal O pera H ouse, C ovent
G arden on 8 D ecem ber.
THE GERMAN/AUSTRIAN OEDIPUS

N ot only had the greatest barrier to a perform ance of Sophocles’
play in L ondon now been rem oved. N ew s too from G erm any of an
exciting production of Oedipus Tyrannus by the celebrated A us
trian theatre director M ax R einhardt, gave an even greater im petus
to the B ritish cam paign. In O ctober 1910, G ranville Barker had
gone to Berlin to see the production, w hich had ju st transferred
from M unich, w here it had opened at the M usikfesthalle in S ep
tem ber, and w rote enthusiastically to M urray about w hat he had
seen.46 Since T ren ch , a slow m over, seem ed ever less likely actu
43 Dawson to Redford, 11 Nov. 1910; same to Sir Edward Carson, 11 Nov. 1910,
ibid. T he other m embers of the Board were Sir Squire Bancroft, Sir John Hare,
Professor W alter Raleigh, and S. O. Buckmaster.
44 Sir John H are, ibid.
45 Professor W alter Raleigh, 22 Nov. 1910, ibid.
46 Purdom (1955), 114-15.
ally to m ount the production he had agitated for,47 the attention of
directors, actors, and theatrical im presarios alike tow ards the end
of the year was fixed on the R einhardt production that played
th irty tim es to rapturous audiences in the Z irkus S chum ann in
Berlin. In m id -F eb ru ary 1911, R ein h ard t’s em issary O rdynski
cam e to L ondon saying that R einhardt him self w anted to stage a
L ondon production using M u rray ’s translation.48 A lthough nego
tiations conducted on M u rray ’s behalf by Frederic W helen to
produce the play at the K ingsw ay T h eatre fell throu g h w ith the
death of the financier, by the end of July there w ere firm plans for a
production of the Oedipus in January 1912 at C ovent G arden, w ith
M artin -H arv ey in the leading role and B arker’s wife, Lillah
M cC arthy, as Jocasta. Because the original production used the
free version of H ugo von H ofm annstahl, M u rray ’s translation had,
in the event, to be slightly adapted by C ourtney. In the program m e
note to the play, the production was hailed as ‘the first p erfo rm
ance of the play in E ngland since the seventeenth cen tu ry ’,49 a clear
allusion to D ryden and L ee’s Oedipus of 1678, and an oblique
reference to the earlier ban. A lthough this was factually inaccur
ate— it ignores all revivals of the D ry d en and Lee version, F aucit’s
Oedipus (see Ch. 8) and the C am bridge production of 1887— it is
not (as we have seen) w ithout som e foundation.
R einhardt was already renow ned for his direction of crow d
scenes, b u t in the Oedipus R ex he p u t those skills to a severe test
by directing a crow d of 300 extras w ho represented the citizens of
T hebes, together w ith a chorus of tw enty-seven T h eb an E lders
(there w ere few er in the chorus in L ondon). B ut it is m isleading to
focus exclusively on the m onum ental aspects of the production
because the naturalistic acting was particularly notew orthy—
R einhardt him self had trained at the D eutsches T h eater under
the so-called father of stage naturalism , O tto Brahm ; and H off-
m anstahl’s version, no less than L acroix’s, focused on the individ
ual suffering of O edipus.
T h ere w ere three perform ance levels in R ein h ard t’s p ro d u c
tion— the space at the front of the auditorium for the crow d, the
palace steps for the chorus, and the front of the palace itself for the
47 Ibid. 116.
48 D uncan W ilson (1987), 165.
49 A copy of the programm e is in the Production File to the Oedipus R ex in the
Theatre M useum , Covent Garden. T he note is w ritten by F. B. O ’Neill.
actors— and the infringem ents of those separate perform ance
levels at points of high tension w ere particularly notew orthy.
M ost striking was the opening of the play, w hich broke w ith the
conventional relationship betw een perform ers and spectators ab
solutely w hen the vast crow d surged throu g h the darkened
auditorium , rem inding The Times critic of ‘som e huge living o r
ganism ’.50 A m urky blue light broke through the darkness, p a r
tially revealing the chanting, groaning crowd; and after a strong
yellow light had been cast over the altar and steps, the entry of
O edipus from the central doors, dressed in a brilliant w hite gown,
was captured in spotlight. If the M ounet-S ully production had
dow nplayed the T h eb an context in order to highlight the suffer
ings of O edipus in his relations w ith the gods, R ein h ard t’s N ietz-
schean-inspired production em phasized the extent to w hich those
individual (A polline) sufferings had to be seen against a back
ground of the general (D ionysiac) suffering of the C horus. T h e
highly spectacular ending (N ietzschean in spirit and strictly non-
Sophoclean), w hen O edipus m ade his cathartic exit from T hebes
groping his way throu g h the audience, was deem ed so effective
that it led som e m em bers of the audience to avert their gaze as he
passed them by. C ertainly there w ere aspects of the staging that
cam e in for criticism — m ost notably the dum bshow that su r
rounded the m essenger-speech-—b u t few w ho saw the production
failed to be im pressed by the sheer scale and grandeur of the form al
patterns of m ovem ent.
L ondon audiences w ere overw helm ed by w hat they saw, and
although certain aspects of the production w ere denounced,
the perform ances of M artin -H arv ey and L illah M cC arthy w ere
unanim ously praised; and M artin -H arv ey continued to tou r w ith
the play for m any years after the event, w inning for him self the
same distinction as his hero M ounet-S ully of being a truly great
O edipus. A m ongst the criticism s levelled at the production was
th at audiences w ere being offered u n diluted R ein h ard t rath er than
p ure Sophocles, and this particular barb led G ilb ert M urray to
m ake a spirited defence of R ein h ard t and his production in a letter
to The Times'.
A fter all Professor R einhardt knows ten tim es as m uch about the theatre as
I do. H is production has proved itself: it stands on its own feet, som ething
50 The Times, 16 Jan. 1912, 10.
vital, m agnificent, unforgettable. A nd who knows if the m ore H ellenic
production I dream of would be any of these?51
Reviews of the production rem ained curiously silent about the
play’s recent history at the hands of the B ritish censor. Shortly
after the opening of the R einhardt production, B arker drew atten
tion to this serious om ission in a letter to The Tim es:
Sir,— Public m em ory is short. In no review of the production of Oedipus
R ex at C ovent G arden has it been recalled that until a year ago this was a
forbidden play. But neither has any critic even suggested that it is a thing
unfit to be seen. T his is a famous case against the Censorship. It is, as it
were, brought to trial, and judgem ent goes by default. W hy have the L ord
C ham berlain’s cham pions, eager to support him in principle, never a word
to say in defence of any of his im portant acts? H ere is a chance for them ;
and if they feel it is one to be missed, will they not in fairness offer a
vicarious apology to the public and the theatre, who have been for several
generations wantonly deprived of their property in this play?— Yours
etc.52
E ven though no theatre critic found Sophocles’ play ‘a thing unfit
to be seen’, there w ere som e people w ho clearly did. W hen M artin -
H arvey took the R einhardt production on a tou r around B ritain in
1913, the M anager of the N ew T h eatre in C ardiff (no less a person
than the b ro th er of G eorge R edford, form er E xam iner of Plays)
refused to allow Oedipus to be perform ed in his theatre, and
M artin-H arvey and his com pany had to find an alternative
venue. 53
Oedipus Tyrannus m ay have been finally freed b u t the B ritish
stage was to rem ain u n der the shadow of the censor for another
fifty years. T h e new E xam iner of Plays was even m ore stringent
than his predecessor, and his high-handedness provoked a petition
that was presented to the K ing on 11 Ju ne 1912 w ith the signatures
of over sixty dram atists. In the petition, the recent success of
R ein h ard t’s Oedipus R ex was held up as evidence of the absurdity
of the system of censorship. T h e statem ent avers:
T h at the L ord C ham berlain’s D epartm ent by w orking on custom and not
on ascertainable results has been grossly unjust to m anagers, authors and
the public, and has cast discredit on the adm inistration of the D epartm ent
by its treatm ent of classical plays, and of plays in w hich scriptural charac
51 The Times , 23 Jan. 1912, 8. 52 The Times, 18 Jan. 1912, 9.
53 M artin-H arvey (1933), 490.
ters appear, as may be instanced by the repeated refusals to m any m an
agers of a licence for Sophocles’ great play Oedipus Rex, which now, at last
perm itted, has been produced w ith every indication of public approval.54
H ow ever strong a statem ent of protest the petition contained, a
censored Oedipus Tyrannus had clearly been a far m ore effective
w eapon against the L ord C ham berlain’s O ffice than a liberated one
could ever be. M oreover, B arker’s concerns, expressed to M urray
in 1910 before the ban on Oedipus was lifted, were proving p ro p h
etic. Barker had w ritten:
M y fear is th at the L ord C ham berlain m eans to scotch opposition by
m aking as m any concessions as he can—we— the general body of op-
posers— are so rottenly divided on the question of principle— that it
w ould be an easy job if he had the w it to set about it. Personally one will
be glad to see the Oedipus through but— at once— everyone will bless the
nam e of the com m ittee and say that nothing m ore need be done.55
R edford m ay not have had sufficient ‘w it’ to scotch the opposition
single-handedly; b u t by im plying in his letter to the L o rd C ham
berlain that the Sophoclean tragedy was the opposition’s tru m p
card, he had unw ittingly guaranteed his O ffice’s survival for som e
m ore years. F or by w ithdraw ing the Oedipus Tyrannus from the
fray, the L ord C ham berlain had deftly w rongfooted the opposition;
and the B ritish stage had to w ait until the 1960s for its freedom .
T h e history of G reek tragedy on the B ritish stage is thus closely
interw oven w ith the history of B ritish stage censorship. T h o m
son’s adaptation of the Agam emnon in 1738 was one of the first
plays to challenge the authority of the L ord C ham berlain’s Office
(see Ch. 4). A nd had Oedipus Tyrannus rem ained on the list of
proscribed plays a year or so longer, it m ay well be that a L ondon
production of Sophocles’ tragedy w ould have been m ounted to
celebrate that O ffice’s dem ise.
COSM OPOLITANISM , CORPOREALITY, AND

COLLECTIVITY
T w o m onths after the R ein h ard t Oedipus Rex had opened at
C ovent G arden, B arker’s production of Iphigenia in Tauris was
5+ T he petition is quoted in full in Fowell and Palm er (1913), 374—6.

55 Purdom (195S), 116.
m ounted at the K ingsw ay T h eatre. C ritics w ere quick to see
the im p rin t of R einhardt on the production. ’6 T h ese tw o ancient
plays th at had been dom inant in the R estoration and early eig ht
eenth centuries (see Chs. 1 and 2) and w hich for various reasons
had disappeared from the B ritish stage for m any decades, finally
retu rn ed to the repertoire. N ow , how ever, at the beginning of the
tw entieth century it is not so m uch the individual w ho provides the
focus for the director/adapter: instead, we find a new an throp o
logical approach in the rew orkings of these tragedies, w hich places
equal em phasis upon the collective.
Barker, it should be recalled, had attended the Oedipus re
hearsals both in Berlin and L ondon; and he had helped his wife
L illah M cC arthy prepare for her p art as Jocasta in L ondon. In
B arker’s production, she was now a statuesque and dignified Ip h i
genia su rro un ded by prim itive peoples w ith savage practices. In
previous productions, B arker had dem onstrated the pow er of
G reek tragedy in the m odern w orld w ith reference, prim arily, to
its content (see Ch. 17); b u t now he had found ways of effectively
representing those of its form al characteristics that could be ac
com m odated w ithin the proscenium arch theatre. As had been the
case w ith R ein h ard t’s Oedipus R ex at C ovent G arden, B arker b uilt
a forestage out over the (adm ittedly sm aller) orchestra pit and front
three rows of the stalls at the K ingsw ay T h eatre, upon w hich the
chorus of eleven captive w om en danced. H ere and unlike in earlier
productions, both on account of their dark purple costum es and
the new larger choral space, the chorus was no longer a p erm an
ently static, and occasionally intrusive presence: instead it faded in
and out of the action in accordance w ith the dictates of the p lo t.57
A nd w hen B arker w ent on later in the year to stage the sam e
production in the G reek theatre at B radfield College, not only
did it transpose easily, it m ade B arker feel th a t he w ould never do
G reek plays ‘in a stuffy theatre again’. D u ring the F irst W orld
W ar, he took the pro ductio n to A m erica, w here it was staged
together w ith Trojan Women, in various outdoor venues to great
acclaim . It was this to u r th a t established L illah M cC arthy, who
s6 See J. T . Grein, Sunday Times, 24 M ar. 1912, 12 : ‘ ... it is R einhardt’s spirit

that hovers over the whole picture’.
57 For a detailed account of the production, see Kennedy (1985), 119—21.
played b o th Iphigenia and H ecuba, as the leading E dw ardian
tragedienne (see Fig. 18.4).58
Finding new spaces m eant devising new patterns of m ovem ent
for the perform ers. In July 1910, in a jou rn al called The M ask,
G odw in’s G reek theatre at H engler’s C ircus in 1886 (see Ch. 16)
was proclaim ed as sem inal in theatre history, w ith G odw in him self
having ‘fathered the new m ovem ent in the E uropean th eatre’.59
T h e anonym ous au tho r of the article was none other than The
M a sk’s editor, E dw ard H enry G ordon Craig, the illegitim ate son
of the actress Ellen T erry and G odw in him self. In p art Craig is of
course trying to establish his ow n (literal) genealogy in this article,
b u t since this form er B radfield pupil w ent on to becom e one of
E u ro pe’s m ost influential stage-designers in the first p art of the
century, his acknow ledgem ent of the im portance of the designer in
the m odern theatre is significant. C raig had no tim e for Poel’s
E lizabethan revivalism nor for the C o u rt productions of E u rip i
des.60 H e rightly saw th at unless the appropriate spaces and levels
w ere found in the theatre, the m ovem ent patterns of the p erfo rm
ers w ould be severely ham pered. Indeed, m ovem ent, in his
schem a, had prim acy over the spoken w ord: the father of the
dram atist, he argued, was the dancer.61
C raig’s fascination w ith the dancer was in reality at this tim e an
obsession w ith one particular dancer, the pioneer of w hat is now
called ‘M odern D ance’, Isadora D uncan. H e had m et D uncan in
1904 and had found in her bare-footed, tunic-clad dance p erfo rm
ances the corporeal correlative to w hat he had been seeking to
capture w ith his set designs. D uncan had begun her career in
38 Barker to M urray in Purdom (1955), 144. Before the three afternoons at

Bradfield, 11—13 June, the production was m ounted on 4 June for a matinee
perform ance at T ree’s request at His M ajesty’s Theatre as part of the annual
Shakespeare Festival. On the American tour in 1915 the company perform ed in
the Yale Bowl, 15 May; H arvard Stadium , 18 May; Piping Rock Country Club on
Long Island, around 25 May; College of the City of New York, 31 M ay and 5 June;
the U niversity of Pennsylvania, 8 June; Princeton University, 11 June. See K en
nedy (1985), 212-13.
39 John Semar (pseudonym for Edward G ordon Craig), ‘A N ote on the Work
of E. W. G odw in’ The M ask, 3 (July 1910), 53.
60 ‘Balance’ (pseudonym for Edward G ordon Craig), ‘A N ote on M asks’,
The M ask, 1, 1908, 11.
61 Craig, ‘T he A rt of the Theatre. T he First Dialogue’ (1905), repr. in full in
Craig (1911), 137—82 (quotation p. 140).
F ig u r e 18.4 Lillah M cC arthy as H ecuba in The Trojan Women (1915).
E urope as an extra w ith B enson’s com pany,62 b u t tu rn ed increas

ingly tow ards solo dance perform ances in aristocratic private
houses in Paris and L ondon, accom panied by her m other on the
62 Isadora D uncan (1928), 50. T here is some confusion about the date of her first
m eeting w ith Craig. I follow D uncan in her mem oir with 1904. T heir daughter
D eirdre was born in 1905.
piano. She drew inspiration from G reek sculptures and depictions
on G reek vases, as well as from the exam ple of the celebrated
Japanese dancer Sadayakko, w hom D uncan had adm ired at
the 1900 E xhibition in P aris.63 B ut like m any others of her gener
ation, she records her m ost pow erful m em ory as a spectator in the
theatre as being the night she saw M ounet-S ully (in w hat she
describes as an otherw ise unin sp ired ‘G reek revival’ production)
in the p art of O edipus.64 Som e years later, D uncan relates how
dressed as a M aenad at a fancy dress ball in Paris, she som ew hat
over-daringly danced w ith a G reek-robed M ounet-Sully: ‘I
danced w ith him all the evening’, D uncan explains, ‘or at least I
danced about him , for the great M ounet disdained m odern dance
steps, and it was b ru ited about th at our conduct was extrem ely
scandalous.’63
A fter a visit to G reece w ith her b ro th er in 1903, she took a group
of young G reek boys w ith her on to u r across C entral E u ro pe.66
T o geth er w ith the singing boys, D uncan danced the odes from
A eschylus’ Suppliants w ith m ixed success to audiences in V ienna,
B udapest, Berlin, and M unich. Som e years later in 1915, she
m ounted a full-scale production of Oedipus R ex in her studio in
N ew Y ork, w ith thirty-five actors, eighty m usicians, and a h u n
dred singing voices, w ith herself and her pupils perform ing as the
dancing chorus, and her b ro th er A ugustin D uncan in the title
role.6/ B ut m ost of her w ork rem ained on a m uch sm aller scale
and consisted of a series of dances designed to m irro r the w orkings
of the soul; in D u n can ’s form ulation, the dancer dances the m usic
(rather than to the m usic) ‘a m usic heard inw ardly, in an expression
63 Isadora D uncan (1928), 54; and for the impact of Sadayakko’s dancing gener
ally in the west, see Downer (2003).
Isadora D uncan (1928), 68.
65 Ibid. 164. T he tone here highlights the self-consciously rom antic nature of the
m em oir (billed on the 1996 paperback edition as ‘T he uninhibited autobiography of
the woman who founded m odern dance’). For com m ent in this regard, see Goldhill
(2002), 115-20.
66 Isadora D uncan (1928), 100—3. H er brother, Raymond, who m arried Penel
ope, sister of the Greek poet Angelos Sikelianos, ‘w ent G reek’ and insisted all his
family wear Greek costume even in adverse climes. T his resulted in the notorious
incident of his arrest in New York on grounds of child cruelty.
6/ Isadora Duncan (1928), 226. Duncan also devised an Iphigenia, which con
sisted of scenes taken from Euripides’ Iphigenia in Aulis and Iphigenia in Tauris,
danced to G luck’s music, which she perform ed in Amsterdam 1905, and New York
1908-9.
of som ething out of another, profounder w orld. T h is is the truly
creative dancer; natural b u t not im itative, speaking in m ovem ent
out of him self and out of som ething greater than all selves.’68
A part from the inevitable reservations from certain quarters
about her scantily clad appearance, and notw ithstanding the very
real objections from m any quarters about her personal life (w hich
involved in the early years having a child out of w edlock w ith
Craig), D u n can ’s art form was generally recognized as being an
expression of the ‘p u rity ’ and ‘innocence’ of the A rnoldian G reek.
F or the avant-garde theatre practitioners, how ever, it provided a
radical break w ith the tyranny and restrictions of the past. For
N ijinsky, for exam ple, the star of Les Ballets Russes, D uncan
‘dared to p u t liberty to m ovem ent; she has opened the door of
the cell to the p riso ners.’69
In this sense the very ‘corporeality’ of the R ein h ard t Oedipus
R ex of 1910-12 was p art of a broader E uropean concern to em ph a
size the sheer physicality of the p erform er;70 and throu g h w atching
som e of the developm ents in dance from the beginning of the
century, som e m em bers of the English audience had been prepared
(if not always ready) for R ein h ard t’s assault. In 1911 follow ing the
L ondon prem iere of Les Ballets R usses u n der D iaghilev’s direc
tion, The Times dram a critic com m ented:
Alas! M any pleasant illusions have been shattered thereby, m any idols
tum bled from their pedestals; we have grow n up terribly fast and lost the
pow er of enjoying things that pleased our callow fancies only a m onth or
two ago.71
In the B ritain of 1911, audiences had never before seen such b righ t
and lavish costum es; never before had dancers danced w ith such
energy and physicality; and N ijinksy, then the lover of D iaghilev,
was the em bodim ent of the raw energy and pow er that becam e
associated w ith the C om pany.72
68 Isadora D uncan (1920).
69 Nijinsky, cited in K urth (2001), 248.
70 T he work of Emile Jacques-Dalcroze, whose system of eurhythm ies was made
public from at least 1903 and which he later developed further together with the
theorist and designer Adolphe Appia at Hellerau in G erm any from 1911 to 1914, is
another im portant illustration of the confluence of ideas in European theatre at this
time.
71 The Times, 5 Aug. 1911, 9.
72 In May 1912, a few m onths after the R einhardt Oedipus, Nijinsky w ent on
to break moral as well as balletic convention w ith his twelve-m inute ballet,
H ow ever, it was perhaps M aud A llan, in som e ways a follow er
of D u n can ’s art, who had prepared L ondon audiences m ost.
F or unlike D uncan, A llan perform ed in public spaces, m ost
notably at the Palace T h eatre in L ondon, w here she had been
consistently topping the bill since 1908. Like D uncan, A llan was
also from San Francisco, and cam e to E urope to m ake her career.
F or A llan, in the early years, this m eant studying the piano in
Berlin; b u t after seeing D u n can ’s barefooted perform ances, A llan
had tu rned to dance w ithout any form al training. She had also been
inspired by R ein h ard t’s w ork, notably his production of W ilde’s
Salom e, w hich she had seen at the N eues T h eater in Berlin
in 1902.73
It is surprising in som e ways that D uncan should m ake
no m ention of her com patriot in her m em oirs for A llan was,
perhaps, her m ost talented offspring. B ut the eventual controversy
and scandal surrounding A llan— both w ith regard to her dance of
Salom e and the allegations of sexual deviancy w hich she u n su c
cessfully challenged in court in 1918 (see fu rth er below )— no d o ub t
also played a part. H ow ever, it m ay well have been the fact that
A llan succeeded in o u tstripping the doyenne of M odern D ance in
the eyes of certain critics that accounts for D u n can ’s studied si
lence about her. J. T . G rein, for exam ple, claim ed to detect a new
em otionality in A llan’s perform ances, w hich enabled her to o u t
rival D u n can .74 It was undo u b ted ly the case that A llan had
enjoyed a greater follow ing in L ondon at the Palace T h eatre than
D uncan ever m anaged to secure w ith her narrow ly based, socially
elite audiences in the private houses of the rich.
A fter E dw ard V II had seen A llan perform in M arienbad in
1907, he approached the m anager of the Palace T h eatre, A lfred
B utt, who was in search of a ‘h ig h -art’ act to replace the popular
and risque ‘living p ictu res’ th at had finally been banned by the
L ondon C ounty C ouncil in 1907.75 F rom 1908 A llan perform ed at
the Palace T h eatre to very w ide audiences, including the Prim e
M in ister’s wife, M argot A squith, w ho was one of her m ost adm ir-
L ’Apres-midi d ’un faune, which culm inated in a simulated orgasm that sent shock-
waves through Parisian high society.
73 Tydem an and Price (1996), 140.
74 Sunday Times and Sunday Special, 8 M ar. 1908.
75 Walkowitz (2003), 342.
ing fans.76 A llan can be said to have played a significant role in
establishing the p re-F irst-W o rld -W ar dance craze in E ngland,
w hich led to a flurry of ballet schools being set up, to G reek-
inspired m ovem ent classes being tau gh t w idely both at school
and as p art of the w om en’s health reform s in general, and ev en tu
ally to the tea dances and dinner dances that flourished at the
G rand Flotels in L o nd o n .77
As w ith D uncan, critics noted how w hen the m usically trained
A llan danced, she was ‘m usic m ade visible’.78 She could have
danced straight off a G reek vase, freeing herself from the regular
ities of the vase depiction and transporting the onlooker back to a
G olden Age (see Fig. 18.5).79 A ccording to the dram a critic of The
Telegraph, W . L. C ourtney, w ho had spent at least the previous
tw enty-five years engaging w ith questions concerning G reek tra
gedy in perform ance (see Ch. 15), A llan’s dancing was ‘p art of th at
rhythm ical m otion w hich philosophy tells us lies at the basis of all
created things, and is an im itation of the law of the universe.’80 For
another, she sym bolized the revolt against the repression of the
‘to p -h at’ culture, against w hich Shaw and Ibsen had railed; and
she served as the living exam ple of the N ietzschean liberating
pow ers of m usic.81 Ju st as the w om en’s health reform s, aided by
the D irectoire fashion designs by Paul Poiret, had gone to ‘w ar on
the corset’, so now A llan (as D uncan herself) was setting the trend
in the new ‘liberating’ fashion of the day. W hen M ax B eerbohm
had review ed B arker’s H ippolytus at the L yric in 1904, he had
identified the corsets u n d er the costum es of som e m em bers of the
chorus as a ‘sym bol’ of all that was w rong w ith this intrinsically
‘u n -G reek ’ revival.82 B ehind B eerbohm ’s criticism , no doubt, lies
som e adm iration for the liberating tunic of D uncan (as an
anti-fem inist, he w ould presum ably only have tolerated this in a
76 T here were rum ours over many years of a lesbian relationship between Allan
and M argot A squith (as well as rum ours of her relationship with the Prim e M inis
ter, H erbert Asquith). These were to come to the fore during 1918. See Tydem an
and Price (1996), 80—1; and G oldhill (2002), 121—9 on one of Allan’s adm irers, Lady
Constant Stewart Richardson.
77 Walkowitz (2003), 336. See W atts (1914) for an example of the serious ‘hellen-
izing’ of the wom en’s exercise movement.
78 Walkley ([1911]).
79 Renaud ([1911]). Renaud was an American critic from San Francisco.
80 Courtney ([1911]).
81 H aden G uest ([1911]).
82 Saturday Review, 4 June 1904, 716.
Mdsjd AlldJi
tier A rt
i^ n a i
F i g u r e 18.5 Frontispiece to M aud A llan and H er A rt ([1911]).

‘theatrical’ context), w hich was soon to be popularized in L ondon
by A llan’s G reek-inspired costum es on stage at the Palace T heatre.
In the sam e year w hich saw a particularly static production of
M u rray ’s Bacchae u n der the direction of W illiam Poel, in w hich
the chorus of four m oved only once durin g the entire production
(see Ch. 17), one review er was overw helm ed w hen he saw M aud
A llan dance as a ‘reeling B acchante’, m aking her w hole body and
even her skin m ove.83 B ut how ever ‘G reek’ m any of her dances
w ere, it was her Vision of Salom e for w hich A llan becam e m ost
celebrated.84 Y et even here, it was A llan’s ability to dance an
oriental dance w ith a freshness th a t was deem ed ‘G reek’ in spirit,
and w hich rem oved any dangerously W ildean exoticism from the
oriental subject-m atter, that earned her acclaim in w ide quarters.
B ut w hilst defenders of her art always sought to em phasize
an ‘A nglo-Saxon p u rity ’ that they detected in her dancing,
A llan’s perform ances both on account of their slightly am biguous
venue (the Palace never shook off its sleazy Soho im age) and their
(albeit rem ote) association w ith W ildean deviant sexuality m eant
th at they w ere never entirely free from taint (Fig. 18.6). M oreover,
as had been the case w ith the B ritish prem iere of the Strauss
E lektra ,85 and now w ith the prem iere of the (albeit censored)
Strauss Salome in 1910, A llan found herself on the fringes of
w hat was increasingly seen to be cosm opolitan, and m ore p articu
larly G erm an/Jew ish decadent v o lu p tuary .86 A nd later during the
w ar in 1918, w hen the D utch/Jew ish G rein sought to organize a
to u r of a prod uctio n of Salom e at the C ourt directed by his wife
and starring A llan in the title role, there was a vehem ent right-
w ing and anti-S em itic backlash. T h e production was m ounted to
serve as a propaganda exercise sponsored by the M inistry of In fo r
m ation designed to prom ote B ritish culture, and the fact that
w hat was deem ed a ‘Jew ish’ production should be seeking to
represent ‘B ritish’ culture caused outrage in certain circles.87 A l
though this particularly unsavoury episode falls beyond the tim e-
span of this book, it is w orthy of a b rief m ention, not least because
83 Daily M ail, 7 M ar. 1908.

84 See Tydem an and Price (1996), 140 ff.
85 G oldhill (2002), 137-77.
86 W alkowitz (2003), 373—6; and generally, see Hynes (1968), esp. 254—306.
87 Tydem an and Price (1996), 79—86.
F ig u r e 18.6 Portrait of M aud Allen in M aud A llan and H er A rt

([1911]).
it has som e (albeit indirect) bearing on S h ep p ard ’s com m ents w ith
w hich this chapter began.
In an excoriating article entitled ‘T h e C ult of the C litoris’, the
independent right-w ing, anti-S em itic M P N oel P em berton Billing
attacked Allan as a representative of the sexual vice of the cosm o
politan (now read ‘G erm an/Jew ish’) w orld w hich was seeking to
underm ine the ‘healthy’ E nglish n atio n .88 T h e im putation was
clear: A llan was being publicly labelled a lesbian, and the earlier
rum ours and hints in the A m erican press of an intim ate relation
ship betw een her and the form er Prim e M in ister’s wife m ade her
especially sensitive to the slander.89 Foolishly and despite m uch
advice to desist, A llan insisted on suing Billing and was forced to
endure a sham eful ordeal durin g w hich she was cast as the disloyal,
idle, and pleasure-seeking w om an, w ho had both precipitated, and
was now underm ining, the w ar. A llan stood little chance now that
civilian hysteria against anything rem otely G erm an was sw eeping
the country. C entral to the defence case was the claim th a t A llan’s
Vision o f Salom e fostered a cult am ongst transvestites; and w ith the
testim ony of the now m arried and ‘respectable’ 48-year old, form er
lover of W ilde, L ord A lfred D ouglas, w hose ‘piety’ atten dan t on
his conversion in 1911 to R om an C atholicism appeared to m ake
him an even m ore ‘reliable’ w itness, the ju ry heard that the play
w ritten by D ouglas’s form er lover was fundam entally im m oral. By
continuing to enact such im m oral subject-m atter and by her own
alleged personal conduct, notw ithstanding the scandal of her
b ro th er’s guilt and execution m any years earlier,90 A llan was
dam ned by association and lost her claim against Billing.
T h is tragic end to an otherw ise starry career had, it w ould seem ,
w ide im plications for the perform ance of G reek tragedy in B ritain
throu g h ou t the tw entieth century. In 1912, follow ing the success
of the R ein h ard t Oedipus R ex and B arker’s Iphigenia in Tauris, Les
Ballets R usses m ade th eir second tou r to L ondon. T h is pivotal
year in the L ondon th eatre91 saw the publication of H u n tly
C arter’s The N ew S p irit in D ram a and A rt, in w hich C arter
88 K ettle (1977), 18-19.

89 W alkowitz (2003), 373-6.
90 A llan’s brother Theodore had been found guilty of m urdering two women and
had been executed in San Francisco in 1898. In 1910 this family secret was ‘outed’
in the American press. See Walkowitz (2003), 243.
91 K ennedy (1985), 153.
identified the ‘N ew S p irit’ as artistic internationalism . In te r
nationalism very soon, of course, b ro u g h t w ith it other anxieties
on the political front; and the brief ‘aw akening’ of B ritain that had
begun during the early years of the first decade of the century was
shortly to be eclipsed.92
W hen the C am bridge don John S heppard recoils from the
‘lavish, barbaric, tu rb u le n t’ aspects of the R ein h ard t production
in his Preface in early 1915, his response is sym ptom atic of w hat we
can now see as a general retreat from the continental/G erm an
perform ance culture in B ritain at this tim e. F u rth erm o re, the
increasing association in B ritish culture of dance w ith decadence,
w hich culm inated in the trial of M aud A llan, was clearly deep-
rooted and of longstanding. T h e post-w ar B ritish classical estab
lishm ent’s apparent lack of interest in the ancient dancing chorus,
in m arked contrast to its u nerring focus on the ancient tragic
‘h ero’, m ay well be a p ro d uct of this crude, late E dw ardian associ
ation. If B arker had finally m anaged to find a way in 1912 to stage
his chorus throu g h R ein h ard t’s exam ple, in the p ost-W ar w orld
there was a general retreat in perform ance term s to those early
years at the C ourt. Indeed, as was the case w ith the B ritish censor,
the strides m ade durin g the E dw ardian sum m er w ere never to be
fully recovered u ntil the last q u arter of the tw entieth century. Ju st
as the L o rd C ham berlain’s Office finally lost its pow ers in 1968, so
G reek tragedy at that tim e began to enjoy a new lease of life in
B ritain as it had done at the beginning of the cen tu ry .93 A nd now
in the last p art of the tw entieth century it was the G reek chorus in
p articular th at cam e alive once m ore on the B ritish stage, w hen
once again ‘foreign’ (now Asian) m odels began to show B ritish
directors new ways of perform ing an ancient chorus.
92 Hynes (1968).
93 See Hall, M acintosh, and W rigley (2004).
Chronological Appendix
( com piled by A m a n d a W rig le y )
T his appendix attem pts to list chronologically all the perform ances re
ferred to in the text of this book, including those of plays not inspired by
Greek tragedy. Also included are a handful of planned perform ances
w hich never m ade it to the stage, and some films. T he great m ajority of
entries refer to plays inspired by G reek tragedy, and so a M edea can be
understood to draw on the E uripidean play; Senecan versions appear as
‘Seneca’s M edea’. Explanations are offered w hen the title of a play gives
little or no indication of the ancient m odel from which it draw s, and also
w hen m ore than one ancient m odel has been used.
Each entry attem pts to offer inform ation on the date of perform ance, the
title and text of the work, the people involved in its realization, the
venue(s) at w hich it played, and the theatre com pany. All dates refer to
prem ieres unless otherw ise stated. T he year is stated in m odern style
throughout, although this was not form ally adopted in England until
1752: so, 25 January 1672 is given instead of 25 January 1671 or 1671/2.
All B ritish dates before 1752 are O ld Style, others New Style from 1582.
T his inform ation has been draw n by the authors from a wide range of
sources. Particularly useful reference works include: A. N icoll (1959), A
H istory of English Drama, 1660-1900 (Cam bridge: C am bridge U niversity
Press); E. L. Avery, C. B. Hogan, A. H. Scouten, G. W . Stone, and
W . Van L ennep (1965—8, eds.), The London Stage, 1660—1800: A Calendar
of Plays, Entertainments and A fterpieces. .. (Carbondale, Illinois: South
ern Illinois U niversity Press); S. Sadie (ed.; 1992), The N ew Grove D ic
tionary of Opera (London: M acm illan).
1559 x 1560 Hecuba-, perform ed at T rin ity College, C am
bridge.
1559 x 1560 Seneca’s Oedipus-, in a translation by A lexan
der Neville (an undergraduate at T rinity);
perform ed at T rin ity College, Cam bridge.
1560 x 1561 Seneca’s M edea; perform ed in L atin at T rin ity
College, Cam bridge,
late 1566 Jocasta-, an English language dram a, derived
from E uripides’ Phoenician Women via
Ludovico D olce’s Italian Giocasta, by
556 Chronological A ppendix
George Gascoigne and Francis Kinwel-
m ershe; perform ed at G ray’s Inn, London,
during the C hristm as revels.
by 1567 Horestes-, a play by John Pikeryng draw ing on
m edieval versions of the Orestes story; per
form ed in London.
1571 Persians', perform ed in a private house
belonging to Italian nobility on Zante.
early 1580s Antigone-, probably in Thom as W atson’s L atin
translation; perform ed at St John’s College,
Cam bridge.
1609 x 1619 The Tragedie of Orestes', an original English-
language play by T hom as Goffe draw ing on
E uripides’ Orestes, Seneca’s Agamemnon
and Thyestes, W illiam Shakespeare’s
H am let, and Sophocles’ Electra', perform ed
at C hrist C hurch, Oxford.
1613 Bonduca; by Francis Beaum ont and John
Fletcher.
1632 R oxana; by W illiam Alabaster; perform ed at
T rinity College, Cam bridge.
early 1637 Le Cid\ by Pierre Corneille; perform ed at the
T heatre du M arais, Paris.
25 January 1659 Q£dipe\ an adaptation of Sophocles and Seneca
by Pierre Corneille; perform ed at the Hotel
de Bourgogne, Paris; w ith Floridor in the
title role.
1659 Pylade et Oreste-, a tragedy, probably based on
Iphigenia among the Taurians, by C oqueteau
la Clairiere; perform ed in France; M oliere’s
company.
7 N ovem ber 1667 The Tempest', an adaptation of W illiam Shake
speare’s play by W illiam D avenant and
John D ryden; perform ed at L incoln’s Inn
Fields, L ondon; the D uke’s Com pany.
1667 Andromaque; a play by Jean Racine draw ing on
E uripides’ Andromache, Seneca’s Troades,
and V irgil’s Aeneid III; perform ed in
France.
4 February 1668 Horace', a version of Pierre C orneille’s Horace
by K atherine Philips; perform ed at Court.
(On 16 January 1669 the K ing’s Com pany
Chronological A ppendix 557
acted the play at the first D rury Lane
theatre on Bridges Street, London.)
c. August 1670 The Roman Empress; a play by W illiam Joyner
draw ing on Oedipus Tyrannus, E uripides’
Hippolytus and Medea; perform ed at the
first D rury Lane theatre on Bridges Street,
L ondon; the K ing’s Com pany.
19 January 1674 Alceste, ou Le triomphe d ’A lcide; an opera com
posed by Jean-B aptiste Lully; libretto by
Philippe Q uinault; perform ed at the Opera,
Palais Royal, Paris.
c. A ugust 1674 Andromache; an adaptation of R acine’s Andro-
maque by John Crowne; perform ed at the
D orset G arden T heatre, L ondon; the
D uke’s Com pany.
1674 Iphigenie en Aulide; an adaptation by Jean
Racine; perform ed in the gardens at V er
sailles.
1675 Iphigenie; an adaptation of Iphigenia in Aulis
by M ichel Le Clerc and Jacques de Coras;
perform ed in Paris.
1 January 1677 Phedre; adaptation of Hippolytus and Seneca’s
Phaedra by Jean Racine; perform ed at the
H otel de Bourgogne, Paris.
12, 18 January 1677 The Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus Vespa
sian (parts I and II); by John Crowne; per
form ed at D rury Lane, London; the K ing’s
Com pany.
12 M ay 1677 Circe; an adaptation of Iphigenia among the
Taurians by Charles D avenant; prologue
w ritten by John D ryden; w ith m usic com
posed by John Bannister; w ith M ary B etter
ton as Iphigenia and Thom as B etterton as
Orestes; perform ed at the D orset G arden
T heatre, L ondon; the D uke’s Com pany.
Revived frequently until 1706 (with H enry
Purcell’s m usic replacing th at of Bannister
c.1685); see also under 11 April 1719.
12 D ecem ber 1677 A ll for Love; or, The World W ell Lost; a
rew orking by John D ryden of Shakespeare’s
A ntony and Cleopatra; perform ed at D rury
Lane, London; the K ing’s Com pany.
by N ovem ber 1678 The Destruction o f Troy, a play by John Bankes
draw ing on Seneca’s Troades; perform ed at
the D orset G arden T heatre, London; the
D uke’s Com pany.
c. m id-N ovem ber-
m id-D ecem ber 1678 Oedipus', by John D ryden and N athaniel Lee;
w ith T hom as B etterton as O edipus, Sam uel
Sandford as Creon, and M ary B etterton as
Jocasta; perform ed at the D orset G arden
T heatre, L ondon; the D uke’s Com pany.
1678 II tempio di Diana in Taurica; a ‘festa m usicale’
com posed by A ntonio D raghi; libretto by
N icolo M inato; perform ed in Vienna.
c. April 1679 Troilus and Cressida; or, Truth Found Too
Late; a rew orking of Shakespeare’s play by
John D ryden; perform ed at the D orset
G arden T heatre, L ondon; the D uke’s C om
pany.
c. M arch 1680 Thyestes; an adaptation of Seneca’s play by
John Crowne; perform ed at D rury Lane,
London; the K ing’s Com pany.
9 January 1683 Phaeton; an opera com posed by Jean-B aptiste
Lully; libretto by Philippe Q uinault; per
form ed at Versailles.
late April 1688 Darius, K ing of Persia; by John Crowne; with
Elizabeth Barry as Barzana; perform ed at
D rury Lane, L ondon; the U nited C om
pany.
1691 Athalie; by Jean Racine; perform ed at the
girls’ boarding school of Saint-C yr near
Versailles.
13 O ctober 1692 Oedipus, K ing of Thebes; by John D ryden and
N athaniel Lee; a revival w ith m usic for the
incantation scene com posed by H enry P u r
cell; Sam uel Sandford as C reon m istakenly
wounded George Powell as Adrastus; per
form ed in London, either at the D orset
G arden T heatre or at D rury Lane; the
U nited Com pany.
20 February 1697 The M ourning Bride; by W illiam Congreve;
w ith A nne Bracegirdle as Alm eria; p er
form ed at L incoln’s Inn Fields, London;
B etterton’s Com pany. Revived in 1755 at
D rury Lane.
1697 Oreste et Pylade; by Francois Joseph de La-
grange-Chancel; perform ed in Paris.
1697 The Unnatural M other, a play w ith echoes of
M edea by an anonym ous woman; per
form ed at L incoln’s Inn Fields, London;
B etterton’s Com pany.
M arch 1698 Phaeton; or, The F atal Divorce-, an adaptation
of Philippe Q uinault’s Phaeton and E uripi
des’ M edea by Charles G ildon; w ith F ran
ces M ary K night as Althea, the M edea
figure; perform ed at D rury Lane, London;
R ich’s Com pany.
c. D ecem ber 1699 Iphigenia-, an adaptation of Iphigenia among the
Taurians by John Dennis; w ith Elizabeth
Barry as the Scythian Queen and A nne Bra
cegirdle as Iphigenia; perform ed at Lincoln’s
Inn Fields, London; B etterton’s Company.
c. D ecem ber 1699 Achilles; or, Iphigenia in Aulis; an adaptation
of R acine’s Iphigenie en A ulide by Abel
Boyer; w ith Frances M ary K night as Cly
tem nestra; perform ed at D rury Lane, L on
don; R ich’s Com pany.
c. April 1701 L ove’s Victim; or, The Queen of Wales; a play
draw ing on Alcestis by Charles Gildon; per
form ed at L incoln’s Inn Fields, London.
1702 Electre; a tragedy by H . Longepierre; per
form ed in Paris.
23 D ecem ber 1705 Ulysses; by Nicholas Rowe; perform ed at the
Q ueen’s T heatre, London.
21 April 1707 Phcedra and Hippolitus; an adaptation of H ip
polytus by E dm und Sm ith; w ith Thom as
B etterton as T heseus, Booth as H ippolitus,
and Elizabeth Barry as Phaedra; perform ed
at the Q ueen’s T heatre, London.
31 M ay 1708 The Persian Princess; or, The Royal Villain; by
Lewis T heobald; perform ed at D rury Lane,
London.
1708 Electre; a tragedy by Prosper Jolyot de C rebil-
lon; perform ed at the Com edie Franfaise,
Paris.
5 February 1709 Appius and Virginia; by John D ennis; per
form ed at D rury Lane, London.
17 M arch 1712 The Distrest M other; by Am brose Philips; w ith
M rs Oldfield as A ndrom ache; perform ed at
D rury Lane, London.
5 April 1712 Creuse I’athenienne; an opera com posed by
Louis de Lacoste; libretto by Pierre-C harles
Roy; perform ed at the O pera, Palais Royal,
Paris.
14 April 1713 Cato; by Joseph Addison; perform ed at D rury
Lane, London.
5 January 1714 The Victim: or, Achilles and Iphigenia in Aulis;
a re-w riting by Charles Johnson of Boyer’s
adaptation of Racine’s Iphigenie en Aulide
(see under D ecem ber 1699 above); w ith
Frances M ary K night as C lytem nestra and
M ary A nne Porter as Iphigenia; perform ed
at D rury Lane, London.
I April 1714 Oedipus Tyrannus; in ancient Greek; p er
form ed by M r Low ’s Scholars at M ile End
G reen, London.
18 N ovem ber 1718 CEdipe; by Voltaire; perform ed at the Com edie
Frangaise, Paris.
7 M arch 1719 Busiris, K ing o f Egypt; by Edw ard Young;
perform ed at D rury Lane, London.
II April 1719 Circe; an opera com posed by J. E. Galliard;
John R ich’s revival of D avenant’s adapta
tion of Iphigenia among the Taurians (see
under 12 M ay 1677); perform ed in Lincoln
In n ’s Fields, London.
1719 A play by Plautus; directed by T hom as Sheri
dan (Snr); perform ed at Sheridan’s School,
Capel Street, Dublin.
1720 Hippolytus; in ancient Greek; directed by
T hom as Sheridan (Snr); perform ed at
Sheridan’s School, Capel Street, D ublin.
1720 x 1726 Philoctetes; in ancient G reek; directed by
T hom as Sheridan (Snr); perform ed at
Sheridan’s School, Capel Street, D ublin.
22 January 1722 Love and D uty; or, The Distress’d Bride; by
John Sturm y; perform ed at L incoln’s Inn
Fields, London.
23 January 1722 T erence’s Eunuchus; in Latin; perform ed by
the K ing’s Scholars at W estm inster School,
London.
23 January 1722 Iphigenie en Aulide\ probably that by Jean
Racine; perform ed at the H aym arket
T heatre, London.
1722 Oedipus M asque; a m asque w ith m usic by J. E.
G alliard and libretto by John D ryden and
N athaniel Lee; perform ed at L incoln’s Inn
Fields, London.
18 January 1723 Phcedra and H ippolitus; a revival of E dm und
S m ith’s adaptation of H ippolytus; w ith M rs
Seym our as Phaedra (except in the M ay per
form ance w hen the role was taken by M rs
Boheme); perform ed at L incoln’s Inn Fields,
London.
23 April 1723 The F atal Legacy, an adaptation of Racine’s
L a Thebaide and E uripides’ Phoenician
Women by Jane Robe; w ith M rs Bohem e as
Jocasta and M rs Bullock as Antigona; per
10 D ecem ber 1723 Oedipus Tyrannus; in ancient Greek; directed
by T hom as Sheridan (Snr); perform ed by
Sheridan’s pupils at the K ing’s In n ’s Hall,
D ublin.
1723 L ’Oreste; an opera com posed by Benedetto
M ichaeli; Italian libretto by G. Barlocci;
perform ed in Rome.
14 January 1726 Apollo and Daphne; or, the Burgomaster
Trick’d; by Lewis Theobald; perform ed at
L incoln’s Inn Fields, London.
2 February 1726 Hecuba\ by R ichard W est; w ith M ary A nne
Porter in the title role; perform ed at D rury
Lane, London.
3 D ecem ber 1726 Phcedra and Hippolitus', a revival of E dm und
S m ith’s adaptation of Hippolytus', with
M ary A nne Porter as Phaedra; perform ed
1726 Oreste', an adaptation of Iphigenia among the
Taurians by G iovanni Rucellai; perform ed
at the Collegio C lem entino, Rome.
31 January 1727 Adm eto, re di Tessaglia\ an opera com posed
by G. F. H andel; libretto adapted from
A. A ureli’s Antigona delusa da Alceste; per
form ed at the K ing’s T heatre, London.
13 February 1727 The Rape of Proserpine; by Lewis T heobald;
w ith m usic com posed by J. E. G alliard; per
1727 T erence’s A delphi; directed by Thom as S heri
dan (Snr); perform ed at Sheridan’s School,
Capel Street, D ublin.
1728 L a mechante fem m e; a parody of H. Longe-
pierre’s Medee by D om inique (= Pierre
Francois Biancolelli); perform ed at the
T heatre Italien, Paris.
1728 a G reek play; directed by T hom as Sheridan
(Snr); perform ed at Sheridan’s School,
Capel Street, D ublin.
10 February 1729 Themistocles, the Lover of H is C ountry; a tra
gedy by Sam uel M adden; perform ed at L in
coln’s Inn Fields, London.
28 February 1730 Sophonisba; a tragedy by Jam es Thom son;
24 A pril 1730 Tom Thumb: A Tragedy . . . (from 1731 known
as The Tragedy of Tragedies; or, The Life
and Death of Tom Thumb the Great); a b u r
lesque by H enry Fielding; perform ed at the
H aym arket T heatre, London.
11 D ecem ber 1730 The Tragedy of Medee a; by Charles Johnson;
w ith M ary Anne Porter in the title role;
c.1730 T erence’s Andria; w ith W illiam W hitehead in
a female role; perform ed at W inchester
School.
3 April 1731 Orestes; an adaptation of Iphigenia among the
Taurians by Lewis T heobald; w ith Jam es
Q uin as T hoas, Lacy Ryan as Orestes,
and Elizabeth Buchanan as Iphigenia, ac
com panied by dancers including M arie
Salle; perform ed at L incoln’s Inn Fields,
London.
O ctober 1731 Cato; by Joseph Addison; perform ed by pupils
at R eading School, Berkshire.
before 1732 Oedipus; by John D ryden and N athaniel Lee; a
revival w ith Thom as Elrington as Oedipus;
perform ed in D ublin.
10 February 1733 Achilles', a ballad opera com posed by John Gay;
perform ed at Covent G arden, London.
20 A ugust 1733 The Tuscan Treaty ; or, Tarquin’s Overthrow, an
English language tragedy by W illiam Bond;
perform ed at C ovent G arden, London.
14 January 1734 Pygmalion-, a ballet choreographed and danced
by M arie Salle; perform ed at Covent
G arden, London.
25 N ovem ber 1734 Junius Brutus', by W illiam D uncom be; per
18 D ecem ber 1734 Oreste; a pasticcio opera, based on Iphigenia
among the Taurians, com posed by G. F.
H andel; w ith an anonym ous Italian libretto
adapted from G. Barlocci’s L ’Oreste; per
form ed at Co vent G arden, London.
16 April 1735 Athalie; by Jean Racine; a revival at the H ay
m arket T heatre, London.
13 April 1737 Eurydice H iss’d; or, A W ord to the Wise; a play
by H enry Fielding draw ing on A ristopha
nes’ Frogs; perform ed at the H aym arket
T heatre, London.
6 April 1738 Agamemnon; an adaptation by Jam es T h o m
son from Aeschylus and Seneca; w ith Jam es
Q uin as A gam em non, M ary A nne Porter as
C lytem nestra, and Susannah M aria C ibber
as Cassandra; perform ed at D rury Lane,
London.
27 M arch 1739 Edward and Eleonora; Jam es T hom son’s adap
tation of Alcestis w hich was to have been
acted on this day at Covent G arden, but
whose perform ance was forbidden by the
L ord Cham berlain. It received its prem iere
on 18 M arch 1775 (see below).
19 N ovem ber 1740 Oedipus, K ing of Thebes; an opera com posed
by Thom as Arne; libretto by John D ryden
and N athaniel Lee; perform ed at D rury
Lane, London.
2 April 1744 Oedipus, K ing of Thebes; by John D ryden and
N athaniel Lee; a revival w ith the blind
M ichael Clancy as Tiresias; perform ed at
5 January 1745 Hercules; an oratorio com posed by G . F. H an
del; libretto by T hom as B roughton draw ing
on Trachiniae; perform ed at the K ing’s
T heatre, London.
20 M arch 1745 A lfred the Great, K ing of England; a m asque
w ith m usic by Thom as A rne and libretto by
Jam es T hom son and D avid M allett; per
form ed at D rury Lane, L ondon.
6 February 1749 M ahomet and Irene; by Sam uel Johnson; w ith
H annah Pritchard as Irene; perform ed at
6 January 1750 Edward the Black Prince; or, The B attle of
Poictiers; by W illiam Shirley; perform ed at
D rury Lane, L ondon.
24 February 1750 The Roman Father; an adaptation of C or
neille’s Horace by W illiam W hitehead;
w ith D avid G arrick as H oratius and M ary
A nn Yates as H oratia; perform ed at D rury
Lane, L ondon. M uch revived at D rury
Lane and Covent G arden.
16 April 1750 The Sacrifice o f Iphigenia; an ‘entertainm ent’;
w ith m usic com posed by T hom as Arne;
perform ed at the N ew W ells, L ondon Spa.
1750 Oreste; an adaptation of Sophocles’ Electra by
Voltaire; w ith M ile C lairon in the title role;
perform ed in Paris.
28 N ovem ber 1751 Phcedra and Hippolitus; a revival of E dm und
S m ith’s adaptation of Hippolytus; w ith
H annah Pritchard as Phaedra; perform ed at
D rury Lane, L ondon. Revived at D rury
L ane w ith Pritchard (but some other
changes of cast) in 1752, 1754, and 1757.
1752 Les Heraclides; by Jean-Francois M arm ontel;
(probably) perform ed in France.
6 M arch 1753 Phaedra and Hippolytus; an opera com posed
by Rose Ingrave; libretto by E dm und
Sm ith; perform ed in D ublin.
1 D ecem ber 1753 Boadicea; by R ichard Glover; w ith H annah
Pritchard in the title role; perform ed at
20 April 1754 Creusa, Queen o f Athens; an adaptation of Ion
by W illiam W hitehead; w ith H annah
Pritchard in the title role, M aria M acklin
as Ilyssus (the Ion figure), and D avid G ar
rick as Aletes; perform ed at D rury Lane,
L ondon. Revived at D rury Lane with
Pritchard and M acklin (but some other
changes of cast) in 1755, 1757, 1758, and
1759.
7 N ovem ber 1754 Phcedra and H ippolitus; a revival of E dm und
W offington as Phaedra; perform ed at C ov
ent G arden, London. Revived later at
Covent G arden w ith W offington (but some
other changes of cast) in 1756.
1754 Phcedra and H ippolitus; a revival of E dm und
S m ith’s adaptation of H ippolytus; per
form ed at the T heatre Royal, Bath.
10 January 1755 Oedipus, K ing of Thebes; by John D ryden and
N athaniel Lee; a revival w ith Thom as
Sheridan (Jnr) as O edipus and M rs W of
fington as Jocasta; perform ed at Covent
G arden, London.
27 July 1761 The Wishes; or, H arlequin’s M outh Opened; a
com edy by R ichard Bentley; perform ed at
11 D ecem ber 1761 Hecuba; an adaptation by John Delap; with
H annah Pritchard in the title role; per
20 April 1762 Creusa, Queen o f Athens; W illiam W hitehead’s
adaptation of Ion; w ith Sarah Lennox (later
Lady B unbury) in the title role; perform ed
at H olland H ouse, London.
N ovem ber 1762 Electra; this Sophoclean adaptation by W il
liam Shirley was refused a licence for the
stage by the L ord Cham berlain.
1762 Medee et Jason; a ballet choreographed by
Jean-G eorges N overre; w ith m usic com
posed by Jean-Joseph R odolphe; libretto
by N overre; first perform ed at the W urt-
tem berg court, before transferring to the
H oftheater, Stuttgart, in 1763.
22 February 1764 Midas; a burletta in English on the m yth of
M idas and the ass’s ears by Kane O ’Hara;
perform ed at Covent G arden, London.
20 February 1766 The Clandestine Marriage; by D avid G arrick
in collaboration w ith G eorge Colm an; p er
12 July 1766 The Sacrifice of Iphigenia; a ballet; w ith music
com posed by Thom as Arne; perform ed in
Richm ond.
24 M arch 1767 Medea; by R ichard Glover; w ith M ary Ann
Yates as M edea; perform ed at D rury Lane,
London. Revived w ith Yates in 1768, 1769,
and 1771.
3 M arch 1768 Oithona; a dram atic poem taken from Ossian
perform ed as a libretto to an opera com
posed by F. FI. B arthelem on; perform ed at
the H aym arket T heatre, London.
2 F ebruary 1769 Caractacus; a play by W illiam M ason w ith a
plot m odelled on Oedipus at Colonus; recited
as part of ‘A n A ttic Evening’s E ntertain
m ent’ at the H aym arket T heatre, London.
T he play received its first L ondon staging
on 6 D ecem ber 1776 (see below).
13 M arch 1769 Orestes; T hom as Francklin’s adaptation of
V oltaire’s Oreste; w ith M ary A nn Yates as
Electra; perform ed at C ovent Garden,
L ondon. Revived in O ctober 1774 (see
below).
1769 Die Hermannschlacht; by Friedrich Klopstock;
perform ed in G erm any.
26 F ebruary 1772 The Grecian Daughter; by A rthur M urphy;
w ith Ann Barry as Euphrasia; perform ed at
21 N ovem ber 1772 Elfrida; a play by W illiam M ason w ith echoes of
Philoctetes, Trachiniae, Hippolytus, and
Phoenissae; w ith m usic com posed by Thom as
Arne; perform ed at Covent G arden,
London. T he play was subsequently revived
in L ondon and the provinces.
6 February 1773 The Golden Pippin; a burletta in English by
Kane O ’H ara on the story of Paris and
Oenone; perform ed at C ovent G arden,
London.
23 February 1773 A lzum a; a play by A rthur M urphy draw ing on
Sophocles’ Electra; w ith m usic com posed
by T hom as Arne; perform ed at Covent
G arden, London.
28 M ay 1773 Alceste; Singspiel com posed by A nton
Schweitzer; libretto by C hristoph M artin
W ieland; perform ed at the H oftheater,
W eim ar.
15 O ctober 1774 Electra-, a revival of Thom as Francklin’s adap
tation of V oltaire’s Oreste, w ith a new p ro
logue and epilogue by D avid G arrick; set
designed by Phillippe de L outherburg;
w ith M ary A nn Yates as Electra, but other
wise a largely different cast from the M arch
1769 production (see above); perform ed at
1774 Masque of the Druids', by John Fisher; per
form ed at Covent G arden, London.
18 M arch 1775 Edward and Eleonora-, Jam es T hom son’s adap
tation of Alcestis, altered and produced by
T hom as H ull; w ith A nn Barry as Eleonora
and H ull as G loster; C ovent G arden,
L ondon. (T his was the first perform ance;
the planned 1739 prem iere had been banned
by the L ord C ham berlain.)
20 M arch 1775 Medea-, by R ichard Glover; w ith M ary Ann
Yates as M edea, and otherw ise a largely
new cast; perform ed at D rury Lane,
London. Revived in 1776.
25 M ay 1775 Oreste et Electre-, a ballet choreographed by
Sim onin Vallouis; w ith Vallouis as Oreste
and his wife as Electre; perform ed at the
K ing’s T heatre, L ondon.
1775 Oedipus-, by John D ryden and N athaniel Lee; a
revival w ith M rs Bellamy as Jocasta; p er
form ed in London.
6 D ecem ber 1776 Caractacus-, a play w ith a plot modelled on Oedi
pus at Colonus by W illiam M ason; with m usic
composed by Thom as Arne; perform ed at
C ovent G arden, London. T his, the play’s
first London staging (following the 30 M arch
1764 prem iere at the Crow Street T heatre,
D ublin, and the recitation in London in Feb
ruary 1769; on the latter see above), was
followed by a tour of the provinces.
1776 CEdipus Tyrannus-, in ancient Greek; per
form ed by Sam uel P arr’s pupils, w ith
Joseph G errald in the title role, at Stanm ore
School, M iddlesex.
1776 Trachinians; in ancient Greek; perform ed by
Sam uel P arr’s pupils at Stanm ore School,
M iddlesex.
1777 Codrus; by D om ing Rasbotham ; perform ed in
M anchester. Revived the following year (see
below).
23 M arch 1778 Iphigenia; or, The Victim ; Thom as H u ll’s
adaptation of Abel Boyer’s Achilles and
Charles Johnson’s The Victim ; perform ed
at Covent G arden, London.
1778 Codrus; by D om ing Rasbotham ; perform ed in
M anchester (a revival of the previous year’s
production, on w hich see above).
25 M arch 1779 M edea; by R ichard Glover; w ith M ary Ann
Yates as M edea, and otherw ise a cast largely
sim ilar to the production of 20 M arch 1775
(see above); perform ed at D rury Lane,
London.
18 January 1780 Agamemnon; in H enri Panckoucke’s French
translation of Jam es T hom son’s Agam em
non; perform ed in Paris.
26 June 1780 Phcedra and Hippolitus; a revival of E dm und
Craw ford as Phaedra; perform ed at Covent
G arden, London.
1780 Die Vogel; an adaptation of A ristophanes’
Birds w ritten and directed by Johann W olf
gang von G oethe; perform ed in W eimar.
1780s Oedipus', by John D ryden and N athaniel Lee; a
revival w ith John Philip K em ble as O edi
pus; perform ed in London.
17 February 1781 The Royal Suppliants; an adaptation of Hera-
clidae by John Delap; w ith a prologue by
H ester T hrale; perform ed at D rury Lane,
London.
1782 The Wishes; or, H arlequin’s M outh Opened; a
revival of R ichard B entley’s July 1761
com edy (see above); perform ed in Ireland.
29 April 1783 Creusa in Delfo; an opera com posed by
Venanzio Rauzzini; libretto by G. M arti-
nelli; perform ed at the K ing’s T heatre,
London.
9 M arch 1786 The Captives; a loose adaptation of Helen by
John Delap; perform ed at D rury Lane,
London.
1789 Iphigenia in Tauride; an opera com posed by
T om m aso T raetta; libretto by M . Coltellini;
perform ed at the private house of M rs
Blaire, London.
O ctober 1791 Plautus’ A ulularia; in L atin; directed by R ich
ard Valpy; perform ed by pupils at Reading
School, Berkshire.
26 M arch 1792 M edea; by R ichard Glover; w ith M rs Pope as
M edea; perform ed at Covent G arden,
London.
9 April 1792 M edea’s K ettle: or, Harlequin Renovated; an
anonym ous harlequinade (not based on the
tragedy); w ith M rs D ighton as M edea; per
form ed at Sadler’s W ells, L ondon.
23 April 1793 Iphiginia in Auliede; or, The Sacrifice of Iphi-
ginia; a ballet choreographed by Jean-
Georges N overre; perform ed at the K ing’s
T heatre, London.
7 A pril 1796 Iphigenia in Tauride; an opera composed
by C hristoph W illibald Gluck; libretto by
N. F. G uillard, translated by Lorenzo da
Ponte; perform ed at the K ing’s T heatre,
L ondon (English prem iere).
24 M ay 1796 Antigona; an opera com posed by Francesco
Bianchi; libretto by Lorenzo da Ponte; p er
form ed at the K ing’s T heatre, London.
22 O ctober 1796 Edward and Eleonora; a revival of Jam es
T hom son’s adaptation of Alcestis; w ith
Sarah Siddons as Eleonora and John Philip
K em ble as Edw ard; perform ed at D rury
Lane, London.
13 M arch 1797 Medee; an opera com posed by Luigi C heru
bini; libretto by Franfois-B enoit Hoffm an;
perform ed at the T heatre Feydeau, Paris.
27 M arch 1797 La Sorciere; a parody of C herubini’s Medee by
C. Sewrin; perform ed in Paris.
28 M arch 1797 Bebe et Jargon; a parody of C herubini’s Medee
by P. A. Capelle and P. Villiers; perform ed
at the T heatre M ontasier, Paris.
15 April 1797 Medee ou I’H opital des Fous; a parody of C her
ubin i’s Medee by ‘C itizen’ Bizet and
H. Chaussier; perform ed at the T heatre de
1’A m bigu, Paris.
5 floreal year V
(24 April 1797) Agamemnon; Louis Jean N epom ucene Lem er-
cier’s adaptation of Aeschylus and Seneca;
w ith Franfoise Vestris as Clitem nestre; per
form ed at the T heatre de la R epublique,
Paris.
O ctober 1797 Plautus’ A m phitryo; in L atin; directed by
R ichard Valpy; perform ed by pupils at
Reading School, Berkshire.
12 February 1798 A pageant on British history, including scenes
from W illiam Shirley’s Edward the Black
Prince, Jam es T hom son’s Edzvard and Eleo
nora, and W illiam M ason’s Caractacus,
w hich took place at Covent G arden, London.
21 July 1798 Cambro-Britons; by Jam es Boaden, w'ith
some songs w ritten by G eorge Colm an the
younger; w ith new music by Sam uel Arnold;
perform ed at H aym arket T heatre, London.
1799 Oracle o f Delphi-, a m ythological pantom im e;
perform ed at Sadler’s W ells, London.
early 19th century Les Perses; probably a French adaptation; per
haps perform ed at Jassy, in the court of
A lexandras M orouzis, Phanariot Prince of
the D anubian principality of M oldavia.
January 1802 Ion; an adaptation by A ugust W ilhelm von
Schlegel; directed by Johann W olfgang
von G oethe; perform ed in W eim ar.
O ctober 1806 Oedipus Tyrannus; in ancient Greek; directed
by R ichard Valpy; perform ed by pupils at
Reading School, Berkshire.
30 January 1809 Antigone; an adaptation by Johann Friedrich
Rochlitz; directed by Johann W olfgang von
G oethe; perform ed in W eim ar.
O ctober 1809 Alcestis; in ancient Greek; directed by Richard
Valpy; perform ed by pupils at Reading
School, Berkshire.
O ctober 1812 Passages from (?) Antigone; in ancient Greek;
directed by R ichard Valpy; perform ed by
pupils at R eading School, Berkshire.
October 1815 Passages from M edea and H om er; in ancient
Greek; directed by R ichard Valpy; per
form ed by pupils at R eading School, Berk
shire.
1817 Recitations of de la H arpe’s version of Philoc-
t 'ete and E uripides’ Iphigenia in Tauris; per
form ed by T alm a at the O pera House
concert room.
28 February 1818 Philoctetes; a m odern G reek adaptation by
Nikolaos Pikkolos; perform ed by the Phan-
ariot com m unity in Odessa.
O ctober 1818 Heracles; in ancient Greek; directed by R ich
ard Valpy; perform ed by pupils at Reading
School, Berkshire.
1820 Virginius; by Jam es Knowles.
(?) February 1821 Antigone; or, The Theban Sister; a tragedy by
Edw ard Fitzball draw ing on Sophocles’ A n
tigone and E uripides’ Phoenician Women;
perform ed at the T heatre Royal, N orw ich.
5 M arch 1821 The Daughters o f Danaus and the Sons of
Aegyptus; or, F ifty Weddings and N ine and
Forty Murders; by T hom as John Dibdin;
perform ed at the Surrey T heatre, London.
June 1821 Dirce; or, The F atal Urn; an opera com posed
by Charles H orn (the first all-sung English
opera); w ith Eliza Vestris as C erinthus; p er
June 1821 Oreste; a French adaptation by Jean M arie
Janin; perform ed at the T heatre Fran<pais,
Paris.
O ctober 1821 Orestes; in ancient Greek; directed by R ichard
School, Berkshire.
1 N ovem ber 1821 Oedipus: A M usical Drama in 3 Acts; by John
Savill Faucit; perform ed at the Royal W est
L ondon T heatre, L ondon.
1821 Das Goldene Vliefi; an adaptation of M edea by
Franz G rillparzer; perform ed at the
B urgtheater, Vienna.
1821 The Greeks and the Turks; or, The Intrepidity
of Jem m y, Jerry, and a British Tar; a ‘M elo-
D ram a’ (musical dram a) by C. E. W alker;
perform ed at the C oburg T heatre, London.
19 O ctober 1822 A li Pacha; or, The Signet R ing; a ‘M elo-
D ram a’ (musical dram a) by John H ow ard
Payne; perform ed at Covent G arden,
London.
7 N ovem ber 1822 Clytemnestre; a play by A lexandre Soum et
draw ing on Sophocles’ Electra; perform ed
at the Odeon, Paris.
M arch 1823 Julian; by M ary Russell M itford; perform ed at
Covent G arden, London.
11 A ugust 1823 Antigone; or, The Theban Brothers', a
reworking, described as a ‘M elo-D ram a’
(musical dram a), of Edw ard Fitzball’s play
draw ing on Sophocles’ Antigone and E uripi
des’ Phoenician Women (see above under
February 1821); perform ed at the Surrey
T heatre, London.
N ovem ber 1823 Lazaria the Greek; or, The A rchon’s Daughter,
a ‘M elo-D ram a’ (musical dram a); per
form ed at the C oburg T heatre, London.
D ecem ber 1823 Petraki Germano; or, A lm anzar the Traitor-, by
J. Dobbs.
O ctober 1824 Alcestis', in ancient Greek; directed by R ichard
School, Berkshire.
1824 The Revolt o f the Greeks; or, The M aid of
Athens', perform ed at D rury Lane, London.
20 April 1825 Orestes in Argos', a play by Peter Bayley draw
ing on Sophocles’ Electra', w ith Charles
Kem ble in the title role; perform ed at C ov
ent G arden, London.
1825 Leonidas', by M . Pichat; w ith T alm a in the title
role; perform ed at the T heatre F ran 9ais,
Paris.
c.1825 Leonidas, K ing of Sparta; probably a transla
tion of M . Pichat’s Leonidas (see above
under 1825); probably perform ed in
London.
July 1826 The Siege o f Missolonghi; or, The Massacre of
the Greeks', perform ed at A stley’s A m phi
theatre, London.
1826 M edea in Corinto; an opera by Sim one G io
vanni M ayr; libretto by Felice Romani; w ith
G iuditta Pasta in the title role; perform ed at
the K ing’s T heatre, L ondon. Revived regu
larly until 1850.
O ctober 1827 Hecuba; in ancient G reek; directed by R ichard
School, Berkshire.
1827 Britons at Navarino; a musical dram a by
H . M . M ilner; perform ed at the C oburg
T heatre, London.
M ay 1828 Creon the Patriot; by J. Sm ith; perform ed in
N orw ich.
9 O ctober 1828 R ienzi: A Tragedy, by M ary Russell M itford;
1828 The M u fti’s Tomb; or, The Turkish M isers; an
extravanganza; perform ed at A stley’s
A m phitheatre, London.
1829 The Suliote; or, The Greek Family, perform ed
late 1820s The Taming o f Bucephalus, the W ild Horse of
Scythia; or, the Youthful Days o f Alexander
the Great-, by A ndrew D ucrow; perform ed
at A stley’s A m phitheatre, London.
3 January 1831 Olympic Revels; or, Prometheus and Pandora; a
burlesque by Jam es Robinson Planche; w ith
Eliza Vestris as Pandora; perform ed at the
O lym pic T heatre, London.
26 D ecem ber 1831 Olympic Devils; or, Orpheus and Eurydice;
a burlesque by Jam es R obinson Planche;
perform ed at the Olym pic T heatre,
London.
June 1832 Lord Byron in Athens; or, The Corsair’s Isle; an
anonym ous musical; perform ed at Sadler’s
W ells, L ondon.
26 D ecem ber 1832 The Paphian Bower; or, Venus and Adonis; a
burlesque by Jam es Robinson Planche; per
form ed at the O lym pic T heatre, London.
26 D ecem ber 1833 The Deep, Deep Sea; or, Perseus and A ndrom
eda; A n Original M ythological, Aquatic,
Equestrian Burletta; a burlesque draw ing
on book 4 of O vid’s Metamorphoses by
Jam es R obinson Planche; w ith G. F. H an
del’s W ater Music; w ith Eliza Vestris as
Perseus; perform ed at the O lym pic T heatre,
London.
26 M ay 1836 Ion; by T hom as T alfourd; w ith W illiam M ac-
ready as Ion and John V andenhoff as A dras
tus; perform ed at Covent G arden, London.
9 Septem ber 1836 Ion Travestie; a burlesque of T alfourd’s Ion by
Frederick Fox Cooper; perform ed at the
G arrick T heatre, London.
14 D ecem ber 1836 Ion; by T hom as T alfourd; w ith G. Jones in
the title role; perform ed in New York.
D ecem ber 1836 Ion Travestie; a burlesque of T alfourd’s Ion by
Frederick Fox Cooper; w ith an all-female
cast; perform ed at the Q ueen’s T heatre,
W hitechapel, London.
3 February 1837 Ion; by T hom as T alfourd; w ith Ellen T ree in
the title role; perform ed at the Park
T heater, N ew York.
4 A ugust 1838 The Athenian Captive; by T hom as T alfourd;
w ith H elen Faucit as C reusa and W illiam
M acready as Thoas; perform ed at the H ay
28 O ctober 1841 Antigone; in a G erm an translation by Johann
Jakob C hristian D onner; w ith m usic com
posed by Felix M endelssohn; perform ed at
the H oftheater, Neues Palais, Potsdam .
1841 Antigone in Berlin; a G erm an language b u r
lesque by A dolf G lassbrenner; perform ed
in G erm any.
1844 Antigone; a new production of the 1841 Pots
dam Antigone (see above), in a French trans
lation by Paul M eurice and A uguste
Vacquerie; w ith m usic com posed by Felix
M endelssohn; perform ed at the Odeon,
Paris.
2 January 1845 Antigone; in W illiam B artholom ew ’s transla
tion of D onner’s G erm an translation;
directed by Edw ard Stirling; w ith m usic
com posed by Felix M endelssohn; w ith
C harlotte V andenhoff in the title role and
John V andenhoff as Creon; perform ed at
Covent G arden, London.
4 February 1845 Antigone Travestie; a burlesque of the January
1845 Antigone at Covent G arden w ritten by
E dw ard Lem an Blanchard; w ith G. W ild
in the title role and H. H all as Creon;
perform ed at the N ew Strand T heatre,
London.
February 1845 Antigone; in W illiam Bartholom ew ’s transla
tion of D o nner’s G erm an translation;
directed by John Calcraft; w ith m usic com
posed by Felix M endelssohn; with H elen
Faucit in the title role and Calcraft as
Creon; perform ed at the T heatre Royal,
D ublin. T he production toured to Palm o’s
O pera H ouse, N ew York, in April 1845
(with G eorge Vandenhoff, John’s son, as
Creon); to E dinburgh in D ecem ber 1845;
and to the H aym arket T heatre, London, in
A ugust 1846; returning to D ublin in O cto
ber 1846.
24 M arch 1845 The Golden Fleece; or, Jason in Colchis, and
M edea in Corinth; a burlesque by Jam es
R obinson Planche; w ith Eliza Vestris as
M edea, Priscilla H orton as Jason, and
Charles M athew s as the C horus; perform ed
at the H aym arket T heatre, L ondon, and
touring Britain from January to June 1847.
February 1846 low, by Thom as T alfourd; w ith C harlotte
Cushm an in the title role; perform ed at the
H aym arket T heatre, L ondon.
M arch 1846 The Ruins o f Athens: A Dramatic M asque; a
m asque w ith m usic by Beethoven and li
bretto by W illiam Bartholom ew adapted
from A ugust von K otzebue; perform ed at
the Princess’s T heatre, London.
18 April 1846 The Birds of Aristophanes; a burlesque by
Jam es R obinson Planche; perform ed at the
28 N ovem ber 1846 Iphigenia in Aulis\ a version w ritten and
directed by John Calcraft; w ith m usic com
posed by R ichard Levey; w ith H elen Faucit
in the title role and Calcraft as Agam em non;
perform ed at the T heatre Royal, D ublin.
16 M arch 1847 Alceste; by H ippolyte Lucas; w ith m usic com
posed by A ntoine Elwart; perform ed at the
Odeon, Paris.
25 April 1848 Theseus and Ariadne; or, The M arriage o f B ac
chus', an extravaganza by Jam es R obinson
Planche; perform ed at the Lyceum T heatre,
London.
1848 low, by Thom as T alfourd; with Francis T al
fourd as Ion; a private perform ance at
Brasenose College, Oxford.
1848-1850 Antigone-, a recital of W illiam B artholom ew ’s
translation; w ith m usic com posed by Felix
M endelssohn; perform ed at Buckingham
Palace and W indsor Castle.
1848-1850 Oedipus at Colonus-, a recital of W illiam
B artholom ew ’s translation; w ith music
com posed by Felix M endelssohn; per
form ed at Buckingham Palace and W indsor
Castle.
17 A pril 1849 Electra: The Lost Pleiade; a ballet choreo
graphed by Paul Taglioni (unconnected
w ith G reek tragedy); perform ed at H er
M ajesty’s T heatre, London.
1849 Sphinx-, a burlesque by the brothers R obert
and W illiam Brough; perform ed at the H ay
1850 Alcestis, the Original Strong-M inded Woman:
A Classical Burlesque in One Act; a b u r
lesque by Francis T alfourd; perform ed at
the Strand T heatre, London.
1850 Antigone; a revival of the 1845 Antigone at
Covent G arden (see above); w ith John V an
denhoff as Creon; perform ed at D rury
Lane, London.
1850 Diana Preparing fo r the Chase; a tableau vivant
in the Parthenon Rooms, London.
1850 Ion; by Thom as T alfourd; perform ed at
C ovent G arden, London.
25 A ugust 1851 Jason and Medea; an extravaganza by John
P ratt W ooler; perform ed at the G recian
Saloon, London.
1851 Alcestis, the Original Strong-M inded Woman:
A Classical Burlesque in One A ct; a b u r
lesque by Francis T alfourd; w ith W . T al
fourd as Orcus; perform ed at the Royal
Soho T heatre, London.
1851 Ion; by T hom as T alfourd; perform ed at the
1852 Ion; by Thom as T alfourd; perform ed at
Sadler’s W ells, London.
28 M arch 1853 M r Buckstone’s Ascent o f Parnassus-, by Jam es
Robinson Planche; perform ed at the H ay
1853 Ion\ by Thom as T alfourd; perform ed in Buf
falo, NY.
1854 Videna; or, The M other’s Tragedy, by John
H eraud; perform ed at the M arylebone
T heatre, London.
15 January 1855 Alcestis; an adaptation by H enry Spicer; with
m usic for the choruses com posed by C hris
toph W illibald Gluck; C harlotte V anden
hoff in the title role; perform ed at St
Jam es’s T heatre, L ondon.
1855 W ife or no Wife; by John H eraud; perform ed
at the H aym arket T heatre, London.
18 April 1856 Medea; in an Italian translation of Ernest
Legouve’s French adaptation; w ith A del
aide R istori as M edea; perform ed at the
T heatre Italien, Paris, and touring Europe
(see under June 1856 below).
9 June 1856 La Medee en Nanterre; a burlesque of
Legouve’s adaptation (see above under
April 1856) by Cogniard, G range, and
Bourdois; perform ed at the T heatre des
Varietes, Paris.
June 1856 Medea; in an Italian translation of Ernest
Legouve’s French adaptation; w ith A del
aide R istori as M edea; perform ed at the
Lyceum T heatre, L ondon (see under 18
A pril 1856 above).
14 July 1856 M edea; or, A Libel on the Lady of Colchis; a
burlesque of Legouve adaptation (see above
under June 1856) by M ark Lem on; w ith
E dw ard W right in the title role; perform ed
at the Adelphi T heatre, London.
14 July 1856 M edea; or, The Best of M others, with a Brute of
a Husband; a burlesque of Legouve’s adap
tation (see above under June 1856) by
R obert Brough; w ith Frederick R obson in
the title role; perform ed at the Olym pic
T heatre, London.
1857 A talanta; or, The Three Golden Apples, an
Original Classical E xtravaganza; a b u r
lesque draw ing on books V III and X of
O vid’s Metamorphoses by Francis Talfourd;
perform ed at the H aym arket T heatre,
London.
1857 M edea in Corinth', an adaptation by John H er
aud; w ith Edith H eraud in the title role;
perform ed at Sadler’s W ells, L ondon, later
transferring to Liverpool.
18 Septem ber 1858 CEdipe Roi; in a French translation by Jules
Lacroix; w ith E dm und G effroy in the title
role; perform ed at the T heatre Franâis,
Paris, by the Com edie Franyaise. See also
under 9 A ugust 1881.
27 D ecem ber 1858 The Siege o f Troy, a burlesque of H om er’s
Iliad by R obert Brough; perform ed at the
Lyceum T heatre, London.
1858 Pluto and Proserpine; or, The Belle and the
Pomegranate. A n Entirely N ew and Original
M ythological Extravanganza o f the 0th Cen
tury, a burlesque by Francis T alfourd draw
ing on book 5 of O vid’s Metamorphoses',
London.
M arch 1859 Oedipus at Colonus', a recital of an English
translation; w ith m usic com posed by Felix
M endelssohn; perform ed at Crystal Palace,
Sydenham .
9 April 1859 Antigone', a recital of an English translation;
w ith m usic com posed by Felix M endels
sohn; w ith E dith H eraud in the title role;
perform ed at Crystal Palace, Sydenham .
25 A pril 1859 Electra; In a N ew Electric Light', an ex
travaganza by Francis T alfourd based on
Sophocles’ play; directed by John Buck-
stone; w ith Eliza W eekes in the title role;
London.
1859 M edea in Corinth', an adaptation by John H er
aud; w ith E dith H eraud in the title role;
perform ed at the Standard T heatre,
London.
c.1859 Antigone-, w ith m usic com posed by Felix
M endelssohn; w ith E dith H eraud in the
title role; perform ed at St Jam es’ Hall,
London.
1860 Dido\ a burlesque of Virgil’s Aeneid by F. C.
B urnand; perform ed at St Jam es’s T heatre,
London.
April 1861 Medea\ M atilda H ero n’s version of Legouve’s
adaptation; w ith H eron in the title role;
perform ed at the Lyceum T heatre, London.
5 N ovem ber 1861 M edea\ a version of Legouve’s adaptation;
w ith Avonia Jones in the title role; per
1861 Ion', by T hom as T alfourd; perform ed at
Sadler’s W ells, London.
1861 M edea; or, The Best of M others, with a Brute of
a Husband-, a revival of R obert B rough’s
burlesque of Legouve’s adaptation (see
under June 1856); w ith G eorge C onquest
in the title role; perform ed at the G recian
T heatre, London.
7 M ay 1862 Les Perses; perform ed by students of Rhetoric
in a sem inary in Orleans, France.
Septem ber 1863 Ixion; or, The M an at the Wheel-, a burlesque
by F. C. B urnand; perform ed at the Royalty
T heatre, London.
1863 Patient Penelope; or, The Return o f Ulysses-, a
burlesque by F. C. B urnand; perform ed at
the Strand T heatre, London.
1864 Orpheus and Eurydice; a burlesque by H enry
Byron; perform ed at the Strand T heatre,
London.
1864 Venus and Adonis; or, The Two Rivals & the
Sm all Boar-, by F. C. B urnand; perform ed at
the H aym arket T heatre, London.
23 D ecem ber 1865 Prometheus; or, The M an on the Rock!-, a b u r
lesque by R obert Reece; perform ed at the
New Royalty T heatre, London.
26 D ecem ber 1865 Orpheus in the Haymarket-, a burlesque by
Jam es R obinson Planche adapted from
H ector C rem ieux’s libretto to Jacques
O ffenbach’s Orphee aux enfers; perform ed
at the H aym arket T heatre, London.
1865 Pan; or, The Loves o f Echo and Narcissus; by
H enry Byron; perform ed at the A delphi
T heatre, London.
A pril 1865 Pirithoiis, the Son o f Ixion; by F. C. Burnand;
perform ed at the New Royalty T heatre,
London.
30 June 1866 Helen; or, Taken from the Greek; a loose adap
tation by F. C. B urnand of Jacques O ffen
bach’s La belle Helene; perform ed at the
Adelphi T heatre, London.
21 N ovem ber 1866 A ntony and Cleopatra; a burlesque by F. C.
B urnand; perform ed at the H aym arket
T heatre, London.
1866 Iphigenia; or, The Sail! The Seer!! A n d the
Sacrifice!!! a burlesque by Edw ard Nolan;
perform ed during C om m em oration at O x
ford; St John’s College A m ateurs, Oxford.
1866 Pentheus; a burlesque inspired by E uripides’
Bacchae by V incent A m cott and W . R.
Anson; perform ed in Oxford.
1866 Fair Helen: A Comic Opera; an adaptation by
V incent A m cott of O ffenbach’s L a belle
Helene; perform ed in Oxford.
7 D ecem ber 1867 Antigone; in a m odern G reek translation by
A lexander Rangavis; w ith m usic com posed
by Felix M endelssohn; perform ed at the
H erodes A tticus T heatre, Athens.
1867 Agamemnon at Home; or, The Latest Particu
lars of That Little A ffa ir at Mycenre; a b u r
lesque by E dw ard N olan; perform ed during
C om m em oration at Oxford; St John’s C ol
lege A m ateurs, Oxford.
13 April 1868 Agamemnon and Cassandra; or, The Prophet
and Loss o f Troy!; a burlesque by R obert
Reece; perform ed at the Prince of W ales
T heatre, Liverpool, later travelling to
D ublin and Portsm outh.
M arch 1869 Hypermnestra; The Girl o f the Period; by
Frank Sikes; perform ed at the Lyceum
T heatre, London.
1869 Ino; or, The Theban Twins; a burlesque by
B. J. Spedding; perform ed at the Strand
T heatre, London.
1870 Ariadne; or, The B ull! The B ully!! A n d the
Bullion!!!; a burlesque inspired by Ovid by
V incent Am cott; perform ed in Oxford.
26 D ecem ber 1871 Thespis; or, The Gods Grown Old; by W . S.
G ilbert and A rthur Sullivan; perform ed at
the G aiety T heatre, London.
8 July 1872 M edea in Corinth; by W illiam G orm an Wills;
w ith Isabel Batem an in the title role; per
form ed at the Lyceum T heatre, London.
1872 A rion; or, The Story o f a Lyre; a burlesque by
F. C. B urnand; perform ed at the Strand
T heatre, London.
1873 x 1876 Medea; a version of Legouve’s adaptation;
w ith Genevieve W ard in the title role; per
form ed in D ublin, Liverpool, H ull, and
London.
D ecem ber 1875 Antigone; w ith m usic com posed by Felix M en
delssohn; w ith Genevieve W ard in the title
role; perform ed in London.
June 1876 Oedipus at Colonus; w ith Genevieve W ard as
Antigone; perform ed in London.
1876 Medea; an adaptation of M edea by Franz
G rillparzer; w ith Francesca Janauschek in
the title role; perform ed at the H aym arket
T heatre, London.
1877 Ion; by T hom as T alfourd; w ith M ary A nder
son in the title role; perform ed in Boston
and Philadelphia, U SA . Revived in 1881.
before 1873 A ristophanes’ Frogs; directed by Fleem ing
Jenkin; perform ed in E dinburgh.
1877 Trachiniae; in a translation by Lewis C am p
bell; produced by Fleem ing Jenkin; w ith
M rs Fleem ing Jenkin as D eianeira and
R obert Louis Stevenson as M essenger; per
form ed at Fleem ing Jenkin’s Private
T heatre, E dinburgh, and later revived at
the T ow n Hall, St Andrews.
6 June 1878 Jason and M edea: A Ramble after a Colchian;
an anonym ous burlesque influenced by
Planche (see under M arch 1845); perform ed
at the G arrison T heatre, W oolwich.
M ay 1880 Agamemnon; in a translation by Lewis
Cam pbell; produced by Fleem ing Jenkin;
perform ed at Fleem ing Jenkin’s Private
T heatre, E dinburgh.
3 June 1880 Agamemnon; in ancient Greek; w ith m usic
com posed by W alter Parratt; w ith Frank
Benson as C lytem nestra and W . N . Bruce
as Agam em non; perform ed at Balliol C ol
lege, O xford, w ith further perform ances
that year at three public schools and St
G eorge’s H all, London, and in January
1881 at Cam bridge.
1881 Alcestis; in ancient Greek; produced by Frank
Benson; w ith Benson as Apollo; perform ed
at Bradfield College, Berkshire.
9 A ugust 1881 CEdipe Roi; in a French translation by Jules
Lacroix; w ith Jean M ounet-Sully in the
title role; perform ed at the Com edie F ran
chise, Paris, followed by an extensive tour
and revivals throughout Europe. See also
under 18 Septem ber 1858.
29 N ovem ber 1882 A jax; in ancient Greek; perform ed at St
A ndrew ’s H all, Cam bridge; U niversity of
Cam bridge.
15 O ctober 1883 Agamemnon; produced by Frank Benson;
perform ed in Cam bridge, followed by a
national tour; F. R. B enson’s D ram atic
Com pany, England.
1883 Sophocles’ Electra; directed by Ethel Sargant;
w ith m usic com posed (for Antigone) by
Felix M endelssohn; w ith Janet Case in the
title role; perform ed at G irton College,
C am bridge.
1883 The Tale o f Troy; a series of tableaux from
H om er by G eorge Charles W inter W arr,
delivered in ancient G reek and in English
on different nights; w ith Jane H arrison as
Penelope, and M r and M rs B eerbohm T ree
as Paris and H elen respectively; perform ed
at a private theatre at Crom well House (the
hom e of L ord and Lady Freake), South
K ensington, London.
M ay 1885 The Orestean [sic] Trilogy of Aeschylus; in
English translation; produced by Frank
Benson; perform ed at the N ew T heatre,
C am bridge, followed by a tour; F. R. Ben
son’s D ram atic C om pany, England. T he
production toured to the provinces later in
1904.
1885 Antigone-, w ith Genevieve W ard in the title
role; perform ed in M elbourne.
1885 Eumenides; in ancient Greek; w ith m usic com
posed by C harles Villiers Stanford; w ith
Janet Case as Athena; perform ed at St
A ndrew ’s Hall, Cam bridge; U niversity of
C am bridge.
13 M ay 1886 The Story o f Orestes] a version of the Oresteia by
G eorge Charles W inter W arr, w ith set de
signs by Frederick Leighton, E. J. Poynter,
E. H. W atts, and W alter Crane; w ith D oro
thy D ene as Cassandra; perform ed at
Prince’s Hall, Piccadilly, London.
14 M ay 1886 The Tale o f Troy, a revival in English of the
1883 production, com prising a series of tab
leaux from H om er by G eorge Charles
W inter W arr; perform ed at Prince’s Hall,
Piccadilly, L ondon.
17 M ay 1886 Helena in Troas] an im itation of a G reek tra
gedy by John T odhunter; w ith M r and M rs
B eerbohm T ree as Paris and Oenone, and
H erm ann Vezin as Priam ; set designed by
E. W . G odwin; perform ed at H engler’s
Circus, London.
14 June 1886 Agamemnon] in ancient Greek; perform ed at
the U niversity of Sydney.
D ecem ber 1886 Alcestis] w ith m usic com posed by H enry
G adsby; perform ed at the Q ueen’s College,
L ondon by pupils of the school.
1886 The Cenci] a play by Percy Bysshe Shelley
draw ing on Sophocles’ Electra and Oedipus
Tyrannus] perform ed at the G rand T heatre,
Islington, L ondon; the Shelley Society.
18 M ay 1887 Alcestis] in ancient Greek; directed by Alan
M ackinnon; set designed (for the M ay
1886 Helena in Troas) by E. W . Godwin;
w ith Jane H arrison in the title role; p er
form ed at the N ew T heatre, Oxford; Oxford
U niversity D ram atic Society.
1887 Iphigenia among the Taurians; in ancient
Greek; perform ed at Bedford College,
London.
1887 Oedipus Tyrannus; in ancient Greek; w ith
m usic com posed by Charles Villiers S tan
ford; perform ed at St A ndrew ’s Hall, C am
bridge; U niversity of Cam bridge.
1888 A talanta; a prose burlesque by G eorge H aw-
trey; perform ed at the Strand T heatre,
London.
19 O ctober 1889 Persians; in a m odern G reek translation
by A lexandros Rizos-Ragavis; directed by
D em etrius Kokkos; perform ed in Athens.
6 N ovem ber 1890 Antigone; translated by R obert W hitelaw ; w ith
m usic com posed by Felix M endelssohn;
perform ed at Crystal Palace, Sydenham .
N ovem ber 1890 Ion; in ancient Greek; w ith m usic com posed by
Charles W ood; perform ed at St A ndrew ’s
Hall, Cam bridge; U niversity of Cam bridge.
1890 Antigone; in ancient Greek; perform ed at
Bradfield College, Berkshire.
1 M ay 1893 Hecuba a la M ode; or, The W ily Greek and the
M odest M aid; by C. M etcalfe; perform ed at
V estry H ouse, Anerley.
1894 Iphigenia in Tauris; in ancient Greek; per
form ed at St A ndrew ’s H all, Cam bridge;
U niversity of Cam bridge.
14 February 1895 The Importance o f Being Earnest; by Oscar
W ilde; perform ed at St Jam es’s T heatre,
London.
1895 Alcestis; in ancient Greek; perform ed at B rad
field College, Berkshire.
1899 Antigone; directed by Stanislavsky; w ith m usic
com posed by Felix M endelssohn; per
form ed at the M oscow A rt T heatre.
February 1901 Hippolytus; a reading by G ilbert M urray of his
own translation at N ew nham College, C am
bridge.
1901 A reading by G ilbert M urray of a selection of
his own translations of Bacchae, Hippolytus,
and A ristophanes’ Frogs; perform ed at a
Fabian Society m eeting, St Pancras,
London.
1902 Salome; by Oscar W ilde; directed by M ax
R einhardt; perform ed at the N eues T heater,
Berlin.
June 1903 Antigone; in a translation by Lewis Cam pbell;
perform ed at St L eonard’s School, St
Andrews, by pupils of the school.
1903 Alcestis; an English adaptation of Euripides,
w ith excerpts from B row ning’s Balaustion’s
Adventure; w ith m usic com posed by H enry
Gadsby; perform ed at B ournem outh G irls’
H igh School, by pupils of the school.
after 1903 the odes from A eschylus’ Suppliants; danced
by Isadora D uncan, accom panied by a sing
ing chorus of boys; perform ed across central
Europe, including Vienna, Budapest, Berlin,
and M unich.
M ay 1904 Sophocles’ Electra; perform ed by Greek
actors at the C ourt T heatre, London.
M ay 1904 Hippolytus; in a translation by G ilbert
M urray; directed by G ranville Barker;
w ith Barker as H enchm an and E dyth Olive
as Phaedra; perform ed at the L yric T heatre,
L ondon; N ew C entury Com pany, England.
18 O ctober 1904 Hippolytus; in a translation by G ilbert
M urray; a revival of G ranville B arker’s
M ay 1904 production at the L yric T heatre
(see above); w ith Barker as H enchm an; p er
form ed at the C ourt T heatre, London;
under V edrenne—Barker m anagem ent.
N ovem ber 1904 The Trojan Women; a reading by G ilbert
M urray of extracts of his own translation;
perform ed at the Socratic Society of
Birm ingham .
1904 Alcestis; in ancient Greek; perform ed at Brad-
1904 Medea; in a G erm an translation by U lrich von
W ilam ow itz-M oellendorff; directed by
H ans O berlander and M ax R einhardt; p er
form ed at the N eues T heater am Schiff-
bauerdam m , Berlin.
11 April 1905 The Trojan Women; in a translation by G ilbert
w ith E dyth Olive as C assandra, Edith
Chronological A ppendix
W ynne-M atthison as A ndrom ache, and
M arie Brem a as H ecuba; perform ed at the
C ourt T heatre, London.
28 N ovem ber 1905 M ajor Barbara; by G eorge Bernard Shaw;
w ith G ranville Barker (at first, but not
from January 1906) as C usins/E uripides/
G ilbert M urray; perform ed at the C ourt
T heatre, London.
1905 Iphigenia; scenes taken from Iphigenia in Aulis
and Iphigenia in Tauris danced by Isadora
D uncan; w ith m usic com posed by C hristoph
W illibald Gluck; perform ed in A m sterdam .
Revived in New York in 1908-1909.
16 January 1906 E uripides’ Electra; in a translation by G ilbert
M urray; directed by G ranville Barker; with
E dith W ynne-M atthison as Electra and
E dyth Olive as Clytem nestra; perform ed at
the C ourt T heatre, London.
26 M arch 1906 Hippolytus; a revival of G ranville Barker’s O c
tober 1904 production (see above); w ith
Granville Barker as H enchm an; perform ed
at the C ourt T heatre, London.
M arch 1907 The Persians; in a translation by B. J. Ryan;
directed by Lewis Casson; w ith Casson as
the ghost of D arius; perform ed at T erry ’s
T heatre, London.
13 June 1907 M edea; in ancient Greek; w ith Ethel A bra
ham s in the title role; perform ed at the
Botanical G arden, U niversity College
L ondon; U niversity College L ondon and
Bedford College.
22 O ctober 1907 M edea; in a translation by G ilbert M urray;
directed by G ranville Barker; w ith E dyth
Olive in the title role, H ubert C arter as
Jason, and Lewis Casson as the M essenger;
perform ed at the Savoy T heatre, London;
under V edrenne—Barker m anagem ent.
1908 Bacchae; in a translation by G ilbert M urray;
produced by W illiam Poel; w ith Lillah
M cC arthy as Dionysus; perform ed at the
C ourt T heatre, London.
25 January 1909 Elektra\ an opera com posed by Richard
Strauss; libretto by H ugo von H of-
m annsthal; directed by G eorg T oller; with
Frau K rull in the title role; perform ed at the
H oftheater, D resden.
15 July 1909 Sophocles’ Electra-, in a translation by Lewis
Cam pbell; w ith E. Calkin in the title role;
perform ed at the A ldwych T heatre,
L ondon, in aid of Bedford College’s B uild
ing Fund.
16 February 1910 Alcestis-, in a translation by G erald W arre
Cornish; w ith Ethel A braham s in the title
role; perform ed at the South Villa, R egent’s
Park, L ondon, in aid of Bedford College’s
Building Fund.
19 February 1910 Elektra; an opera com posed by R ichard
Strauss; libretto by H ugo von H of
m annsthal; w ith E dyth W alker in the title
role; perform ed at Covent G arden, London.
25 Septem ber 1910 Oedipus Tyrannus-, in a G erm an version by
H ugo von H ofm annsthal; directed by M ax
R einhardt; perform ed at the M usikfesthalle,
M unich, followed by a run at the Zirkus
Schum ann, Berlin and a European tour
(for the English language production see
under 1912 below); D eutsches T heater
Com pany, G erm any.
8 D ecem ber 1910 Salome-, an opera by R ichard Strauss; libretto
by Oscar W ilde, in a G erm an translation by
H edw ig Lachm ann; perform ed at the Royal
Opera H ouse, C ovent G arden, London.
D ecem ber 1910 Alcestis-, in a translation by Francis Hubback;
produced by W illiam Poel; perform ed on
the G rand Staircase at L ondon U niversity,
and later at the L ittle T heatre, L ondon, in
J anuary 1911.
6 July 1911 Trachiniae-, in a translation by Lewis C am p
bell; directed by G. R. Foss; w ith Ethel
Abraham s as Deianeira; perform ed at the
C ourt T heatre, L ondon, in aid of Bedford
College’s Building Fund.
15 January 1912 Oedipus Rex; in a translation by G ilbert
M urray of H ugo von H ofm annsthal’s
G erm an version; directed by M ax R ein
hardt; w ith John M artin-H arvey as O edipus
and Lillah M cC arthy as Jocasta; perform ed
at Covent G arden, London (for the G erm an
language production see under 25 Septem
ber 1910 above).
19 M arch 1912 Iphigenia in Tauris; in a translation by G ilbert
M urray; directed by Granville Barker; w ith
Lillah M cC arthy as Iphigenia; perform ed at
the Kingsway T heatre, L ondon (also p er
form ed on 4 June at H is M ajesty’s T heatre;
and, w ith G ranville Barker as O restes, on 11
June at Bradfield College, Berkshire); the
M cC arthy-B arker Com pany, England.
February 1914 Acharnians; directed by Cyril Bailey; per
form ed at the N ew T heatre, Oxford; Oxford
U niversity D ram atic Society.
April 1914 Alcestis; a revival of the D ecem ber 1910 pro
duction of Francis H ubback’s translation
(see above); produced by W illiam Poel; per
form ed at the Ethical C hurch, Bayswater;
Religious D ram atic Society.
1914 Alcestis; in ancient Greek; perform ed at B rad
1915 Oedipus Rex; directed and choreographed by
Isadora Duncan; w ith D uncan and her
pupils as the Chorus; perform ed at Isadora
D uncan’s studio, New York.
15 M ay 1915 Iphigenia in Tauris; in a translation by G ilbert
M urray; directed by G ranville Barker; w ith
Lillah M cC arthy as Iphigenia; perform ed in
Yale U niversity’s Bowl, and touring to H ar
vard U niversity (18 M ay), the Piping Rock
C ountry C lub, Long Island, New York
(c.25 M ay), the College of the City of New
York (31 M ay and 5 June), the U niversity of
Pennsylvania (8 June), and Princeton U n i
versity (11 June); the M cC arthy-B arker
Com pany, England.
19 M ay 1915 Trojan Women; in a translation by G ilbert
w ith L illah M cC arthy as H ecuba and
E dith W ynne-M atthison as Androm ache;
perform ed at H arvard U niversity, and
touring to the College of the City of New
York (29 M ay and 2 June), the U niversity of
Pennsylvania (9 June), and Princeton U n i
versity (12 June); the M cC arthy-B arker
Com pany, England.
7 D ecem ber 1926 Oedipus the K ing; in a translation by W . B.
Yeats; directed by Lennox Robinson; w ith
m usic com posed by Robinson; w ith Frank
J. M cC orm ick as O edipus and Eileen Crowe
as Jocasta; perform ed at the A bbey T heatre,
D ublin.
sum m er 1953 The Confidential Clerk\ by T . S. Eliot;
directed by M artin E. Browne; perform ed
at the E dinburgh Festival.
1965 Persians; directed by K arolos K oun; p er
form ed in Greece; T heatro Technis,
Greece.
10 Septem ber 1992 Medea\ in a translation by A listair Elliot;
directed by Jonathan K ent; with D iana
Rigg in the title role; perform ed at the
Alm eida T heatre, L ondon, later transfer
ring to N ew York; Alm eida T heatre C om
pany, England.
1995 M ighty Aphrodite-, a film w hich parodies both
Oedipus Tyrannus and Hippolytus-, directed
by W oody Allen; USA.
Septem ber 1998 Samson Agonistes-, a play by M ilton draw ing on
Oedipus at Colonus; directed by Barrie R u t
ter; w ith R utter as Sam son; perform ed at
the V iaduct T heatre, Halifax; N orthern
Broadsides, England.
23 January 2000 Oreste; a pasticcio opera, based on Iphigenia
among the Taurians, com posed by G. F.
H andel; anonym ous Italian libretto adapted
from G. Barlocci’s L ’Oreste; directed by
A nthony Besch; perform ed at the L inbury
Studio T heatre, C ovent G arden, London;
English Bach Festival Opera.
6 June 2000 Medea; in a translation by K enneth M cLeish;
directed by D eborah W arner; w ith Fiona
Shaw in the title role; perform ed at the
A bbey T heatre, D ublin, and transferring
to L ondon in 2001 and N ew York in 2002;
A bbey T heatre, R epublic of Ireland.
D ecem ber 2000 Alceste; a m asque w ith music by G. F. H andel
and libretto by T obias Smollett; directed by
T om Hawkes; perform ed at the L inbury
Studio T heatre, Covent G arden, London
(the first perform ance at this venue,
following the 1989 world prem iere in the
B anqueting H ouse, W hitehall, London);
English Bach Festival Opera.
2001 A I: A rtificial Intelligence; a film directed by
Steven Spielberg; USA.
Bibliography
a Beckett, G ilbert A bbott (1852). The Comic History of Rome (London).

‘A G raduate of G irto n’ (1888). ‘G reek Plays in the U niversities’, W om an’s
World, 1: 121-8.
‘A Y oung L ady’ (1698). The Unnatural M other, the Scene in the Kingdom
of Siam (London).
A braham s, E thel B. (1908). Greek Dress (London).
Ackerm ann, R udolph, et al. (1809). Microcosm o f London; or, London in
M iniature, 3 vols. (London).
Adam s, G eorge (1729). The Tragedies of Sophocles, Translated from the
Greek, i (London).
Adams, W . D avenport (1891). A Book of Burlesque: Sketches o f English
Stage Travestie and Parody (London).
Adderley, J. G. (1887). ‘T he Fight for the D ram a at O xford’, Oxford
Times, 10 Septem ber 1887 (cutting in file O xford University Dramatic
Society, i (1884—1926), Bodleian L ibrary, Oxford).
Addison, J., and Howell, J. (1878). Jason and M edea: A Ramble after a
Colchian. A Classical Burlesque (British L ibrary Add. M S 53203 M ).
Albert, S. P. (1968). ‘ “ In M ore W ays T han O ne” : M ajor Barbara’s D ebt
to G ilbert M urray’, Educational Theatre Journal, 20: 123-40.
Alfieri, V ittorio (1810). Memoirs o f the Life and Writings o f Victor Alfieri,
W ritten by Himself, English translation, 2 vols. (London).
Altick, R ichard D. (1970). Studies in Scarlet (N ew York).
(1978). The Shows of London (Cam bridge, M A, and London).
(1989). ‘English Publishing in 1852’, in Altick (ed.), Writers, Readers,
and Occasions: Selected Essays on Victorian Literature and Life (C olum
bus, O H ), 141-58.
Am cotts, V incent (1866). Fair Helen: A Comic Opera (Oxford and
London).
(1870). Ariadne; or, The B ull! The B ully!! A n d the B ullion!!!
A Classical Burlesque (London).
and Anson, W . R. (1866). Pentheus: A Burlesque in Three Acts.
Founded to a Certain Extent on the ‘Bacchce’ o f Euripides (Oxford).
A m erongen, J. B. van (1926). The A ctor in Dickens: A Stud y of the
Histrionic and Dramatic Elements in the N ovelist’s Life and Works
(London).
Anderson, R obert (1795, ed.). The Works o f the British Poets, with Prefaces
Biographical and Critical, xi (London).
592 Bibliography
Anon. (1714a). Electra, A Tragedy. Translated from the Greek o f Sophocles
(London).
(17146). A ja x of Sophocles. Translated from the Greek, with Notes
(London).
(1723). A n Abstract o f the Lives of Eteocles and Polynices: Necessary to
be perused by the Spectators o f the N ew Tragedy, called, The F atal Legacy
(London).
(1726). Reflections upon Reflections. Being Some Cursory Remarks
on the Tragedy of Hecuba in Answer to the Pamphlet on that Play
(London).
(1752). Remarks on M r. M ason’s Elfrida, in Letters to a Friend
(London).
(1760). The Tendencies o f the Foundling Hospital in its Present Extent
(London).
(1761). The Rise and Progress of the Foundling Hospital Considered
(London).
(1762). Occasional Thoughts on the Stud y and Character of Classical
A uthors. . . with Some Incidental Comparisons o f Homer and Ossian
(London).
(1773). ‘T he O rigin of T ragedy in Scotland’, The Scots M agazine, 35
(January), 41-2.
(1799). The B attle o f the N ile: A Dramatic Poem on the M odel o f the
Greek Tragedy (London).
(1806). ‘R eading School Play. T riennial V isitation’, Reading M ercury
and Oxford Gazette, 44, no. 2334 (M onday, 20 O ctober), 3, col. 2.
(1808). A Description o f Caractacus. A Grand Ballet of Action in Three
Parts. W ritten by Thomas Sheridan, Esq. The Action under the Direction
of M r D ’Egville (London).
(1809). ‘R eading School Play’, Reading M ercury and O xford Gazette,
47, no. 2491 (M onday, 23 October), 3, col. 2.
(1812). ‘T riennial V isitation’, Reading M ercury and O xford Gazette,
90, no. 4692 (M onday, 26 O ctober), 3, col. 3.
(1815). ‘T riennial V isitation’, Reading M ercury and O xford Gazette,
93, no. 4848 (M onday, 23 O ctober), 3, col. 1.
(1825), ‘O restes in A rgos’, The Drama, 7: 372-3.
(1826). M edea in Corinto (Medea in Corinth). A Tragic Opera in Two
Acts. The M usic by the Celebrated M eyer. The Translation in Easy Verse
(London).
(1827), ‘T riennial V isitation’, Reading M ercury and Oxford Gazette,
105, no. 5563 (M onday, 22 October), 3, col. 2.
(1834). ‘C oleridge’s Poetical W orks’, Blackwood’s Edinburgh M aga
zine, 36, no. 227 (October), 542-70.
(1843). The Chinaid, or the ‘Persae’ of Aeschylus Burlesqued (Oxford).
Bibliography 593
(1854). ‘M r Justice T alfourd’, The Literary G azette and Journal of
Belles Lettres, Science, and A rt, no. 1939 (28 M arch), 254—5.
(1876). M edea (a tragedy in English derived from the French play
by E. Legouve and perform ed at the Haym arket; B ritish L ibrary Add.
M S 53167 E).
(1892). Our Greek Play (British L ibrary Add. M S 55505 L).
([1911], ed.). M aud A llan and H er A rt, souvenir program m e
(London).
A ppleton, W illiam (1974). M adame Vestris and the London Stage (New
York and London).
A rm strong, Isobel (1993). Victorian Poetry: Poetry, Poetics and Politics
(London and New York).
A rnold, M atthew (1879). ‘T h e French Play in L ondon’, The Nineteenth
Century, 5: 242-3.
(1986). M atthew Arnold: A Critical Edition of the M ajor Works,
ed. M iriam Allott and R obert H . Super (Oxford).
A rundel, D ennis (1965). The Story of Sadler’s Wells 1683—1964 (London).
Ashby, Stanley (1957). ‘T he T reatm ent of the T hem es of Classical T ra
gedy in English T ragedy betw een 1660 and 1738’ (Ph.D . diss., H a r
vard).
Ashton, G eoffrey (1992). Catalogue of Paintings at the Theatre M useum,
London (London).
Ashton, R osem ary (1992, ed.). George Eliot: Selected Critical Writings
(Oxford and N ew York).
A thanassoglou-K allm yer, N ina (1989). French Images from the Greek W ar
of Independence 1821-1830 (N ew H aven and London).
A tkinson, D iane (1992). Suffragettes in the Purple, W hite, and Green:
London 1906-14 (London).
(1996). The Suffragettes in Pictures (Stroud).
Aubignac, Francois H edelin, abbe d ’ (1657). L a Pratique du theatre (Paris)
(1684) The Whole A rt of the Theatre, English translation of above
(London).
A uerbach, N ina (1987). Ellen Terry: Player in H er Time (London and
M elbourne).
(1990). Private Theatricals: The Lives o f the Victorians (Cam bridge,
M A, and London).
Axton, M arie (1982) (ed.). Three Tudor Classical Interludes (Cam bridge).
Ayres, Philip (1997). Classical Culture and the Ideal of Rome in 18th-
Century England (Cam bridge).
Babbitt, Irving (1919). Rousseau and Romanticism (Boston).
Bailey, Peter (1994). ‘C onspiracies of M eaning: M usic-H all and the
Know ingness of Popular C ulture’, Past & Present 144: 138—70.
Baily, Leslie (1973). Gilbert and Sullivan and their W orld (London).
594 Bibliography
Bainbridge, Beryl (2001). According to Queeney (London).
Baker, D avid Erskine (1763). The M use of Ossian: A Dramatic Poem of
Three Acts, Selected from the Several Poems of Ossian the Son of Fingal.
A s it is Performed at the Theatre in Edinburgh (Edinburgh).
Baker, Sir R ichard (1643). A Chronicle of the Kings o f England, from the
Time o f the Romans Government unto the Raigne of our Soveraigne Lord,
K ing Charles (London).
Baker-Penoyre, J. ff. (1898). ‘School Plays in L atin and Greek: An H is
torical S tudy w ith some O bservation on the educational value of acting,
and on the recent revival of G reek D ram a in Schools’, Special Reports on
Educational Subjects, 2, C. 8943. Board of Education (London).
Bakhtin, M ikhail (1986). ‘Response to a Q uestion from the N ovy M ir
Editorial S taff, English translation by V ern W . M cG ee, in Caryl E m er
son and M ichael H olquist (eds.), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays
(Austin, T X ), 1—7; first published as ‘Smelee pol’zovat’sya vozm ozh-
nostyam i’ (‘Use O pportunities M ore Boldly’) in N ovy mir, vol 46, no. 11
(N ovem ber 1970), 237-40.
Balderston, K atharine (1942, ed.). Thraliana, i (Oxford).
Ball, W . W . Rouse, and V enn, J. A. (1913). Admissions to Trinity College,
Cambridge, v: 1851-1900 (London).
Ballaster, Ros (1996). ‘T he First Fem ale D ram atists’, in H elen W ilcox
(ed.), Women and Literature in Britain 1500—1700 (Cam bridge), 267—90.
Banham, M artin (1995, ed.). The Cambridge Guide to Theatre (Cam bridge).
Barnett, D ene (1987). The A r t of Gesture: The Practices and Principles of
18th Century A cting (H eidelberg).
Barrell, John, and G uest, H arriet (2000). ‘T hom son in the 1790s’, in
T erry (ed.), 217-46.
Barriere, F ranfois (1846-81, ed.). Bibliotheque des memoires relatifs a I’his-
toire de France (Paris).
Bartholom ew, W illiam (1845). A n Im itative Version o f Sophocles’ Tragedy
Antigone, with its M elo-D ram atic Dialogue and Choruses, as W ritten and
A dapted to the M usic o f Dr. Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy by W . B ar
tholomew (London).
(1846). The Ruins o f Athens. A Dramatic Masque (London).
(1850). The Choral Lyrics, with Intermediate Recitations, written and
adapted by W . Bartholomew, to Illustrate the M usic of Sophocles’ Tragedy
‘Oedipus Coloneus’, as Composed by Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy
(London).
Barton, L ucy (1937). Historic Costume for the Stage (London).
Bates, W illiam (1873, ed.). A Gallery of Illustrious Literary Characters
(1830—1838), Drawn by the Late Daniel Maclise R .A . (London).
Bayley, Peter (1824). Orestes, A Tragedy in Five A cts (British L ibrary
Add. M S 42865, fos. 157-273).
Bibliography 595
(1825a). Orestes in Argos (London).
(18256). Orestes in Argos, in D olby’s British Theatre (London).
Beard, M ary (2000). The Invention of Jane Harrison (Cam bridge, M A, and
London).
(2002). The Parthenon (London).
Beattie, Jam es (1776). ‘A n Essay on Poetry and M usic as they Affect the
M ind’, in Essays (London), 3-317.
Beatty, L aura (1999). Lillie Langtry: M anners, M asks and M orals
(London).
Beaum ont, Cyril W . (1934). The French Dancers of the 18th Century:
Lamargo, Salle', Guimard (London).
Beerbohm , M ax (c.1918). Herbert Beerbohm Tree: Some Memories of H im
and his A rt (London).
Behler, E rnst (1986). ‘A. W . Schlegel and the 19th-century D am natio of
E uripides’, Greek, Roman, and B yzantine Studies, 27: 335-69.
Bell, W illiam Boscowan (1823). The Queen of Argos: A Tragedy in Five
A cts (London).
Benezit, E. (1999). Dictionnaire critique et documentaire des Peintres Sculp-
teurs Dessinateurs et Gravures, nouvelle edition, ed. Jacques Busse (Paris).
Bentley, R ichard (1761). The Wishes; or, H arlequin’s M outh Opened (Lar-
pent Coll. 199, F 253/85).
Bergman, G osta M . (1977). Lighting in the Theatre (Stockholm and
Totow a, N J).
B ernbaum , E rnest (1958). The Drama of Sensibility (G loucester, MA).
Bernstein, Susan (1997). Confessional Subjects: Revelations of Gender and
Power in Victorian Literature and Culture (Chapel H ill, N C , and
London).
Bevis, R ichard (1988). English Drama: Restoration and Eighteenth Cen
tury: 1660-1789 (Harlow).
Bianchi, Francesco (1796). Antigona: A N ew Serious Opera in Two Acts.
To Be Performed at the K in g ’s Theatre, H ay-M arket. The M usic, Com
posed, Here, by Bianchi (London).
Biet, C hristian (1994). CEdipe en monarchic: tragedie et theorie juridique a
Page classique (Paris).
Binder, G erhard (1964). Die Aussetzung des Konigskindes: K yros und
Romulus (Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie, 10; M eisenheim am
Gian).
Binns, J. W . (ed.) (1981). Renaissance Latin Drama in England (H ildes-
heim and New York).
Blanchard, E. L. (1845). Antigone Travestie (British L ibrary Add. M S
42982, F 166-73).
(1891). The Life and Reminiscences o f E. L . Blanchard, ed. Clem ent
Scott and Cecil H ow ard, 2 vols. (London).
596 Bibliography
Blew, W illiam John (1887). M edea,from the T ragedy o f Euripides (London).
Boaden, Jam es (1798). Cambro-Britons, an Historical Play in Three Acts
(London).
Boas, Frederick S. (1914). University Drama in the Tudor Age (Oxford and
London).
Bockett, B. B. (‘Oliver Oldfellow’) (1857). Our School: or, Scraps and
Scrapes in Schoolboy Life, with Illustrations by W illiam M cConnell and
Others (London).
Boehrer, Bruce T hom as (1992). M onarchy and Incest in Renaissance Eng
land: Literature, Culture, Kinship and Kingship (Philadelphia).
Boileau D espreaux, Nicolas (1674). CEuvres diverses du sieur D — , avec le
Traite du sublime, ou du merveilleux dans le discours, traduit du grec de
Longin (Paris).
Bond, R ichm ond P. (1932). English Burlesque Poetry 1700-1750 (C am
bridge, M A).
Booth, M ichael R. (1969-76). English Plays o f the Nineteenth Century,
5 vols. (Oxford).
(1977). ‘East E nd and W est End: Class and A udience in Victorian
L ondon’, Theatre Research International, 2: 98—103.
(1981). Victorian Spectacular Theatre 1850-1910 (London).
Bosker, A[isso] (1930). Literary Criticism in the Age o f Johnson (G roningen
and T he Hague).
Bowers, R. H. (1949). ‘W illiam G ager’s O edipus’, Studies in Philology, 46:
141-53.
Bowman, D aniel (1875). The Life and Adventures o f B illy Purvis (N ew
castle).
Boyer, Abel (1694). The Complete French M aster (London).
(1699). The R oyal Dictionary: In Two Parts (London).
(1700). Achilles: or, Iphigenia in A ulis. A Tragedy (London).
(1714). The Victim; or, Achilles and Iphigenia in Aulis: A Tragedy. A s
it was A cted at the Theatre-Royal, in D rury-Lane. The Second Edition.
To which is added, an Advertisement about the late Irregular Reviving of
this Tragedy (London).
(1737, ed.). The Political State of B ritain, no. 54 (London).
Braddon, M ary Elizabeth (1860). Lady A u d ley’s Secret (London).
Bradley, John L. (1965, ed.). Rogue’s Progress: The Autobiography of ‘Lord
C hief B aron’ Nicholson (London).
Brain, John A. (1904). ‘A n Evening w ith Thom as N oon T alfourd’, in
Berkshire Ballads and Other Papers (Reading), 67-110.
Brantlinger, Patrick (1977). The Spirit o f Reform: British Literature and
Politics, 1832-1867 (Cam bridge, M A, and London).
Bratton, J. S. (1975). The Victorian Popular Ballad (London/Totow a,
NJ).
Bibliography 597
(1992). ‘Irrational D ress’, in G ardner and R utherford (eds.), 77—91.
Brewer, John (1976). Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of
George I I I (Cam bridge).
(1979—80). ‘T heatre and C ounter-T heatre in G eorgian Politics’,
Radical H istory Review , 22: 7—40.
Bridwell, E. N elson (1971). Superman from the Thirties to the Seventies
(N ew York).
Bridges, Em m a, H all, Edith, and Rhodes, P. J. (forthcom ing, eds.), Cul
tural Responses to the Persian Wars (Oxford).
Brissenden, R. F. (1974). Virtue in Distress: Studies in the N ovel of Senti
ment from Richardson to Sade (London and Basingstoke).
Bristed, C harles (1852). Five Years in an English University, 2nd edn.
(New York).
Broadus, E dw ard K em per (1921). The Laureateship (Oxford).
Brock, C. J. L. (1939). A History o f the Cobden Club (London).
Brooke, H enry (1739). Gustavus Vasa, The Deliverer of his Country
(London).
Brough, R obert (1856). M edea; or the Best of Mothers, with a Brute of a
Husband. A Burlesque (London).
(1858). The Siege o f Troy: A Burlesque in One A ct (W inchester).
(1890). Songs o f the ‘Governing Classes’ and Other Lyrics W ritten in a
Seasonable Spirit of ‘Vulgar Declamation’, 2nd edn. (London).
Brough, W illiam , and Brough, R obert (1849). The Sphinx (London).
and B urnand, F. C. (1865). Beeton’s Book of Burlesques (London).
Brown, A. T . (1924). Some Account o f the R oyal Institution School, Liver
pool (Liverpool).
Brown, John (1763). A Dissertation on the Rise, Union, and Power, the
Progressions, Separations, and Corruptions, o f Poetry and M usic
(London).
Brown, T . A llston (1903). A History o f the N ew York Stage from the first
performance in 1132 to 1901, 3 vols. (N ew York).
Browning, Elizabeth B arrett (1994). The Works of Elizabeth Barrett
Browning (W ordsw orth edn.,W are).
Browning, R obert (1940). Poems and Plays, iv: 1871—1890, ed. M . M.
Bozm an (London).
Brum oy, Pierre (1730). Le Theatre des Grecs, 3 vols. (Paris).
(1785-9). Le Theatre des Grecs, 2nd edn., w ith notes by G uillaum e
D ubois R ochefort, Francois Jean G abriel de L a Porte du T heil, and
[Prevost], 13 vols. (Paris).
B runkhorst, M artin (1999). ‘Das Experim ent m it dem antiken C hor auf
der m odernen Biihne (1585-1803)’, in Pieter R iem er and B ernhard
Zim m erm ann (eds.), Der Chor im antiken und modernen Drama (S tu tt
gart and W eim ar, 1999), 171-94.
598 Bibliography
B uchanan-Jones, John (1966, ed.). The Remains o f Thomas Hearne (Reli-
quice Herniance), Being Extracts from his M S Diaries, Compiled by
Dr. John Bliss (London and Fontwell).
Buckland, Gail (1980a). First Photographs (London).
(19806). Fox Talbot and the Invention o f Photography (London).
Buckley, T heodore Alois (1850). The Tragedies o f Euripides, 2 vols.
(London).
Bulwer, Edw ard L ytton, later B ulw er-L ytton, first Baron L ytton (1833).
England and the English, 2 vols. (London).
(1834). The Last Days o f Pompeii (London).
(1837). Athens: Its Rise and Fall, 2 vols. (London).
(1863). Dramatic Works (London).
(2004). Edward Bulwer Lytton, Athens: Its Rise and Fall, ed. Oswyn
M urray (London).
Burden, M ichael (1994). Garrick, A rne, and the Masque of A lfred: A Case
Stud y in National, Theatrical, and M usical Politics (Lew iston, NY, and
Lam peter).
Burian, Peter (1997). ‘T ragedy A dapted for Stages and Screens: the R e
naissance to the P resent’, in Easterling (ed.), 228—83.
Burke, E dm und (1790). Reflections on the Revolution in France (London).
Burnand, F. C. (1863a). Patient Penelope: or, the Return of Ulysses
(London).
(18636) Ixion; or, the M an at the Wheel (London).
(1864). Venus and Adonis: or, the Two Rivals & the Sm all Boar.
Being a Full, True, and Particular Account, A dapted to the Requirements
o f the Present Age, o f an Ancient M ythological Piece o f Scandal
(London).
(1865). Pirithous, the Son of Ixion (London).
(1872). Arion; or, The Story o f a Lyre (London).
(1880). The ‘A . D. C .’: Being Personal Reminiscences of the University
Am ateur Dramatic Club, Cambridge (London).
(1904). Records and Reminiscences, Personal and General, 2 vols.
(London).
Burnell, H enry (1659). The W orld’s Idol: A Comedy written in Greek by
Aristophanes, translated by H .H .B . (London).
Burns, Landon C. (1974). P ity and Tears: The Tragedies o f Nicholas Rowe
(Salzburg).
Butler, Sam uel (1896). Life and Letters of Sam uel Butler 1790—1840, 2 vols.
(London).
Byron, George, L ord (1994). The Works of Lord Byron (W ordsw orth edn.;
W are).
Byron, H enry J. (1863). Orpheus and Eurydice; or, the Young Gentleman
who Charmed the Rocks (London).
Bibliography 599
Calcraft, John W illiam (1847). Iphigenia in Aulis: A Tragedy, From the
Greek o f Euripides, as Presented in the Theatre of Bacchus, at Athens,
circa B .C . 430. A dapted to the M odern Stage, 3rd edn. (D ublin).
C am pbell, H ilbert H. (1976). James Thomson (1700-1748): A n Annotated
Bibliography of Selected Editions and the Im portant Criticism (N ew York
and London).
C am pbell, Lewis (1891). A Guide to Greek Tragedy for English Readers
(London).
(1914). Memorials in Prose and Verse of Lewis Campbell, w ith a
preface by Frances P itt Cam pbell (London).
C am pbell, Lily B. (1918). ‘A H istory of C ostum ing on the English Stage
betw een 1660 and 1823’, University of Wisconsin Studies in Language
and Literature, 2: 87-223.
C am pbell, T hom as (1834). Life of M rs. Siddons, 2 vols. (London).
Cannan, Paul D. (1994). ‘N ew D irections in Serious D ram a on the
L ondon Stage, 1675-1678’, Philological Quarterly, 73: 219-42.
Cannon, G arland (1970, ed.). The Letters o f S ir W illiam Jones, 2 vols.
(Oxford).
C annon, John (1972). Parliamentary Reform 1640-1832 (London).
Carlisle, Nicholas (1818). A Concise Description of the Endowed Grammar
Schools in England and Wales, 2 vols. (London).
Carlyle, Carol Jones (2000). Helen Faucit: Fire and Ice on the Victorian
Stage (London).
C arpenter, H um phrey (1985). O .U .D .S .: A Centenary H istory of the
Oxford Dramatic Society (Oxford).
Caryl, John (1691). S ir Salomon; or, the Cautious Coxcomb, A Comedy
(London); first published 1671.
Castle, T erry (1995). The Female Thermometer: Eighteenth-Century C ul
ture and the Invention of the Uncanny (N ew Y ork and Oxford).
Censorship and Licensing (1910). Censorship and Licensing (Joint Select
Committee) Verbatim Report o f the Proceedings and Full Text of the
Recommendations with an Appendix containing further statements by M r
G.Bernard Shaw , M r H enry A rthur Jones, M r Charles Frohman etc and
Articles from ‘The Stag e’ (London).
Chalm ers, A lexander (1807, ed.). The British Essayists, xl (London).
(1810). The Works of the English Poets from Chaucer to Cowper, 21
vols. (London).
Chedzoy, Alan (1992). A Scandalous Woman: The Life of Caroline Norton
(London).
Chenier, M arie-Joseph de (1818). CEdipe-Roi, in Theatre, 3 vols. (Paris),
iii.
Chevalier, N oel (1995, ed.). The Clandestine M arriage, B y D avid Garrick
& George Colman the Elder (Peterborough, O N ).
600 Bibliography
Clark, C um berland (1919). Dickens and Talfourd (London).
Clark, D avid Lee (1966, ed.). Shelley’s Prose, corrected edn. (A lbuquer
que, N M ).
Clark, D. R., and M cG uire, J. B. (1989). W . B . Yeats: The W riting of
Sophocles’ K ing Oedipus (Philadelphia).
Clark, G eorge Som ers (1790). Oedipus, K ing o f Thebes, A Tragedy from the
Greek o f Sophocles: translated into Prose with Notes, Critical and E x
planatory (Oxford).
Clarke, M . L. (1945). Greek Studies in England 1700—1830 (Cam bridge).
Clauss, Jam es J., and Johnston, Sarah lies (1997, eds.). M edea
(Princeton).
C lifford, Jam es L. (1947, ed.). D r Campbell’s Diary o f a Visit to England in
1775 (Cam bridge).
Clive, John (1989). ‘M acaulay and the French R evolution’, in Crossley
and Small (eds.), 103-22.
Coats, Alice M . (1975). Lord Bute: A n Illustrated Life of John Stuart,
Third Earl of Bute (Princes Risborough).
Cobbe, F. P. (1863). ‘T h e H um our of Various N ations’, Victoria M aga
zine, 1 (July), 194.
Cole, John W illiam (1859). The Life and Theatrical Times o f Charles Kean,
F .S .A ., 2 vols. (London).
Colem an, John (1904). F ifty Years o f an A ctor’s Life (London).
Coleridge, M ary E. (1910). Gatherered Leaves from the Prose of M ary
E. Coleridge with a M em oir by Edith Sichel (London).
Coleridge, H artley (1836). The Worthies o f Yorkshire and Lancashire
(London).
Colley, L inda (1989). ‘Radical Patriotism in E ighteenth-C entury Eng
land’, in Sam uel (ed.), 169-87.
(1992). Britons: Forging the N ation 1707-1837 (New Haven).
Collins, W ilkie (1860). The Woman in W hite (London).
Collins, W illiam (1765). The Poetical Works, ed. J. Langhorne (London).
Colm an, G eorge (1783). The A rt o f Poetry; an Epistle to the Pisos. Trans
lated from Horace, with Notes (London).
Congreve, W illiam (1753). The Works, 3 vols. (London).
Conolly, L. W . (1976). The Censorship o f English Drama 1738-1824 (San
M arino, CA).
Constable, W . G. (1927). John Flaxman 1755—1826 (London).
Cook, D u tton (1883). N ights at the Play, vol. i. (London).
Cooke, W illiam (1775). The Elements o f Dramatic Criticism (London).
Cooper, John J. (1923). Some Worthies of Reading (London).
Cooper, John G ilbert (1755). Letters Concerning Taste, 2nd edn. (London).
C orbett, Charles (1744). A Catalogue of the Library of Lewis Theobald,
Deceased (London).
Bibliography 601
C ourtney, W . L. ([1911]). ‘A n Interpretative D ancer’, in Anon. ([1911],
ed.).
Cowling, Jane (1993). ‘A n E dition of the R ecords of D ram a, C erem ony
and Secular M usic in W inchester C ity and College, 1556-1642’ (diss.
Southam pton).
Craig, Edw ard G ordon (1911). On the A rt o f the Theatre (London).
(1677). The Destruction o f Jerusalem by Titus Vespasian. In Two Parts
(London).
Crossley, Ceri, and Small, Ian (1989, eds.). The French Revolution and
British Culture (Oxford and New York).
Crowne, John (1675). Andromache: A Tragedy (London).
(1681). Thyestes: A Tragedy (London).
(1688). Darius, K ing o f Persia: A Tragedy (London).
C rum p, G albraith M iller (1962, ed.). The Poems and Translations of
Thomas Stanley (Oxford).
C rusius, O tto (1888). ‘Stesichoros und die epodische C om position in der
griechischen L yrik’, in Commentationes Philologae quibus Ottoni Rib-
beckio . .. congratulantur discipuli Lipsienses (Leipzig), 3-22.
Culler, A. D w ight (1985). The Victorian M irror of H istory (N ew H aven
and London).
Cunningham , H ugh (1989). ‘T he Language of Patriotism ’, in Sam uel
(ed.), 57-89.
Cunningham , John E. (1950). Theatre Royal: The H istory o f the Theatre
Royal, Birmingham (Oxford).
Cvetkovich, A nn (1992). M ixed Feelings: Feminism, M ass Culture, and
Victorian Sensationalism (N ew Brunswick, N J).
Dacier, A ndre (1692). L a Poe'tique d ’Aristote: Traduite enfranfais avec des
remarques d ’Andre’Dacier (Paris).
(1693). Tragedies grecques de Sophocle traduites en Francois, avec des
notes Critiques, & un Examen de chaque piece selon les regies du The'atre
(Paris).
(1705). A ristotle’s A rt of Poetry. Translated from the Original Greek,
according to M r Theodore Goulston’s edition, together with M r Dacier’s
notes translated from the French (London).
Dakin, Douglas (1972). The Greek Struggle fo r Independence, 1821-1833
(London).
Dallas, R. C. (1823). Adrastus: A Tragedy (London).
D alton, R ichard (1751). A Collection o f F ifty-T w o Engraved Plates from
Drawings by Richard Dalton o f Antiquities in Sicily, Greece, A sia M inor
and Egypt (London).
Dalzel, A ndrew (1821). Substance o f Lectures on the Ancient Greeks and on
the R evival o f Greek Learning in Europe (Edinburgh).
Daniel, Sam uel (1594). The Tragedie of Cleopatra (London, revised 1601).
602 Bibliography
Darley, G eorge (1836). review of T . N. T alfourd’s Ion in The Athenaeum,
9, no. 448, pp. 371-3 (Saturday, 28 May).
D arter, W illiam Silver (1888). Reminiscences o f Reading, by an Octogenar
ian (Reading).
D avenant, Charles (1677). Circe, a Tragedy as it is A cted at his Royal
Highness the Duke of Y o rk’s Theatre (London).
Davidoff, Leonore, and H all, C atherine (1987). Fam ily Fortunes: M en and
Women o f the English M iddle Class 1780-1850 (London).
Davies, Row land (1856). The Journal of the Very R ev. Rowland Davies
(Cam den Society, 68; London).
Davies, T hom as (1780). Memoirs of the Life of D avid Garrick Esq., 2 vols.
(London).
— —-(1784). Dramatic Miscellanies, 3 vols. (D ublin).
Davis, Frank (1963). Victorian Patrons of the A rts (London).
Davis, Jim (1984, ed.). Plays by H .J . Byron (Cam bridge).
and Emeljanow, Victor (2001). Reflecting the Audience: London
Theatregoing, 1840—1880 (Hatfield).
Davis, T racy C. (1991). Actresses as W orking Women: Their Social Identity
in Victorian Culture (London and N ew York).
D ecem bre-A lonnier, Joseph (1975). Dictionnaire de la Revolution Fran-
faise 1789-1799, 2 vols. (Paris).
Defoe, Daniel (1719). The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of
Robinson Crusoe (London).
D elap, John (1762). Hecuba a Tragedy (London).
(1781). The R oyal Suppliants. A Tragedy, 2nd edn. (London).
(1786). The Captives (L arpent Coll. F 253/340/1-3).
D em etz, Peter (1967). M arx, Engels, and the Poets: Origins of M arxist
Literary Criticism, 2nd edn., English translation (Chicago and London).
D ennis, John (1693). The Im partial Critick: or, some Observations upon a
late Book, entitled A Short View of Tragedy, written by M r Rym er
(London).
(1698). The Usefulness of the Stage to the Happiness o f M ankind. To
Government, and To Religion. Occasioned by a Late Book written by
Jerem y Collier M .A . (London).
(1700). Iphigenia a Tragedy, A cted at the Little Lincolns-Inn-Fields
(London).
(1702). The M onument: A Poem Sacred to the Immortal M em ory o f the
Best and Greatest o f Kings, W illiam the Third, K ing of Great Britain
(London).
(1704a). Liberty Asserted (London).
(1704&). The Grounds of Criticism in Poetry (London).
(1939-43). The Critical Works (Baltimore).
Bibliography 603
D envir, B ernard (1984). The Early Nineteenth Century: A rt, Design, and
Society 1789-1832 (London).
D erry, W arren (1966). Dr. Parr: A Portrait o f the W hig Dr. Johnson
(Oxford).
Devlin, D iana (1982) A Speaking Part: Lewis Casson and the Theatre o f his
Time (London).
D i M aria, Salvatore (1996). ‘T ow ard an Italian D ram atic Stage: Rucellai’s
Oreste', M L N 111: 123-48.
Dickens, Charles (1965-2002). The Letters o f Charles Dickens, ed. G raham
Storey et al., 12 vols. (Oxford).
D ickinson, H. T . (1977). Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eight
eenth-Century Britain (London).
D isher, M aurice (1955). Victorian Song (London).
D N B = Dictionary of N ational Biography, 2nd edn., 22 vols. (London,
1908-9).
Dobree, Bonam y (1932, ed.). The Letters of Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th
Earl o f Chesterfield (London).
D oddington, G eorge B ubb (1809). The D iary of the Late George Bubb
Doddington, 4th edn. (London).
D oran, John (1888). ‘Their majesties’ servants’: A nnals o f the English Stage
from Thomas Betterton to Edmund Kean, rev. R obert W . Lowe, 3 vols.
(London).
D orpfeld, W ilhelm , and Reisch, Emil (1896). Das griechische Theater
(Athens).
Dowling, L inda (1994). Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian Oxford
(Ithaca, N Y , and London).
D ow ner, Leslie (2003). M adam e Sadayakko: The Geisha Who Seduced the
West (London).
Downie, J. A. (1994). To Settle the Succession of the State: Literature and
Politics, 1678-1750 (Basingstoke and London).
Drake, N athan (1798). Literary Hours (London).
D raper, John W . (1924). W illiam M ason: A Stud y in Eighteenth-Century
Culture (N ew York).
D roulia, Loukia (1974). Philhellenisme: ouvrages inspires par la guerre de
I’independance grecque 1821-1833. Repertoire bibliographique (Athens).
D ryden, John (1970). Selected Criticism, ed. Jam es K insley and G eorge
Parfitt (Oxford).
(1984). The W orks of John Dryden: Plays Vol. X III: A ll fo r Love,
Oedipus, Troilus and Cressida, ed. M axim illian E. N ovak (Berkeley and
Los Angeles).
and D avenant, W illiam (1670). The Tempest, or The Enchanted
Island: A Comedy (London).
604 Bibliography
D udden, F. Hom es (1952). H enry Fielding: His L ife, Works, and Times,
i (Oxford).
D ukore, B. F. (1981). M ajor Barbara: A Facsimile o f the Holograph
M anuscript (N ew York and London).
D uncan, Isadora (1920). The Philosopher’s Stone of Dancing (London).
(1928). M y Life (London).
D uncan, W illiam (1753). Caesar’s Commentaries (London).
East, John M . (1971). ‘A ndrew D ucrow: T he W orld’s G reatest E ques
trian Perform er’, Theatre Quarterly, 1: 37-9.
Easterling, P. E. (1997). ‘G ilbert M urray’s reading of E uripides’, Colby
Quarterly, 23: 113—27.
(1997, ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy (C am
bridge).
(1999). ‘T he Early Years of the C am bridge G reek Play’, in C hristo
pher Stray (ed.), Classics in 19th and 20th Century Cambridge: Curricu
lum, Culture and Community (= P C P S suppl. 24; Cam bridge), 27—47.
and Hall, E. (2002, eds.). Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an
Ancient Profession (Cam bridge).
E l i ' 1 = Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edn., 29 vols. (Cam bridge,
1910-11).
Eccles, F. Y. (1922). Racine in England (Oxford).
Edw ards, C atharine (1996). W riting Rome: Textual Approaches to the C ity
(Cam bridge).
(1999, ed.). Roman Presences: Receptions o f Rome in European Culture
1789-1945 (C am bridge and N ew York).
Egger, Em ile (1862). ‘U ne representation des “ Perses” au palais episcopal
d ’O rleans’, Bulletin de la Societe des Antiquaires de France, 44—5.
Eliot, G eorge (1856). ‘T he A ntigone and its M oral’, The Leader, 29
M arch, 306.
Eliot, T . S. (1950). ‘Euripides and M r M urray’, in Selected Essays
(London), 46—50.
(1954). The Confidential Clerk (London).
Ellm ann, R ichard (1987). Oscar W ilde (H arm ondsw orth).
Em eljanow, Victor (1987). Victorian Popular Dramatists (Boston).
Erasm us, D esiderius (1506). Euripidis Poetae nobilissimi Hecuba et Iphige
nia (Paris).
Erffa, H elm ut von, and Staley, Allen (1986). The Paintings of Benjamin
West (N ew H aven and London).
Essick, R obert N . (1983, ed.). W illiam Blake: Catalogue (Princeton).
Etienne, R obert, and Etienne, Franfoise (1992). The Search fo r Ancient
Greece: N ew Horizons, English translation (London).
Euben, J. Peter (1986). ‘T he Battle of Salamis and the Origins of Political
T heory’, Political Theory, 14: 359-90.
Bibliography 605
Ewans, M ichael (forthcom ing). ‘A gam em non’s Influence in G erm any:
From G oethe to W agner’, in M acintosh, M ichelakis, H all, and T aplin
(forthcom ing, eds.).
Ewbank, Inga-Stina (forthcom ing). ‘Striking T oo Short at G reeks’, in
M acintosh, M ichelakis, H all, and T aplin (forthcom ing, eds.).
Faucit, J. Savill (1821). Oedipus, A M usical Drama in Three Acts. Com
piled, Selected, and A dapted from the Translations from the Greek of
Sophocles by Dryden, Lee, Corneille, and T. M aurice, Esq. (London).
Feather, John (1988). A H istory of British Publishing (London).
Felton, Cornelius C. (1837). ‘Ion, A T ragedy in Five Acts’, review article
no. 8 in The N orth American Review, 44: 485—503.
Ferris, Lesley (1993, ed.). Crossing the Stage: Controversies on Cross-
Dressing (London and New York).
Field, W illiam (1828). Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Opinions o f the
R ev. Sam uel Parr L L .D ., 2 vols. (London).
Fielding, H enry (1730). Tom Thumb: A Tragedy, 2nd edn. (London).
(1731). The Tragedy o f Tragedies; or, The Life and Death of Tom
Thumb the Great (London).
(1742). The H istory of the Adventures o f Joseph Andrews, 2 vols.
(London).
(1749). The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling (London).
and Young, W illiam (1742). Plutus. The God o f Riches. A Comedy.
Translated out of the Original Greek (London).
Findlater, R ichard (1967). Banned: A Review of Theatrical Censorship in
Britain (London).
Fines, John (1967). ‘D r. R ichard Valpy, H eadm aster of R eading School’
(unpublished typescript, R eading Public Library).
Fink, Zera S. (1945). The Classical Republicans: A n Essay in the Recovery
o f a Pattern of Thought in Seventeenth Century England (Evanston, IL).
Finneran, R. J., H arper, G. M ills, and M urphy, W . M . (1977, eds.).
Letters to W . B . Yeats, 2 vols. (London).
F irth, C. H ., and Rait, R. S. (1911). A cts and Ordinances of the Interregnum
1642-1660, ii (London).
Fischer-L ichte, Erika (1999a). ‘Between T ext and C ultural Perform ance:
Staging G reek Tragedies in G erm any’, Theatre Survey, 40: 1-30.
(19996). ‘Invocation of the Dead, Festival of Peoples’ T heatre or
Sacrificial Ritual? Som e Rem arks on Staging G reek Classics’, in Savas
Patsalidis and Elizabeth Sakellaridou (eds.). (D is)Placing Classical
Greek Theatre (Thessaloniki), 251-63.
(2004). ‘T hinking about the Origins of T heatre in the 1970s’, in Hall,
M acintosh, and W rigley (eds.), 329—60.
Fisk, D eborah Payne (2000, ed.). The Cambridge Companion to English
Restoration Theatre (Cam bridge).
606 Bibliography
Fiske, Roger (1986). English Theatre M usic in the Eighteenth Century, 2nd
edn. (Oxford).
Fitzball, E dw ard (1821). Antigone; or, The Theban Sister (L arpent Coll. F
254/649/1—4).
(1859). Thirty-F ive Years of a Dramatic A uthor’s L ife, 2 vols.
(London).
FitzG erald, E dw ard (1889). Letters and Literary Remains, ed. W illiam
Aldis W right, 3 vols. (L ondon/N ew York).
Fitzgerald, Percy (1870). Principles of Comedy and Dramatic Effect
(London).
(1902). Recollections of Dublin Castle and Dublin Society. B y a N ative
(N ew York).
Flashar, Flellm ut (1991). Inszenierung der A ntike: das griechische Drama
auf der Biihne der N euzeit (M unich).
Fletcher, K athy (1987). ‘Planche, Vestris, and the T ransvestite Role:
Sexuality and G ender in V ictorian Popular T h eatre’, Nineteenth Cen
tury Theatre, 15: 9-33.
Fogerty, Elsie (1903). The Antigone of Sophocles. A dapted and Arranged
fo r A m ateur Performance in Girls’ Schools (London).
Foley, Flelene (1999—2000). ‘T w entieth-C entury Perform ance and A dap
tation of G reek T ragedy’, in M artin C ropp, K evin Lee, and D avid
Sansone (eds.), Euripides and the Tragic Theatre in the Late F ifth Cen
tury (= IC S Special Issues 24—5; Cham paign, IL), 1-13.
Foot, Jesse (1811). The Life of A rthur M urphy (London).
Foot, Paul (1980). Red Shelley (London).
Foote, Sam uel (1747). A Treatise on the Passions so F ar as they Regard the
Stage (London).
Foskett, D aphne (1972). A Dictionary of British M iniature Painters
(London).
Foulkes, R ichard (1997). Church and Stage in Victorian England (C am
bridge).
Fowell, Frank, and Palm er, Frank (1913). Censorship in England (London).
France, Peter (1966, ed.). Racine, Athalie (Oxford).
Francillon, R. E. (1914). M id-V ictorian Memories (London, N ew York,
and T oronto).
Francklin, T hom as (1754). Translation: A Poem, 2nd edn. (London).
(1758). The Tragedies o f Sophocles, from the Greek, 2 vols. (London).
(1762). Orestes a Tragedy, in The Works of M . de Voltaire. Translated
from the French by D r. Sm ollett and Others, 36 vols. (London, 1761-5),
xiv, 22-119.
(1780). The Works o f Lucian, from the Greek (London).
(1806). The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. A cted at the Triennial
Visitation of Reading School. Translated by Dr. Franklin (Reading).
Bibliography 607
Franke, Olga (1939). Euripides bei den deutschen Dramatikern des achtzehn-
ten Jahrhunderts (Leipzig).
Franklin, M ichael J. (1995, ed.). S ir W illiam Jones: Selected Poetical and
Political Prose Works (Cardiff).
Fraser, Flora (1996). The Unruly Queen: The Life o f Queen Caroline
(London and Basingstoke).
Frenzel, Elizabeth (1962). Stoffe der W eltliteratur (Stuttgart).
Fuseli, H enry (1975). Henry Fuseli 1741-1825. Tate Gallery Exhibition
Catalogue (London).
Gagen, Jean E. (1954). The New Woman: H er Emergence in English Drama
1600-1730 (New York).
Garafala, L ynn (1993). ‘T he T ravesty D ancer in N ineteenth-C entury
Ballet’, in Ferris (ed.), 93-106.
G arber, M arjorie (1993). Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural
A nxiety (H arm ondsw orth).
G ardner, Vivien (1992). ‘Introduction’, in G ardner and R utherford (eds.),
1-16.
and R utherford, Susan (1992, eds.). The N ew Woman and Her
Sisters: Feminism and Theatre 1850—1914 (Hem el Hem pstead).
G arrick, David, and Colm an, G eorge (1766). The Clandestine M arriage,
A Comedy (London).
Gascoigne, G eorge, and K inw elm ershe, Francis (1566). Jocasta: A Trage-
die writen in Greke by Eurepedes, translated and digested into acte (L ondon).
Gaster, T heodor H . (1969). M yth, Legend, and Custom in the O ld Testa
ment: A Comparative Stud y with Chapters from S ir James G. F razer’s
Folklore in the O ld Testament (New York), i.
G aunt, W illiam (1952). Victorian Olympus (London).
Geanakopoulos, D eno J. (1976). ‘T he D iaspora Greeks: T he Genesis of
M odern G reek N ational Consciousness’, in N. P. D iam andouros, J. P.
A nton, John A. Petropoulos, and Peter T opping (eds.), Hellenism and
the First Greek W ar of Liberation (1821-1830): Continuity and Change
(Thessaloniki), 59-77.
Genest, John (1832). Some Account of the English Stage, from the Restor
ation in 1660 to 1830, 10 vols. (Bath).
George, M . D orothy (1952). Catalogue o f Political and Personal Satires
preserved in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British
M useum, Vol. X : 1820-1827 (London).
(1959). English Political Caricature to 1792 (Oxford).
Gay, John (1967 [1711]). Excerpts from the English Theophrastus, or, The
M anners of the A ge (1702), w ith an introduction by W . Earl B ritton
(New York).
G errard, C hristine (1994). The Patriot Opposition to Walpole: Politics,
Poetry and N ational M yth 1725—1742 ( Oxford).
608 Bibliography
G ibbon, E dw ard (1776-88). The H istory of the Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire, 6 vols. (London).
G ilder, R osam ond (1931). Enter the Actress: The First Women in the
Theatre (London, Bombay, and Sydney).
G ildon, Charles (1698). Phaeton, or, The Fatal Divorce. A Tragedy. A s it is
A cted at the Theatre Royal. In Imitation of the Antients (London).
(1701). L ove’s Victim; or, the Queen of Wales (London).
(1702). A Comparison between the Two Stages (London).
(1718). The Complete A rt of Poetry, 2 vols. (London).
Gillespie, S tuart (1988). The Poets on the Classics: A n Anthology (London
and New York).
(1992). ‘A Checklist of R estoration English Translations and A dap
tations of Classical G reek and L atin Poetry, 1660-1700’, Translation
and Literature, 1: 52—67.
Glasse, G eorge H enry (1781). K A P A K T A K O S E m M Q N H sive Cl.
M asoni Caractacus Grceco carmine redditus cum versione Latino a Georgio
Henrico Glasse (Oxford).
Gleckner, R obert F. (1997). Gray Agonistes: Thomas Gray and Masculine
Friendship (Baltim ore and London).
Gliksohn, Jean-M ichel (1985). Iphigehie de la Gre'ce antique d TEurope des
Lumie'res (Paris).
Glover, R ichard (1734). Leonidas: A Poem (London).
(1753). Boadicia [sic] (London).
(1777). M edea: A Tragedy (in T he N ew English T heatre vol. 12)
(London).
(1790). M edea: A Tragedy in Five Acts, by M r. G lover (London).
(1799). Jason: A Tragedy in Five A cts (London).
Godw in, W illiam (1793). A n Enquiry Concerning Political Justice
(London).
(1801). Thoughts Occasioned by the Perusal of D r P arr’s Spital
Sermon, Preached A t Christ Church, A pril 15, 1800: Being A Reply to
the A ttacks of D r Parr, M r M ackintosh, the A uthor of an Essay On
Population, and Others (London).
(1988). Things as They A re or the Adventures o f Caleb Williams, ed.
M . H indle (H arm ondsw orth).
Goffe, T hom as (1633). The Tragedy o f Orestes, written by Thomas Goffe,
M aster o f A rts, and Student o f Christs Church in Oxford, and A cted by the
Students of the Sam e House (London).
(1656). Three Excellent Tragedies. V iz The Raging Turk, or B ajazet
the Second. The Courageous Turk, or, Am urath the First. A n d the Tra-
goedie o f Orestes, 2nd edn. (London).
Goldhill, Sim on (2002). Who Needs Greek? Contests in the Cultural History
of Hellenism (Cam bridge).
Bibliography 609
Goldie, M ark (1999, ed.). The Reception of Locke’s Politics from the 1690s
to the 1830s (London), i.
G olding, W illiam (1995). The Double Tongue (London).
Goodwin, A lbert (1979). The Friends o f Liberty: The English Democratic
M ovement in the Age of the French Revolution (London).
Gosse, E dm und (1884, ed.). The Works o f Thomas G ray, 4 vols. (London).
G rant, Douglas (1951). James Thomson: Poet o f ‘The Seasons’ (London).
G ray, Charles H arold (1931). Theatrical Criticism in London to 1795 (New
York).
G ray, T hom as (1757). Odes: The Progress of Poesy and The B ard (Straw
berry Hill).
G reen, Clarence C. (1934). The Neo-Classic Theory o f Tragedy in England
during the Eighteenth Century (Cam bridge, MA).
G reene, D onald (1984, ed.). Sam uel Johnson: The M ajor Works (Oxford).
G regory, John (1774). A F ather’s Legacy to his Daughters, 2nd edn.
(London).
G rene, Nicholas (1984). Bernard Shaw : A Critical View (London and
Basingstoke).
G rew al, Inderpal (1990). ‘T he G uidebook and the M useum : Im perialism ,
Education and N ationalism in the British M useum ’, in Patrick Scott
and Pauline Fletcher (eds.), Culture and Education in Victorian England
(Lew isburg, PA), 195-217.
G riffin, E rnest (1959). ‘T he D ram atic C horus in English L iterary T heory
and Practice’ (diss. Columbia).
G riffin, Jasper (ed.) (1999), Sophocles Revisited: Essays Presented to S ir
Hugh Lloyd-Jones (Oxford).
G rote, G eorge (1846-56). A History o f Greece, 12 vols. (London).
Grove 7 = The N ew Grove Dictionary of M usic and Musicians, 2nd edn., ed.
Stanley Sadie, 29 vols. (London, 2001) [7th edn. counting from the
original Dictionary].
G uest, Ivor (1972). The Romantic Ballet in England, 2nd edn. (London
and Nairobi).
G uest, L. H aden ([1911]). ‘An A ppreciation’, in Anon. ([1911], ed.).
G ustafson, Zadel Barnes (1881). Genevieve W ard: A Biographical Sketch
(London).
G w ynn, R obin (2001). Huguenot Heritage: The H istory and Contribution of
the Huguenots in Britain, 2nd edn. (Brighton).
H all, E dith (1966, ed.). Aeschylus’ Persians (W arm inster).
(1997a). ‘G reek Plays in Georgian R eading’ Greece & Rome, 44: 54—76.
(19976). ‘T alfourd’s A ncient Greeks in the T heatre of R eform ’,
International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 3: 283—307.
(1997c) ‘L iterature and Perform ance’, in P . Cartledge (ed.), TheC am -
bridge Illustrated H istory of Ancient Greece (Cam bridge), 219—49.
610 Bibliography
H all, E dith (1999a). ‘Sophocles’ Electra in B ritain’, in J. G riffin (ed.),
261-306.
(19996). ‘Classical M ythology in the V ictorian Popular T heatre’,
International Journal o f the Classical Tradition, 5: 336-66.
(1999c). ‘1845 and All T hat: Singing G reek T ragedy on the London
Stage’, in M ichael Biddiss and M aria W yke (eds.), The Uses and Abuses
of A ntiquity (Bern), 37—53.
(1999d). ‘M edea and B ritish Legislation before the First W orld W ar’,
Greece & Rome, 46: 42-77.
(1999c). ‘A ctor’s Song in T ragedy’, in Sim on G oldhill and Robin
O sborne (eds.), Performance Culture and Athenian Democracy (Cam
bridge), 96-122.
(2002a). ‘T ony H arrison’s Prometheus: A View from the L eft’, Arion,
10: 129^10.
(20026). ‘T h e A ncient A ctor’s Presence since the Renaissance’, in
Easterling and Hall, 419-34.
(2002c). ‘T he Singing A ctors of A ntiquity’, in Easterling and Hall,
3-38.
M acintosh, Fiona, and T aplin, Oliver (2000, eds.). M edea in Per
formance 1500—2000 (Oxford).
(2004a). ‘T ow ards a T heory of Perform ance R eception’, Arion, 12,
111-48.
(20046). ‘Introduction: W hy G reek T ragedy in the Late T w entieth
C entury’, in H all, M acintosh, and W rigley (eds.), 1—46.
(forthcom ing a), ‘Aeschylus’ C lytem nestra versus her Senecan trad
ition’, in F. M acintosh, P. M ichelakis, E. H all, and O. T aplin (eds.)
Agamemnon in Performance.
(forthcom ing 6), ‘T he M other of All Sea-Battles: C ultural Responses
to Aeschylus’ Persians from Xerxes to Saddam H ussein’, in Bridges,
Hall, and Rhodes (eds.), Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars.
M acintosh, Fiona, and W rigley, A m anda (2004, eds.). Dionysus since
69: Greek Tragedy at the Dawn o f the Third M illennium (Oxford).
Haller, W illiam (1917). The Early Life of Robert Southey 1774-1803 (New
York).
H am ilton, Cicely (1909). M arriage as Trade (London).
H am m ond, Brean S. (2000). ‘ “ O Sophonisba! Sophonisba O!” : T hom son
the T ragedian’, in T erry (ed.), 15—33.
H arbage, A lfred (1935). S ir W illiam Davenant: Poet Venturer 1606—1668
(Philadelphia, L ondon, and Oxford).
H arding, Jam es (1979). Artistes Pompiers: French Academic A rt in the 19th
Century (London).
H ardw ick, L orna (1997). ‘W om en and Classical Scholarship in the 19th
C entury’, C A News, no. 17 (D ecem ber), 2—4.
(2000a). ‘T heatres of the M ind: G reek T ragedy in W om en’s W riting
in England in the N ineteenth C entury’, in L orna Hardwick, P. E.
Bibliography 611
Easterling, Stanley Ireland, Nicholas Lowe, and Fiona M acintosh
(eds.), Theatre: Ancient and M odern (M ilton Keynes), 68-71.
(20006). Translating Words, Translating Cultures (London).
H are, A rnold (1977). Theatre Royal, B ath: A Calendar of Performances at
the Orchard Street Theatre 1750-1805 (Bath).
H arrison, T ony (2002). Plays 4 (London).
H artigan, Karelisa V. (1995). Greek Tragedy on the American
Stage: Ancient Drama in the Commercial Theater, 1882-1994 (W estport,
C T).
H artm an, M ary S. (1985). Victorian Murderesses (London).
Haydon, Colin (1993). Anti-Catholicism in Eighteenth-Century England
(M anchester and New York).
H azlitt, W illiam (1917). ‘M y First Acquaintance w ith Poets’, in George
Sam pson (ed.), H a zlitt: Selected Essays (Cam bridge), 1-20; first p u b
lished in The Liberal (1823).
H earnshaw , F. J. C. (1929). The Centenary History of K ing’s College,
London 1828—1929 (London).
H eilbroner, R obert L. (1986, ed.). The Essential A dam Sm ith (Oxford).
H eitner, R obert B. (1964). ‘T he Iphigenia in T auris T hem e in D ram a of
the E ighteenth C entury’, Comparative Literature, 16: 289-309.
H enkle, Roger (1980). Comedy and Culture: England 1820-1900
(Princeton).
H eraud, E dith (1898). Memoirs o f John A . Heraud (London).
H eraud, John (1857). M edea in Corinth (B ritish L ibrary Add. M S
52967 X).
H erford, C. H ., Sim pson, Percy, and Sim pson, Evelyn (1941, eds.). Ben
jfonson (Oxford).
H eron, M atilda (1861). M edea. A Tragedy in Three Acts, Translated from
the French of 'Ernest Legouve’’ (London).
Heywood, Thom as (1874). The Dramatic W orks o f Thomas Heywood, iii
(London).
Hicks, A nthony (2000). ‘H andel’s O reste’, essay in program m e to Covent
G arden production, 9-10 (London).
H iffernan, Paul (1770). Dramatic Genius in Five Books (London).
H ighet, G ilbert (1949). The Classical Tradition: Greek and Roman In flu
ences on Western Literature (O xford and London).
H ighfill, Philip A., Burnim , K alm an A., and Langham , Edw ard A.
(1973-93). A Bibliographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians,
Dancers, Managers and Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660—1800
(Carbondale, IL , and Edwardsville, IL).
H ill, Aaron (1709). A Full and Just Account o f the Present State o f the
Ottoman Empire in A ll its Branches (London).
(1731). Advice to the Poets. A Poem (London).
612 Bibliography
H ill, Aaron (1754). The W orks of the Late Aaron H ill, Esq., 2nd edn., 4
vols. (London).
Hinchcliffe, A rnold P. (1985, ed.). T. S . Eliot, Plays: A Casebook (Basing
stoke and London).
H indle, M aurice (1988). ‘Introduction’ to G odw in (1988).
H ines, Sam uel Philip (1966). ‘English T ranslations of A ristophanes’
Comedies 1655-1742’ (Ph.D . diss., U niversity of N orth Carolina at
Chapel Hill).
Hiscock, W . G. (1946). A Christ Church M iscellany (Oxford).
H obhouse, John C am (1855). Travels in Albania and Other Provinces of
Turkey in 1809 & 1810, 2nd edn. (London).
H offer, Peter C., and H ull, N. E. H. (1984). M urdering Mothers: Infanti
cide in England and N ew England 1558-1803 (N ew York and London).
H ogan, John (1873, ed.). The M edea o f Euripides (London).
H ogan, R obert (1994, ed.). The Poems of Thomas Sheridan (Newark,
L ondon, and T oronto).
Hogg, Jam es (1977). Robert Browning and the Victorian Theatre (London).
Hogg, T hom as Jefferson (1906). The Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley, ed.
Edw ard D ow den (London).
H olford-Strevens, Leofranc (1999). ‘Sophocles in R om e’, in J. Griffin
(ed.), 219-59.
Holledge, Julie (1981). Innocent Flowers: Women in the Edwardian Theatre
(London).
H olroyd, M ichael (1988-1992). Bernard Shaw, 5 vols. (London).
H olm strom , K. G. (1967). M onodrama, Attitudes, Tableaux Vivants
(Stockholm).
H ope, T hom as (1809). Costumes of the Ancients (London; new edn.
1841).
H orne, R ichard H engist (1844, ed.). A N ew Spirit o f the Age, 2 vols.
(London).
H ouse, H um phry (1955). A ll in Due Time: The Collected Essays and
Broadcast Talks (London).
H ow arth, D avid (1976). The Greek Adventure: Lord Byron and Other
Eccentrics in the Greek W ar of Independence (London).
Howe, Elizabeth (1992). The First English Actresses: Women and Drama
1660-1700 (Cam bridge).
H ughes, D erek (1996). English Drama 1660-1700 (Oxford).
H um e, D avid (1739). A Treatise o f H um an N ature (London).
H um e, R obert D. (1976). The Development of English Drama in the Late
Seventeenth Century (Oxford).
H urd, R ichard (1749). Q. H oratii Flacci A rs Poetica: Epistola ad Pisones
(London).
(1751). Q. H oratii Flacci Epistola ad Augustum (London).
Bibliography 613
H urdis, Jam es (c.1800). A W ord or Two in Vindication o f the University of
Oxford and o f M agdalen College in Particular, from the Posthumous
Aspersions of M r. Gibbon (Bishopstone).
H urst, Isobel (2003). ‘ “ T he Fem inine of H om er” : Classical Influences on
W om en W riters from M ary Shelley to Vera B rittain’ (D. Phil, thesis,
Oxford).
H utcheson, Francis (1728). A n Essay on the N ature and Conduct o f the
Passions and Affections (London).
H uys, M arc (1995). The Tale of the Hero who was Exposed at B irth in
Euripidean Tragedy: A Stud y o f M otifs (Leuven).
H ynes, Sam uel (1968). The Edwardian Turn o f M ind (London).
Ibsen, H enrik (1972). The O xford Ibsen, ed. Jam es W alter M cFarlane,
vol. iii (Oxford, L ondon, New York, and T oronto).
I L N = Illustrated London News.
Ingram , W illiam H enry (1965). ‘T heobald, Rowe, Jackson: W hose Ajax?’,
Library Chronicle, 31/2: 91-6.
(1966). ‘G reek D ram a and the A ugustan Stage: D ennis, Theobald,
T hom son’ (Ph.D . diss., U niversity of Pennsylvania).
Ittershagen, U lrike (1999). Lady Hamiltons A ttitiiden (M ainz).
Jackson, Allan S tuart (1993). The Standard Theatre of Victorian London
(London and T oronto).
Jackson, M ark (1996). N ew -Born Child M urder: Women, Illegitimacy and
the Courts in Eighteenth-Century England (M anchester).
Jacobus de Voragine (1993). Readings on the Saints, trans. W illiam G ran
ger Ryan, 2 vols. (Princeton).
(1998). Iacopo da V arazze: Legenda aurea, ed. G iovanni Paolo M ag-
gioni, 2 vols. (Florence).
Jacobs, Eva (1989). ‘A n U nidentified Illustration of an English Actress in
a V oltairean T ragic Role: M ary A nn Yates as E lectra’, Studies on Vol
taire and the Eighteenth Century, 260: 245—56.
Jadw in, Lisa (1993). ‘C lytem nestra Rewarded: T he D ouble C onclusion of
V anity Fair’, in Alison Booth (ed.), Famous Last Words: Changes in
Gender and N arrative Closure, 35-61 (Charlottesville, VA, and
London).
Jebb, R. C. (1890, ed.). Sophocles, Antigone, 3rd edn. (Cam bridge).
Jenkin, Fleem ing (1878). ‘B row ning’s “A gam em non” and C am pbell’s
“ T rachiniae” ’, Edinburgh Review, 147: 406-36; repr. in Jenkin
(1887), i. 3—43.
(1887). Papers Literary, Scientific, & c. B y the Late Fleeming Jenkin,
Professor o f Engineering in the University o f Edinburgh. Edited by Sidney
Colvin a n d j. A . Ewing, with a M em oir by Robert Louis Stevenson, 2 vols.
Jenkyns, R ichard (1980). The Victorians and Ancient Greece (Oxford).
614 Bibliography
Jenkyns, Richard (1991). Dignity and Decadence (London).
Jensen, G erard E. (1915, ed.). The Covent-Garden Journal by S ir A lexan
der Drawcansir, K n t., Censor of Great B ritain, 2 vols. (New Haven,
London, and Oxford).
Jerrold, W alter (1914). Douglas Jerrold: Dramatist and W it, 2 vols.
(London).
Jodrell, R ichard Paul (1781). Illustrations of Euripides on the Ion and the
Bacchae, 2 vols. (London).
(1789). Illustrations o f Euripides, on the Alcestis (London).
Johnson, Charles (1710). The Force of Friendship (London).
(1731). The Tragedy of M edaa (London).
Johnson, Jam es (1972). ‘T he Classics and John Bull, 1660-1714’, in H. T .
Sw edenberg (ed.), England in the Restoration and the Early Eighteenth
Century (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London), 1-26.
Johnson, Sam uel (1749). Irene: a Tragedy (London).
(1794). The Lives o f the M ost Eminent English Poets, 4 vols. (London).
Johnson, Thom as (1705, ed.). Sophocles Tragoedice, A ja x et Electra
(Oxford).
(1708, ed.). Sophoclis Tragoedia, Antigone et Trachiniae (Oxford).
(1746, ed.) Sophocles Tragoedia, Oedipus Tyrannus, Philoctetes et
Oedipus Coloneus (Oxford).
Johnston, John (1990). The Lord Chamberlain’s Blue Pencil (London).
Johnstone, John (1828, ed.). The Works o f Sam uel Parr, 8 vols.
(London).
Jones, Edw ard (1784). M usical and Poetical Relicks of the Welsh Bards:
Preserved by Tradition, and A uthentic M anuscripts from Remote A n
tiquity (London).
Jones, E rnest (1953). Sigm und Freud: Life and W ork, i: The Young Freud
1856-1900 (London).
Jones, Richard Foster (1919). Lewis Theobald: H is Contribution to English
Scholarship with Some Unpublished Letters (N ew York).
Jones, T hora Burnley, and Nicol, B ernard De Bear (1976). Neo-Classical
Dramatic Criticism 1560—1770 (Cam bridge).
Jones, Vivien (1990, ed.). Women in the Eighteenth Century: Constructions
o f Femininity (London).
Jongh, Nicholas de (2000). Politics, Prudery and Perversions: The
Censoring o f the English Stage 1901-1968 (London).
Jopling, Louise (1925). Twenty Years o f M y Life 1867-1887 (London).
Joyner, W illiam (1671). The Roman Empress (London).
Jum p, John D. (1972). Burlesque (London).
Kaarsholm , Preben (1989). ‘Pro-Boers: Pro-Boerism and R om antic A nti-
Capitalism on the E uropean C ontinent during the South African W ar’,
in Sam uel (ed.), 110—26.
Bibliography 615
Kam es, H enry H om e, L ord (1763). The Elements of Criticism, 2nd edn.,
3 vols. (Edinburgh).
Keates, Jonathan (1992). Handel: The M an and his M usic (London).
Kelly, John A. (1936). German Visitors to English Theaters in the Eight
eenth Century (Princeton).
K ennedy, D ennis (1985). Granville Barker and the Dream o f Theatre
(Cam bridge).
Kenrick, W filliam] (1774, ed.). The Poetical Works o f Robert Lloyd, 2 vols.
(London).
K ern, Jean B. (1966) ‘Jam es T hom son’s Revisions of Agamemnon’, Philo
logical Quarterly, 45: 289-303.
K errigan, John (1996). Revenge Tragedy (Oxford).
K estner, Joseph (1989). M ythology and M isogyny: The Social Discourse of
Nineteenth-Century British Classical-Subject Painting (M adison, W I).
Kettle, M ichael (1977). Salom e’s Last Veil: The Libel Case of the Century
(London).
K etton-C rem er, R. G. (1940). Horace Walpole: A Biography (London).
Kewes, Paulina (1998). Authorship and Appropriation: W riting fo r the
Stage in England, 1660-1710 (Oxford).
Kidson, Alex (2002). George Romney 1734-1802 (London and San M ar
ino, CA).
Kierkegaard, Soren (1987). Either/O r, P art I, ed. and trans. H ow ard V.
H ong and Edna H. H ong [= K ierkegaard’s Writings, iii] (Princeton);
first published as Enten/Eller: E t Livs-Fragment udgivet a f Victor Ere-
mita (Copenhagen, 1843).
Kingsley, C harles (1855). The Heroes (London).
K napp, M ary E. (1961). Prologues and Epilogues of the Eighteenth Century
(N ew Haven).
K night, R. C. (1950). Racine et la Grece (Paris).
Knos, Borje (1962). L ’Histoire de la litte'rature ne'o-grecque (Stockholm and
Uppsala).
Kucich, G reg (1996). ‘E ternity and the Ruins of Tim e: Shelley and the
C onstruction of C ultural H istory’, in Betty T . Bennet and Stuart C ur
ran (eds.), Shelley: Poet and Legislator of the W orld (Baltim ore and
London), 14—29.
K urth, Peter (2001). Isadora: A Sensational Life (Boston, N ew York,
London).
K urtz, D onna (2000). The Reception of Classical A rt in Britain (Oxford).
Lacoste, Louis (1712). Creiise I’Athenienne, Tragedie mise en musique par
M r de la Coste (Paris).
Lagrange-Chancel, Francois Joseph de (1697). Oreste et Pilade, ou Iphi
genie en Tauride (Paris).
La M esnardiere, H ippolyte-Jules Pilet de (1640). L a Poelique (Paris).
616 Bibliography
L andor, W alter Savage (1859). The Hellenics, rev. edn. (Edinburgh).
Langbaine, G erard (1691). A n Account of the English Dramatick Poets
(Oxford).
L arrabee, Stephen A. (1943). English Bards and Grecian Marbles (New
York).
Legouve, E rnest (1893). S ix ty Years o f Recollections, translated with notes
by Albert D . Vandam, 2 vols. (London and Sydney).
Leighton, Angela (1992). Victorian Women Poets (Hem el H em pstead).
L em ercier, Louis (1797). Agamemnon, Tragedie en Cinq Actes (Paris).
Lem on, M ark (1856). M edea: a Tragedy in One A ct, B ritish L ibrary Add.
M S 52960 L.).
Lem priere, John (1788). Bibliotheca Classical A Classical Dictionary
(Reading).
Lem priere, Raoul (1981). ‘T he T heatre in Jersey 1778-1801’, Bulletin of
the Societe Jersiaise no. 106, vol. xxiii/1, 115-23.
Lennox, C harlotte (1759). The Greek Theatre of Father Brumoy, 3 vols.
(London).
L eppm ann, W olfgang (1968). Pompeii in Fact and Fiction, English trans
lation (London and T oronto).
Lessing, G otthold E phraim (1968). Gesammelte Werke, ed. Paul Rilla, 10
vols. (Berlin and W eim ar).
Levacher de C ham ois, Jean Charles (1790-2). Recherches sur les costumes et
sur les theatres de toutes les Nations tant anciennes que modernes (Paris).
Levey, M ichael (1963). From Giotto to Cezanne (London).
Levin, H arry (1931). The Broken Column: A Stud y in Romantic Hellenism
(Cam bridge, M A).
Levine, Joseph M . (1991). The B attle of the Books: History and Literature
in the Augustan Age (Ithaca, NY, and London).
(1999). Between the Ancients and the Moderns: Baroque Culture in
Restoration England (New H aven and London).
Lewes, G eorge H enry (1875). On Actors and the A rt o f A cting (London).
Lewis, Brian (1980). The Sargon Legend (Cam bridge, M A).
Lillo, G eorge (1731). The London M erchant, or The H istory o f George
Barnwell (London).
Lipsey, Roger (2001). H ave You Been to Delphi? Tales o f the Ancient
Oracle fo r M odern M inds (Albany, NY).
L ittle, A rthu r M . (1893). Mendelssohn’s M usic to the Antigone o f Sophocles
(diss. Leipzig, published W ashington, D C).
Llewellyn, A lexander (1972). The Decade of Reform: The 1830s (New ton
Abbot).
Lloyd-Jones, H ugh (1982). Blood fo r the Ghosts: Classical Influences in the
Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (London).
Locke, John (‘1690’). Two Treatises of Government (London).
Bibliography 617
(1993). Two Treatises of Government, ed. M ark G oldie (Everym an
edn.; London).
Loftis, John (1963). The Politics o f Drama in Augustan England (Oxford).
Loliere, Frederic (1907). L a Comedie-Franfaise: Histoire de la maison de
Moliere de 1658 a 1907 (Paris).
Lowe, Solom on (1719). Kotrd k c u v w s : A n Appendix to Grammar, contain
ing Rhetoric and Prosody with directions fo r composing... elegantly....
To which are added. .. Rudiments of the French and Greek Tongues
(London).
L S = E m m et L. Avery, C. B. H ogan, A. H . Scouten, G . W . Stone, and
W . Van Lennep, The London Stage, 1660—1800: A Calendar of Plays,
Entertainments and Afterpieces, 5 parts in 11 vols. (Carbondale, IL , and
Edwardsville, IL : S outhern Illinois U niversity Press, 1965-8).
Lucas, H ippolyte (1847). Alceste (Paris).
L uttrell, N arcissus (1857). A B rief Historical Relation of State A ffairs from
September, 1678 to A pril, 1714, 6 vols. (Oxford; repr. Farnborough,
1969).
Lynch, Jam es (1953). B ox, P it and Gallery: Stage and Society in Johnson’s
London (Berkeley and Los Angeles).
Lyndsay, D avid (1822). The Nereid's Love, in Dramas o f the Ancient World
(Edinburgh).
M cCabe, R ichard A. (1993). Incest, Drama and N ature’s Law 1550—1700
(Cam bridge).
M cC arthy, Lillah (1933). M yself and Friends (London).
M cC lure, R uth (1981). C oram ’s Children: The London Foundling Hospital
in the Eighteenth Century (N ew H aven and London).
M cD onagh, Josephine (2003). C hild M urder and British Culture
1720-1900 (Cam bridge).
M cD onald, M arianne, and W alton, J. M ichael (2002, eds.). A m id Our
Troubles: Irish Versions o f Greek Tragedy (London).
M acintosh, Fiona (1994). D ying Acts: Death in Ancient Greek and Irish
Tragic Drama (Cork).
(1995). ‘U nder the Blue Pencil: G reek T ragedy and the British
C ensor’, Dialogos, 2: 54—70.
(1997). ‘T ragedy in Perform ance: N ineteenth- and T w entieth-
C entury Productions’, in Easterling (ed.), 284—323.
(1998) ‘T h e Shavian M urray and the E uripidean Shaw: M ajor B ar
bara and the Bacchae’, Classics Ireland, 5: 64—84.
(2000a). ‘Introduction: T he Perform er in Perform ance’, in Hall,
M acintosh, and T aplin (2000, eds.), 1—31.
(20006). ‘M edea T ransposed: B urlesque and G ender on the M id-
Victorian Stage’, in Hall, M acintosh, and T aplin (2000, eds.), 74—99.
(2001). ‘Alcestis in B ritain’, Cahiers du G IT A 14: 281-308.
618 Bibliography
M acintosh, Fiona (2002). ‘K ing’s First L ibation Bearers: L ondon’s G reek
Plays in the 1880s’, Dialogos, 8.
(forthcom ing). ‘Viewing A gam em non in N ineteenth-C entury B rit
ain’, in M acintosh, M ichelakis, H all, and T aplin (forthcom ing, eds.).
M ichelakis, Pantelis, H all, Edith, and T aplin, Oliver (forthcom ing,
eds.). Agamemnon in Performance 458 BC-2004 A D (Oxford).
M cK illop, Alan D. (1957, ed.). James Thomson (1700-1748): Letters and
Documents (Law rence, KS).
(1958). ‘T hom son and the Licensers of the Stage’, Philological Quar
terly, 37: 448—53.
M ackinlay, Sterling (1927). Origin and Development of Light Opera
(London).
M ackinnon, Alan (1910). The Oxford Amateurs: A Short H istory of the
Theatricals at the University (London).
M acM illan, D uncan (1994). ‘W om an as Hero: G avin H am ilton’s Radical
A lternative’, in Perry and Rossington (eds.), 78—98.
M acpherson, Jam es (1765). The Works of Ossian, Son of Fingal, 2 vols.
(London).
M acready, W illiam Charles (1912). The Diaries o f W illiam Charles M ac-
ready, 1833-1851, ed. W illiam Toynbee, 2 vols. (London).
M cSw eeney, K erry (1993, ed.). Elizabeth Barrett Browning: Aurora Leigh
(Oxford).
M affei, Francesco Scipione (1723-5). Teatro italiano, 3 vols. (Verona).
M aguire, N ancy K lein (1992). Regicide and Restoration: English Tragi
comedy, 1660-1671 (Cam bridge).
(2000). ‘T ragicom edy’, in Fisk (ed.), 86-106.
M anners, L ady V ictoria, and W illiam son, D r G. C. (1924). Angelica
K auffm ann, R .A .: H er Life and W ork (London; repr. N ew Y ork, 1976).
M ansel, H enry Longueville (1873). The Phrontisterion, in Letters, Lec
tures, and Reviews, ed. H enry W . C handler (London).
M ansfield, Sue (1980, ed.). The Subjection of Women, by John Stuart M ill
(A rlington H eights, IL).
M arsden, Jean I. (2000). ‘Spectacle, H orror and Pathos’, in Fisk (ed.),
174-90.
M arshall, Gail (1998). Actresses on the Victorian Stage: Feminine Perform
ance and the Galatea M yth (Cam bridge).
M arston, W estland (1888). Our Recent Actors, 2 vols. (London).
M artin, R obert B ernard (1974). The Triumph o f W it: A Stud y of Victorian
Comic Theory (Oxford).
M artin, Sir T heodore (1900). Helena Faucit: Lady M artin (Edinburgh
and London).
M artin-H arvey, John (1933). The Autobiography o f S ir John M artin-
H arvey (London).
Bibliography 619
M arx, K arl and Engels, F. (1979). Collected Works, xi. London.
M ason, W illiam (1752). Elfrida, A Dramatic Poem (London).
(1759). Caractacus: A Dramatic Poem. W ritten on the M odel of the
A ntient Greek Tragedy by the A uthor of Elfrida (London).
(1772). Animadversions on the Present Government of the York Lunatic
Asylum (York).
(1788a). Memoirs o f the Life and Writings o f M r W illiam Whitehead
(London).
(17886). A n Occasional Discourse, Preached in the Cathedral of
S t. Peter in York, January 27, 1788, on the Subject of the A frican
Slave-Trade (York).
(1796). Caractacus (London).
(1811). The Works o f W illiam M ason, M .A ., 4 vols. (London).
M assie, Joseph (1759). Farther Observations Concerning the Foundling-
Hospital (London).
M athias, T . J. (1823). Carattaco, poema drammatico scritto sul modello della
tragedia greca antica da Guglielmo M ason (Naples).
M aude, Cyril (1903). The H aym arket Theatre (London).
M aurice, T hom as (1779). Poems and Miscellaneous Pieces with a Free
Translation of the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles (London).
(1806). The Fall of the M ogul: A Tragedy, Founded on an Interesting
Portion of Indian H istory, and A ttem pted P artly on the Greek M odel
(London).
(1822). A Free Translation o f the Oedipus Tyrannus (London).
M axwell, M argaret (1963). ‘O lym pus at Billingsgate: T h e Burlettas of
Kane O ’H ara’, Educational Theatre Journal, 15: 130—5.
M ayer, D avid (1971). ‘Billy Purvis: T ravelling Show m an’, Theatre Quar
terly, 1: 27-34.
M eakin, A nnette (1911). Hannah M ore (London).
M eehan, M ichael (1986). Liberty and Poetics in Eighteenth-Century Eng
land (London, Sydney, and Dover, N H ).
M ercer, T hom as (1774). Poems (Edinburgh).
M etcalfe, C ranstoun (1893). Hecuba a la M ode; or, The W ily Greek and the
M odest M aid (London).
M ichelini, A nn (1987). Euripides and the Tragic Tradition (M adison,
W I).
M ikoniatis, I. G. (1979). ‘T he G reek W ar of Independence on the L ondon
Stage 1821—1833’, FmoTyjjj.ovLKr) 'E-rreT-qplSci rrjs 0i.Xooo<f>iKrjs LxoX rjs to v
n a v e m O T W lo v ©eooaXovlKrjs, 18: 331—43.
M iller, Betty (1953). “ ‘T his H appy Evening” : T he Story of Ion’,
The Twentieth Century, 154, no. 917 (July), 53—9.
M ilsand, Joseph-A ntoine (1849), ‘Le dram e contem porain en A ngleterre’,
Revue des deux mondes, n.s. 19/4: 832—60.
620 Bibliography
M ilton, John (1738). Areopagitica: A Speech fo r the Liberty of Unlicens’d
Printing, to the Parliament of England. First published in the year 1644.
W ith a Preface, by Another H and (London).
(1952-5). The Poetical Works, ed. H . D arbishire, 2 vols. (Oxford).
(1962). The Complete Prose Works of John M ilton, iii: 1648—9,
ed. M errit Y. H ughes (New Haven).
(1963) Areopagitica, and O f Education, ed. M ichael Davies (London
and N ew York).
(1997). John M ilton: Complete Shorter Poems, ed. John Carey
(London and N ew York).
M im oso-R uiz, D uarte (1982). Me'de'e antique et moderne: Aspects rituels et
socio-politiques d ’un mythe (Paris).
M itford, John (1851, ed.). The Correspondence o f Horace Walpole, Earl of
Orford, and the R ev. W illiam M ason, 2 vols. (London).
(1853, ed.). The Correspondence of Thomas Gray and W illiam M ason
(London).
M itford, M ary Russell (1818). ‘R eading School Play’, Reading M ercury
and O xford Gazette, vol. 96, no. 4505 (M onday, 26 October), 3, col. 3.
(1821), ‘R epresentation of the Orestes of Euripides at Reading
School’, Reading M ercury and Oxford Gazette, 99, no. 5163 (M onday,
5 N ovem ber), 5, col. 3.
(1824), ‘Reading, Sat. Oct. 16th’, Reading M ercury and Oxford
Gazette, 102 no. 5367 (M onday, 18 O ctober), 3, col. 2.
(1827). Review of Hecuba at R eading School, Reading M ercury and
O xford G azette, no. 5563, p. 3. col 2 (M onday, 22 October).
(1835). Belford Regis; or Sketches of a Country Town, 3 vols.
(London).
(1854a). The Dramatic Works o f M ary Russell M itford, 2 vols.
(London).
(18546). A therton, and Other Tales, i (London).
(1872). Letters of M ary Russell M itford, ed. H enry Chorley (2nd ser.),
2 vols. (London).
M iyoshi, M asao (1969). The Divided Self: A Perspective on the Literature
of the Victorians (N ew York).
M om igliano, A rnaldo (1969). Studies in Historiography (London).
M onk, Ray (1996). Bertrand Russell: The Spirit o f Solitude (London).
M ontagu(e), Lady M ary Pierrepont W ortley (1763). Letters o f the Right
Honourable Lady M —y W — y M e, 3rd edn. (London).
M oore, E dw ard (1748). The Foundling (London).
M oore Sm ith, G. C. (1923). College Plays Performed in the University of
Cambridge (Cam bridge).
M orell, T hom as (1749). Hecuba, Translated from the Greek of Euripides
(London).
Bibliography 621
(1773). AloyvXov IIpog.7)dfvs J ■
' Cum Stanleiana versione .. .
quibus suas adjecit.. .ac Anglicanam interpretationem T. M orell, S .T .P .
(London).
M organ, D avid (1975). Suffragists and Liberals (Oxford).
M organ, Fidelis (1981). The Female W its: Women Playwrights on the
London Stage 1600—1720 (London).
M orley, H enry (1866). Journal of a London Playgoer from 1851 to 1866
(London).
M orris, W illiam (1856). The Defence of Guenevere, The Life and Death of
Jason, and Other Poems (London and Oxford).
(1868). The Earthly Paradise, 3 vols. (London).
M ounet-Sully, Jean (1917). Souvenirs d ’u n tragedien (Paris).
M otter, T . H . Vail (1929). The School Drama in England (London, New
York, and T oronto).
(1944). ‘G arrick and the Private T heatres: W ith a L ist of A m ateur
Perform ances in the E ighteenth C entury’, E L H 11: 63—75.
M ueller, M artin (1980). Children o f Oedipus and Other Essays on
the Im itation of Greek Tragedy 1550-1800 (T oronto, Buffalo, and
London).
M ullan, John (1988). Sentim ent and Sociability: The Language of Feeling in
the Eighteenth Century (Oxford).
M unich, A drienne (1989). Androm eda’s Chains: Gender and Interpretation
in Victorian Literature and A rt (N ew York).
M urphy, A rthur (1772). The Grecian Daughter (London).
(1773). A lzu m a (London).
M urray, G ilbert (1897). A H istory of Ancient Greek Literature (London).
(1900). Andromache (London).
(1901). ‘N ational Ideas, Conscious and U nconscious’, International
Journal o f Ethics, February [= repr. in id., Essays and Addresses (Oxford,
1921)].
(1902). ‘Introductory Essay: The Bacchae in relation to C ertain C u r
rents of T houg ht in the Fifth C entury’, in G. C. W arr (ed.), The
Athenian Drama: A Series of Verse Translations from the Greek Dramatic
Poets, iii: Euripides Translated into Rhym ing Verse (London), xix-lxviii.
(1905). The Trojan Women of Euripides (London).
(1906). The M edea of Euripides (London).
(1911). Oedipus, K ing o f Thebes (Oxford).
(1913). Euripides and his Age (London).
(1915). The Alcestis of Euripides (London).
(1933). Aristophanes: A Stud y (Oxford).
N albach, Daniel (1972). The K in g ’s Theatre 1704—1867: London’s First
Opera House (London).
N axton, M ichael (1986). The H istory of Reading School (Reading).
622 Bibliography
‘Neil, Ross’ [Augusta W ebster] (1883). ‘O restes’, in Andrea the Painter
(London), 181-238.
Neville, A lexander (1563). The Lamentable Tragedie of Oedipus the Sonne
o f Laius K yng of Thebes out o f Seneca (London).
Newdick, R obert S. (n.d. a). Talfourd as a Dramatist (unpublished type
script, pre-1939; R eading Public Library).
(n.d. b). S ir Thomas Noon Talfourd (unpublished typescript, pre-
1939; R eading Public Library).
N ew ton, Stella M ary (1974). Health, A rt and Reason: Dress Reformers of
the 19th Century (London).
N ew ton, T hom as (1581, ed.). The Tenne Tragedies of Seneca (London).
N ichols, John (1817-18). Illustrations of the Literary History of the E ight
eenth Century, 3 vols. (London).
N ichols, R. H ., and W ray, F. A. (1935). The H istory of the Foundling
Hospital (London).
Nicoll, Allardyce B. (1925). British Drama, 4th edn. (London, T oronto,
Bombay, and Sydney).
(1952—9). A H istory o f English Drama 1660—1900 (Cam bridge).
Nolan, Edw ard (1866). Iphigenia; or, The Sail!! The Seer!! A n d the
Sacrifice!! (London).
(1867). Agamemnon at Home; or, The Latest Particulars of that Little
A ffa ir at M ycenae. A Burlesque Sketch (Oxford).
N ordau, M ax (1895). Degeneration (London).
N orw ood, G ilbert (1921). Euripides and Shaw (London).
N overre, Jean Georges (1804). Mede'e, ballet tragi-pantomime (Paris).
O D N B = O xford Dictionary of N ational Biography, 60 vols. (Oxford,
2004).
O ’Hara, Kane (1764). M idas: an English Burletta (D ublin).
(1773). The Golden Pippin: an English Burletta (London).
O ldfather, C. H. (1935). Diodorus of Sicily, 6 vols. to 15. 19 (Cam bridge,
M A, and London).
O rm ond, Leonee (1968). ‘Fem ale C ostum e in the A esthetic M ovem ent of
the 1870s and 1880s’, Costume, 2: 33-8.
O sm aston, Francis P. B. (1928). Original Transcripts with Text from H el
lenic Drama (London).
O ulton, W alley C ham berlain (1796). The History of the Theatres of
London, 2 vols. (London).
Owen, A. L. (1962). The Famous Druids: A Survey o f Three Centuries of
English Literature on the Druids (Oxford).
Owen, R obert (1703). Hypermnestra; or, Love in Tears. A Tragedy
(London).
Owen, Susan J. (2000). ‘D ram a and Political C risis’, in Fisk (ed.),
158-73.
Bibliography 623
Owenson, Sydney [later Lady M organ] (1809). Woman: or, Ida of Athens,
4 vols. (London).
Padel, R uth (1996). ‘Ion: Lost and F ound’, Arion, 4: 216—24.
Palaeologus, G regorios (1824). The Death o f Demosthenes. A Tragedy
in Four Acts. In Prose. Translated from the M odern Greek (Cam
bridge).
Palgrave, Francis T u rn er (1871). Lyrical Poems (London).
Palm er, H enrietta R. (1911). List of English Editions and Translations of
Greek and L atin Classics Printed before 1641 (London).
Pankhurst, E. Sylvia (1931). The Suffragette M ovement (London, New
York, and Toronto).
Parker, C hristopher (1995, ed.). Gender Roles and Sexuality in Victorian
Literature (Aldershot).
Parker, L. P. E. (2003). ‘Alcestis: Euripides to T ed H ughes’, Greece &
Rome, 50.
Pattison, G eorge (1992). Kierkegaard: The Aesthetic and the Religious.
From the M agic Theatre to the Crucifixion o f the Image (Basingstoke
and London).
Payne, D eborah C. (1995). ‘Reified O bject or Em ergent Professional?
Retheorizing the R estoration A ctress’, in J. D ouglas Canfield and
D eborah C. Payne (eds.), Cultural Readings of Restoration and E ight
eenth-Century Theatre (Athens, GA, and London), 13-38.
Peacock, John (1995). The Stage Designs o f Inigo Jones (Cam bridge).
Pearsall, Ronald (1973). Victorian Popular M usic (N ew ton A bbot).
Pem ble, John (1988). The M editerranean Passion: Victorians and Edward-
ians in the South (O xford and N ew York).
Pennant, T hom as (1781). Tours in Wales, ii: The Journey to Snowdon
(London).
Pentzell, Raym ond (1967). ‘N ew D ress’d in the A ncient M anner: T he
Rise of H istorical Realism in C ostum ing the Serious D ram a of England
and France in the E ighteenth C entury’ (Ph.D . diss., Yale).
Perry, G ill (1994). ‘W om en in Disguise: Likeness, the G rand Style, and
the Conventions of “ Fem inine” Portraiture in the W ork of Sir Joshua
R eynolds’, in Perry and Rossington (1994, eds.), 18—40.
and Rossington, M ichael (1994, eds.). Femininity and M asculinity
in Eighteenth-Century A rt and Culture (M anchester and N ew York).
Peters, C atherine (1987). Thackeray’s Universe: Shifting Worlds of
Imagination and Reality (London).
Peters, Julie Stone (2000). Theatre of the Book 1480-1880 (Oxford).
‘Philogam us’ (1739). The Present State of M atrim ony: or, The Real Causes
of Conjugal Infidelity and Unhappy Marriages (London).
Pichat, M ichel (1825). Leonidas, tragedie en cinq actes (Paris).
624 Bibliography
Pikeryng, John (1567). A Newe Enterlude o f Vice conteyning the History of
Horestes with the cruell revengment of his Fathers death upon his one
naturall M other (London).
Pinney, T hom as (1963, ed.). Essays o f George Eliot (London).
Planche, Jam es R obinson (1845). The Golden Fleece, or, Jason in Colchis
and M edea in Corinth: A Classical E xtravaganza in Two Parts (Lacy’s
A cting Edition) (London).
(1846). The Birds of Aristophanes (London).
(1872). The Recollections and Reflections o f J . R . Planche', 2 vols.
(London).
(1879). The Extravaganzas 1825-1871, ed. T . F. Dillon C roker and
Stephen T ucker, 5 vols. (London).
(1986). Plays, ed. D onald Roy (Cam bridge).
(1901). Recollections and Reflections: A Professional Autobiography,
rev. edn. (London).
and Dance, C harles (1834). Olympic Revels (London).
Poe, E dgar Allan (1845). ‘T he Antigone at Palm o’s’, Broadway Journal, 12
April, repr. in Poe (1965), xii. 130-5.
(1965). The Complete Works o f Edgar A llan Poe, ed. Jam es A H arri
son (N ew York).
Pom pignan, J. J. le Franc de (1770). Tragedies d ’Eschyle (Paris).
Pope, Alexander (1738). One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Eight,
a Dialogue, Something Like Horace (Edinburgh and London).
(1797). The Works o f Alexander Pope, ed. J. W arton, 9 vols. (London).
Potter, R obert (1775). Observations on the Poor Laws, On the Present State
of the Poor, and on Houses o f Industry (London).
(1777). The Tragedies of JEschylus Translated (Norwich).
(1788). The Tragedies of Sophocles (London).
(1827). The Hecuba o f Euripides, Represented at the Triennial Visit
ation o f Reading School, October 15, 16, 17, 1827. Translated by
M r Potter (Reading).
Pressly, N ancy (1979). The Fuseli Circle in Rome: Early Romantic A rt of
the 1770’s (N ew Haven).
Prest, John (2000). ‘Balliol, for Exam ple’, in M ichael Brock and M . C.
C urthoys (eds.), The History o f the University of Oxford, vii: Nineteenth-
Century O xford (Oxford), 159-69.
Price, Cecil (1975). Theatre in the Age of Garrick (Oxford).
Prins, Yopie (1999). Victorian Sappho (Princeton).
Protopapa-M poum poulidou, G lykeria (1958). To Biarpov iv ZaKvvdw
(Athens).
Puchner, W alter (1996). ‘D ie griechische Revolution von 1821 auf dem
europaischen T heater’, Siidostforschungen, 55: 85-127.
Pullan, Brian (1989). Orphans and Foundlings in Early M odern Europe
(Reading).
Bibliography 625
Purdom , C. B. (1955). H arley Granville Barker: M an of the Theatre,
Dramatist and Scholar (London).
Purkiss, D iane (1996). The W itch in History (London and N ew York).
(1998, ed.). Three Tragedies by Renaissance Women (London).
Pye, Jam es H enry (1792). A Commentary Illustrating the Poetic o f Aristotle
(London).
Q uincey, Thom as de (1863). ‘T he Antigone of Sophocles as R epresented
on the E dinburgh Stage’, in The A rt of Conversation and Other Papers
(Edinburgh), xiii. 199-233.
Racine, Jean (1674). Iphigehie (Paris).
(1691). A thalie (Paris).
Ralph, Jam es [alias A. Prim cock] (1731). The Taste o f the Town: or, a Guide
to A ll Publick Diversions (London).
(1743). The Case o f our Present Theatrical Disputes, Fairly Stated, in
which is Contained a Succinct Account o f The Rise, Progress and Declen
sion o f the Ancient Stage (London).
Rapin, Rene (1674). Les Reflexions sur la poe'tique de ce temps et sur les
ouvrages despoetes anciens et modernes (Paris); ed. E. T . D ubois (Geneva,
1970).
Rasbotham , D om ing (1774). Codrus: A Tragedy (London).
Rauzzini, Venanzio (1783). Creusa in Delfo; a N ew Serious Opera
(London).
Rawson, Elizabeth (1969). The Spartan Tradition in European Thought
(Oxford).
Raysor, T hom as M iddleton (1936, ed.). Coleridge’s Miscellaneous C riti
cism (London).
Redford, D onald B. (1967). ‘T he L iterary M otif of the Exposed C hild’,
N umen, 14: 209-28.
Reece, R obert (1865). Prometheus; or, the M an on the Rock! A N ew
Original Extravaganza (London).
(1868a). Agamemnon and Cassandra; or, The Prophet and Loss of
Troy! A Classical Burlesque, Founded on the ‘Agam emnon’ o f AEschylus
(Liverpool).
(18686). Agamemnon and Cassandra, or The Prophet and Loss of Troy
(British L ibrary Add. M S 53067).
Reed, Isaac (1812, ed.). Biographica Dramatica, 3 vols. (London).
Rees, T erence (1964). Thespis: A Gilbert and Sullivan Enigma (London).
(1978). Theatre Lighting in the Age o f Gas (London).
Reid, Jane Davidson (1993). O xford Guide to Classical M ythology in the
A rts, 2 vols. (New York and Oxford).
R enaud, R alph E. ([1911]). ‘M ost W onderful D ancer’, in Anon. ([1911],
ed.).
R eynolds, E rnest (1936). Early Victorian Drama (Cam bridge).
626 Bibliography
Reynolds, M argaret (2000). ‘Perform ing M edea; or, W hy is M edea a
W om an?’, in Hall, M acintosh, and T aplin (2000, eds.), 119-43.
Reynolds, M atthew (2003). ‘Browning and T ranslationese’, Essays in
Criticism, 53: 97-128.
Ribeiro, Aileen (1984). The Dress Worn at Masquerades in England 1730 to
1790 (New York).
Riley, K athleen (2005). ‘Reasoning M adness: T he Reception and Per
form ance of E uripides’ Herakles' (D .Phil. thesis, Oxford).
Ristori, A. (1907). Memoirs and Artistic Studies of M adame Ristori (Condon).
Ritchie, J. Ewing (1857). The N ight Side o f London (London).
Robe, Jane (1723). The F atal Legacy: A Tragedy (London).
Roberdeau, John Peter (1804). Fugitive Prose and Verse, 2nd edn.
(London).
(1814) Thermopylae; or the Repulsed Invasion, in The N ew British
Theatre, ed. John G alt, ii (London), 251-310.
Roberts, D avid (1989). The Ladies: Female Patronage o f Restoration
Drama 1660-1700 (Oxford).
R oberts, Jennifer T olbert (1994). Athens on Trial: The Antidemocratic
Tradition in Western Thought (Princeton).
Robinson, H enry C rabb (1872). D iary, Reminiscences, and Correspondence,
ed. Thom as Sadler, 3rd edn., 2 vols. (London and N ew York).
Robortello, Francesco (1552). AloxvXov rpaytoSlai eVrd: Aeschyli tragoe-
diae septem. A Francisco Robortello . .. nunc primum ex manuscriptis libris
ab infinitis erratis expurgatae, ac suis metris restitutae (Venice).
Rogers, Priscilla Sue M arquardt (1986). ‘G reek T ragedy in the N ew York
T heatre: A H istory and Interpretation’ (Ph.D . diss., M ichigan).
Rose, Lionel (1986). The Massacre o f the Innocents: Infanticide in Britain
1800-1939. (London, Boston, and Henley).
Rosenfeld, Sybil (1960). The Theatre of the London Fairs in the Eighteenth
Century (London).
(1972-3). ‘Neo-Classical Scenery in England: A Footnote’, Theatre
Notebook, 27: 67-71.
(1978). Temples o f Thespis: Some Private Theatres and Theatricals in
England and Wales, 1700—1820 (London).
(1981). Georgian Scene Painters and Scene Painting (Cam bridge).
Rotaller, Georgius (1550). Sophoclis A ja x Flagellifer, et Antigone, ejusdem
Electra (Lyon).
R othstein, Eric (1967). Restoration Tragedy (W estport, C T).
Rowe, Nicholas (1709, ed.). The Works of M r W illiam Shakespear, 6 vols.
(London).
Rowlands, H enry (1723). M ona Antiqua Restaurata: A n Archaeological
Discourse on the Antiquities of the Isle of Anglesey, the Ancient Seat of the
British Druids (D ublin).
Bibliography 627
Row orth, W endy W assyng (1992, ed.). Angelica K auffm an: A Continental
A rtist in Georgian England (Brighton and London).
Rucellai, G iovanni (1726). L ’Oreste (Rome).
Ruskin, John (1851-3). The Stones of Venice, 3 vols. (London).
Russell, Gillian (1995). The Theatres o f W ar: Performance, Politics and
Society 1793-1815 (Oxford).
R utherford, Susan (1992). ‘T he Voice of Freedom : Im ages of the Prim a
D onna’, in G ardner and R utherford (eds.), 95—113.
R ym er, Thom as (1674). Reflections on A ristotle’s Treatise of Poesie with
Reflections on the Whole of the Ancient and M odern Poets and the Faults
N oted (London).
(1678). The Tragedies of the Last Age Consider’d and E xam in’d by the
Practice o f the Ancients and by the Common Sense of all Ages (London).
(1693). A Short View o f Tragedy, its Original, Excellency, and Cor
ruption (London).
Sadie, Stanley (1992, ed.). The New Grove Dictionary of Opera (London:
M acm illan).
St. Clair, W illiam (1998). Lord Elgin and The Marbles (Oxford and New
York).
Sala, G eorge A ugustus (1864). Robson: A Sketch (London).
Salm on, Eric (1986, ed.). Granville Barker and his Correspondents:
A Selection of Letters by him and to him (D etroit).
Salter, W . H. (1911). Essays on Two Moderns (London).
Sam brook, Jam es (1991). James Thomson, 1700—1748: A Life (Oxford).
(1993). The Eighteenth Century: The Intellectual and Cultural Context
o f English Literature 1700-1789, 2nd edn. (London and N ew York).
Sam uel, Raphael (1989, ed.). Patriotism: The M aking and Unmaking of
British National Identity, i: H istory and Politics (London and New York).
Sands, M ollie (1979). Robson o f the Olympic (London).
Saschek, E rnst (1911). Thomas Noon Talfourd als Dramatiker{ diss. L eipzig).
Sauer, Elizabeth (2002). ‘M ilton and D ryden on the R estoration stage’, in
Claude J. Sum m ers and T ed -L arry Pebw orth (eds.), Fault Lines and
Controversies in the Stud y o f Seventeenth-Century Literature, 88—110.
Saxon, A. H . (1978). The Life and A rt of Andew Ducrow (H am den, C T).
Sayer, R obert (1772). Les Metamorphoses de Melpomene (London).
Sayers, Frank (1830). Poetical Works (London).
Schiff, G ert (1973). Johann Heinrich Fii'ssli 1741-1825, 2 vols. (Zurich and
M unich).
Schlegel, A. W . von (1840). Lectures on the Drama, English translation by
John Black, 2nd edn. (London).
Schleiner, Louise (1990). ‘Latinized G reek D ram a in Shakespeare’s
W riting of H am let’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 41: 29-48.
Schoch, R. W . (2002). N ot Shakespeare: Bardolatory and Burlesque in the
Nineteenth Century (Cam bridge).
628 Bibliography
Scott, C lem ent (1892). Thirty Years at the Play (London).
Scott, M ary Jane W . (1988). James Thomson, Anglo-Scot (Athens, GA,
and London).
Scott, W alter (1808, ed.). The Works o f John Dryden, vi (London).
(1870). ‘A n Essay on the D ram a’, in The Miscellaneous Works o f S ir
W alter Scott (Edinburgh), vi. 217-395.
(1883, ed.). The Works o f John Dryden, vi, rev. and corr. G eorge
Saintsbury (Edinburgh).
Senelick, L aurence (1993). ‘Boys and G irls T ogether: Subcultural Origins
of G lam our D rag and M ale Im personation on the N ineteenth-C entury
Stage’, in Ferris (ed.), 82-5.
(1997, ed.). Tavern Singing in Early Victorian London: The Diaries of
Charles Rice fo r 1840 and 1850 (London).
Settle, Elkanah (1708). The Siege of T roy. A Tragi-Comedy, as it Has Been
Often A cted with Great Applause (London).
Seward, A nna (1811). Letters of A nna Seward, W ritten between the Years
1784 and 1807 (Edinburgh and London).
Shaftesbury, A nthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of (1711). Characteristicks
o f M en, M anners, Opinions, Times (London).
Shanley, M ary L yndon (1981-2). “ ‘One M ust Ride B ehind” : M arried
W om en’s R ights and the D ivorce A ct of 1857’, Victorian Studies, 25:
355-76.
(1989). Feminism, M arriage and the Law in Victorian England
1850-1895 (London).
Sharm a, V irendra (1979). Studies in Victorian Verse Drama (Salzburg).
Shattock, Charles H . (1958, ed.). Bulwer and M acready: A Chronicle o f the
Early Victorian Theatre (U rbana).
Shaw, G eorge B ernard (1960). M ajor Barbara, ed. D an H . Laurence
(H arm ondsw orth).
(1986). M ajor Critical Essays (H arm ondsw orth).
Shebbeare, John (1754). The M arriage A ct. Containing a Series o f Inter
esting Adventures, 2 vols. (London).
Shelley, Percy Bysshe (1820a). Prometheus Unbound: A Lyrical Drama in
Four A cts with Other Poems (London).
(18206). CEdipus Tyrannus; or, Swellfoot the Tyrant. A Tragedy
(London).
(1822). Hellas: A Lyrical Drama (London).
(1882). The Cyclops of Euripides. A Satyric Drama, Translated into
English by P. B . Shelley. Performed in the Original Greek at M agdalen
College School, Oxford (Oxford).
(1886). The Cenci: A Tragedy in Five Acts, introd. A lfred Form an
and H. Buxton Form an, prologue John T odhu nter (Shelley Society
Publications, 4th ser., M iscellaneous, 3; London).
Bibliography 629
(1920). A Philosophical View of Reform (N ow Printed fo r the First
Tim e) together with an Introduction and Appendix by R . W . Rolleston
(London).
(196S). The Complete Works o f Percy Bysshe Shelley, ed. Roger
Ingpen and W alter E. Peck, 10 vols. (London and N ew York).
(1970). The Complete Poetical Works o f Percy Bysshe Shelley, ed.
T hom as H utchinson, 2nd edn. corr. G. M . M atthew s (Oxford).
(2003). The M ajor Works, ed. Zachary Leader and M ichael O ’Neill
(Oxford).
Shepley, N. (1988). Women of Independent M ind: S t. George’s School,
Edinburgh and the Campaign for W omen’s Education 1888-1988 (E din
burgh).
Sheppard, J. T . (1920). The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles (Cam bridge).
(1927). Aeschylus fef Sophocles: Their W ork and Influence (N ew Y ork).
Sherbo, A rthu r (1957). English Sentimental Drama (East Lansing, M I).
Sheridan, Thom as (1725). The Philoctetes of Sophocles: Translated from
the Greek (D ublin).
Sherw ood, M ary M artha (1910). The Life and Times o f M rs. Sherwood
(1775—1851), from the Diaries o f Captain and M rs Sherwood, ed.
F. J. H arvey D arton (London).
Shiels, R obert (1753). Lives of the Poets of G reat-Britain and Ireland, ‘by
Theophilus Cibber’, 5 vols. (London).
Shirley, W illiam (1750). Edward the Black Prince (London).
(1759). Observations on a Pamphlet lately Published, entitled, The
Genuine and Legal Sentence Pronounced by the High Court o f Judicature
o f Portugal upon the Conspirators against the Life of his M ost F aithful
M ajesty (London).
(1762). The Rosciad of C -v-nt G-rd-n (London).
(1765). Electra, a Tragedy; and the B irth o f Hercules, a Masque
(London).
Showalter, Elaine (1977). A Literature of their Own: British Women N o v
elists from Bronte to Lessing (Princeton).
Sideris, G iannis (1976). T o ’Apxaio Oearpo cttt) N ea 'EWrfViKq EK-qvq
1817—1932 [Ancient Greek Theatre on the M odern Greek Stage
1817-1932] (Athens).
Sikes, Frank (1869). Hypermnestra; or, the Danaides. A Sensational B u r
lesque (British L ibrary Add. M S 53075 L).
Silk, M . S. (2001). ‘Aristotle, Rapin, B recht’ in 0 iv in d A ndersen and Jon
H aarberg (eds.), M aking Sense o f Aristotle (London), 173—95.
and Stern, J. P. (1981). Nietzsche on Tragedy (Cam bridge).
Sim on, Erika (1990). ‘Ion’, Lexicon Iconographicum M ythologiae Classicae
(Zurich), v/1: 702-5.
Sim pson, Eve Blantyre (1898). Robert Louis Stevenson’s Edinburgh Days
(London).
630 Bibliography
Sim pson, M ichael (1998). Closet Performances: Political Exhibitions and
Prohibition in the Dramas o f Byron and Shelley (Stanford, CA).
Sm ith, Bruce R. (1988). Ancient Scripts and M odern Experience on the
English Stage 1500-1700 (Princeton).
Sm ith, E dm und (1719). The Works o f M r Edmund Sm ith .. .T o Which is
prefix’d, A Character of M r. Sm ith, by M r. Oldisworth, 3rd edn.
(London).
(1777). Phcedra and Hippolitus (Bell’s B ritish T heatre, 10; London).
(1796). Phcedra and Hippolitus (British T heatre, 26; London).
[Sm ith, J.] (1827). ‘C reon the Patriot: A T ragedy b y . . . ’ (nam e erased,
N orw ich; B ritish L ibrary Add. M S 42890, fos. 273—314).
Sm ith, Jean, and Toynbee, A rnold (1960, eds.), Gilbert M urray: A n
Unfinished Autobiography (London).
Sm ith, John (1771). Choir Gaur; The Grand Orrery o f the Ancient Druids,
Commonly Called Stonehenge, on Salisbury Plain, Astronomically E x
plained, and M athem atically Proved to be a Temple Erected in the Earliest
Ages for Observing the Movements o f the Heavenly Bodies (Salisbury).
Snyder, Edw ard D. (1923). The Celtic R evival in English Literature (C am
bridge, M ass).
Soldene, Em ily (1897). M y Theatrical and M usical Recollections (London).
Sotheby, W illiam (1799). The Battle of the N ile (London).
(1800). Cambrian Hero, or Llewelyn the Great (Egham).
Spathes, D im itris (1986). ‘Sophocles’ Philoctetes in N . Pikkolo’s A dapta
tion: T he F irst Perform ance of an A ncient G reek T ragedy in M odern
G reek T heatre H istory’ (in Greek), reprinted in 0 Aiafaircofios
NeoeXXrjvLKo 9earpo ( The Enlightenment and the M odern Greek
k cli t o
Theatre (Thessaloniki), 145-98.

Speaight, R obert (1954). W illiam Poel and the Elizabethan Revival
(London).
Speck, W . A. (1983). Society and Literature in England 1700-60 (D ublin).
Spedding, B. J. (1869). Ino; or, the Theban Twins. A Classical Burlesque
(London).
Spencer, T erence (1954). Fair Greece, S a d Relic: Literary Philhellenism
from Shakespeare to Byron (London).
Spicer, H enry (1855). Alcestis: A Lyric Play (London).
Springarn, J. E. (1909, ed.). Critical Essays o f the Seventeenth Century
(Oxford).
Srebrny, Stefan (1984). Teatr Grecki i Polski (W arsaw).
Stafford, Fiona J. (1988). The Sublime Savage: A Stud y o f James M ac-
pherson and The Poems o f Ossian (Edinburgh).
(1994). The Last of the Race: the Growth of a M yth from M ilton to
Darwin (Oxford).
Bibliography 631
Stanley, T hom as (1655). The Clouds of Aristophanes, added not as a comi-
call divertisement fo r the reader ... but as a necessary supplement to the Life
o f Socrates, in The H istory of Philosophy (London).
(1663). Aloxvkov rpayuiSlai enra: cum . .. versione & commentario
(London).
Starr, H . W ., and H endrickson, J. R. (1966, eds.). The Complete Poems of
Thomas Gray (Oxford).
Stedm an, Jane W . (1969). Gilbert before Sullivan (London).
Stein, R ichard L. (1987). Victoria’s Year: English Literature and Culture,
1837-38 (New York and Oxford).
Steinberg, M . P. (1991). ‘T he Incidental Politics to M endelssohn’s A n
tigone’, in R. L. T odd (ed.), Mendelssohn and his W orld (Princeton),
137-57.
Steiner, G eorge (1961). The Death of Tragedy (London).
(1984). Antigones (Oxford).
Stern, B ernard H erbert (1940). The Rise of Romantic Hellenism in English
Literature 1732-1786 (M enasha, W I).
Stirling, Edw ard (1881). Old D rury Lane, 2 vols. (London).
Stockdale, Percival (1778). A n Inquiry into the N ature and Genuine Laws of
Poetry (London).
Stoker, D avid (1993). ‘G reek T ragedy with a H appy Ending: T h e P ubli
cation of R obert P otter’s T ranslations of Aeschylus, Euripides, and
Sophocles’, Studies in Bibliography, 46: 282—303.
Stokes, John (1972). Resistible Theatres: Enterprise and Experiment in the
Late Nineteenth Century (London).
Stone, Lawrence (1992). Uncertain Unions: M arriage in England,
1660-1753 (Oxford).
(1993). Broken Lives: Separation and Divorce in England, 1660-1857
(Oxford).
(1995). Road to Divorce: A History of the M aking and Breaking of
Marriage in England (Oxford and N ew York).
Stowell, Sheila (1992). A Stage of their Own: Feminist Playwrights o f the
Suffrage Era (M anchester).
Strachan, John (2000). ‘ “ T h at is T ru e Fam e” : A Few W ords about
T hom son’s Rom antic Period Popularity’, in T erry (ed.), 247—70.
Stray, C hristopher (1998). Classics Transformed: Schools, Universities, and
Society in England, 1830—1960 (Oxford).
Strom berg, Roland N. (1954). Religious Liberalism in Eighteenth-Century
England (Oxford).
Stuart, Charles Douglas, and Park, A. J. (1895). The Variety Stage
(London).
Stuart, Jam es, and Revett, Nicholas (1762). The Antiquities of Athens
M easured and Delineated (London), i.
632 Bibliography
Stukeley, W illiam (1740). Stonehenge: A Temple Restor’d to the British
Druids (London).
(1743). Abury, a Temple o f the British Druids (London).
(1763a). A Letter from D r Stukeley to M r Macpherson (London).
(17636). Palaeographia Sacra (London).
Sturm y, J. (1722). Love and D uty; or, The Distress’d Bride, 2nd edn.
(London).
Styrke, I. (1816). Euripides’s Alcestis Burlesqued (London).
Sum m ers, M ontague (1932). Dryden: The Dramatic Works, iv (London).
(1934), The Restoration Theatre (London).
Sum m erson, John (1966). Inigo Jones (H arm ondsw orth).
Sw inburne, A lgernon Charles (1865). A talanta in Calydon: A Tragedy
(London).
(1876). Erechtheus: A Tragedy (London).
(1901). A talanta in Calydon; and, Lyrical Poems, w ith an introduc
tion by W illiam Sharp (Leipzig).
T alfourd, Francis (1850). Alcestis, the Original Strong-M inded Woman:
A Classical Burlesque in One A ct (Lacy’s A cting Edition) (London).
(1857). A talanta, or the Three Golden Apples, an Original Classical
E xtravaganza (London).
(1858). Pluto and Proserpine; or, the Belle and the Pomegranate. A n
Entirely N ew and original M ythological Extravaganza o f the 0th Century
(London).
(1859). Electra in a N ew Electric Light (London).
(n.d.). Alcestis, the Original Strong-M inded Woman: a Classical B ur
lesque in One A ct, 3rd edn. (London).
T alfourd, T hom as N oon (1821). ‘W est L ondon T heatre. Revival of the
(Edipus T yrannu s’, N ew M onthly M agazine and Literary Journal, vol. 3
(1 D ecem ber), 613-15.
(1827). ‘T he D ram a’, N ew M onthly M agazine, vol. 21 (1 Novem ber),
462-5.
(1827-52). ‘T ranscripts of 19 Original L etters by Thom as N oon
T alfourd, deposited in collections in the U .S.A . Collected by W . S.
W ard’ (Reading Public L ibrary).
(1841). Speech fo r the Defendant, in the Prosecution of the Queen v.
M oxon, fo r the Publication o f Shelley’s Works (London).
(1841—54). U npublished diary, in ‘Private Personal M em oranda’
(T alfourd Collection, R eading Public Library).
(1844). Tragedies; to Which are A dded a Few Sonnets and Verses, 4th
edn. (London).
(1850a). ‘R ym er on T ragedy’, in The M odern British Essayists,
second U S A series (Philadelphia), vii. 21-8; first published in The
Retrospective Review.
Bibliography 633
(18506). ‘H azlitt’s Lectures on the D ram a’, in The M odern British
Essayists, second U SA series (Philadelphia), vii. 68-73; first published
in The Edinburgh Review.
(n.d.). ‘N ew spaper C uttings of Sir Thom as N oon T alfourd’ (scrap
book collection, R eading Public L ibrary).
(1854). ‘M r. Justice T alfourd’, obituary in The Literary Gazette and
Journal o f Belles Lettres, Science, and A rts, no. 1939 (18 M arch), 254—5
(London).
T aplin, Oliver (1997). ‘T h e C horus of M am s’, in Sandie Byrne (ed.), Tony
Harrison, Loiner (Oxford), 171-84.
T ate Gallery (1975). H enry Fuseli 1741-1825 (London).
T aylor, D. J. (1999). Thackeray (London).
T aylor, G eorge (1972). ‘ “ T he Just D elineation of the Passions” : Theories
of A cting in the Age of G arrick’, in K enneth R ichards and Peter
T hom son (eds.), Essays on the Eighteenth-Century English Stage
(London), 51-72.
(1989). Players and Performances in the Victorian Theatre (M anches
ter and N ew York).
(2000). The French Revolution and the London Stage 1789-1895
(Cam bridge).
T eignm outh, John Shore, 1st Baron (1804). Memoirs of the Life, Writings
and Correspondence of S ir W illiam Jones (London).
T erry, R ichard (2000, ed.). James Thomson: Essays fo r the Tercentenary
(Liverpool).
T hackeray, W illiam M akepeace (1846). Notes of a Journey from Cornhill to
Grand Cairo (London).
(1903). Burlesques, From Cornhill to Grand Cairo and Juvenilia
(1968). V anity Fair, edited w ith an introduction by J. I. M . Stew art
(H arm ondsw orth).
The Drama (1821-5) = The Drama; or, Theatrical Pocket M agazine,
7 vols.
T heobald, Lewis (1714). Electra: A Tragedy. Translated from Sophocles,
with Notes (London).
(1715a). The Persian Princess: or, the Royal Villain. A Tragedy
(London).
(17156). The Clouds. A Comedy. Translated from the Greek of A ris
tophanes (London).
(1715c). Plutus: or, The W orld’s Idol. A Comedy. Translated from the
Greek of Aristophanes (London).
(1715c/). Oedipus, K ing of Thebes. A Tragedy. Translated from Sopho
cles (London).
(1731). Orestes. A Dramatic Opera (London).
634 Bibliography
T heobald, Lewis (1733). The Works of Shakespeare in Seven Volumes,
Collated with the Oldest Copies, and Corrected; with Notes, Explanatory
and Critical (London).
T hom pson, R obert (1995). The Glory of the Temple and the Stage: H enry
Purcell (1659-1695) (London).
T hom son, Jam es (1735-6). Liberty (London).
(1738). Agamemnon. A Tragedy (London).
(1750). Agamemnon, ein Trauerspiel, translated by Johann David
M ichaelis (G ottingen).
(1756). Des Herrn Jacob Thomson samtliche Trauerspiele aus dem
Englischen iibersetzt, m it einer Vorrede von Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
(Leipzig).
(1771). Agamemnon, ein Trauerspiel in fiin f Aufziigen (Frankfurt and
Leipzig).
(1773). The Works o f James Thomson, vol. iii (London).
(1775). Edward and Eleonora (London).
(1780). Agamemnon, tragedie en 5 actes et en vers, traduite de I’anglais
de feu M . Thompson [sic], repre'sente'e pour la premiere fois a Paris le 18
janvier 1780 (Paris).
(1795). Edward and Eleonora (British T heatre, 26; London).
T horndike, Sibyl (1936). ‘G ilbert M urray and Some A ctors’, in J. A. K.
T hom son and A. J. T oynbee (eds.), Essays in Honour o f Gilbert M urray
(London).
(with Lewis Casson) (1960). ‘T he T heatre and G ilbert M urray’, in
Sm ith and Toynbee (eds.), 149-75.
T ickner, Lisa (1987). The Spectacle of Women: Imagery of the Suffrage
Campaign 1907—14 (London).
Tillyard, Stella (1995). Aristocrats: Caroline, Em ily, Louis and Sarah
Lennox 1740—1832 (London).
T odhunter, John (1879). Alcestis (London).
(1880). A Stud y of Shelley (London).
(1886). Helena in Troas (London).
Topouzes, K ostas (1992, ed.) SofoKXeovs (Athens).
T rap p, Joseph (1742). Lectures on Poetry Read in the Schools of N atural
Philosophy at Oxford: Translated from the Latin, W ith A dditional Notes
(London; facsimile reprint by the Scolar Press w ith Introductory N ote
by M alcolm Kensall, M enston, 1973).
T ravers, Seym our (1941). Catalogue of French Theatrical Parodies
(1789-1914) (New York).
Trevelyan, G . O. (1858). The Cambridge Dionysia: A Classic Dream
(Cam bridge).
T revor-R oper, H ugh (1988). Archbishop Laud, 3rd edn. (Basingstoke and
London).
Bibliography 635
T rew in, J. C. (1960). Benson and the Bensonians (London).
T russler, Sim on (1994). The Cambridge Illustrated History of British
Theatre (C am bridge and N ew York).
Tsigakou, Fani-M aria (1981). The Rediscovery of Greece: Travellers and
Painters of the Romantic Era (London).
T urner, Frank (1981). The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain (New
H aven and London).
(1989). ‘W hy the Greeks and not the Rom ans in V ictorian B ritain?’,
in G. W . Clarke, Rediscovering Hellenism: The Hellenic Inheritance and
the English Imagination (Cam bridge, 1989), 61-81.
T ydem an, W illiam , and Price, Steven (1996). W ilde: Salome (C am
bridge).
Uglione, R enato (1997, ed.). A tti delle giornate di studio su M edea, Torino
23—24 ottobre 1995 (T urin).
Uglow, Jenny (1997). Hogarth: A Life and a W orld (London).
Valpy, R ichard (1804). Poems, Odes, Prologues, and Epilogues, Spoken on
Public Occasions at Reading School (London).
(1814). ‘A Short Sketch of a T rip to Paris in 1788’, The Pamphleteer,
3: 189-552.
(1821). The Orestes of Euripides, as Performed at the Triennial Visit
ation o f Reading School, October 1821: Chiefly from M r. P otter’s Trans
lation (Reading).
(1826). Poems, Odes, Prologues, and Epilogues, Spoken on Public Occa
sions at Reading School (London).
(1827). The Hecuba of Euripides, Represented at the Triennial Visit
ation of Reading School. Translated by M r. Potter (Reading).
Valsa, M . (1960). Le Theatre grec moderne, de 1453 a 1900 (Berlin).
Vance, N orm an (1997). The Victorians and Ancient Rome (Oxford).
V andenhoff, G eorge (1860). Leaves from an A cto r’s Notebook (N ew York
and London).
V aughan, A nthony (1979). Born to Please: Hannah Pritchard, Actress
(London).
Veevers, Erica (1989). Images of Love and Religion: Queen Henrietta M aria
and Court Entertainments (Cam bridge).
Venn, J. A. (1954). A lum ni Cantabrigienses, Part II: 1752—1900, vi (C am
bridge).
V ernant, Jean-Pierre (1988). ‘ T he T ragic Subject: H istoricity and T ran s
historicity’, in V ernant and V idal-N aquet (1988), 237^17.
and V idal-N aquet, Pierre (1988). M yth and Tragedy in Ancient
Greece, English translation by Janet L loyd (N ew York).
Verrall, A. W . (1890a, ed.). Evpnrl8ov“Ia>v: The Ion o f Euripides (C am
bridge).
636 Bibliography
Verrall, A. W . (18906). ‘Preface’ to The Ion of Euripides: A s Arranged for
Performance (Cam bridge).
(1895). Euripides the Rationalist (Cam bridge).
Victor, Benjam in (1761). The H istory o f the Theatres of London and Dublin
from 1730 to the Present Tim e, 2 vols. (London).
(1776). Original Letters, Dramatic Pieces, and Poems, 3 vols.
(London).
V idal-N aquet, Pierre (1988). ‘O edipus in Vicenza and in Paris: Tw o
T urn ing Points in the H istory of O edipus’, in V ernant and Vidal-
N aquet (1988), 361-80.
(1995). Politics Ancient and M odern, English translation by Janet
Lloyd (Cam bridge).
Vince, R onald W . (1988). Neoclassical Theatre: A Historiographical H and
book (N ew York, W estport, C T , and London).
V incent-B uffault, A nne (1991). The H istory of Tears: Sensibility and
Sentim entality in France, English translation (Basingstoke).
Visser, Colin (1980). ‘Scenery and Technical D esign’, in R obert D. H um e
(ed.), The London Theatre W orld 1660-1800 (Carbondale, IL , and
Edwardsville, IL ), 66-118.
V oltaire, Francois M arie A rouet dit (1719). CEdipe, Tragedie (avec Lettres
e'critespar Vauteur) (Paris; repr. A m sterdam , T he Hague, and London).
Vondel, Joost van den (1666). Vondels Ifigenie in Tauren uit Euripides,
Treurspel (Am sterdam ).
W aith, Eugene M. (1971). Ideas of Greatness: Heroic Drama in England
(London).
W akefield, G ilbert (1794, ed.). Tragoediarum Delectus, 2 vols. (London).
W alkley, W . B ([1911]). ‘T he New D ancer’, in Anon. ([1911], ed.).
W alkowitz, Judith R. (2003). ‘T he “Vision of Salom e” : Cosm opolitanism
and Erotic D ancing in C entral L ondon, 1908-1918’, American Histor
ical Review, 108: 337—76.
W allace, Jennifer (1997). Shelley and Greece: Rethinking Romantic Hellen
ism (London and Basingstoke).
W alpole, H orace (1768). The M ysterious M other (Straw berry Hill).
(1937). Correspondence (Yale edn.), i-ii (New H aven and London).
W alton, J. M ichael (1987). Living Greek Theatre: A Handbook o f Classical
Performance and M odern Production (New York and London).
W ard, A. W . (1875). A H istory o f English Dramatic Literature to the Death
of Queen Anne, ii (London).
W ard, Genevieve (1881). ‘M edea’s Big Boy’, The Era Alm anack, 127—8.
and W hiting, R ichard (1918). Both Sides of the Curtain (London,
New York, T oronto, and M elbourne).
W arner, W . (1595). Menaecmi. A Pleasant and Fine Conceited Comoedie,
taken out o f the most excellent zvittie poet Plautus: Chosen purposely from
Bibliography 637
out the rest, as least harmefull, and yet most delightfull. W ritten in English
(London).
W arr, G. C. W . (1886). The Tale of Troy, and The Story of Orestes
(London).
(1900). The Oresteia o f Aeschylus, Translated and Explained
(London).
and C rane, W alter (1887). Echoes of Hellas: The Tale o f Troy and the
Story of Orestes from Homer and JEschylus ... Presented in 82 Designs by
W alter Crane (London).
W artelle, A ndre (1978). Bibliographic historique et critique d ’Eschyle et de la
trage'die grecque (Paris).
W ase, C hristopher (1649). The Electra o f Sophocles: Presented to H er
Highnesse the Lady Elisabeth; W ith an Epilogue Shewing the Parallel in
two Poems, The Return, and The Restauration. B y C .W . (T he Hague).
W atson, G eorge (1973). The English Ideology: Studies in the Language of
Victorian Politics (London).
W atts, D iana (1914). The Renaissance o f the Greek Ideal (London).
W ebb, T im othy (1977). Shelley: A Voice N o t Understood (M anchester).
(1982). English Romantic Hellenism 1700—1824 (M anchester and New
York).
W ebster, A ugusta (1868). The M edea o f Euripides, Literally Translated
into English Verse (London and Cam bridge).
(1870). Portraits, 2nd edn. (London).
(1879). A Housewife’s Opinions (London).
W eim ann, R obert (1976). Structure and Society in Literary H istory (C har
lottesville, VA).
W esley, John (1906). The Journal o f the R ev. John Wesley, ed. F. W.
M acdonald, 4 vols. (London).
W est, Francis (1984). Gilbert M urray: A Life (London, C anberra, and
New York).
W est, G ilbert (1749). Odes o f Pindar, with several other Pieces in Prose and
Verse (London).
W est, Richard (1726). Hecuba: A Tragedy (London).
W etm ore, K evin J. (2002). The Athenian Sun in an A frican S k y: M odern
A frican Adaptations of Classical Greek Tragedy (London).
W heatley, K. E. (1956). Racine and English Classicism (Austin, T X ).
W hitehead, W illiam (1754). Creusa, Queen of Athens: A Tragedy
(London).
(1777). The Roman Father (London).
(1778). Creusa, Queen o f Athens (Bell’s British T heatre, 20;London).
(1788). Plays and Poems, iii: Poems, to which arePrefixed Memoirs of
his Life and Writings by W . M ason (London).
W hitm an, A lfred (1902). Valentine Green (London).
638 Bibliography
W hitw orth, C harles (1771, ed.). The Political and Commercial Works of
that Celebrated W riter Charles D ’A venant L L .D ., 5 vols. (London).
W illiam s, E. E. (1937). ‘Athalie: T he T ragic Cycle and the T ragedy of
Joas’, Romanic Review, 36—4-5.
W illiams, loan (1970, ed.). The Criticism of Henry Fielding (London).
W illiam s, T hom as (1856). M edea: A Tragedy in Three A cts (London).
W ills, Freem an (1898). W . G. Wills, Dramatist and Painter (London, New
York, and Bombay).
W ills, W . G. (1872). M edea: A Tragedy in 3 A cts (British L ibrary Add.
M S 53110 N).
W ilson, D uncan (1987). Gilbert M urray O M , 1866—1957 (Oxford).
W ilson, John (1973). C B : A Life of S ir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (New
York).
W ilson, John H arold (1958). A ll the K ing’s Ladies: Actresses of the Restor
ation (Chicago).
W ilson, Patrick (1971). Murderess (London).
W interer, C aroline (2001). The Culture of Classicism: Ancient Greece and
Rome in American Intellectual Life, 1780—1910 (Baltim ore and London).
W inton, C alhoun (1974). ‘Sentim entalism and T heater R eform in the
Early E ighteenth C entury’, in L arry S. C ham pion (ed.), Quick Springs
o f Sense: Studies in the Eighteenth Century (Athens, GA), 97-110.
W olfram , Sybil (1987). In-Law s and Outlaws: Kinship and Marriage in
England (London and Sydney).
W ood, C hristopher (1983). Olympian Dreamers (London).
W ood, Ellen (M rs H enry) (1861). East Lynne (London).
W oodberry, G. E. (1909, ed.). The Cenci by Percy Bysshe Shelley (Boston
& London).
W oodcock, G eorge (1989). ‘T h e M eaning of Revolution in Britain,
1770-1800’, in Crossley and Small (eds.), 1-30.
W oodhouse, C. M . (1969). The Philhellenes (London).
W oods, Charles (1949). ‘Fielding’s Epilogue for T heobald’, Philological
Quarterly, 28: 419—24.
W ooler, Jack [= Frank Sikes] (1851). Jason and M edea: A Comic. Heroic.
Operatic. Burlesque-Spectacular E xtravaganza (British L ibrary Add.
M S 43036, fos. 276-307).
W oolf, Virginia (1925). ‘O n N ot Know ing G reek’, in The Common Reader
(London), cited from the 12th im pression (London, 1975).
W ordsw orth, Jonathan (1997). The Bright W ork Grows: Women Writers of
the Romantic Age (Poole).
W yndham , H enry Saxe (1906). The A nnals of Covent Garden Theatre from
1732 to 1897, 2 vols. (London).
Yeats, W . B. (1962). Selected Poetry, ed. A. N orm an Jeffares (London).
Bibliography 639
(1989). Letters to the N ew Island, ed. G. B ornstein and H . W item eyer
(New York).
Young, Sir G eorge (1862). On the History of Greek Literature in England
From the Earliest Times to the E nd of the Reign of James the First
(London and Cam bridge).
Zeitlin, From a (1996). Playing the Other: Gender and Society in Classical
Greek Literature (Chicago).
Zim bardo, Rose A. (1986). A M irror to N ature: Transformation in Drama
and Aesthetics 1660—1772 (Lexington, KY).
Index
T he index contains references to all plays and authors, ancient and post-
Renaissance, w hich occur substantially in the text and footnotes, and to all
topics w hich are the subject of com m ent. D ates of im portant individuals
are given in the index as a useful guide to their period of activity. In the
many cases w here a figure appears in several works, e.g. M edea, Oedipus,
the references are grouped as follows:
(i) u nder the nam e of the m ythical figure in general
(ii) the G reek original or originals w hich provided later authors with
inspiration
(iii) later plays, adaptations or translations in alphabetical order of play
title and then of author.
Page references in italic type are to illustrations or captions.
a Beckett, G ilbert Abott, developm ent of em otional
burlesques 383 and n. 147 range 80
A K ing and N o King, Francis styles
Beaum ont and John of Adelaide Ristori 412
Fletcher 25, 215 French, G erm an
A N ew Spirit o f the Age, Richard com pared 526-8
H engist H orne 285 naturalism 432, 539
A Philosophical View of Reform, sym bolism 432
Shelley 239 see also actors, actresses
A Plot and N o Plot, or Jacobite actors, actresses
Cruelty, John D ennis 44 Am erican, A ustralian ixx-xx
A bbey T heatre, D ublin, proposed first blind 2-3
Oedipus Tyrannus at 535—6 increasing im portance of female
A braham s, E thel 513 and n. 106 roles 79-82, 83 n. 44
Accius, version of Ion 130-2 relevance of social origins 484—5
Acharnians, A ristophanes xi sculptural m etaphor, simile 328,
Achilles, Abel Boyer 32, 34, 36, 335, 484
78-9, 79-80, 87-8 social standing 395-7, 484—5
Achilles, John Gay 105 wom en in ‘breeches’ roles 129
A ct of Settlem ent, 1701: 42, 43 n. a n d n . 8, 273, 311, 312, 342,
41, 51 353, 367-1, 385, 396; see also
Act of U nion, 1707 51 cross-dressed roles and
acting individual performers
642 Index
A ctresses’ Franchise League 514, Benjamin W est’s lost
515, 517 painting 177 and n. 62, 178
A dam & Eve (tavern), ‘classical’ Aeneid, as source of inspiration 67,
entertainm ents at 389 110, 359, 377, 385
A dam Bede, G eorge E liot 421 Aeschylus
Adams, G eorge 147, 172, 219 attem pts to introduce to British
Adams, W illiam D avenport 354 theatre 99-101
and n. 24 im pact of first English
A ddison, Joseph, see Cato translation xx, 111, 209-10
Adelphi (Adelphoe), T erence 244, and n. 104, 221
245 indictm ent for im piety 199
Adelphi T heatre influence on
antiquarian design 269 H enry Fielding xvii
burlesques in 352-3, 380, 406 Jam es T hom son 110—11
Admeto, re di Tessaglia, H andel interest in, stim ulated by
118 and n. 44, 439 n. 116 Browning 4 3 1 ,43 3,454
A dm etus (m ythical figure) perceptions of barbarians
portrayals of 456-7 in xxi—xxii
representations of 434-5, 441—2, P otter’s perception of 221
443-6, 460-1 problem of accessibility 111 and
‘A dm etus and A lcestis’, Lewis n. 26, 209
C am pbell 446-7 publicized by K ing’s College
A drastus, representations The Story of Orestes 465
of 293-300 reputation in Britain 475
Adrastus; a Tragedy, source for burlesques 359-60,
R. C. Dallas 273 n. 30 360
adultery Stanley’s editions 40, 100-1 and
aggravated, as ground for n. 4, 154
divorce 419 suitability of plays for
fascination w ith, reflected in perform ance 316-18
adaptations of Greek T heobald’s lost translations 55,
tragedy xvi 111 and n. 26
Aegeus, representation of 392 and see also individual plays
n. 5 Aesthetic m ovem ent, m ockery by
Aegisthus (TEgisthus) G ilbert and Sullivan 387
com pared w ith Francis aesthetics, m odern, significance of
Charteris 115 Lessing’s Laocoon 127
parallel w ith Crom well 165 Africa, G reek tragedy in vii n. 2
representations of 125,153, Against Celsus, Origen 149
155, 157-9, 163, 168-72, A gam em non (mythical figure)
180, 374 interest in archaeology’s ‘D eath
Aegisthus, raising the veil, discovers M ask’ 449
the body of Clytemnestra, portrayals of 107, 334, 453
Index 643
representations of 108,112-15, as She-T ragedy 78 n. 22, 112-15
169 sources 109-12
Agamemnon, Aeschylus translation into G erm an verse
B row ning’s ‘transcript’ of 433, 126
449, 451,454, 456 Agamemnon, Seneca 163
productions Agamemnon, L em ercier 125
at Balliol College 451-4, 454, Agamemnone, Alfieri 124
456, 476, 532 A jax, Sophocles
at Bradfield College 457 n. 71 C am bridge U niversity
by Cam pbell and Jenkin production 476
451-2 translations, editions
in English-speaking world anonym ous 75 and n. 19, 76
455 L atin, by Rotaller 163
at O xford 387, 455 by T hom as Johnson 154
quoted by H azlitt xvii A labaster, W illiam,
R ichard C um berland’s Roxana 117 n. 39
adm iration for 210 and n. A la n ’s W ife, Florence Bell and
104 Elizabeth Robins 518
as source of inspiration 349, 383 Albert, Prince C onsort 318, 319
Agamemnon and Cassandra; or, The A lbert M em orial, Hom eric
Prophet and Loss o f Troy, portions of frieze 475
R obert Reece, burlesque 359 A lbion’s Triumph, m asque 204
Agamemnon at Home; or, The Alcestis (m ythical figure)
Latest Particulars of that Little identified w ith Elizabeth B arrett
A ffa ir at M ycenae, Edw ard B rowning 444
N olan 373, 383—4 and n. 150 operatic tradition 441 n. 19
Agamemnon, Jam es T hom son poem s about
actresses in 80, 98 B row ning’s Balaustion’s
alterations to original 106 and Adventures 442-6
n. 19, 112-15 various 443 n. 25
attem pt to dom esticate portrayals of 436, 439, 467,
Aeschylus 99—101 485-6
and censorship 105—6 and n. 18, representations of 63, 362,
106-7, 542 434-8, 441-2, 443-6, 519-20
chorus confined to staged type of ‘distressed m other’ 63
rituals 197 Alcestis, E uripides
concept of socially responsible adaptation by G ildon 66,117-18
dram a 103 C am pbell’s reworking of 446—7
influence on C ontinent 124—7 continuing influence 72
links w ith other plays 105 expurgation at Reading
m anifesto of W hig ideals 50, School 255
102, 104-8 link w ith The W inter’s
popularity 106 and n. 20 Tale 519-20
644 Index
Alcestis, E uripides (cont.): production at St Jam es’s
productions T heatre, 1856 439-42 and
in aid of Building F un d 506 n. n. 19, 440
106, 519 and n. 128 spectacle 459
at Bradfield College 456-7 Alcestis (opera), G luck 439 and
and n. 71 n. 16, 440-1
in 1855 334, 438 Alcestis, Jam es T hom son 103, 118,
m usic for 456-7 n. 70 445
by O U D S 458-9, 485-6 Alcestis, John T odhu nter 445-6
in Q ueen’s College, 1886 457, and n. 35
458 Alcestis, Lucas 439—41, 442, 443
in R eading School 253, 255, Alcestis; the Original Strong-
261 M inded Woman: A Classical
school 455, 456n. 70 Burlesque in One A ct, Frank
in U niversity of London T alfourd
445 n. 35 burlesque 362, 373—4, 379, 381,
at W estm inster School 117 433-8 and n. 12, 437, 443
R obert B row ning’s reworking paratragic response to operatic
of 433, 446-7, 456-7 and n. tradition 438
70 popularity, revivals 436 and
source for n. 12, 459
burlesque 360, 362, 384 Aletes, representations of 139,
Charles G ildon’s Phaeton 71 140, 144, 150
Edward and Eleonora xiii, 66, Alexander the G reat, model for
116-17, 118-20 O edipus 25-6 and n. 73
M ilton 116 -17,253,446 Alexandros M avrokordatos,
suitability for perform ance by Prince xi, 266, 267 n. 8
w om en 460-1 Alexandros M orousis, Prince 265
translations, editions Alfieri, V ittorio 124-5,272-3,277,
by Francis H ubback 445 n. 35 435
by G erald W arre Cornish A lfred, Jam es T hom son 99
445 n. 45, 513 n. 106, A li Pacha; or, The Signet Ring 272
519 n. 128 Allan, M aud (1873-1956)
by M urray 519-20 allegations of sexual deviancy
Alceste, Alfieri 435, 442 548
Alceste, ou le triomphe d ’Alcide, background 548, 553 n. 90
(opera) Lully 117-18, controversial Salome 538, 548,
439 n. 16 551-3
Alcestis, H enry Spicer reception as dancer 528, 548-54,
acting of C harlotte V andenhoff 550, 552
439 Allan, T heodore 553 n. 90
G luck’s m usic 439 Allen, W oody, M ighty
‘im provem ent’ of Euripides 443 Aphrodite 197—8
Index 645
alliteration, favoured in burlesque Andromache, E uripides
365 influence 67
A lm a-Tadem a, Lawrence, and source for Charles G ildon 71
m ockery of Aesthetic translation by G ilbert M urray
m ovem ent 387, 476, 479 515
Alm eira Andromache, John Crowne 34
actresses portraying 162 Andromache M ourning the Death of
representations of 157-62 Hector, G avin H am ilton 89
A lphonso/O sm yn, representations Andromaque, Racine 67
of 157-62, 170 Anglesey (M ona)
Althea, actresses portraying 79-80 Caractacus in 184, 187-92,
A lzire, V oltaire 170 214
A lzum a, A rthu r M urphy 169-72 Row lands’ view of ancient
A m cott, Vincent, classical culture 204-5
burlesques 376, 381, 383-4 scenery in M ason’s
Am erica Caractacus 188—9
G reek tragedy in vii n. 2; see also setting for balletic version of
individual plays Caractacus 213-14
productions in T acitu s’ references to, as source
Antigone 317, 321, 336-7 for M ason 203
IT , Trojan Women 543-4 and Anglicanism , attitudes to G reek
n. 58 tragic m etaphysics 147-50
R istori’s M edea 404 A ngo-Saxon culture, see Britain,
repercussions of W ar of ancient
Independence 183-4, 186 A nthony and Cleopatra,
support for independence B urnand 386
in ‘C eltic’ Britain 184 A nthony and Cleopatra,
from W illiam M ason 190, Shakespeare 452
214 anthropology, com parative, and
use of M endelssohn’s m usic 336 understanding of Greek
vogue for M ason’s poetry 213 tragedy 202
A m herst, J. 240-1 anticlericalism
A m m ianus M arcellinus 203 and responses to W hitehead’s
Am phitryo, perform ance at Creusa 147—50
R eading School 247 shared by Francklin and
A n Inquiry into the N ature and Voltaire 220
Genuine Laws of Poetry, Antigona {opera), Francesco
R ichard Stockdale 208 Bianchi 317 and n. 4
Anderson, M ary 287 Antigone (m ythical figure)
Andria, T erence 134 costum ing of 281, 348
A ndrom ache (m ythical figure) D ennis’s view of erotic
portrayals of 79, 515 passion 91
type of ‘distressed m other’ 63 model for Evelina 187-8
646 Index
Antigone (m ythical figure) (cont.): ‘Potsdam ’ 319-21
portrayals of 82, 281, 316, 322, recitations from, at Reading
325-8, 329, 330-1, 335-6, School 253 and n. 41
348 revival at D rury Lane 331-2 and
relevance to C lytem nestra n. 41
engraving in V anity Fair role of chorus 197, 200, 453
347n. 82 Rom antic fascination w ith incest
replaced by M edea in public them e 240
taste 392—3 royal com m and perform ances
representations of 218—20, 223, 318-19
274, 294, 296, 302, 303-7, as source 173, 274, 294—5
321, 322, 331-2, 340-1 translations, editions
Antigone, Edw ard Fitzball 267, by A lexander Rangavis 336
274-5 by H olderlin 318
Antigone, G eorge M eredith 330 by Johann Jakob C hristian
Antigone, M argaret Sandbach 330 D onner 320, 321
Antigone, Sophocles Latin, by Rotaller 163
ballet included in Covent by T hom as Johnson 154
G arden production 322—3 by W illiam Bartholom ew
at Bradfield College 457 n. 71 319 n. 8, 321
burlesques of 56, 339-45, 360 travesties 336—41
in D ublin 325—7 versions w ith M endelssohn’s
exploitation of comic potential m usic
323, 337-45 archaeological accuracy 343
G erm an interest in xiv—xv, xix G erm an interest xix,
317-21 317-21
im pact 330-2 influence 198,300,317,
im portant adaptations 317, 318-19, 320, 322-25, 323,
319-20 325, 331-2, 335-6, 340-1,
inspiration for neo-classical 343, 344, 351 n. 5, 378,
painting 275 n. 38 430, 439, 441
intellectual reception of Antigone in Berlin, Adolf
327-32 G lassbrenner 339
neglect prior to nineteenth Antigone Travestie, Edw ard Lem an
century 317 Blanchard 338—41,381
overw helm ing popularity anti-sem itism , in reaction to M aud
317-18, 320 Allan 551-3
perform ance in Athens, 1867 336 Apollo, portrayals of 456-7
planned, at Bradfield College Apollo a?id Daphne, Lewis
478 Theobald 54
possibly perform ed in G reek at A pollonius Rhodius, Argonautica,
St John ’s, C am bridge as source of inspiration 344,
244 n. 2 359, 399, 424
Index 647
Appius and Virginia, John D ennis translation by T heobald 55
48 use of father—son conflicts 363
Archaeologia Britannica, Edw ard see also individual plays
L huyd 192n. 26 Aristophanes’ Apology, Robert
archaeology, classical Browning 449-51 and n. 53
increasing interest in 268—9, A ristotle
432, 449, 455, 477-8 adaptors’ choice of G reek texts
influence on Covent G arden praised by 130
Antigone 324-5 attitudes to ‘R ules’ 51-2, 52—3
A rcher, W illiam 495, 518 definition of tragedy 14-15
architecture Poetics
classical, theatrical recreation attention paid to Iphigenia
of 268-9, 269-72, 273, plays 33
277-81; see also stage D acier’s translation,
design com m entary 18, 28, 132,
ugly urban, targeted in burlesque 153-4,15 5-7,1 98,217-18
of The Birds 346-7 influence 14—15,43 n. 41
Archive of Perform ances of G reek arm y, standing, m aintenance, a
and Rom an Dram a, Oxford political concern 297-8
U niversity x A rne, T hom as (1710-78)
Areopagitica, M ilton, T hom son’s lost score for Caractacus 195-6
preface 105-6 and n. 41
Argentile and Curan, W illiam m usic for
M ason 191 n. 18 Elfrida com m issioned from
A rgentina, R istori’s perform ance 194
as M edea in 404 Oedipus, K ing of Thebes,
Argive royal family, T hom son’s 28 n. 81
concept of 112-15 The Sacrifice of Iphigenia 32
Argonautica, Apollinarius A rnold, M atthew (1822-88)
Rhodius 344,359,399,424 attitude to translation 451
Argos, setting forT alfourd’s Ion call for national theatre 432
302-3 on infanticide 422-3
Ariadne; or, The B ull!! The B ully!! inspired by
A n d the Bullion!!, V incent H elen Faucit’s A ntigone 330
A m cott 376, 381, 383-4 Sophocles viii, 330—1 and
Arion; or, the Story of a Lyre, n. 36
B urnand 366, 370, 380 Merope, form ative influences
A ristophanes viii, 331
G ilbert M urray’s study on, A rnold, Thom as, edition of
dedicated to Shaw 491-2 T hucydides 302
reception of perform ances art, artists, see visual arts and
xi-xii, xxi, 244 individual artists, works
reflection of taste for parody 55 Ashcroft, Peggy 152
648 Index
A squith, M argot, response to A ulularia, Plautus 249
M aud Allan 548-9 and n. 76, Aulus D idius, representation
553 of 187, 188, 189-90
A stley’s T heatre Aureng-Zebe, D ryden 38
D ucrow ’s ‘hippodram atic’ Aurora Leigh, Elizabeth B arrett
entertainm ents 388-9 B rowning 330
productions Australia
pro-G reek 271 actresses from xix-xx
spectacular 284 Frank Benson’s tour w ith
A talanta in Calydon, Sw inburne, Oresteia 455
sources of inspiration 331 success of Antigone in 335
A talanta, G eorge H aw trey 387 A ustria, popularity of declam atory
A talanta, or the Three Golden style of acting 424
Apples, an Original Classical authenticity, search for, in plays,
E xtravaganza 359 perform ances
A thalie, Racine, influence on dem ands of 198—9
W hitehead 132-3 and n. 21 in first British 18, 336, 457
A thena, A thene in R eading School 261—3
portrayals of 486 in stage design 268-9, 277-80,
representations of 486 326-7, 439, 463 and n. 8,
A thens 477-8
ancient in various productions 347, 361,
conceptual link w ith early 431-2, 438, 447-9 and n. 47,
B ritain 184—7 450, 451-2, 477
democracy
conflicting approaches Bacchae, Euripides
to 301-3 and nn. 64—5 as source of inspiration 91, 360,
model 50-1 and n. 53, 58 381, 383-4
idealized in The Athenian im pact on N ietzsche xv
Captive 304—7 link w ith M ajor Barbara 505-8
rem inder of slavery in 306—7 and n. 68
T heseion, inspiration for recoil from ‘pagan theology’ 147
Penshaw m onum ent 306, translation by G ilbert M urray
307 472, 494, 497-9, 551
m odern, perform ance of Bachofen, J. J. 474
Antigone in 1867 336 Baillie, Joanna, Constantine
see also British School of Palaiologos 272
Archaeology, A thens Baily, Edw ard Hodges 441 n. 18
Atherton, M ary Russell M itford B ainbridge, Beryl, According to
257 Queeney 64
Augusta, Princess of W ales, later B ajazet, Racine 162
Q ueen Dowager 120, 121, 168 Baker, Sir Richard, Chronicle of the
‘A ugustan’ principles 51—2 Kings o f England 116
Index 649
Balaustion’s Adventure, R obert oi Alcestis 445 n. 35
B rowning 442-6, 449, Beerbohm , M ax, review of
456-7 n. 70 Hippolytus, 1904 495, 549
ballet, popularization 367 Beethoven, Ludw ig von, m usic for
Balliol College, Oxford The Ruins of Athens; A
classical burlesques at 383—4 Dramatic Masque 333
production of Agamemnon Belford Regis, M ary Russell
451-4, 454, 476 M itford 251, 256, 257
Bankes (Banks), John Bell, Florence, collaboration with
as forerunner of ‘she-tragedy’ Elizabeth Robins 518
67 n. 8 Bell, W illiam Boscawen, The Queen
The Destruction of Troy 66-7, of Argos; a Tragedy in Five
78 A cts 273 n. 30
Bannister, John, m usic for Circe B ennett, L angton 225
38 Benson, Frank (1858-1939)
Barker, see G ranville Barker in Bradfield Alcestis 456—7
Barnes, Joshua, Euripidis quae as C lytem nestra 432, 453
extant omnia 71 L ondon venue for Oresteia 492
Barrett, Elizabeth, see Browning, and n. 13
Elizabeth B arrett at Lyceum T heatre under Irving
Barry, Ann, see Craw ford and T erry 454
Barry, Elizabeth 72, 79, 180 proponent of Balliol
Barry, Spranger 121—2 Agamemnon 452, 453
Barry, W . Francis 332 tour w ith Oresteia 455, 455, 476
Bartholom ew, W illiam 319 n. 8, touring com pany 476 n. 45
333-4 Bentley, R ichard 201-2 and n. 69,
Batem an, Isabel 425, 426 207
Bayley, Peter (PI778—1823) Orestes B etterton, M ary 79 and n 30
in Argos 267, 275-7, 278, 279 B etterton, Thom as 3, 71 n. 15, 72,
Baynes, M rs 448 162
Beattie, Jam es 198 Bianchi, Francesco, Antigona 317
Beaum ont and Fletcher, A K ing and n. 4
and N o K ing 25, 215; K night bible, the, conceptual links with
of the Burning Pestle 355—6 G reek dram a xxi, 132 and
Bebe et Jargon, P. A. Capelle and n. 18
P. Villiers 404 n. 48 bigamy, adultery aggravated by, as
Bedford College, London w om an’s ground for divorce
co-production of M edea 513 419
G reek plays, supported by Billing, N oel Pem berton 553
M urray and Barker 514 Birds, A ristophanes 345—7, 346
productions birth control, effect of increase in
in aid of building funds 513 inform ation about 484—5
and n. 106, 519 and n. 128 Bishop, H enry 334
650 Index
Bizet, Citizen and H. Chaussie Bourchier, A rthur 494, 495
M edee ou TH opital des Bourke, Annie 368
fous 404 n. 48 B ournem outh G irls H igh School,
Black-E yed Susan, Douglas production of Alcestis
Jerrold 314 456-7 n. 70
Blake, W illiam , engraving of Boyer, Abel (1667-1729)
Edward and Eleonora 123, 123 Achilles 32, 34, 36, 78-9
Blanchard, Edw ard Lem an Compleat French M aster 3 5
(1820-89) H uguenot background 35 and
Antigone Travestie 338 an d n . 58 n. 21
H ugenot connections 34 n. 19 R oyal Dictionary 35
not im pressed by M atilda version of Iphigenia 32, 35 and
H eron’s M edea 423 n. 23, 61, 62, 85
socio-educational background views on
372 em otional im pact of
use m ade of G reek tragedy xv Iphigenia 85
blank verse, preference for 52 ‘im provem ent’ of E uripides
Blessington, Lady 282 97
blindness, of Oedipus, ‘player that makes the poet’ 79
m etaphorical paradigm 11,13 boys, representation of females
Blunt, W ilfrid Scawen 495-6 258
Boaden, Jam es 213 Bracegirdle, A nne 71 n. 15, 79,
Boadicea the Beautiful; or, 152, 162
Harlequin Julius Caesar and B raddon, M ary Elizabeth, Lady
the Delightful Druid, B urnand A u d ley’s Secret 422
383 Bradfield College, Berks
Boadicea, R ichard G lover 94, 129 B arker’s / T a t 543, 544n. 58
Bockett, B. B. 259-60, 260 G reek plays 253, 456-7 and
Boeckh, A., classical scholar 320, n. 71, 495
431 G reek theatre 456-7 and n. 71
Bodm er, Johann Jakob, Kreusa planned Antigone 478
289 n. 27 Brahm , O tto, ‘father of
Boer W ar naturalism ’ 539
general reactions to 509—11 Brailsford, H. N. 504
M urray’s revulsion against 508 Brand, Ibsen ix
and nn. 85-6 Bransby, M r 95
Bohem e, M rs 82, 83 Brasenose College, Oxford,
Bond, W illiam 105 production of Ion 286
Bonduca, Beaum ont and Fletcher Brazil, R istori’s M edea in 404
203-1 breeches roles 129 and n. 8, 273,
Boscawen, W illiam Bell, The Queen 311, 312, 342, 353, 367-71,
of Argos: A Tragedy in Five 385, 396
A cts 273 n. 30 Bristed, Charles 348-9, 427 n. 125
Index 651
Britain, ancient, fusion of classical fascination w ith opera 52-3
and British revivalism fem inization 78-88
183-93, 202-7, 208 genres
Britannia, equation w ith M inerva burlesque, 56, 338, 350-5, 427;
333—4- see also burlesque and
British Archaeological individual plays
Association 477 dram a of sensibility 86
British Em pire historical tragedies 285-6
expansion she-tragedy invented 70-8; see
radical objections to 297-8 also she-tragedy
reflected in theatre 38-9, ‘Pageant T ragedy’ 37-8
48-9, 92 revenge tragedy 163
M urray’s equation of Athens satyr plays 236
w ith 511 sentim ental tragedies 88-92
relevance of Antigone to victim s grow ing dislike of neoclassicism
of 332 51, 52-3, 208-9, 319,
British M useum , classical 427
acquisitions 290 and n. 35 H uguenot associations 34 and
British School of Archaeology, n. 19
A thens 462 and n. 2, 478 link of aesthetic, political
British theatre preferences 14
adaptation to expansionism m anifestations of Rom antic
38-9, 48-9, 92 Hellenism 282-4
advocates of national 102-3, 432 as m edium for m oral education
attendance at burlesques 84
351-4 m id-nineteenth-century absence
basic m ovem ents in presentation of serious, classical dram a
of G reek tragedy xviii 351
cam paign for repeal of Theatrical patriotism 266
Patents Act 416 as political propaganda 42, 239
censorship in, see censorship P uritan O rdinance banning
cult of tears 81 stage plays, 1642 163
dom inance of W hig ideals 40, 164-5, 244
41-9, 50-4, 58-9, 282^1 recoil from R estoration
and em ergence of journalism 61 excesses 70
em phasis m oved from passion to reflections of colonial destiny
com passion 83—8 38-9, 48-9
experim ents reopened after R estoration 165
w ith form , aesthetics 61—2 response to
w ith unadapted anxieties about succession,
perform ance 427 Jacobitism xvi, 43—4,
‘fairground’ 339, 371, 388-9, 44—5, 139, 148; see also
390 m onarchy
652 Index
B ritish theatre (cont.): inspired by Covent G arden
G reek W ar of Independence Antigone 330
270-2 Wine o f Cyprus 85
retreat from continental culture Browning, R obert (1812-89)
5 51—4- A ristophanes ’ Apology 440—51
rom antic engagem ent with and n. 53
B ritish history 124 attitude to translation 451
technological advances 277—80 Balaustion’s Adventure 442-6,
types of tragic heroines 62—3 449, 456-7 n. 70
unpopularity of declam atory at Balliol College Agamemnon
style of acting 424 454
use of chorus, see chorus classical scholarship 446-7 and
w idespread adaptations of plots n. 39
53—4- early career in the theatre
see also spectacle; stage design; 44 3 n. 27
theatres (buildings) Euripides a source of
Britons at Navarino, H. M . M ilner inspiration 330, 442-3
271 at first night of Ion 282, 286
Brooke, H enry, Gustavus Vasa 106 influence of Ion 286
Brookfield, Charles E., Exam iner reworking of classics 433,446—7,
of Plays 531-2 n. 22 456 and n. 70
Brough, R obert (1828-60) source for T o d h u n ter’s Alcestis
instructions to actors 438 445
M edea; The Best of M others, with style of T alfourd and,
a Brute o f a Husband com pared 308 n. 7
408-15, 436 The Ring and the Book 330
radicalism 372 Bruce, W . N ., as A gam em non 452,
The Siege o f Troy 351-2,352, 453
358-9 Brum oy, Pierre (1688-1742)
Brough, W illiam , burlesques 372, Le Theatre des Grecs 172, 200,
383 219, 247
Brougham , L ord, 229-30, 395, 468 perception of O edipus 219, 220
and n. 18 perturbed by sentim ents in
Brown, John 202 Electra 179
Browning, Elizabeth B arrett B rutus, projected, by Alexander
(1806-61) Pope 190 and n. 15
association w ith M ary Russell Buchanan, George, works 111-12,
M itford 256 117
A urora Leigh 330 Buckley, T heodore Alois 432, 433
on E lectra 182 Buckstone, John 361, 370
Field T alfourd’s portrait 287 Bulley, Frederick 255
identification w ith Alcestis 444 Bullock, M rs 82
Index 653
Bulwer (Bulw er-Lytton), Edward inspiration from G reek tragedy
(1831-91) 358-3
association w ith T alfourd 291, long tradition, influences on
308 n. 79 355-7
classical A thens seen as m odel m edium of doggerel rhym ing
for national theatre 102 verse 365
criticism of censorship 314 m ingling of Shakespearean,
history of A thens 301 G reek elem ents 56
proponent of heroic tragedy 436 m ock-erudite tone 377—8
proposal for Oedipus Tyrannus m usical com ponents 345—7,356,
332-3 366-71 and n. 76
reaction against elite control of neglected by scholars 354—5
classics 291 on other than classical them es
on suitability of G reek tragedy 383 n. 148
for perform ance 316-17 Planche’s concept of 343, 347,
The Last Days of Pompeii 296 355 and n. 28, 477
and n. 50, 314 popularity in elitist contexts
B unbury, Lady Sarah (nee 383-5
Lennox) 89, 130 and n. 11 productions of Sophocles’
B urdett, Sir Francis 229-30 Electra 152
Burke, E dm und 231 proliferation 351-4
burlesque radicalism criticized in 373
adverse views of 385—6 replication of ancient stage
am bivalent position on women conventions 378
374 routines borrow ed from circus,
contem porary detail in ancient sport, fairgrounds 339, 371,
setting 379-82 388-9, 390
costum e for 357-8 search for authenticity 477
creation of genre 55 as self-definition 379-82
as cultural appreciation 377-9 self-m ockery 365—6
developed for political ends sem i-serious instruction in
491-2 m ythology 378
distancing from social seriousness attached to 410,
im plications 383 436
elem ents, in Vanity Fair 348 socio-educational background of
and extravaganza 343, 355 and authors 371—7
n. 28 spectacle in 366, 370—1
im plicit politics 105, 348—9 transcendence of class barriers
im portance xviii, 390, 410, 413, 350-5, 390, 436, 438
430-1, 436, 438 travesty a sub-category of 3 39-40
im portant dance routines 367 and V ictorian taste for comedy
inaccessibility 354—5 382-8
654 Index
burlettas Calkin, M iss E. 513 n. 106
defined 355 and n. 27 Calvert, Louis 503
of Kane O ’H ara 56—8 Cambrian Hero, or Llewelyn the
see also burlesque Great, W illiam Sotheby
Burn, R obert 469 213-14
B urnand, Francis C. (1836-1917) C am bridge Ritualists 497, 507
adm iration for R obson 412 C am bridge U niversity
burlesques 357, 358, 359, 364, A m ateur D ram atic Club 410
366, 371, 377, 383 B urnand’s attem pt to stage
reviews for Punch 459 burlesques at 375-6
socio-educational background early productions in 8
372,410, 431 G reek plays, 7-8, 32 n. 6, 151,
B urne-Jones, E dw ard 441 n. 18, 262-3, 391, 438, 457, 476,
443 n. 25, 453 478, 486, 529, 534, 538
Burnell, H enry 40 Cambro-Britons, Jam es Boaden
Burton, Frederick 327, 329 213
Busins, Edw ard Young 42 Cam pbell, Frances Pitt 431-2, 448
Bute, John Stuart, third E arl of Cam pbell, Lewis (1830-1908)
167-72 association w ith Jow ett 451-2
B utler, Sam uel 286 and n. 17 influential translations 448, 456,
Byron, H enry xv, 363, 372 473 and n. 37, 513n. 106
Byron, L ord (1788-1824) on links between Euripides and
concept of ‘fascination’ shared Ibsen 490
w ith T alfourd 295 and n. 47 perform ance as A nthony 452
im pact of classical antiquities productions of authentic Greek
on 290 n. 35 tragedy 431-2, 447-9,
influence of M ason 211 451-2
influence on V ictorian rew orking of E uripides’
burlesque 356-7 Alcestis 446-7
Orpheus, L atin puns 364—5 C am pbell-Bannerm an, H enry,
parodic verse on M edea 356 ‘M ethods of B arbarism ’
philhellenism 267, 292 speech 509-10 and n. 90
‘T ranslation of T he N urse’s Capelle, P. A. and P. Villiers, Bebe
Dole in the M edea of et Jargon 404 n. 48
E uripides’ 400 n. 35 C aractacan Society 213
Caractacus
Qa ira, echoes of 238 equation w ith A m erican rebels
Caesar, Julius 202n. 75, 203 184
Caius Gracchus, Jam es Knowles representation of 187-9
284 Caractacus, W illiam M ason
Calcraft, John 326-7, 334-5 ancient G reek tragedy the model
Caleb Williams, W illiam G odw in for xiii, xv, 184, 186
227 appeal in Am erica 214
Index 655
artworks inspired by 184, 185 representations of 474
balletic version, 1808 213-14 Casson, Lewis 262 n. 5, 514
conjunction of political, aesthetic Catholic Em ancipation Act,
aspects 184—6 1829 284
consequences, im pact 209-14 Catiline, Ben Jonson 196
depth, ethical com plexity Cato, Joseph Addison
189-90, 208-9, 214 actors in 308
druidical lore 206-7 dependence on R om an history
m usic for 194—6 41, 134, 184
significance in debate over m anifesto of W higgism 308
chorus 184 ,19 6-8,2 01,225 perform ed at Reading
sources 184 School 249
success 209 n. 101, 211, 216 regular revivals 308
them e 184 T alfourd’s debt to 308
title-page 186 Caulfield, T hom as 186
translation into other languages Celsus 149
213, 225 Celtic revival, M ason’s influence
Caractacus, Elgar 195-6 on, 213; see also Britain,
Caractacus being Paraded Before the ancient; druids
Emperor Claudius, Thom as censorship
Davidson 185 Advisory Board on, m em bers
Carlise, Earl of 504 537-8 and n. 43
Carlisle, Countess of 504 in B ritish theatre
Carloni, ‘T he Public Entry of the challenges to 105-6 and nn.
Q ueen into Jerusalem ’ 231 18-19, 112-15, 167,
Caroline, Q ueen (wife of 314-15, 528-34, 541-2,
G eorge II) 104, 107 554
Caroline, Q ueen (wife of consequences 355 and n. 26
G eorge IV) 229-33, 229, 238, periods of xiii, 6, 99, 102—4
284; see also Oedipus Tyrannus, an d n . 13, 314-15, 528-34
or Swellfoot the Tyrant significance of precedent 532
C arter, H u bert 514 in Ireland 535, 536
C arter, H untly 553-4 see also individual plays
Casaubon, Isaac 35 C hannel Islands, link w ith Reading
Case, Janet, acclaimed Electra 182, School 247
457, 486 C hannel T unnel, dream of 347,
Cassius Dio, w ritings searched for 381-2
druidical lore 203, 207 Characteristicks, Earl of
Cassandra (m ythical figure) Shaftesbury 52
com pared w ith M other Shipton Charles I 9-10, 163-4, 165
115 Charles II
portrayals of 98, 110-11, 463, response of dram atists to 25-9,
467, 482-3, 515 44, 48
656 Index
Charles II (cont.): debate over 184, 196-8,
rew ard of Stanley 101 198-202, 225-6
support for G reek visitors 38 druidical, popularity 213
W ase’s celebration of druids in M ason’s Caractacus
R estoration 165 conflated w ith 188-9
C hartists 299 hostility to 197
C haussier, H . w ith Citizen Bizet, interrogatory, subversive,
M edee ou I’H opital des fous dissenting potential 217,
404 n. 48 233-9
C henier, M arie-Joseph, laughable
representation of O edipus in N ew York Antigone 337
226, 239 Punch’s depiction of 377-8
C herubini M ason’s contribution to
M edee 404 appreciation of 188-9,
parodies of M edee, 404 and n. 48 207-9, 217, 225, 233
representation of Iphigenia 62 P otter’s representation of 221
C hesterfield, L ord 172-3 as purveyor of m orality 199
children rehearsals for The Story of
custody of Orestes 465 and n. 11
conditions for aw ard to replaced by heckling crowd 26
m other 416, 420, 435 repudiation by D ennis 155
severity of English law 290, revival, politicized 207—9, 239
394-5, 409 selection for physical attributes
em otive use of, in ‘she-tragedy’ 485
71, 72, 85 separation from actors 453
see also infanticide study of role xix
C hina, tragic traditions com pared survival in oratorio 197
with Sophocles 202 theories about origins 205-6
chorus use
abandonm ent advocated by Rym er 16
in Stanm ore School 197, in Antigone 322, 323, 343,
225-6, 262 378, 439 and n. 15
substitution in The M ourning in Antigone Travestie 340,
Bride 161 341, 344-5
supported by D ryden 16, 26 in Barker’s productions 526,
until m odern tim es 197-8 and 543
nn. 47-8 in Balliol Agamemnon 453
absent from W hitehead’s in British theatre, early
Oedipus 191 n. 18 examples 196-7 and n. 42
Aeschylean, acceptability 209 in burlesque 341-2, 378-9,
class profile 199-200 398
condem nations of 209 and by Clark 240
n. 100, 210 in Elfrida 194
Index 657
in French revolutionary love interest 38, 39
O edipus 217 m usic for 38, 41
by M aurice 234, 266 tragic ending 54
in ‘M endelssohn’ Antigone circus
439 routines borrow ed from , in
by M ilton 12-13, 197 burlesque 371
in M urray’s Hippolytus 496 working-class access to classical
and n. 29 m yth, history
in Poel/M urray Bacchae 551 through 388-9, 390
in R acine’s A thalie 133 civil war
in R eading School conceptual link w ith incest,
productions 250, 262 intra-fam ilian conflicts 9,
in R einhardt’s Oedipus R ex 12
524, 526, 539-40 regicide and, fear of 26
retreat from , revival 554 Clairon, Claire 152, 173^1, 175
by Shelley 233-4, 236-9, 267 and n. 57
in Spicer’s Alcestis 439 Clancy, M ichael 2-3
in T odh u nter’s Helena in clandestine m arriage, see m arriage
Troas 458 Clark, G eorge Som ers 240
C hrist C hurch, Oxford, Clark, John W illis 438
perform ance of Tragedie of class, social
Orestes 163 divisions
C hristianity, and G reek religion augm ented by education in
147-50, 310-11, 329-30 classics 350, 374—7
C hristopherson, John, Jephtha explored in W hitehead’s
32 n. 8 Creusa 142—3
Chudleigh, Elizabeth 30, 31 transcended by classical
Cibber, Susannah M aria 94, burlesque 350—5
110-11 relevance
Cibber, T heophilus 108,111 to access to classical m yth,
Cicero, On Divination 149 history 350-1, 363-4,
Circe, Charles D avenant 388-90
absence of jingoism , W hig to attitudes to
ideals 39 40 infancticide 518—19
adaptation of I T 36 to m arriage of George
appeal to w om en 78 W arr 472 and n. 32
characteristics, significance to reception of D orothy
37-41, 49 Dene 484
D ryden’s prologue 37 see also social status
exotic setting 38-9 classical archaeology, see
influence of G reek tragedy xv, archaeology
xvi, 55 n. 72 Classical Journal, edited by
influence on T heobald 58-9 A braham John Valpy 248
658 Index
classics, culture com parison w ith Catherine
accessibility 350-1, 363-4, 388-90 Hayes 115
appropriation through engravings, paintings of
burlesque 377-89 347 n. 82, 349,453 and n. 64,
changing pattern of 465
patronage 290 exculpation of m urderer of
link w ith perform ance history xx 92 n. 82
new fashion for academic exculpation of 108, 109—10
productions of G reek figure representing, in A lzum a
plays 387-8,431-3 171-2
relative interest in Roman, identification w ith Queen
G reek models 66 and n. 7 Caroline 107
classics, education and scholarship perceptions of xxi—xxii, 55 n. 72,
class divisions augm ented by 111
350, 374-7 portrayals of 79-80, 125, 334,
effect of changes in curriculum 369, 432, 453, 515
431-2 representations of 109, 112-15,
gulf betw een universities and 125, 153, 155, 157-9, 163,
theatre 375-6 168, 176, 179, 363
in background of burlesque Clytemnestre, A lexandre Soum et
authors 371-7 275
in eighteenth-century Scotland C obbett, W illiam 298, 302
111-12 Cobden Club 469
in nineteenth century 354 C oburg T heatre, pro-G reek
past and future x, xxi—xxii dram as 270—2, 273 n. 31
reaction against elite control of Codrus, D om ing R asbotham 50-2
291 and n. 59
significance of perform ance C ogniard, G range and Bourdois,
history of Trojan Women La Medee en Nanterre 405-6
510-11 C olchester School 228
targeted by burlesques 383—5 Colem an, John 327
and n. 153 Coleridge, M ary 489, 499-500
translation out of ancient Coleridge, Sam uel T aylor 179
languages xiv Collier, Jerem y
C lem ent of Alexandria, A Short View of the Immorality
Exhortation to the Greeks 149 and Profaneness o f the
Cleon 302 English Stage 70
clergy, classical influences on xvii opposed by D ennis 79
Clouds, A ristophanes Collier, John 453 and n. 64
burlesque of 55, 384—5 Collins, W ilkie, The Woman in
Stanley’s translation 40, 101 and W hite 422
n. 4 Collins, W illiam 193
C lytem nestra (m ythical figure) Colm an, G eorge (1732-94)
Index 659
co-author of The Clandestine see also individual nations,
M arriage 141-2 authors, and plays
staging of M ason’s plays at Cooper, Frederick Fox, Ion
Covent G arden 194—6 Travestie 286 and n. 14, 302,
The Sun Poker, inspiration for 338, 339
Olympic Revels 357 Cooper, Jam es Fenim ore, The Last
colonialism, colonial rule, response o f the Mohicans 296
of B ritish theatre 38-9, 48-9, Cooper, John 211
183-4; see also Caractacus C opyright A ct (‘T alfourd’s A ct’),
Com edie-Frangaise 1842 290
regular appearances of Coram , Thom as 135, 136, 137
O edipus 5, 218 C oriolanus, portrayal of 282
productions in R om an theatre at Coriolanus, Shakespeare
Orange 125,477 conceptual link w ith T hebes xxi
see also M ounet-Sully and significance of 1811 set design 269
individual plays Coriolanus, The Invader o f his
com passion, arousal in Country, John D ennis 44
spectactors 83-8 Cork and O rrery, Earl of 172
confidants, in The M ourning Bride, C orn Laws, opposition m eetings in
choral substitutes 161 Covent G arden T heatre 300
Congreve, W illiam (1670-1720) Corneille, Pierre (1606—84)
accused of plagiarism 162 English response to 15,33
influence of Sophocles’ English translations 83
Electra 153, 157-62 Jam es T hom son com pared
response to D acier 157—62 w ith 126
conservatism , aesthetic, in perception of O edipus 217, 218
Victorian age 373, 377 view of chorus in M edea 199-200
C onstantine I 11,12 see also individual plays
Constantine Palaiologos, Joanna Cornish, G erald W arre 513 n. 106,
Baillie 272 519 n. 128
C onstantinople, fall of 272 corsetry, liberation from 549
C onstantius C hlorus 1, 12 costum e
C ontinent acclaimed, in Helena in Troas
educational perform ances of 477-8
classical dram a 243-4 ancient
genre of adapted Greek in Arion 380
tragedies 272—3 for Balliol College
m any nineteenth-century Agamemnon 453
productions of carefully researched by
Antigone 317-18 Jenkin 449, 450
responses to G reek W ar of in C ovent G arden Antigone
Independence 267 324
660 Index
costum e (cont.): funding of Helena in Troas 459
ancient (cont.)'. response to M aud Allan 549
D avid G arrick’s interest in roles 453, 456-7, 532
128 n. 3, 174 and n. 55, versions of Oedipus Tyrannus
195, 225 532, 536
for Electric in a N ew Electric Covent G arden T heatre
Light, authenticity 361 capacity 417
for ‘M endelssohn’ Antigone, contribution of M acready
praise for 478-9 299-300
in O xford G reek plays 460 daring productions at 30—2
for productions of Electra m eetings to oppose C orn Laws
174-5 in 300
in R eading School’s new (1809)
perform ances 259, 261-2 architecture 268-9 and n. 13,
for Stanm ore School 277
productions 225 K em ble’s inaugural address
im pact of Les Ballets Russes 546 269
influence of Charles K em ble 280 opening, 1809 269-70
liberating 549-51 pantom im es 351-2
notable, in O U D S Alcestis patriotic pageant, 1798 xiii,
458-9 166n. 27
in Planche’s burlesque of The productions, see under individual
Birds 345—7 plays
revealing, responses to 30-2, survival in eighteenth century
31, 280-1 and n. 48, 367 104
R istori’s, as M edea 403, 404 Craig, Edw ard H enry G ordon 487,
study of xix, 280, 3n. 106 544, 545 n. 62
Costumes o f the Ancients, Thom as Crane, M ary 484
H ope 280 Crane, W alter (1845-1915)
Cotes, Sam uel 176 and n. 61 association with
C ourt T heatre (also Royal C ourt D orothy Dene 484
T heatre) G eorge W arr 463—4, 469-70
partnership of Barker and and n. 25, 471, 482, 486
V edrenne at 496 Craw ford, A nn (Ann Barry) 65,
productions at 74, 81, 122, 152
of G ilbert M urray’s C reon (mythical figure)
translations 431,492, portrayals of 295, 337, 340
494-5, 496 representations of 218-20, 223,
of Shaw ’s plays 494—5 274, 294, 296, 303-7, 321,
see also individual plays 322, 340-41, 406, 425-6
C ourtney, W . L. (1850—1928) Creusa
em endations of M urray’s brother-sister bond w ith
Oedipus 539 H yllus 304
Index 661
em otional range dem anded of contribution to spectacle in
actress 80 burlesques 370
identification w ith m others of exploited in ‘A delphi
foundling children 137 Scream ers’ 352-3
m oral dim ension 88, 95 females played by boys,
need for exculpation of 96-7 m en 268, 369 and n. 86,
portrayals of 129 and n. 7, 131 374, 385, 388
representations of 87, 88, 95, L ondon scandal of 1869-70 70,
140-7, 400-1, 406, 414, 424 452
type of ‘distressed m other’ 63 popularity in burlesques 362,
see also Kreusa 367-9, 385
Creusa in Delfo, Venazio Rauzzini prohibited in Oxford
151 U niversity 452, 458, 485-6
Creusa, Queen o f Athens, W illiam relative to status of actresses
W hitehead 396-7
actresses in 80, 89, 129 study of xix
anti-C atholicism 148 success of ‘breeches’ roles 129n.
departure from original Ion 132 8, 273, 311, 312, 342, 353,
em otional tenor 129 367-71, 385, 396
fear of Jacobites echoed in 139, Crowne, John
144 influence of Aeschylus on 101
im plications of social status works 34, 67, 101
explored 142-3 cruelty, adultery aggravated by, as
and interest in clandestine w om an’s ground for divorce
m arriage 140-7 419
perhaps known to T alfourd C um berland, R ichard 135, 210
289 n. 26 and n. 104
popularity 129-30 and n. 6 Curse of M inerva, L ord Byron 292
Racine’s A thalie com pared 133 C ushm an, C harlotte 311, 312, 326
reflection of concerns about fate Cusins, A dolphus 503, 504, 505—8
of foundlings 138-9 custody, see children
religious (irreligious) Cyclops, Euripides, translations, by
dim ension 147-50 Shelley 234
‘she-tragedy’ 66, 95
significance xv, 128, 129 n. 7, D acier, A ndre (1651-1722)
130, 132-4 com m entary on Poetics 18, 28,
Creiise I’Athenienne, Lacoste’s 132, 153-4, 155-7, 198,
opera 132, 133-1, 151 217-18
Crom well, Oliver, Aegisthus C ongreve’s response to 157—62
paralleled w ith 165 defence of chorus 198,199—200
cross-dressed roles influence 217-19
association of M aud Allan m isgivings concerning
w ith 553 m atricide 159n. 13, 178
662 Index
D acier, A ndre (1651-1722) (cont.): Davies, Revd Syned 190
perception of O edipus 217, 218 Davies, VeryRevd Rowland 38n.29
Protestant background 35 Davison, Em ily 513 and n. 106
translations of Sophocles 28, 75, Dawson, Douglas 533
153—4-, 155-7 Dear O ld Charlie, Charles E.
Dacier, A nne 35 Brookfield 531-2 n. 22
Dali, Nicholas 188-9 D eath, E uripidean figure of,
Dallas, R. C . , A Tragedy 273n. 30 influence 117 and n. 39
Dalton, R ichard 134—5 D eclaration of Independence,
Dalzel, A ndrew xvi 1776 184-5
dance Defoe, Daniel 110
craze in England 548—9 and n. 77 D eianira, type of distressed
devaluation 528 m other 65-6
im pact of Les Ballets Russes 546 Delap, John (1725-1812) 64—6 and
im portance n. 3, 90, 188 and n. 7
in burlesque 367, 370 Delectus sententiarum Graecorum,
G ordon C raig’s concept of R ichard Valpy 247
544 Delphi, D elphic oracles
stressed by R einhardt 528 alleged fraudulent nature
influence of 149-50 a n d n . 51, 150-1
Isadora D uncan 544—8 as prototype of Foundling
M aud Allan 548-54 Hospital 135, 138, 149
in travesties, fashion for 367 democracy
Daniel, Sam uel, The Tragedie of A thenian, conflicting approaches
Cleopatra 196 to 301-3 and nn. 64—5,
D ’A nnuncio, G abriele, La cittd 306-7
morta 532 n. 22 dom inant them e in T alfourd’s
danseuse en travesti, fashion for 367 works 314
Darius, K ing of Persia, John m unicipal, introduction in
Crow ne 101 Britain 298
Darley, G eorge 310 and n. 84 parallels betw een ancient,
D arter, W illiam 250-1 m odern 50 and n. 53, 59
Das Goldene VliefS, see G rillparzer Demofoonte, M etastasio 273
D ’Aubignac, A bbe de 15 and n. 42 D ene, D orothy (1859-99) 463 and
Davenant, Charles (1656-1714) n. 5, 467, 482-4 and n. 70
xvi, 36-7, 37-8, 39, 40, 48, 60, D enm an, L ord C hief Justice 282
61; see also Circe D ennis, John (1657-1734)
Davenant, W illiam 36-7, 38 adaptation of I T 36
David, Jacques-L ouis 275 and anti-C atholicism 51
n. 38, 301 anti-Jacobitism 44—5
D avidson, T hom as, Caractacus concept of com passion 83-4
being Paraded Before the and contiguity of political, poetic
Emperor Claudius 185 freedom 52-3
Index 663
debt to Racine 48 Die Jahreszeiten, H aydn 99
dislike of C ontinental opera 53 D iodorus 204—5
on erotic love in G reek tragedy Diogenes L aertius 203
91 D ionysus
Francophobia 33—4, 51, 52-3 cult of, echoes of, in Salvation
on nature and function of dram a A rm y 499-505
62, 155 representations of 497-9, 502,
projected interpretation of 505-8
Phaedra m yth 88 n. 65 Dirce; or, The F atal Urn 273-4,
radical W higgism 45-9, 61 281
rejection of supernatural distressed m other, see she-tragedy
causation 48 divorce
repudiation of chorus 155 inauguration of Royal
T alfourd’s essay on 287 n. 24 Com m ission, 1850 399
The Grounds o f Criticism in law regulating
Poetry 52 assault added to grounds for
use m ade of G reek tragedy xv, 427
60, 61, 72 attem pts to reform 395
on w om en in the theatre 79 based on canon law 394
Description o f Greece, Pausanias 65 debate over 398, 401-2, 408-9
deviant behaviour, in G reek a n d n . 57,415-16,
tragedy, censored in 417-18, 425, 435-6
burlesque, 385; see also incest; unequal rights of wom en 418,
infanticide; sexual deviancy 419-20
D evrient, Edw ard 430, 433 see also D ivorce and
Diaghilev 546 M atrim onial Causes Act;
Diana Preparing fo r the Chase, m arriage
Tableau V ivant 390 D ivorce and M atrim onial Causes
Dickens, Charles (1812-70) Act, 1857 140, 381, 401-2,
adm iration for R obson’s M edea 415-16 and n. 78, 419-20,
412-13 425-6
antipathy to Greek, R om an D obbs, J., Petraki Germano; or,
classics 351, 375 A lm anzar the Traitor 271
association w ith T alfourd 287, Dobree, Peter Paul, Euripidean
290 scholar 251, 262
at first night of Ion 282 Dolce, Ludovico x
social concerns 351,354 D om inique and Biancolelli,
Dickinson, W illoughby 512 La M echante Femme
Dido, B urnand 359, 377, 385 404 n. 48
Die B raut von Messina, Schiller Don Carlos, Otw ay 38
196 n. 42 Don Juan, L ord Byron 356—7
Die Hermannschlacht, D onner, Johann Jakob
K lopstock 213 C hristian 320
664 Index
D orset G arden T heatre debt to Sophocles 21—4
D avenant associations 37 D ennis’s adm iration for 45
forestage 17-18 Essay on Dramatic Poesie 15,
perform ance spaces 17 22, 27
scenic innovations 7, 14 fascination w ith deviant
Douglas, L ord A lfred 553 sexuality xvi
D ouglass, John 417 im portance xv
Dover Beach, M atthew A rnold influences on 14-17, 20, 22,
330n. 36 66-7
Dramatic Literature, Schlegel 326 introduction of love interest 38
druids pro-classical stance 22
adm iration for resistance to reworking of Shakespeare 17,
Rome 190 and n. 15 20-1
astronom ical lore 206 source for The M ourning Bride
com bination w ith G reek 162
interests 192-3 and nn. writings on nature and function
25-6 of dram a 62
eighteenth-century craze for D u R oullet, M arie-Frangois-L ouis
192-3 and nn. 25-6, 202-7 G and L eblanc 439
G rand Lodge of the O rder of D ublin
D ruids 213 burlesques perform ed in 359
revivalism , and M ason’s pro-G reek dram as 272
Caractacus 184-6, 188-9, see also A bbey T heatre and
198-202 individual plays
theories on ritual of choral Ducrow , A ndrew 284, 388-9
singing 205 D uke’s theatrical com pany 14, 37
D rury Lane T heatre D uncan, A ugustin 546
capacity 417 D uncan, Isadora 544—8 and nn. 62,
enlargem ent by K em ble 268-9 65, 67
pantom im es 338, 351-2, 375 D uncan, Raym ond 545 n. 66
pro-G reek dram as 271-2 D uncan, W illiam 203 n. 72
productions, see under individual D uncom be, W illiam, Junius
plays Brutus 105
scenic innovations 7, 17, 269, D urham , John L am bton, first Earl
277-80 of 306, 307
survival in eighteenth century D utch, translations into 41 and
104 n. 37
D ryden, John (1631-1700)
ancient and m odern sources E arthly Paradise, W illiam
acknowledged 21—2 M orris 443 n. 25
collaboration w ith East Lynne, Ellen W ood 422
Lee, 17 and n. 47 Echoes of Hellas, George W arr 470
W illiam D avenant 37 and n. 28
Index 665
E dinburgh recoil from Sophocles’ depiction
governm ent’s response to of 178-9
Porteous Riots 105 representations of 157,163,
H elen F aucit’s Antigone in 326, 178-82, 361 and n. 49
327-8 Electra, C hristopher W ase 40,
new theatre, 1773 193 163-5, 164
E dinburgh U niversity, Electra, E uripides
perform ances of authentic scant attention paid to 61, 152
G reek tragedy 431, source for T alfourd’s The
448 Athenian Captive 305
E dw ard I 116 translation by G ilbert M urray
E dw ard V II 548 511
Edward and Eleonora, Jam es Electra, Sophocles
T hom son aesthetic exem plar 152-62
actresses in 82 appreciation by wom en w riters
censorship of xiii, 99, 103, 182
106-7, 120-1 conceptual link w ith H am let xxi
deviation from E uripides’ 155, 159
Alcestis 120—1 first attem pt to stage 166
emotive, sentim ental Frank T alfourd’s burlesque of
dram a 116—20 374
frontispiece 119 herald of fem inism 182
political ideals, parallels in 102, influence on Congreve 153,161-2
120-1, 122 link w ith Oedipus Tyrannus
popularity, revivals 121-4 and 153-4, 162
n. 52 m orality of m atricide
‘she-tragedy’ 66 questioned, justified 155,
sources 66, 116-17, 118-20 159 and n. 13
Edward the Black Prince, W illiam paintings of Benjam in W est 46
Shirley xiii, 166-7 and n. 27 as political m anifesto 162—72
Egisthus, see Aegisthus productions
Egypt, ancient, fashion for settings costum es 174—5
based on 61 first B ritish, 1883 182
E lectra (m ythical figure) at G irton College, 1883 18,
brother-sister bond with 336, 457
Pylades 304 in aid of Building Fund
costum ing of 280, 361 506 n. 106
identified w ith the sun, in scenery 174
Johnson’s m asque prom inence, influence xviii,
361n. 49 152-3, 318
portrayals of, 152, 174—5 and prototype of tragic heroine 75
n. 54, 176, 182, 361, 457, published in Bell’s British
513 n. 106 T heatre series 175
666 Index
recitation from , perm itted 244 Elfrida, portrayals of 211
rew orking in The M ourning Elfrida, W illiam M ason
Bride 170 influence of G reek tragedy xv
significance of ‘recognition’ m usic com m issioned for 194
scene 157-62, 173 reflection of radicalism 190-1
as source 78 n. 22, 152, 163, 267, and n. 18
275, 304, 316-17, 531 and role of chorus 200-1
n. 19 success 194-5, 209n. 101, 211
tragic traditions of Chinese translation into other languages
theatre com pared 202 213
translations, editions Elgin m arbles 261, 290 n. 35
anonym ous, 1714 154 and Eliot, George, (1810-50) 182,
n. 6, 199 331-2 and n. 4 1 ,4 2 1 ,4 5 4
by D acier 28, 153-7, 217-18 Eliot, T . S. 151, 493
by C rebillon 154 Elizabeth, Princess, daughter of
by Francklin 173-8 Charles I 164—5, 164
by Longpierre 154 elopem ent, teenage, prevention
by Rotaller into L atin 163 of 141
by T heobald 154, 156, 175 E lrington, Thom as 2-3
by Thom as Johnson 154 Elwart, A ntoine 439
flurry of vernacular 28 Elysium, Thom as M ercer 193
into French, English, England and the English, Edw ard
im portance xx, 163 Bulwer 314-15
visualized 172—8 English literature, departm ents of,
Electra, W illiam Shirley xiii, 103, approach to perform ance
167-72, 529 history of G reek dram a xiv
Electra in a N ew Electric Light, E nlightenm ent, the
Frank T alfourd 360-2, 374, adoption of O edipus as figure
379, 385 of 217
Electra, The Lost Pleiade, ballet and attitudes to religion in Greek
360-1 tragedy 147-50
Electre Enquiry Concerning Political
C rebillon’s production 154 Justice, W illiam G odw in 228
L ongpierre’s production 154 erotic love, passion
Elektra, R ichard Strauss, reaction and wom en in G reek tragedy 91
to 551 threat to absolute pow er 39
electric light, introduction 360-1 Essay on Dramatic Poesie, A n , John
Elements o f Greek Grammar, The, D ryden 15, 22, 27
R ichard Valpy 247 Essay on the N ature and Conduct
Elements of the L atin Language, of the Passions and Affections,
The, Richard Valpy 247 A n , Francis H utcheson 84
Eleonora, portrayals of 122, Essays in Church M usic, W illiam
123—4 M ason 191 n. 18
Index 667
Eton College, Agamemnon perform ances, directed by
at 453-4 Valpy 251-2
Eumenides, Aeschylus P otter’s perception of 221
C am bridge production, problem s presented by wom en in
1885 4 5 7 ,4 7 5 ,4 7 6 ,4 8 6 plays of 96-7
in Frank Benson’s touring rew riting for perform ance in
production of Oresteia English x
455 ‘she-tragedies’ derived from
influence on T heobald’s 66-70, 71-8, 86 and n. 59
Orestes 55 n. 72, 111 n. 26 size of w om en’s roles 258
S tanford’s m usic 475, 478 source for
in W akefield’s school burlesque 360
selection 289 Goffe’s Tragedie of Orestes 163
Eunuchus, T erence, W estm inster see also individual plays
School production 34 n. 17 Euripides and his Age, G ilbert
Euphrasia M urray 510-11, 514
portrayals of 180, 181 ‘Euripides and M r. M urray’,
representations of 179-82 T . S. Eliot 493
Euripides Euripides and Shaw , G ilbert
accessibility 71, 78 and n. 22, N orw ood 490
496 Euripidis quae extant omnia, Joshua
adaptations Barnes 71
dom ination by suffering Euripides the Rationalist, A rthur
herioine 66—70 Verrall 498 n. 40
to evoke sym pathy 85—8 E uropean theatre, em phasis on
to support different physicality 546 and n. 70
ideologies 60 Eurydice H iss’d, H enry Fielding
Brow ning’s cham pionship of 104
433, 449-51 eurythm ics 546 n. 70
Buckley’s translations 433 Evans, Thom as, see Oedipus
denounced by classical scholars Evelina, representation of 187
443 and n. 26 Exclusion crisis 24—5
educational study encouraged Exhortation to the Greeks, C lem ent
253-4 of A lexandria 149
foundling tales 128 extravaganza, and burlesque 343,
ghost of, in burlesque 366 355 and n. 28, 477
im portance of perform ance
history 510-11 Facta et Dicta Memorabilia,
‘im prov’d ’ by eighteenth century Valerius M axim us 180 and
dram atists 97-8 n. 71
links w ith Factory Act, 1833 296
G eorge B ernard Shaw 490-1 Faerie Queen, E dm und Spenser
Ibsen 490-1 229
668 Index
Fair Helen, A m cott 383-4 fiction, and G reek tragedy xx—xxi
fairground theatre 339, 356, 371, Fielding, H enry (1707-54)
388-9, 390 burlesque of high tragedy
Farr, Florence 496 and n. 29 355-6
Farren, Elizabeth 65 classical influences on xvii
Farren, W illiam 69 foundling novels 135
fascination, Rom antic concept of response to Oedipus (D ryden and
295 and n. 47 Lee) 1—2
fate, im placable, inexorable, satires on W alpole 104 and n. 14
concept of 22, 24 sources 111 and n. 26
father-son conflicts The Tragedy of Tragedies 58, 60
in T alfourd family 360, 363, views on role of chorus 201
374n. 108 filial piety, representation of 180
use by A ristophanes 363 and n. 71
fathers, rights of custody 394—5, filicide, unintentional, in The
409, 416, 420, 435 Roman Empress, Joyner 11
Faucit, H arriet 326, 416 n. 78 Fire of London, 1666 25
Faucit, H elen (1817-98) Fisher, John 213
com bination of fame with Fitzball, Edw ard (1792—1873)
dom estic stability 396 267, 274-5, 280
im pact 327-8 Fitzgerald, Percy, on
practice of sculptural effects 335 burlesque 316, 327, 379
tragic roles 281, 311, 313, 316, Flashar, H elm ut vii
326-7, 329, 330-1, 334-5, Flaxm an, John 211-13 and
348, 539 n. I l l
Faucit, John Savill 240—2, 267, Fletcher, C onstance Emily, see
274, 326 W arr
Felton, Cornelius C. 286—7 Fletcher, John (with Francis
females, see cross-dressed roles; Beaum ont), A K ing and No
wom en K ing 25
fem ininity Fogerty, Elsie 336
adaptation of G reek w om en to fit Forster, John (with Francis
notions of 91-2, 178-82 Beaum ont), association w ith
Victorial ideal 327-8 T alfourd 282, 287
see also actors, actresses; she- foundling heroes
tragedy; wom en expansion of literature 134—5
fem inism perennial fascination 128 and
G eorge W arr’s sym pathies n. 2, 133, 134
474-5 search for archetypes 137-8
prefigured in perception of in Shelley’s Oedipus
M edea 393 Tyrannus 231
see also N ew W om an; see also foundlings; Ion
suffragettes Foundling Hospitals, British
Index 669
boys destined for m ilitary, naval translations
service 139 of Electra 175-8
children viewed as objects of of L ucian 177
social experim ent 138 of Sophocles 147,172-8,
D elphi as prototype of 135, 138, 219-21, 250
149 and n. 51 respect for 173,175-8
establishm ent, aims 135, 137-8 version of V oltaire’s Oreste
and n. 32 278 n. 22
opposition argum ents 137 and Francophobia, 33—6 and n. 15, 51,
n. 29 52-3
foundlings Freake, L ord and Lady 464 and
C ontinental approach to care n. 12,481
of 135, 149 Frederick, Prince of W ales 104,
debate about nature or 105, 107, 120
nurture 138-9 freedom , see liberty
social problem in eighteenth French Archaeological Society in
century 135, 140, 151 A thens 521
Fragment of an Antigone, M atthew French language, translations
A rnold 331 into xx, 163, 265, 522
France French R evolution
im pact of D acier’s translations of adm iration for A thenian
Sophocles 154 dem ocracy am ong British
perform ances of Persians for supporters 300-1
patriotic purposes 265-6 classical m odels invoked in
and n. 6 support of 216, 217
popularity of T alfourd’s Ion im portance of G reek history
in 286 and n. 18 in 265 n. 2
response to authority of interest in Jam es
m onarchy 15 T hom son 124—5
staging of burlesques in republican sym bols from ancient
359n. 46 Rom e invoked during 216
see also Francophobia; French French theatre
R evolution; French theatre acting styles in G erm any and,
Francklin, Thom as (1721-84) com pared 526-8
adaptations to eighteenth- apolitical Hellenism in 49
century concept of and debate over chorus 199
fem ininity 179 G reek tragedy in
anticlericalism 220 English responses 33—6, 87,
attacks on T heobald’s 154
translations 175 extension of emotional
background, career 172—3, 220 range 319
recoil from G reek tragic im portance of Seneca 67
m etaphysics 147-8 influence xix, 5-16
670 Index
French theatre (cont.): expansion of acting skills 80
link of aesthetic, political H uguenot antecedents 34
preferences 14, 15 interest in ancient costum e
m odels for w om en dram atists 83 128n. 3, 174n. 55, 195,
neglect of Antigone 317 225
perception of O edipus 5, 7, 219, partnership w ith H annah
221, 521-6, 539 Pritchard 129, 144, 145
see also neoclassicism and Prologue and Epilogue for
individual authors, Electra 174
dramatists refusal to stage Sophocles
Freud, Sigm und, im pact of unadapted 173
Oedipus viii, 494, 524-6 and n. rejection of
9 A K ing and N o K ing 215
Friedrich W ilhelm IV, K ing of A lzum a 171
Prussia 319, 320 Shirley’s Electra 166
friendship, m ale 46 roles 128-9, 140, 143 n. 42
Frode, Philip, The Fall of urged to attem pt Oedipus
Saguntum 42 Tyrannus 195
Frogs, A ristophanes G arrick T heatre, production of
influence 104, 506—7 travesty of Ion 286
Jenkin’s production of 448 n. 47 G arrison T heatre, W oolwich,
Shaw ’s version 505 burlesque at 395
translation by G ilbert Gascoigne, George, and Francis
M urray 472, 494 K inw elm ershe, Jocasta,
Fuseli, H enry, depiction of 1566-7 x, 8
Clytem nestra and Gay, John, Achilles 104, 105, 356
A egisthus 129 and n. 5, 177 Geffroy, E., actor, as O edipus
522
G adsby, H enry 456-7 n. 70 Gell, W illiam 230
Gaelic culture, conceptual link G enod, M ichel Philibert, The Oath
betw een ancient Greece of the Young W arrior 301
and 186—7 and n. 4 G eorge I 43, 50
Gager, W illiam 8 G eorge II 43, 104, 105, 107, 130n.
Gaiety T heatre, visit of Com edie 12, 169
Fran?aise, 1879 432 George III 130n. 2, 168-72, 220,
G andy, Joseph M ichael 289 n. 26 241, 242
G arrick, D avid (1717-79) G eorge IV (previously Prince of
am bition to stage E uripides’ W ales) 130n. 12, 168, 169,
Flecuba 195 176-7, 229-32, 242, 284, 294
co-author of The Clandestine G erm any
M arriage 141-2 civilian hysteria against 553
envious of C ovent G arden’s experim ents w ith Ion 289 and
Elfrida 194 n. 27
Index 671
im pact of Jam es first authentic B ritish
T hom son 125-7 production 18, 336, 457
interest in Antigone xix, 317-18 use of M endelssohn’s Antigone
popularity of declam atory style m usic 336
of acting 424 G ladstone, W illiam Ew art 359,
post-K antian philosolphy, 365, 469, 475-6
influence of Antigone 320-1 Glasse, G eorge H enry 225
reception of G reek tragedy 430, Glorious Revolution, 1688
431, 433 attitudes to G reek tragedy
repudiation of French after 41-9, 54, 149
neoclassicism 319 dram atic defences of ideals of
T eutonic revival, influence of 105, 108
M ason 213 G lover, R ichard (1712-85)
G errald, Joseph 182, 224, 226—8 classical m odels for free nation
and n. 46 states 50
Getting M arried, G eorge Bernard M edea, as ‘she-tragedy’ 66
Shaw 492 in ‘P atriot’ opposition 104
G iardini, Felice de 191 n. 18 pro-fem inine alteration of G reek
G ibbon, Edw ard, The Decline and plots 86-7
Fall o f the Roman see also individual plays
Empire 183—4 G luck
G ilbert, W . S. 354, 391; see also Alcestis 439 and n. 16, 440—1
G ilbert and Sullivan operas Iphigenia in Tauride 62
G ilbert and Sullivan operas 353, m usic used by Isadora
354, 386-7, 482 D uncan 546 n. 67
G ildon, C harles (1665-1724) G odw in, E. W . 459, 463, 466-7,
adaptations of G reek tragedy 477, 480, 485-6, 487, 544
xv, 66 G odw in, W illiam 223-4, 227, 228
association w ith Q uinault 118 G oethe, Johann W olfgang von
on erotic love in G reek im pact of G reek tragedy on xv,
tragedy 91 318, 319-20
exculpation of M edea 92 staging of The Birds 345
ideology 71 n. 13 theatrical experim ents 319
praise of Ion 132 Goffe, T hom as, The Tragedie of
sources, influences on 71, Orestes 163
117-19 G olding, W illiam 150-1
stress on tragic passions 83 G orsedd, first 192 n. 26
view of Iphigenia, D ennis 53-4 G ranville Barker, H arley
see also Love’s Victim, Phaeton (1877-1946)
Gioas, Redi Giuda, M etastasio 132 associations
and n. 18 w ith M urray, Shaw 492,
G irton College, C am bridge 494-5, 511, 520n. 129
Electra, 1883 w ith W illiam Poel 495
672 Index
G ranville Barker, H arley perceptions of xix
(1877-1946) (,cont.): reconciliation of religion w ith
influence of R einhardt 538, C hristianity 149-50, 310,
542-3, 553 311, 329-30
m odel for Cusins 504 relationship between history
protest at censorship 529, 542 and G reek dram a xxi
staging of plays about w om en’s W hig ideals derived from 50
suffrage 512-13 m odern
supporter of Bedford College link w ith Italian centres of
G reek plays 514 scholarship 265 and n. 3
W aste refused licence 529 perform ance of Antigone in
G ray, H erb ert B ranston 456-7 and 1867 336
n. 71 perform ances of A eschylus’
G ray, Thom as 124 and n. 53, 130, Persians for patriotic
192 and n. 25, 211 purposes 265-6 and n. 6
G reat Com m oner, T he (W illiam relationship w ith O ttom an
P itt the elder, Earl of Em pire xi, xix 38-9
C hatham ) 167 support for uprising 267 and
G reat Exhibition, 1851 438 n. 10
G recian Saloon, T he 353, 399-401 under dom ination of O ttom an
Greece Em pire 333
ancient response to W ar of
appeal to nineteenth-century Independence, 1821-9
Britons 308-9 xi, 264, 270-2, 300-1
com pared, contrasted w ith G reek dram a
m odern 270 censorship of 103; see also
conceptual link between individual plays
Gaelic culture and 186-7 com bination w ith interest in
and n. 4 druids 192-3 and nn. 25-6
fascination w ith ruins 267-70, educational perform ances in
271 B ritain 243—6
fusion of classical and ancient erotic responses to 484—6
B ritish revivalism 89 and m usic for, see music and
n. 71, 183-93, 202-7, 208, individual composers and
217 plays
grow ing interest in 38 new fashion for academic
history recalled in W ar of productions 387-8
Independence 264—7 num erous foundling tales 128
inspiration of, under Valpy 262 perform ance history
m usic of, conceptual link with approach of academ ic world
Celtic culture 192-3 xiv
nineteenth-century play in Edw ardian period xi
inspired by 284 as perform ance texts x-xi
Index 673
prom inence of Sophocles’ brief revival in 1830s 436
Electra 152•, see also conceptual links w ith biblical
C am bridge U niversity, narratives xxi, 132 and
G reek plays n. 18
revival of interest, reasons for viii dem ands of authentic
rew riting for perform ance in revival 198-9
English ix developing vogue, 1880s 430-3
socio-political D ryden’s debt to 21—4
influences xvii-xviii eighteenth-century attitudes to
stage conventions replicated in religion in 147-50
burlesque 378 examples in Africa vii n. 2
taste for parody 55 exploitation of comic
vivifying influence of potential 338-41, 341-9
perform ance 262—3 exposure of m iddle, lower
vogue for, in 1880s 455—6,484—6 classes to 290 and n. 35,
w idespread influence on cultural 309, 350, 362, 371-7,
life ix 389-90, 470
see also G reek tragedy G erm an reception of 430, 431
G reek language im pact on canonical
accessibility 256—7 thinkers xiv—xv
in burlesques 364—5 im portance of Schlegel’s
quest for authenticity in R eading lectures 318, 320, 443, 475,
School productions 262 478
G reek m yth, exem plar for increasing interest in dom estic
problem s of succession 43 aspects 291
G reek O rthodox C hurch, first interrelation of aesthetic, social,
established in London xi legislative, and political
G reek style, prom otion in social change xv-xvi
hellenism 479-82, 481 in Ireland vii n. 2, 3
G reek tragedy m anifestation of English
adaptations classicism 66 and n. 7
em ergence of genre in in N o rth Am erica vii n. 2
nineteenth century 272 obsession w ith destructive
inspired by C ontinental effects of war xi and n. 10
versions 130 parallel w ith art of sculpture 328
to justify W higgism xviii perceptions of, hero-centred
44-9, 50-4 524
appeal of ‘she-tragedy’ 78 and in Poland vii n. 2
n. 22 politicization after 1688, 41-9
approach of academ ic world xiv, possibility of successful
430-3 perform ance debated
basic m ovem ents on B ritish 316-18
stage xviii potential future influence xxii
674 Index
Greek tragedy (cont.): H andel, George Friederic
rediscovery in B ritish theatre xi, (1685-1759)
267-8 Adm eto, re di Tessaglio 118 and
reflection of W hig concept of n. 44, 439 n. 16
liberty 331 ballet divertissem ents 31-2
susceptibility to different concerts, donations in aid of
interpretations xxii foundlings 137
translations into vernacular x, incidental m usic xix, 346
xx Oreste (1734) 31-2, 34, 36, 49,
understanding enlarged by 62 and n. 81
com parative survival of G reek chorus in
anthropology 202 oratorios 197
various authors m aking use of xv W ater M usic used for The Deep,
and V ictorian perception of Deep Sea 366-7
destiny 331 H anoverian m onarchy,
see also B ritish theatre and acceptance 42, 43, 51
individual plays H arcourt, R obert 537
G rein, J. T . 490, 548 H ardy, Thom as 224, 332
Grey, L ord 229-30, 282 H arrison, Jane 458, 463 n. 4, 467-8
G rignion, Charles, engraving of and n. 20, 472 and n. 32,
The M ourning Bride 160 477-9, 485-6, 497
G rillparzer, Franz (1791-1872) H arrow School 228, 453—4
Das Goldene Vliefi, source for H artley, Elizabeth 194, 195
The Golden Fleece 343, 395, Harw icke, Philip Yorke, first Earl
402 of 140-2, 144
version of M edea 399, 400, 402, H astings, C aptain 267 and n. 10
424, 443, 489 H aughton, M iss 150
G rote, G eorge 50 and n. 58 H aw thorne, Nigel 141 n. 40
G ucht, G ravelot van der 1 n. 2, 1.3 H aw trey, G eorge 387
G uernier, Louis du 34, 47, 76, Haym an, Francis, The Finding of
155, 156 the Infant Moses in the
G ustavus A dolphus, K ing of Bulrushes 137-8
Sw eden 504 H aym arket T heatre, famed for
Gustavus Vasa, H enry Brooke 106, lavish spectacle 370—1; see also
120 individual plays
H azlitt, W illiam xvi, xxx, 291, 315
H aem on, representations and n. 95
of 340-1; see also H erm on H ealthy and A rtistic D ress U nion
H am ilton, Cecily 518 482
H am ilton, Em m a 30 and n. 3 H eath, Jam es, frontispiece to
H am ilton, G avin 89 Edward and Eleonora 119
H amlet, Shakespeare xxi, 155, 159, H ecuba (m ythical figure)
177, 249 need for exculpation of 96-7
Index 675
portrayals of 80, 98, 113, 258, appeal to nineteenth-century
543-4, 545 Britons 308-9
representations of 63, 85, 87 and British revivalism 183—93,
Hecuba, A lexander Neville 8 202-7, 208, 217
Hecuba, E uripides influence on T alfourd 292-3,
burlesque of 386 310-11
expurgation at R eading School R om antic, com patibility w ith
255 N onconform ist spirituality
G arrick’s am bition to stage 195 310-11
perform ances second wave in Britain 217
directed by Valpy 252-3 H em ans, Felicia 435
at Reading School 255, 262 H engler’s C ircus, Argyle Street
social resonance 510 459, 462-8 and n. 2, 544
Hecuba, John Delap 64, 80, 85-6, H er (later His) M ajesty’s T heatre
87 Barker’s I T at 544 n. 58
Hecuba, R ichard W est 66, 84, 97-8 innovation of electric light 360—1
and n. 98 H eracles (Hercules) (m ythical
Hecuba a la M ode; or, The W ily figure)
Greek and the M odest M aid, portrayals of 456-7
C ranstoun M etcalfe 366 Heracles, E uripides
Hegel, G. W . F. 320-1 B row ning’s version 449-51
Helen, E uripides Byron’s reference to 254 n. 42
influence on Delap 65 n. 3, educational study encouraged
188 n. 7 253—4
scant attention to, in eighteenth perform ances
century 61 at Reading School 244, 253-4,
source for Charles G ildon 71, 261-2
117-18 reviews 254, 256
Helena in Troas, John source for G lover’s M edea 90
T odh u nter 458—9 Heraclidae, Euripides
acclaimed set, costum es 477-8 adaptation by John D elap 64—5
actors, actresses in 462-3, 484 source for M ason’s Caractacus
C. H. L loyd’s m usic for 459 188
com m ents of W . B. Yeats 486 H ercules, see H eracles (Hercules)
E. J. G odw in a designer of 459, and individual works
463, 477, 485-6 Hercules, H andel 197
fund-raising perform ance 462 ‘H ercules, Pluto, Alcestis,
and n. 2, 464 A dm etus’, W alter Savage
inspired by H om er 476 L andor 443 n. 25
Hellas, Shelley xi, 234, 239, 266-7, ‘H ercules restores Alcestis to
304 A dm etus’, sculpture by
Hellenism Edw ard Hodges
apolitical, in French dram a 49 Baily 441 n. 18
676 Index
‘H ercules W restling w ith D eath for translation by G ilbert
the Body of Alcestis’, painting M urray 472, 494, 495-6,
by L ord Leighton 441 549
H eraud, E dith 335 and n. 48, H ippolytus-Phaedra m yth 11,
416-17 71-4, 8; see also Phaedra and
H eraud, John (1799-1887) Hippolitus
dram atic critic 416, 423, His M ajesty’s T heatre, see H er
425 M ajesty’s T heatre
H uguenot associations 34 n. 19, Historical Register fo r the Year
416 1736, H enry Fielding 104
M edea in Corinth 352, 419 History of Greece, Connop
review of Legouve’s T hirlw all 302
M edea 402 n. 40 H M S Iphigenia 32
Videna; or, the M other’s H obhouse, Em ily 509, 510 n. 90
Tragedy 416 H obhouse, John, Travels in
W ife or no W ife 416 Albania and Other Provinces of
H erm on, representations of Turkey in 1809 & 1810 269
340-1 and n. 17
Hero and Leander, fairground H obhouse, L eonard 509
entertainm ent 356 H ofm annstahl, H ugo von,
H eron, M atilda 423 translation of Oedipus
Hibernia Freed, W illiam Y oung 42 R ex 523-4, 539
H iffernan, Paul 179 H oftheater, W eim ar 319-21
Hill, A aron 102-3, 107 n. 22 H ogarth, W illiam 1-2 and n. 2,
H indus, oppressed by Islam, 141-2
identification w ith G reek Hogg, Thom as Jefferson, Life of
chorus 234 Shelley 228
hippodram a, access to classical H olderlin, F., translation of
m yth, history through 388-9, Antigone 318
390 Holiday, H enry 482
Hippolytus, Euripides H om er
adaptation by E dm und inspiration for W arr’s The Story
Sm ith 43, 71-2 o f Troy 462,475-6
chorus of w asherw om en 194 parallel influences of Ossian
continuing influence 72 and 193
perform ance by pupils of recitations from , at Reading
T hom as Sheridan 246 School 253
production at Lyric Victorian privileging of 475-6
T heatre 495—6, 549 hom osexuality 79, 484—5; see also
representation of 88 sexual deviancy
role of chorus 199 H ope, Thom as, Costumes of the
as source 11, 190-1, 293—4 Ancients 280
Index 677
H opkins, G erald M anley 451 and influence on W ilam owitz,
n. 53 491 n. 10
Horace, Corneille, source for links w ith Euripides 490—1
W hitehead 129 and n. 6 Iliad 352, 352, 358-9
Horace, K atherine Philips 83 Illustrations o f Euripides on the Ion
Horestes, John Pikering 163 and and the Bacchae, Paul
n. 18; see also O restes Jodrell 132
H orn, Charles 273^1 Imaginary Conversations, W alter
H orne, Richard H engist 282, 285, Savage L andor 305
308, 311 Im perial Institute, South
hornpipes 250—1, 270 and n. 20 K ensington 445 n. 35
H orton, Priscilla 342, 345—6, incest
367-8, 396, 397 in adaptations of G reek tragedy
H ubback, Francis 445 n. 35, fascination w ith xvi, 6, 24
519n. 128 recoil from 6, 242
H ull, T hom as xv, 122 adultery aggravated by, as
H um boldt, W ilhelm von 127 and w om an’s ground for
n. 63 divorce 419
H um e, David, A Treatise of Human conceptual links
N ature 84 w ith ancien regime 240
H unt, Leigh 285 w ith civil w ar 9—10
H unter, M rs 77 w ith m onarchy 7, 9—10, 240
H urd, R ichard 200, 202 w ith regicide, parricide 22, 24
H utcheson, Francis, A n Essay on crim inalization 24, 532-3
the N ature and Conduct of dram atic use as expression of
the Passions and Affections social defiance 239-40
84 ground for censorship 530—4
Huxley, L eonard 448 and nn. 19, 24, 27
H yllus m etaphor for political
brother-sister bond w ith Creusa, corruption 9, 240
inspiration for 304 O edipus and Jocasta driven to, in
representations of 303-7 D ryden and Lee 23—4
Hypermnestra, Frank Sikes 380, shifting attitudes to 534
381 them e taken up by G odw in 227
Hypermnestra, or Love in Tears, Indian Civil Service, education of
R obert Owen 43 candidates for 468—9 n. 21,
473 and n. 35
Ibsen, Henrik Indian Emperor, John D ryden 162
Brand ix Indian Queen, John D ryden 162
concept of N ew W om an 393, Infant C ustody Acts 290, 394—5,
488-9 416, 420, 435
G eorge W arr’s approach, in Infant Life Protection Act,
context of 474 1872 423
678 Index
infanticide in W akefield’s school selection
concern for tragic cases of 289
518-19 w atercolour sketches for
by M edea production of, 1820
and exculpation of M edea 289 n. 26
92-5, 96-7, 385, 392, 393, Ion, Thom as T alfourd
397-8 concept of utopian freedom in
explanations of 396-7, 419 293
in L em on’s version 407—8 criticism s of 309-10
in M urray’s M edea 515 distinguished audience at
relevance to child m ortality in prem iere 282
V ictoran age 422-3, 424 dom estic am bience 291—2
recoil from , in B ritish echoes of W hig concept of
theatre 391, 392, 424-5, liberty 331
518 ecstatic review of first
Ino, representations of 374 perform ance 310n. 84
Ino; or, The Theban Twins, influence of A ddison’s Cato 308
B. J. Spedding 365, 370, 381 playbill 313
Ion (m ythical figure) political thrust 284, 293-300,
depiction of concern over 363, 436
ignom inious birth 142—3 popularity
and n. 42 frequent editions 285 and n. 9
G erm an experim ents w ith 289 frequent productions,
and n. 27 revivals 286, 333, 351 n. 5
portrayals of 282, 283, 286, 287, positive republicanism 303, 304
299-300, 311, 312, 321, 322 presented in New York 321
representations of 128,138—9, productions
282, 293-5, 302-3 at Covent G arden, 1836 260,
use as C hristian nam e 286 and 282, 292
n. 17 w ith all-female cast 286
Ion, A rthur V errall’s version 151 religious com m itm ent 310—11
Ion, E uripides significance of setting in Argos
educational study 302-3
encouraged 253—4 sources 233 n. 63, 289n. 26,
inspiration for various 293-5
productions 151 stage design 290-1
recoil from ‘pagan theology’ 147 translation into G reek Iam bics
rediscovery of 61, 130-4, 138 286 and n. 17
Schlegel’s adaptation 289 n. 27, Ion Travestie, Frederick Fox
319-20 Cooper 286 and n. 14, 302,
setting in A thens 303 338, 339, 367
as source 66, 128, 129n. 7, 130, Iona T aurina, representation of
293, 294, 304 231-3
Index 679
Iphigenia (m ythical figure) influence of Racine 33-6
after the G lorious Revolution productions
41-9, 54 in D ublin 334
comic dim ension 54—60 nineteenth-century 32 n. 6
eighteenth-century productions Iphigenia in Tauride, G luck 62
featuring 32 Iphigenia in Tauride, Thom as
happy endings 54 T raetta 62
H uguenot associations 33—6 Iphigenia in Tauris, Euripides
influence of John Locke 44—9 adaptation to different
link w ith Jephth a’s ideologies 60-1
daughter xxi, 32 and n. 8 A ristotle’s attention to 33
popularity 30-3 characterization of T hoas 49
portrayals of 79, 543-4 conceptual link w ith The
prototype of virtue in distress Tempest xxi, 37
72-5 English language adaptations 36
Royalist interpretations 36—41 influence on aesthetics of
and the W higs 50-4 tragedy 72
Iphigenia, Abel Boyer 32, 35 and international interest 36
n. 23, 62 place in history of British
Iphigenia, John D ennis theatre 61-4, 71
actresses in 79 productions
adaptation of I T 36 by Barker 543—4 and n. 58
B ritish colonial overtones 38-9 in Cam bridge, 1894 32 n. 6
cheerful tone 53-4 in G reek, in 1887 513 n. 106
chorus confined to staged significance of ‘recognition’
rituals 197 scene 157
influence xiv—xv, 44—9, 60, 61, 72 as source 31-2, 36, 62, 546 n. 67
jingoistic tenor 39 translations, editions
radical W higgism in 45-6, 50-4 by G ilbert W est 46
Iphigenia, devised by Isadora by M urphy 526
D uncan 546 n. 67 see also Iphigenia (mythical figure)
Iphigenia, Johnson, actresses Iphigenia; or, The S a il!! The Seer!!
in 70-80 A n d the Sacrifice, E dw ard
Iphigenia in A ulis, E uripides N olan, alliteration 365
A ristotle’s attention to 33 Iphigenie, M ichel Le Clerc and
as source 32 n. 8, 109, 360, Jacques de Coras 41 n. 37
546 n. 67 Iphigenie auf Tauris, G oethe xv
D ryden’s debt to 21, 33 Iphigenie en Aulide, Racine
E rasm us’ translation into L atin nineteenth-century
33 productions 32 n. 6
fame in England 33, 62 perform ances in England
first translation into English 33 34 n. 17
hum an sacrifice averted in 54 success 33
680 Index
Ireland burlesque, contem porary
censorship in 535, 536 detail 381
D r Thom as Sheridan, pioneer of m asque 93
G reek tragedy in 3 Jason and Medea: A Comic. Heroic.
G reek tragedy in vii n. 2, 3 Tragic. Operatic. Burlesque-
literary revival, and the Greek Spectacular Extravaganza,
classics 186-7 and n. 4 JackW ooler 380,399^-01,
Irene, Sam uel Johnson 129n. 7 414
Iroquois, parallels betw een G reek Jason and M edea: A Ramble after a
tragedy and indigenous Colchian, burlesque 395
culture 202 Jebb, R ichard 336, 473 and
Irving, H enry 454 n. 37
Ism ene, representations Jenkin, Fleem ing (1833-85)
of 218-20, 223, 274, 294, 296, association w ith production of
302, 303-7, 321, 322, 331-2, Agamemnon 451-2
340-1 productions of authentic G reek
Italy, Renaissance, cultural links tragedy 431,448-9 and n. 47,
w ith Greece 265 450
Ixion; or, the M an at the Wheel, review of B row ning’s
Francis B urnand 364, 369, Agamemnon 451
370, 373, 376 Jenkin, M rs Fleem ing 431, 448-9,
452
Jacobitism Jephtha, John
fear of, and opposition to C hristopherson 32 n. 8
Bute 171 Jephtha’s daughter, conceptual
response of theatre to xvi, 44, link w ith Iphigenia xxi, 32
44-5, 139, 148, 165-7, 191 and n. 8
Jacques-D alcroze, Em ile, system Jerrold, Douglas 287, 314
of eurythm ics 546 n. 70 Jersey, Island of, theatrical
Jam es II (form erly D uke of traditions 247
York) 25-6, 43, 44, 166-7 Joas, biblical story as source for
Janauschek, Fanny 424 French dram a 132-3 and
Jane Shore, Nicholas Rowe 75 n. 19
Ja n et’s Repentance, G eorge Eliot Jocasta
182 portrayals of 79, 81, 82, 83, 524,
Janin, Jean-M arie, Oreste 275 525, 543
Jason representations of 22—4, 67, 525,
portrayals of 514 533, 534
representations of 90-1, 342-5, suicide 19
344, 385, 397-9, 400-1, Jocasta, Gascoigne and
406-8, 418-19, 425-6 K inw elm ershe x, 8
Jason and M edea Jodrell, Paul 117-18 nn. 39-42,
them es for 132, 146-7
Index 681
Johnson, Charles (1649-1748) K auffm an, Angelica (1741-1807)
on arousal of com passion in Death of Alcestis, 123 and n. 51
spectators 84 inspired by Francklin’s
concept of virtue 86-7 Sophocles 177-8
exculpation of M edea 92-3 painting of Eleonora 123 and
plagiarizing of Boyer’s Iphigenia, n. 51
35 and n. 23 scene from Elfrida 211,
The Tragedy of M edea, as ‘she- 213 n. I l l
tragedy’ 66 Keats, John 292
use m ade of G reek tragedy 61 Kem ble, Charles 268, 275, 277,
Johnson, Jam es 233 278, 280-1
Johnson, Sam uel, (1709—89) 64, Kem ble, John Philip 3, 123-4,
120 268, 269, 280, 308
adm iration for Congreve’s The Kem ble, Sarah, see Siddons, Sarah
M ourning Bride 159 and K ierkegaard, Soren viii
n. 14 Killigrew, Thom as 37
Irene 129n. 7 K ing John, Shakespeare 247-8,
on purpose of tragedy 222-3 249, 280
Johnson, T hom as 154 K ing Lear, Shakespeare 249, 250
Jones, Avonia 423 K ing’s College, L ondon
Jones, H enry A rthur 531 and n. first attem pt to publicize
22, 533-4 Aeschylus Oresteia 465
Jones, Inigo 204 and n. 81 Ladies’ D epartm ent 465 and
Jones, W illiam 214, 225, 234, 245, n. 11, 466 and n. 12, 470,
262 n. 2, 302 n. 66 484
Jonson, Ben 196, 351 n. 49 share of U niversity Endow m ent
Jopling, Louise 462-3, 479, 482 Fund 462
Joseph Andrews, H enry tradition of producing G reek
Fielding xvii, 222 and n. 26, plays 465 n. 11, 466
135 K ing’s T heatre (form erly Q ueen’s
journalism , em ergence, and the T heatre)
British theatre 61 first perform ance of S m ith’s
Jow ett, Benjam in 451—2 Phaedra and Hippolitus 72
Joyner, W illiam xvi, 10-12 and spectacle at 392
n. 31 kingship, see m onarchy
Judas Iscariot, conceptual link with K ingsley, Charles, The Heroes 424
O edipus xxi, 8 and n. 19 Kingsw ay T heatre, adaptation for
judiciary, appointm ents to, B arker’s I T 543-4; see also
concern w ith 297 individual plays
Julian, M ary Russell M itford 256 K inw elm ershe, Francis, see
Julius Caesar, Shakespeare 245 Gascoigne, George, and
Junius Brutus, W illiam Francis Kinw elm ershe
D uncom be 105 knickerbockers, fin de siecle 397
682 Index
K night, M rs 79-80 L andor, W alter Savage 282, 305,
K night of the Burning Pestle, 446 n. 25
Beaum ont and Fletcher Lang, M rs A ndrew 466, 476
355-6 Langtry, Lily 484 and n. 72
Knowles, Jam es 284, 300 Laocoon, G otthold Ephraim
K otzebue, A ugust von, The Ruins Lessing 125, 126
o f Athens; A Dramatic ‘L ’A pres M idi d ’un faune’,
Masque 333—4 Nijinksy ballet 546-7 n. 72
K oun, Karolos 197—8 L atin, quotations from, in
Kreusa, Johan Jakob burlesques 365
Bodm er 289 n. 27 Latin dram a
K rupp, Friedrich Alfred, m odel for comedy traditionally perform ed
U ndershaft 502 at W estm inster School 34 n.
17, 248 and n. 19, 261
La Belle Helene, Offenbach, comic educational perform ances in
adaptation of 383-4 Britain 243-6
La citt'a morta, G abriele L atin language
D ’A nnunzio 532 n. 24 Renaissance, adaptors’ choice of
La Clairiere, C oqueteau de, Pylade G reek texts in 130
et Oreste 41 and n. 37 use in ‘Judge and Jury
L a M echante Femme, D om inique Society’ 388
and Biancolelli 404 n. 48 Laud, A rchbishop 248—9
L a M edee en Nanterre, Coignard, laughing songs 361
Grange, and Bourdois 405-6 Lawrence, A nn 425
La M esnardiere, Flippolyte Jules Lazaria the Greek; or the A rchon’s
Pilet de 152—3 Daughter 270-1
La Sorci'ere, C. Sew rin 404 n. 48 Le Cid, Pierre Corneille 15
La Thebaide, Racine 44, 82 Le Marseillaise, sources of
Lachm ann, H edwig, translation of inspiration 264—5 and n. 2
Salome for opera 538 Le Serment des Horaces, Jacques-
Lacoste, Louis 132, 133, 151 Louis D avid 301
Lacroix, Jules, translation of Le Siege de Corinthe, Rossini 275
Oedipus Tyrannus into Le Theatre des Grecs, Pierre
F rench 522, 524, 539 Brum oy 1 7 2 ,20 0,219,247
Lacy, M iss 280 League of N ations 508
L a cy’s A cting Edition 355 Lee, N athaniel (1655-92) 17 and
L ady A u d ley’s Secret, M ary n. 47, 27; see also Oedipus
E lizabeth Braddon 422 Leech, John 383
L ady Sarah Bunbury Sacrificing to Legouve, Ernest, production of
the Graces, Joshua E uripides’ Medea 402-4, 403,
Reynolds 89, 130n. 11 404-5, 405, 406, 423, 430, 441,
Lagrange-Chancel, Oreste et 443, 489
Pilade 48, 49 Leighton, Frederick
Index 683
association w ith W higgism 50, 102, 105—6,
D orothy Dene 463 and n. 5, 109, 125, 331
482, 483-4 and n. 70 concern for, in Aeschylean
George W arr 463-4, 471 choruses 221
fem inist sym pathies 482 contiguity of political, poetic
painting of classical 52
subjects 441 n. 18 in opposition to tyranny,
standing in art world 480 and asserted by D ennis 46-8,
n. 59 51-4
Lem ercier, Louis Jean post 1688 50M-
N epom ucene 125 precondition for flourishing
Lem on, M ark art 52
burlesque on M edea 352-3, 371, sym bolized by spoken tragedy in
378, 382, 406-8 contrast to opera 53
editor of Punch, on comic Liberty Asserted, John
potential of Antigone 338 D ennis 46—8
Lem priere, D r, classical L iberty & Co., social
dictionary 358, 378 hellenism 480, 481
Lennox, C harlotte 90, 172, 219 Licensing Act, 1737 103-4 and
Leonidas, K ing o f Sparta, striking n. 13, 105, 106, 121
scenery 277 and n, 45 Life o f Shelley, Thom as Jefferson
Leonidas, R ichard G lover 50, 94, Hogg 228
266 n. 7 lighting, introduction of
Lepanto, Battle of 265 electric 360-1
Les Ballets Russes 547, 553 Lillo, G eorge 104, 126
Les Heraclides, Jean-Francois Lindsay, D avid, The N ereid’s
M arm ontel 188 n. 7 Love 273 n. 30
Les Huguenots, M yerbeer, m usic L ittle Red R iding Hood,
adapted for burlesque 366 pantom im e 351—2
Les Perses, French version inspired Liverpool
by Aeschylus 265 burlesques perform ed in 359
Lessing, G otthold Ephraim Parthenon Rooms, Tableau
125-7 vivant at 390
Levey, Richard, m usical director Lloyd, C. H ., m usic for Helena in
of T heatre Royal, D ublin 334 Troas 459
Lewes, G eorge H enry 302 and n. 6, Lloyd, R obert 208—9
353, 404, 410 Locke, John 42, 45, 46-9
Liberty, Jam es T hom son 50, 102, L ondon C orresponding
105-6, 109, 125 Society 224
liberty, ideal of London G reek C om m ittee 271
association with and n. 21
ancient G reece 50, 52, 272, London Society for the Extension
300-1 of U niversity T eaching 470
684 Index
L ondon U niversity, Endow m ent Lucian, translation by Thom as
Fund 462 Francklin 177
Longinus, On the Sublime 52 Lucifera’s Procession, Fairy Queen,
Longpierre, Medee 404 n. 48 G. H um phrey 229, 229-31
Lord, Daisy 518-19 Lufkeen, M r, delineation of The
Lord Byron in Athens; or, The Grecian Statues 389
Corsair’s Isle 272 n. 24 Lully, Alceste 117-18, 439n. 16
L ord C ham berlain, see censorship L yceum T heatre
L ’Oreste, see Oreste, L ’ B enson’s association w ith 454,
lost civilization them e, in 456
T alfourd’s works 314 burlesques perform ed in 365
Louis X V I 227 under Irving and T erry 454
L outherburg, Philippe de 174, see also individual plays
268 Lyndsay, David, The N ereid’s
love Love 273 n. 30
clandestine, com patibility w ith Lyric T heatre, M urray’s
virtue 139 Hippolytus at 495—6
erotic Lysistrata, A ristophanes 530 and
in G reek tragedy 91 n. 16
as threat to absolute pow er 39
interest, introduction, M acaria, representation of 65-6,
developm ent 38, 39 90
heterosexual, hom osexual 79, M acaulay, T hom as Babington,
484-5 L ord 35, 306-7, 309-10
m arriage for Macbeth, D avenant’s musical
encouragem ent 141 version 38
im portance affirm ed 142, Macbeth, Shakespeare 59-60,
144-6 129
prevention open to m oral M cC arthy, Lillah (1875-1960)
criticism 142 roles played by 498, 524, 540,
in Spicer’s Alcestis 442 545, 543^4
Love and D uty or the Distres’t suffragette 515
Bride, Sturm y 43 and n. 41 M acfarren, John 324
‘Love Leading A lcestis’, Burne- M ackie, Charles 112
Jones 441 n. 18 M ackinnon, Alan 456
L ove’s Victim, Charles G ildon 66, M acklin, Charles 129 and n. 9
71 and n. 15, 79, 117-18 M acklin, M aria 129 and n. 9
Lowe, Solom on 246 and n. 10 M aclise, Daniel 287, 288
lower classes, access to higher M acpherson, Jam es (1736-96)
education 470 193
Lucan 75, 203 M acready, W illiam (1793-1873)
Lucas, H ippolyte, version of adverse criticism of Covent
Alcestis 439—41, 442, 443 G arden Antigone 324
Index 685
association w ith T alfourd 287 m inim um age for legal 141
B row ning’s Strafford com posed procedures 140
for 286 and protection of vulnerable
influence 299-300 and n. 54, young w om en 141
311, 315, 326 control of extrem e parental
refusal to produce The M urder authority 141
Room 316—17 early V ictorian concept of 420
rejection of proposed Oedipus em erging debate over m arital
Tyrannus 332-3 violence 427
republicanism 284, 300 entering into, prior to M arriage
roles played by 282, 283, 286, Act 140-1, 146
299-300, 303, 306 n. 71 Ibsen’s concept of 488-9
‘sent u p ’ in Ion Travestie im pecunious, disastrous for
286 n. 14 wom an in m id-V ictorian
M adden, Sam uel, Themistocles, the B ritain 434—5
Lover o f his Country 42, 105 institution scrutinized in
M afei, M archese Francesco T alfourd’s Alcestis 435-6
Scipione, advocate of national laws regulating
theatre 102 n. 6 Divorce and M atrim onial
M aid of Athens, L ord Byron 357 Causes Act, 1857 140,
M ajor Barbara, G eorge Bernard 381, 401-2, 415-16 and
Shaw n. 78
C ourt T heatre production 501 M arriage Act 1753 140-2,
debt to M urray 502-3 144
sources 491, 492-3, 499-500, M arried W om en’s Property
505-8 and n. 68 Acts, 1870, 1882 420
M allet, David 106 reconsideration 419-20
M ansell, H enry significance of M edea 393-4,
Longueville 384—5 418-19, 419-22
M aria Stuart, Schiller 404 for love
M arie-A ntoinette 240 encouragem ent of 141
M arkland, Jerem iah 172 im portance affirm ed in
M arm ontel, Jean-Fran<jois, Les W hitehead’s
Heraclides 188n. 7 Creusa 144—6
m arriage prevention open to m oral
and im possibility of criticism 142
rem arriage 401 in Spicer’s Alcestis 442
clandestine progressive W hig attitude to 49
interest in, reflected in Shaw ’s com m ents on 488-9
Creusa 140—7 state of, to be favoured over
legitim acy a concern in desertion 401
B ritish theatre 141—2 and w ith deceased wife’s sister,
n. 40 controversy over 408 n. 57
686 Index
M arriage a-la-M ode, see also Elfrida; Caractacus
H ogarth 141-2 Masque of the Druids, John
M arriage as Trade, Cecily Fisher 213
H am ilton 518 m asques, court, tradition of 37-8
M arston, W estland 244 M athews, Charles (1776-1835)
M artin, T heodore 326 xv, 342-5, 353, 378, 396
M artin-H arvey, John M atilda, Thom as Francklin 173
(1863-1944) 523, 524, 536, m atricide, concerns about m orality
540, 541 of, onstage 1 55 ,15 9an d n . 13,
masks, absence from Balliol 179-82
Agamemnon 453 M atrim onial Causes Act, 1878 427
M ason, W illiam (1725-97) m atrim ony, see divorce; m arriage
adm iration for Alexander M atrim ony, John
Pope 190 Shebbeare 142 n. 41
anti-slavery view 189 n. 10 M attocks, Isabella 194
appeal to both conservatives and M aurice, F. D. 457
radicals 208-9 M aurice, Thom as (1754—1824)
association w ith John Delap 188 influence of P arr 225 and n. 37
and n. 7 influence on Shelley’s
background, education 194—5 philhellenism 228-9
belief in w om en druids 203 Poems and Miscellaneous Pieces
classicism attacked 208 with a free translation of the
com pletion of W hitehead’s Oedipus Tyrannus of
translation of Oedipus Sophocles 222, 240 and n. 97
Tyrannus 134 and n. 25, source for Faucit 240
191 n. 18, 215, 216 sources 266
freem ason 213 use of politicized chorus 234,
im pact in the visual arts 211-13 239
and n. 111 M avrokordatos, see Alexandros
influence of G reek tragedy M aynooth controversy 341-2, 342
on xiii, xv M ayr, Sim on 391—2
interest in church m usic 191 and M edea (m ythical figure)
n. 18 as abandoned wife 435
m onum ent in W estm inster as anti-heroine 404—8 and n. 48
A bbey 211, 212 attractive to painters 81, 424
passed over for poet in burlesque 393, 397, 409-10,
laureateship 1 30 491
political stance 181 depicted to evoke
pro-A m erican views 184,189 sym pathy 85-6, 398-9,
radicalism , philanthropy 190-2 400-1, 402-4, 413, 423,
tragedies in G recian model xiii, 514
xv, 190-1 different approaches of male,
use of chorus 198, 200—2, 225 female authors 420-1
Index 687
ethnicity 424 by Legouve 402-4, 403,
exotic sorceress 424 404-5, 405, 406,423,430,
focus for debate on divorce 416, 441, 443, 489
435 burlesque on them e of 342-5,
infanticide by 344
attributed to m adness 93-4, Byron’s parodic lines from 356
95 continuing influence 72, 82,
exculpation 92-5, 96-7, 385, 423
392, 393, 397-8 discovery coincident w ith
explanations of 396—7,419 discovery of New
recoil from , in British W om an 511
theatre 391, 392 musical burlesques of 56
as m odel of m aternal devotion perform ances
425 directed by Valpy 252—3
patriarchal perception of first in English translation
xxi-xxii 391
portrayals of 79—80, 81, 82, 93, at R ugby School 225 n. 39
94 and n. 91, 113, 114, 125, by U niversity and Bedford
174, 334, 342-5, 352-3, 369 Colleges 513
and n. 86, 396, 402-4, 403, perm anent place in British
405, 408, 410-15, 411, 423, repertoire vii-viii, 351 n. 5
424-9, 426, 428, 436, 514 recitations from , at R eading
prototype of School 253
‘distressed m other’ 63, 71, role of chorus 199—200
393, 422-3, 424 source for
the New W om an 429, 488—90, burlesque 360
511 John H eraud 415-19
representations of 90-1, 385, Joyner 11 n. 28
397-9, 406-8, 408-15, Planche’s The Golden
418-19, 423-9, 488-9 Fleece 359
singers portraying 391—2 and T alfourd’s The Athenian
n. 6 Captive 304
stream of dram as on them e W ills’s M edea in Corinth 425
of 392—3, 402; see also translations, editions
individual plays into G erm an 512
Victorian wom en identified w ith by G ilbert M urray 511-16
predicam ent 395, 398, by Joseph
422-3 M ontanelli 404 n. 45
Medea, E uripides ‘W om en of C orinth’
adaptations speech 11 n. 28, 398, 409,
by G ildon 66, 71, 118 488-9, 511
by G rillparzer 399, 400, 402, Medcea, Charles Johnson, see The
424, 443, 489 Tragedy of Medcea
688 Index
M edea, R ichard Glover M elpom ene, tragic M use, on
classical m odel for free nation M ason’s m onum ent 211,272
state 50 m en
em otional range dem anded of increasing anxieties about
actors 80, 90—1 effem inacy 484—5
exculpation of M edea 93—5, playing w om en’s parts, see cross-
392 dressed roles
M ary A nn Y ates’s acclaimed Menaechmi, Plautus 244
perform ance 174 M endelssohn, Felix Bartholdy
pro-fem inine alteration of Greek (1809-47)
plots 86—7 m usic for Antigone 197, 300,
revivals 94 n. 91 317, 318-19, 320, 322-5,
as ‘she-tragedy’ 66, 90—1 331-2, 335-6, 378
sources 91 m usic for Oedipus at
M edea, Seneca 391 and n. 3 Colonnus 318-19, 335
M edea in Athens, Augusta search for librettist 343
W ebster 421, 489 use of Antigone m usic for other
M edea in Corinth, John productions 336
H eraud 352, 395, 416—19, M ercadente, Saverio 332-3
430 M ercer, T hom as 193
M edea in Corinth, W illiam G ordon M eredith, George, Antigone 330
W ills 425-6 Merope, M atthew A rnold viii, 331
M edea in Corinto (opera), Sim on Metamorphoses, Ovid 359, 363,
M ayr, reaction to 391-2 366-7
M edea; or, a Libel on the Lady of M etastasio 132 and n. 18, 273
Colchis, M ark Lem on 352-3, M etcalfe, C ranstoun 366, 386
371, 378, 382, 406-8, 414, M etropolitan Police, depicted in
424 classical burlesque 381
M edea; The Best o f M others, W ith a M ichalis, Johann David, verse
Brute o f a Husband, R obert translation of T hom son’s
Brough 408-15, 411, 436 Agamemnon 126
M edea’s K ettle 55 M idas, Kane O ’H ara 56—8, 356
Medee, C herubini 404 and n. 48 m iddle classes
Medee, C orneille 92—3 access of lower, to higher
Medee, Longpierre 404 n. 48 education 470
Medee, N overre, spectacular access to classical culture 350,
ballet 393 362, 389-90
M edee ou VHopital desfous, Citizen appeal to, of ancient Greece 309
Bizet and H . Chaussier authors of burlesque frequently
4 0 4 n. 48 draw n from 371—7
M elbourne, L ord 282, 290 and creation of cultured 290 and
n. 33 n. 35
Index 689
liberal, hopes reposed in Q ueen reviews 243, 250 n. 33, 251-2,
Victoria 303 254, 255, 256, 261, 263
T alfourd’s concept of see also R ienzi
potential 299 M itford, W illiam, The H istory of
taste for private theatricals 383 Greece 301 and n. 64
see also classics M om igliano, A. 301 n. 64
M ighty Aphrodite, W oody M ona, see Anglesey
Allen 197 M ona Antiqua Restaurata, H enry
M ile End G reen, perform ance af Rowlands 204
Oedipus Tyrannus, 1714 218, m onarchy
246 concepts of
M ill, H elen T aylor 396 in D avenant’s Circe 39^10
M ill, John S tuart 396, 420 ‘king and no king’ 25-9
M ilner, H. M ., Britons at link w ith incest xvi, 7, 9-10,
N avarino 271 240
M ilton, John (1608-74) ‘the lazy’ 39^10
com m endation of recitation of contrast betw een tyrannical
classics 245 ageing, and idealistic
influence on D ryden 14-15, youth 309
15-16, 20, 24 Exclusion crisis 24—5
inspired by E uripides’ French responses to authority
Alcestis 116 -1 7,2 53,446 of 15
interest in Greece 38 H anoverian, acceptance 42, 43
link of m onarchy w ith tyranny, Joyner’s attitude to 10-12
incest 10 M ilton’s rejection of 12-13, 20
republicanism 12-13,20 as m irror of family, Faucit’s
used by P arr in teaching of representation of 242
G reek 226 and republicanism , in T alfourd’s
see also Samson Agonistes Ion 298-300, 303
M inerva, equation w ith responses of theatre
Britannia 333—4- to autocracy of Louis X IV 15
M inotaur, in Shelley’s Oedipus to succession problem s xvi, 7,
Tyrannus 231-3, 238—9 12, 43-4
M itford, M ary Russell Sophoclean concept
(1787-1855) relevance to English 7, 157-8,
association w ith T alfourd 287 159
Belford Regis 251 R estoration interest in 9-10
at first night of Ion 282 see also regicide
literary career, M oncrieff, W illiam , Zoroaster
associations 256-7 and n. 52 277-80
response to R eading School M onm outh, Earl of 27
perform ances M ontanelli, Joseph, translator of
personal 256-8 M edea 404 n. 45
690 Index
M oore, A lbert Joseph 335 background, career xvii, 494—5,
M oore, Edw ard, The 497 a n d n . 31, 511
Foundling 135 com parison w ith George
m orality, public, censorship to W arr 471-3
protect 528—9 concepts of religion,
M ore, H annah 310 n. 85 politics 497-9
M orell, T he Revd T ., translation influence of translations xii, 472,
of Hecuba 97 n. 98 492-5
M organ, Lady (Sydney Owenson), on links betw een E uripides and
W oman: or, Ida of Athens 270 Ibsen 490
M organwg, see W illiams, Edw ard related to W . S. G ilbert 491
M orley, H enry 353, 369-70, 412, relationship w ith George Bernard
439 Shaw 491-4, 502-3
M orris, W illiam , The Life and resistance to Poel’s attem pt to
Death o f Jason 424 alter Bacchae 498 and
m otherhood n. 40
ideological associations 92 revulsion against Boer W ar 508
issues of, relevance of M edea and nn. 85-6
515 support of suffragettes 511-12
see also infanticide and individual supporter of Bedford College
plays G reek plays 514
M ounet-Sully, Jean (1841-1916) view of
im pact, influence viii, 432—3, incest 533—4, 535
494, 521-6, 527, 534, Sophocles 535
540 see also individual plays
Isadora D uncan’s response to M urray, Lady M ary 504
545 and n. 65 music
M ovem ent for the Abolition of of ancient Greece, conceptual
U niversity T ests 468 link w ith Celtic
M r Buckstone’s Ascent of Parnassus, culture 192-3 and n. 26
Jam es R obinson Planche 370 in burlesque 345-7, 356, 366-71
M unicipal C orporations and n. 76
Com m ission 298 concept of liberating pow ers 549
m urder, V ictorian age’s fascination in productions of Greek
w ith 415, 421-3, 425 tragedy xi, xix, 28 and n. 81
M urphy, A rthu r 153, 159-62 and see also individual composers and
n. 40 plays
M urphy, M argaret 518-19 m usic hall, rise 377
M urray, G ilbert (1866-1957) M ycenae, interest in excavations
adm iration for R einhardt’s at 449
Oedipus 540—1 m yth, ancient
approach to translation 472—3 exem plar for problem s of
attitude to censorship 529, 536 succession 43
Index 691
light entertainm ent derived links between M edea and 429,
from 54-5, 338-9, 378 488-90, 511
opponents of 489-90
N adir S ha h , W illiam Jones 234 see also suffragettes
nakedness, sem i-nakedness, New York
innovative feature in productions of Antigone in 317,
productions 30-2, 31, 280 and 321, 336-7
n. 48 T alfourd’s Ion presented in 321
N apoleon, equation w ith Xerxes Newcastle, D uke of 167, 169
266 n. 7 Newdick, R obert S. 285 n. 7
national theatre, call for 102-3, New ton, Charles 471, 479, 484
432 New ton, T hom as 8n. 18
nationalism , G erm an, and interest N icander, representation of 142-3,
in G reek tragedy 318—21 143-6, 147
naturalism Nicholas Nickleby, D ickens’
in R einhardt’s Oedipus 539 readings from 375
rise, in theatre 432 N icholson, R enton 375, 388,
Nazi rallies, m odels for 526 390
N eander, approach to neo- Nicoll, Allardyce, im portance of
classicism 16 theatre history xiv-xv
neoclassicism Nietzsche, Friedrich (1844—1900)
association w ith backward- concept of liberating pow er of
looking regimes 208 m usic 549
in debate over chorus 198-9 im pact of Bacchae on xv
linking of O edipus and Electra influence on R einhardt’s Oedipus
them es 153-4 R ex 523—4-, 540
repudiation of 51, 52-3, 208-9, ostracism 498
319, 427 relationship w ith W agner 493
Neville, Alexander, Oedipus 8 and and n. 18
n. 18 Nijinsky 546 and n. 72
New British Theatre, The, edited by Nikolai'dis, John xi, 225
A braham John Valpy 248 N ile, Battle of the, and literary
New Royalty T heatre, burlesques echoes of Salamis 266 and
perform ed in 360 n. 7
N ew W om an N obel, Alfred, m odel for
appearance on B ritish stage 429 U ndershaft 502
Barker’s plays on 495 Nolan, Edw ard 365, 373
concept of 393, 395—6, 396-7, N onconform ists, influence of 287,
414 310-11
food for thought in E uripides’ N ordau, M ax 489-90
Alcestis 460—1 N o rth of England Council for the
im pact of Balliol College H igher E ducation of
Agamemnon 456 W om en 470
692 Index
N orton, Caroline 394—5 com patibility of character w ith
N orw ich G ram m ar School, P arr’s revolutionary
period at 228 principles 226-7
N orw ich T heatre Royal, concept of ‘English’ 1-29
production of Fitzball’s conceptual link w ith Judas
Antigone 274 Iscariot xxi, 8 and n. 19
N orw ood, G ilbert, Euripides and eighteenth-century reception
Shaw 490 of 217-22
novels, apocalyptic, ‘last of the figure of the E nlightenm ent 217
race’ 296 French reception of 7, 219, 221,
N overre, Jean-G eorges 521-6
Iphiginia in A ulide 62 and n. 83 im pact on Freud viii, 494, 525—6
spectacular ballet Medee 392 link w ith radicalism 240
model for Caractacus 187-8
oath them es, popularity in 1820s and nature of kingship 26, 220
301 persistent moral reservations
‘Ode on the M usic of the G recian about 215-16
T h eatre’ (lost), W illiam portrayals of 522-6, 527, 540, 546
Collins 193 representations of 10, 22-4,
Ode to A dversity, T hom as G ray 217-22, 222-8, 240, 241-2,
124 282, 294, 368, 534, 539-42
Ode to Liberty, Collins 185 sym bolism in final exits 20
O deion of H erodes A tticus, as tragic foundling 128
A thens, perform ance of see also under individual plays
Antigone in, 1867 336 Oedipus, Seneca
Odyssey, as source 109, 358—9, 364 influence on D ryden and Lee
Oedipe, Pierre Corneille 22, 24
as source 22, 23, 24, 241 sixteenth-century versions 7-8
D ryden and L ee’s version Oedipus at Colonus, Sophocles
com pared 5, 217 actors, actresses in 335
English response to 9 D ryden and L ee’s version
influence 9 com pared 5—6
Joyner’s O edipus contrasted M ason’s work com pared
w ith 10 favourably w ith 211
Oedipe, V oltaire 5, 227 M endelssohn’s music for 318-19
(Edipe-Roi, M arie-Joseph Chenier, model for W illiam M ason’s
representation of O edipus Caractacus xiii, xv, 184,
226, 239 186, 187-8
CEdipe Roi, Sophocles, M ounet- perform ance in 1859 446
Sully’s interpretation 521-6, royal com m and perform ances
527 318-19
O edipus (mythical figure) as source 12-13, 184, 295, 360
circum stances of death 9 sym bolism of O edipus’ exit 20
Index 693
unlikely reading from , at R einhardt’s production 522-6
Reading School 253 n. 41 and n. 5, 523, 538-42, 546,
Oedipus Tyrannus, (Oedipus Rex), 547, 548, 553, 554
Sophocles as source 12, 293-4, 360
attem pts to stage 534—8 translations, editions, versions
censorship by D acier 28, 153-4,
im posed 6, 103, 529-34 217-18
lifted 534-8 by Francklin 220-1, 250
as dom estic rather than heroic by G ilbert M urray 533-4,
tragedy 220, 221 537-8, 539
D ryden’s debt to 21 by John Sheppard 522
far-reaching im plications 318 by Jules Lacroix (into
F aucit’s m usical version 240—2, French) 522
267, 274, 326 by M aurice 222—4-, 266
‘hu b ris’ chorus published to by W . B. Yeats 536
illustrate career of Kaiser by W . L. C ourtney 531, 533
xi n. 10 by W hitehead (unfinished)
inspiration for neo-classical 134 and n. 25
painting 275 n. 38 Oedipus, Alexander Neville 8 and
Isadora D uncan’s production n. 18
(O R) 546 Oedipus, anonym ous, early
L acroix’s version (OR) 521-8, translation 8 and n. 18
539 Oedipus, D ryden and Lee
lifting of ban 538 actresses in 81
link w ith Electra 15 3—4, 162 and censorship 6, 531 n. 19, 532,
m uch favoured in France 153, 539
216, 220 chorus confined to staged
paradigm atic tragedy 28 rituals 197
perform ances death of O edipus in 9
at C am bridge, 1887 529, 534, debts to Shakespeare 17
539 direct influence 5-6, 62
in M ile End G reen, 1714 218, far-reaching im plications 318
246 fascination w ith deviant
by pupils of Thom as sexuality xvi
Sheridan 246 fem inine perspective 67
at Reading School 348, 350—1 first perform ance 1
at Stanm ore School, 1776 xi, French versions com pared 5
174n. 55 195, 225 influence of Beaum ont and
perm anent place in B ritish Fletcher 26
repertoire vii misgivings about incest in xvi,
reasons for B ritish engagem ent 22, 23-4, 215-16, 239-10,
w ith 216-17 531 n. 19, 532
694 Index
Oedipus, D ryden and Lee (cont.)\ comic dim ensions 235-6
parallels w ith Evans’s version considered a failure 235 n. 70
9 n. 22 im portance of chorus 233,236-9
political resonances 24-9 parallel w ith satyr plays 236
Purcell’s incidental m usic 28 plot, them es 235-9
rise and fall in popularity 217,218 political objectives 239
significance 1-7 relation to crisis over Queen
source for Faucit 241-2 C aroline 231-3
sources 3—5, 21-4 suppression 233, 240
star perform ers 3 title page 235
tragedy of spectacle 17-18 O f Education, John M ilton,
Oedipus, T hom as Evans, influence 117,245,253
publication, 1615 9 and n. 22 Ogygia, island of 205
Oedipus, W illiam G ager 8 O ’Hara, Kane (P1714—82) 56-8,356
Oedipus, W hitehead, com pleted by Oldfield, M rs 79 and n. 30
M ason 134 and n. 25, Olive, E dyth 514, 515, 516
191 n. 18, 215, 216 Olympic Devils, Jam es R obinson
Oedipus, A M usical Drama in 3 Planche 358
A cts, John Savill Faucit 240—2 Olympic Revels, Jam es R obinson
and n. 99, 267, 274 Planche 338-9, 357-9
Oedipus and Antigone (lost), John Olym pic T heatre, burlesques
Flaxm an 211-13 in 338-9, 357, 366-7
Oedipus in the H aym arket, On Divination, Cicero 149
Planche 378 ‘O n N ot Know ing G reek’, Virginia
Oedipus, K ing of Thebes, George W oolf 182
Som ers Clark (prose On the Sublime, L onginus 52
translation) 240 One Thousand Seven H undred and
Oedipus, K ing o f Thebes, G ilbert Thirty Eight, a Dialogue,
M urray’s version 537-8 Something Like Horace,
Oedipus, K ing o f Thebes, Lewis A lexander Pope 115
Theobald, illustrated 47 opera
Oedipus, K ing of Thebes, R obert im pact of C ontinental 52-3
Potter, m etaphysical introduction of term 36
orientation 221 I T a source for 62
Oedipus, K ing o f Thebes, Thom as light, taste for 353
A rne 28 n. 81 significance of Dirce 273-4
Oedipus Masque, Sophocles’ Electra rendered as
J. E. G alliard 28 n. 81 psychosexual 152
Oedipus Oetaeus, pseudo- source of m usic for parodies in
Seneca 197 burlesque 366
Oedipus Tyrannus, or Swellfoot the toleration of unnatural violence
Tyrant, Shelley in 392
awareness of G reek original 233 see also individual works
Index 695
O pium W ars 266, 384 figure representing, in
Oracle of Delphi, authentic A lzu m a 171-2
representations of scenery portrayals of 275, 277, 278, 371
268 representations of 90-1, 104,
oracles, O edipus’ consciousness of 157-2, 163, 180, 334, 385
ordinances 23 Orestes, E uripides
Oreste, Alfieri 124 educational study
Oreste, G iovanni Rucellai 41 and encouraged 253-4
n. 37, 48 English translation published at
Oreste, H andel 34, 36, 49, 62 and Reading School 254
n. 81 m urder of Clytem nestra 92 n. 83
Oreste, Jean-M arie Janin, source perform ances
for Bayley 275 at Reading School 243-4,
Oreste, L ’, B enedetto M ichaeli 62 251-2, 254, 259, 262, 304
Oreste, L ’, G iangualberto reviewed by L ondon Sta r
Barlocci 62 256
Oreste, Voltaire reviewed by M itford 243,
and Sophocles’ Electra 152, 254, 261, 263
173-4, 175 Orestes, Lewis T heobald
source for M urphy ’s adaptation of I T 36
A lzu m a 170 and com ic dim ension of
Thom as Francklin’s Iphigenia 54—60, 356
version 78 n. 22, 220 influence of Aeschylyus’
Oreste et Electre, ‘G rand T ragic Eumenides 55 n. 72,11 n. 26
Ballet’ 175-6 scenic, musical elem ents 59-60
Oreste et Pilade, Lagrange- Orestes, Pikering’s (‘Horestes’) 163
Chancel 48, 49 and n. 18
Oresteia, Aeschylus Orestes, T hom as Francklin 174
Frank Benson’s tour w ith 432 Orestes in Argos, Peter Bayley
L ondon venue for Benson’s 492 costum ing of 280-1
and n. 13 frontispiece 278
reasons for W arr’s choice of playbill 276
474-6 sources 267, 275-7
translations, by W arr 472—3 visual im pact 277, 279
see also individual plays Origen, Against Celsus 149
O restes (m ythical figure) O rpheus, transvestite portrayal
as analogue for son of George of 367
III 168 Orpheus; or, the M agic Lyre,
as analogue for Young B urnand 383
Pretender 166 Orpheus andEurydice, H enry Byron,
conceptual link w ith H am let xxi, burlesque 363, 370, 371
155 Osm yn (Alphonso), representations
costum ing of 280 of 157-62, 170
696 Index
Ossian 193-4 see also O xford U niversity
O ttom an Em pire D ram atic Society and
conceptual link w ith individual colleges
A chaem enid Persia 265 O xford U niversity Dram atic
equation w ith barbaric Society
opponents of Greece Alan M ackinnon the founder
38-9 of 456
G reece under dom ination of Alcestis, 1887 458-9, 485-6
333
im portance of relationship with Paine, T om 301-2
G reece xi, xix Palace T heatre 548-9,551
see also Greece, m odern Palaeologus, G regorios, The
Our Greek P lay, anon., 1892 Death o f Demosthenes
387-8 273 n. 30
Our School, or, Scraps and Scrapes Palairet brothers, in Reading
in Schoolboy Life, B. B. Bockett School’s Orestes 254
(Oliver Oldfellow) 259-60 Palgrave, Francis T urner,
Ovid 130, 359, 363, 366-7 ‘Alcestis: A Poem ’ 443 n. 25
Owen, R obert, Hypermnestra, or Pan, or, the Loves o f Echo and
Love in Tears 43 Narcissus, H enry
Owenson, Sydney, see M organ Byron 379-80, 380
O xford Classical T exts, M urray’s Pandora 357
contribution to 494 Pankhurst, Em m eline 512
O xford U niversity Pankhurst, Sylvia 518
anxieties about cross-dressed pantom im e
theatricals 452 annual, at D rury Lane 338
ban on theatrical danseuse en travesti tradition
perform ances 286, 384, 431 367
defied 286 m id-nineteenth-century
cross-dressed roles developm ent 351-2
prohibited 452, 458, Paradise Lost, John M ilton,
485-6 adaptation for stage 15-16
early productions in 8 parody, taste for, in ancient
G reek plays Greece 55
fashionable events 459 ‘P arr rebellion’ 227-8
im portance 457 Parr, Sam uel (1747-1825)
privileging of H om er 476 association w ith Richard
political, religious controversies Valpy 248
satirized 384—5 early m em ber of L ondon Greek
T riennial V isitation of Reading C om m ittee 271 n. 21
School 248-50 G reek plays staged at Stanm ore
undergraduate theatricals 383-5 School 174 n. 55 192, 225,
and n. 152 244, 431
Index 697
influence 224-8, 228-2, 234 Penshaw M onum ent, 306, 307
influence of M ilton 253 Pentheus, representations of
radicalism 224, 227—8 497-9, 505-8
satirical illustrations 229, Pentheus, A m cott 381, 383—4
229-31 ‘people’s theatre’, R einhardt’s
Spital Serm on 228 concept of 521-6
support for Q ueen C aroline 230 Pepys, Sam uel 79
Parratt, W alter 453 perform ance genres,
parricide im portance xviii
execution of Charles I perceived perform ance history, effect on
as 9-10 scholarly opinion of ancient
ground for censorship 530-4 texts xxii
link w ith incest, regicide 22, 24 perform ance styles, see acting and
recoil from , in adaptations of under individual artistes
G reek tragedy 6 Pergam i, Bartolom eo 231, 232
rejection by Joyner 11 Persia, ancient, fashion for
Parry, John W elsh 192 theatrical settings, revivals
Parson Adam s, sources for 111 and 61
n. 26 Persian Princess, Lewis
Parthenon, influence on stage T heobald 55 n. 72
design 290 Persians, Aeschylus
passion, relation between reasons, actors, actresses in 514
sym pathy and 84 burlesque of 384
Pasta, G iuditta 391-2 and n. 6 cultural, historical im pact 264—7
Patience, G ilbert and Sullivan 387 and nn. 2-7
Patient Penelope; or, The Return French version (Les Perses)
of Ulysses, Francis B urnand inspired by Aeschylus
364 265
Patriot K ing, W hig concept influence xi, 55 n. 72, 101
of 114-15 Karolos K oun’s use of chorus,
Patriot opposition, m em bership, 1960s 197-8
aims 104—8 perform ances
patriotism , dom inant them e in in Britain, 1907 265-6
T alfourd’s works 314 for patriotic purposes, in
Pausanias, Description o f Greece 65 France, Greece
Peace and W ealth, 265-6
A ristophanes 244 publication of speech by D arius
Peacock, T hom as Love 531 n. 19 to illustrate effects of
Peel, R obert 342, 342 war xi n. 10
Penelope Renaissance enactm ent 265
actresses portraying 77 as source 234
as prototype of distressed translation by B. J. Ryan
m other 75-8 262 n. 5, 514
698 Index
Peru Phenomenology, Hegel 320-1
setting for A lzum a 169—72 Phidias 318
theatrical traditions of Rom e Philip, A m brose 42, 67, 68, 69
and, com pared 202 Philips, K atherine 83
Peterloo m assacre 237, 289 Phillips, W illiam, Hibernia
Petraki Germano; or, A lm anzar the Freed 42
Traitor, J. D obbs, pro-G reek Philoctetes, Sophocles
stance 271 inspiration for neo-classical
Phaedra painting 275 n. 38
need for exculpation of 96—7 M ason’s work com pared
portrayals of 73, 74, 79, 515 favourably w ith 211
pro-fem inine figure 87 perform ance by pupils of
representations of 86 and n. 59, T hom as Sheridan 246
87, 199 as source 110, 190-1, 272
type of ‘distressed m other’ 63 translation by Thom as
inspiration for Thom as Sheridan 110,246
R ym er 70 in W akefield’s school
M adam e R achel’s acclaimed selection 289
perform ance in 402 Phocion 310-11
nineteenth -century Phoenician Women (Phoenissae),
productions 32 n. 6 Euripides
source for John D ennis 48 archetypal civil war tragedy 9,
success, influence 71 43-4
Phaedra and Hippolitus, E dm und as source 43-4, 66, 82, 190-1,
Sm ith 274, 293-4
actresses in 79 unlikely reading from , at
im portance 88 n. 65 Reading School 253 n. 41
popularity 72 and n. 16 Phorbas, representation of 143—4,
revivals 88, 129, 133 148-9
‘she-tragedy’ 66, 71—2 and n. 16, photography, im pact on accuracy
86 and n. 59 of theatrical
Phaeton, Charles G ildon 36, 66, productions 324—5
71, 118 physicality, of perform er, em phasis
Phedre, Racine on 546 and n. 70
Phaeton; or, Pride M ust Have a Pichat, M ichel, Leonidas 277 n. 45
Fall, W illiam Brough 383 Pikering, John, Horestes 163 and
Phanariot com m unity, Odessa, n. 18
production of Sophocles’ Pirithoiis, the Son o f Ixion,
Philoctetes 272 B urnand 371
Pharsalia, Lucan 75 plagiarism
Phaeton, Q uinault, influence 49, Congreve accused of 162
71, 118 widespread in eighteenth
Phedre, see Phaedra century 3
Index 699
Plague, 1665, response of Poe, E dgar Allan 336-7
dram atists to 25, 27 Poel, W illiam (1852-1934)
Planche, Jam es Robinson association w ith G ranville
(1794-1880) Barker 495
archaeological interests 343, interest in M urray’s
477 Hippolytus 494, 495
burlesque of The Birds 345—7, productions of Alcestis 445 n. 35,
346 519 and n. 128
concepts of burlesque and staging of M urray’s Bacchae 498
extravaganza 343, 355 and and n. 40, 551
n. 28, 477 Poems and Miscellaneous Pieces with
H uguenot associations 34 n. 19 a free translation o f the Oedipus
Olympic Devils 358 Tyrannus of Sophocles,
Olympic Revels, burlesque of T hom as M aurice 222
classical m ythology Poems on Various Subjects, Thom as
338-9 T alfourd 289
search for authenticity 347, 432, poetic justice, concept of, and death
477 of O edipus 9
socio-educational background Poetics, see Aristotle
372 Poiret, Paul 549
stated objectives 347 Poland, G reek tragedy in vii n. 2
see also The Golden Fleece politics
Plautus butt of hum our in T heobald’s
perform ance of plays by pupils of I T 59
T hom as Sheridan 245 place at centre of culture, in age
plays perform ed at Reading of reform 314—15 \ see also
School 249 Reform Act and individual
popularity of plays on authors, plays
C ontinent 244 and religion, concepts of
Pliny the Elder, w ritings searched M urray, Shaw 497-9
for druidical lore 203 see also Tories; W higs
Pluto and Proserpine; or the Belle Polynices, Sophoclean, model for
and the Pomegranate, A n Arviragus 188
Entirely N ew and Original Pom ponius M ela 203
M ythological Extravaganza of Poor Law A m endm ent
the 0th Century, classical Act, 1834 296
burlesque, H. J. Byron, 359, Pope, A lexander (1688-1744)
381 n. 139 adm ired by W illiam M ason 190
Plutus, Aristophanes com m endation of The F atal
translations Legacy 82 and n. 42
by H enry Burnell 40 at opening of T hom son’s
by T heobald 55, 56 Agamemnon 106
by Young and Fielding xvii in ‘Patriot’ opposition 104
700 Index
Pope, A lexander (1688-1744) Prometheus, anonym ous
(cont.): pantom im e 111 n. 26
projected Brutus 190 and n. 15 Prom etheus, costum e in Olympic
satire on W alpole as Revels 358
‘E gisthus’ 115 Prometheus; or, the M an on the
Pope, Elizabeth (Elizabeth Rock!, R obert Reece 359-60,
Younge) 68, 94 n. 9 1 ,131,158 360, 367, 368
pornography, poses plastiques Prometheus and Pandora, see
verging on 389-90 Olympic Revels
Porson, R ichard (1759-1808) 155, Prometheus Bound, Aeschylus
251-2, 252-3, 256-7 parallels in Samson Agonistes 13
Porteous Riots, E dinburgh 105 translations
Porter, M ary A nn 80, 93, 113-14 by A ugusta W ebster 473
Portsm outh, burlesques perform ed by Potter 111 and n. 26,
in 359 209—10 and n. 104
Portugal, R istori’s perform ance as Prometheus Unbound, Shelley 234,
M edea in 404 237, 239
poses plastiques 30 and n. 3, 389-90 property, invidious laws 401-2,
Potsdam , staging of Antigone in 416, 420
Neues Palace 320 Protestant succession, see
Potter, R obert m onarchy
in praise of M ason 210-11 Protestantism , and classical
translations 111 and n. 26, scholarship 35
209-10 and n. 104, 220-2 public good, W hig principle
power, absolute, threatened by of 114-15
erotic passion 39 public houses, access to classical
Poynter, E. J. 463-4, 471 culture through 389-90
Pre-R aphaelites, fascination w ith Pullen, Alice, see Dene, D orothy
Alcestis 443 n. 25 Punch
Pretenders, O ld and Young, Antigone cartoons 323, 337—8,
ancient m odels for 43—4 342
Prince of W ales, see Frederick, appeal of 354
Prince of W ales on M aynooth controversy 342,
P rince’s Hall, Piccadilly 462-8, 342
474-5 reviews
Princess’s T heatre, O xford Street, of Helena in Troas 463 and
production of The Ruins of nn. 7-8, 467-8
Athens; A Dramatic of Oxford Greek plays 459, 460
M asque 333—4 Punishm ent of Incest Act,
Pritchard, H annah (1711-68) 80, 1908 532-3
129 and n, 7, 144, 145 puns, essential to burlesque
private theatricals, popularity of 364-5
W hitehead’s Creusa 130 Purcell, H enry xix, 28, 38
Index 701
Puritans Q uinault, Philippe 49, 71, 118
association of theatricals w ith Quincey, Thom as de 327-8,
R om an Catholicism 163 329-30
O rdinance banning stage plays,
1642 163, 164-5,244 Rachel, M adam e 402-3
royalist dram atists’ attacks Racine
on 163-5 influence 33—6, 44, 67, 70
Purvis, Billy, fairground influence of E uripides’
theatre 388-9 Ion 132-3
Pygmalion, G eorge B ernard Shaw, portrayal of H ippolytus-Phaedra
source of inspiration 483 and m yth 11
n. 70 source for The M ourning
Pygm alion and Galatea, m yth Bride 162
reflected in association of see also individual plays
Leighton and Dene 483 -4 racism
Pylade et Oreste, C oqueteau de La echoes of 351, 373
C lairiere 41 and n. 37 in N olan’s Agamemnon at
Pylades Home 383 n. 150
brother—sister bond w ith radicalism
E lectra 304 explicit, alien to burlesque 373
figure representing, in link w ith Sophoclean
A lzum a 171—2 O edipus 240
Pythia, representation of 150 P arr’s connections w ith 227-8
and rereading of Oedipus
Qualification of W om en Tyrannus 216-17
Act, 1907 512 and support for Queen
Queen Dido, or the Trojan C aroline 229-31
Ramblers 55 see also under individual
Queen M ab, Shelley 293 protagonists
Q ueen’s College, H arley Street railways, obsession w ith, in
Alcestis burlesque 346—7,
m usic for 456-7 n. 70 381-2
perform ance, 1886 457, 458 Raleigh, W alter 538
Q ueen’s T heatre (later K ing’s Ralph, Jam es 51, 200
Theatre) Rangavis, Alexander, translation of
Antigone painted on proscenium Antigone 336
arch 335 Rape of Proserpine, Lewis
burlesques perform ed at 367 T heobald 54
first perform ance of S m ith’s R apin de T hoyras, H istory of
Phaedra and Hippolitus 72 England 116
see also K ing’s T heatre and Rapin, Pere, Les Reflexions sur la
individual plays poetique, R ym er’s
Q uin, Jam es, actor 107 translation 16-17
702 Index
Rasbotham , D om ing SO—1 and echoes of G reek dram a, in The
n. 59 Athenian Captive 303—4
Rauzzini, Venazio, Creusa in link w ith fear of incest,
Delfo 151 parricide 22
Reading Abbey, girls school at 249 relevance of Sophoclean them e
Reading, Berks. to English m onarchy 7,
A m ateur M usical Society 251 157-8, 159
social, cultural life 249-50, 257, Sophocles’ treatm ent of 22
259-60 R einhardt, M ax (1873-1943)
T alfourd the first elected M P concept of ‘people’s theatre’ 526
for 290 ‘cosm opolitan corporeality’ 528,
Reading School 546, 547
im pact on Thom as influence 542-3 and n. 56, 548
T alfourd 287-9 productions
link w ith C hannel Islands 247 M edea 512
perform ances Oedipus R ex 522—6 and n. 5,
of G reek tragedy 243-4, 248, 523, 538-2, 546, 547, 548,
250-1, 251-2, 253—4, 255, 553, 554
257, 259, 261-3, 304, 431 W ilde’s Salome 538, 548
quest for authenticity 261-3 religion
T riennial V isitation 248-50 concept of features shared by
venue for G reek plays 251 Greek, druidical 204
see also M itford; Valpy concern for, in Aeschylean
reason, relation betw een passion, choruses 221
sym pathy and 84 eighteenth-century attitudes
recognition scenes to 147-50
in Bayley’s Orestes in Argos 111 link between radical, and love of
in D ryden and L ee’s Oedipus 22 classics xvii
in T alfourd’s Ion 293-4 and politics, concepts of M urray,
significance 157-62,760,172,173 Shaw 497-9
R edford, G eorge Alexander, reconciliation of G reek with
Exam iner of Plays 530 and C hristianity 149—50,
n. 16, 532-3, 534, 535, 536, 310-11, 329-30
537, 541-2 Religious D ram atic Society,
Reece, R obert 359-60, 360, 367 U niversity of L ondon 35
Reflections on the French Revolution, republicanism
E dm und Burke 231 and association of m onarchy with
Reform Act, 1832 281, 284, 285, incest 9-10
298-9, 306 attractions of A eschylus’
reform m ovem ent 284-5, 363, Persians 265 n. 2
372-3 and n. 102 inspired by Greek, Roman
regicide models 50
and civil war 26 in John M ilton 12-13, 20
Index 703
Thom as T alfourd’s sym pathy Robins, Elizabeth 518
w ith 298-300, 373 and Robinson Crusoe, source for
n. 102 T hom son’s Agamemnon 110
and W hig adaptations of G reek Robinson, H enry C rabb 290 and
tragedy 50 n. 33, 392
Restoration, T he R obson, Eleanor 504
experim ents w ith Greek Robson, Frederick 369 n. 86,
tragedy xviii 410-15, 411, 436, 436-8
strength of French influence Rochlitz, Johann Friedrich,
xix, 7 adaptation of Antigone 319-20
vogue for heroic dram a 13-14 R odd, Rennell 453
W ase’s celebration of 165 Roman Empress, The, Joyner xvi
see also m onarchy R om anticism
resurrection m otif, difficulties for as focus for rebels, social
British theatre-goers critics 239-40
117-18 n. 42 G erm an, influence of
revenge tragedy, first English 163 Sophocles 318
Reynolds, Joshua 89 and n. 71, im pact of acquisition of classical
180 antiquities 290 n. 35
Rhigas, revolutionary influence of M ason 211
balladeer 264—5 and n. 2 T hom son recognized as a
rhym e, and blank verse, attitudes forerunner of 126
to 52 Rome, ancient
Rice, Charles 389 adm iration for druids’ resistance
Rich, John 58 to 190 and n. 15, 202-4
Richardson, John 339 conceptual link between early
Richardson, Sam uel 90 Britain and 184—7, 190,
R ichm ond, W . B. 453 191-2
R ienzi, M ary Russell M itford 308 conceptual links between history
Rigg, D iana 429 and dram a xxi. 184—6
Ristori, Adelaide nineteenth-century play inspired
(1822-1906) 402^1 and n. 45, by 284
403, 405, 412, 438 parallel w ith grow th of B ritish
Ritualists, C am bridge 497, 507 em pire 183, 184
Robe, Jane (floruit 1723), The Fatal plays deriving from comedies x
Legacy 44 and n. 45, 66, 82-3 and n. 8
and n. 42 republican symbols invoked by
R oberdeau, John Peter 248, French revolutionaries
266 n. 7 216
R obin H ood, pantom im e revivalism 61, 89 and n. 71
them e 351-2 theatrical traditions of Peru and,
Robin Hood, W illiam Brough 383 com pared 202
704 Index
Rome, ancient (cont.): Royalists, responses to Greek
tragedies, as m anifestation of dram a xvii
English classicism 66 and Royalty T heatre 364
n. 7 R ubens, ‘Sim on and Pero (Roman
W hig ideals derived from 50, C harity)’ 180n. 71
105 Rucellai, Giovanni, Oreste 41 and
Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare 335 n. 37, 48
Rom ney, G eorge R ugby School, M edea perform ed
cartoons of Aeschylus 209, 210 at 225 n. 39
M edea Contemplating the M urder ruins, classical, theatrical
o f her Children 95 and n. 95, recreation of 268-9, 269, 273,
96 277-81
Romola, G eorge Eliot 332 Rule Britannia, origins,
Ross, L ady K atherine 78 context 99, 104—5
Rossini, Le Siege de Corinthe 27 5 Ruskin, John 475
R otaller, Georgius 163 Russell, B ertrand 494
Rousseau, Jean Jacques 86 Russell, L ord John 285
Rowe, Nicholas (1674—1718) Ryan, B. J., translation of
concept of tragedy 75-8 Persians 262 n. 5, 514
Electra com pared w ith Rym er, Thom as (1641-1713)
Ham let 155, 179 A Short View o f Tragedy 266
Jane Shore 75 concept of G reek tragic
scholarship, influence 75—8 and heroines 69-70
n. 19 influence on D ryden 16-17
she-tragedies revived 88 proposed relocation of
Tamerlane 42 A eschylus’ Persians to
use of term ‘she-tragedy’ 75 Spain 101
Rowlands, H enry 204 T alfourd’s essay on 287 n. 24
Roxana, W illiam use m ade of G reek tragedy xv
Alabaster 117n. 39
Royal Academ y 173, 176-7, 479, sacrifice
480 of m aiden, popularity of
Royal Com m ission on them e 32, 62, 64—5
D ivorce 399, 417-18 for the public good, in W hig
Royal C ourt T heatre, see C ourt ideology 114—15
T heatre Sadayakko 545 and n. 63
Royal Institution, educational Sadler’s W ells T heatre 419
policy 470, 471 St A ndrew s U niversity,
Royal Navy, V alpy’s interest perform ances of authentic
in 246-7 G reek tragedy 431, 448
Royal W est L ondon T heatre, St B artholom ew ’s Fair 356
significant Oedipus at 240—2, S t G eorge’s Hall, London 453-4
274 St Jam es’s H all 335 n. 48
Index 705
St Jam es’s T heatre, classical Scaliger, Joseph 35
burlesques 359; see also Scandinavia, contribution of
individual plays authors from xix-xx
St Joh n’s College, Scarron, Paul, Virgile travesti 339
Cam bridge 244 n. 2 scenery, see spectacle; stage design
St Joh n’s College, O xford 383 Schiller, Die B raut von Messina,
St L eonard’s School, St A ndrew s experim ental use of
456 chorus 196n. 42
Salamis, Battle of 264, 265 n. 2, Schlegel, A ugust W ilhelm von
266 (1767-1845)
Salle, M arie 30-1, 62 adaptation of Ion 289 n. 27,
Salome, Oscar W ilde 538, 551-3 319-20
Salome, R ichard Strauss 538, 551 denunciation of Euripides 443
Salvation A rm y Dramatic Literature 326
links betw een Dionysiac cult lectures on G reek tragedy 318,
and 499-500 320, 443, 475, 478
Shaw’s response to 500-2; see Schliem ann, archaeological
also M ajor Barbara excavations 449, 455, 475-6
Samson Agonistes, John M ilton Schweitzer, A nton 441 n. 19
and Aristotelian definition of Scotland
tragedy 14—15 crim inalization of incest 532
influence on D ryden 14—15, English fear of dom ination of
15-16, 20 governm ent by Scots
not designed for perform ance 13 168
sources in G reek tragedy 12—14 Scott, W alter
translation into G reek 225 recoil from depiction of
use of chorus 196 incest 530
Sandbach, M argaret, Antigone 330 response to Oedipus, D ryden
Sandford, Sam uel 17 and Lee 1, 5-6, 9, 215 and
Sappho, burlesques, variants 385 n.2
Sappho, W illiam M ason 191 n. 18 Scott, W illiam , Professor of
Sappho-, or, Look Beford You Leap, G reek 112
B urnand 383 sculptural m etaphor, simile 328,
Sargon, m yth of 128 and n. 1 335, 484
satire, rejection in favour of sculpture, G reek 125-6, 280,
rom antic approach 124 545-6
satyr plays, Oedipus Tyrannus, or Sellers, Eugenie, see Strong
Swellfoot the Tyrant as 236 Seneca
savage, educable, concepts of 49 adaptors’ choice of G reek texts
Savoy T heatre 431, 511 dram atized by 130
Saxe-M einingen Com pany 432 com pared unfavourably w ith
and n. 5 M ason 211
Sayers, Frank 211 influence 22, 66-7, 125
706 Index
Seneca (cont.): protest at censorship 529
perform ance of plays on reaction to M urray’s Bacchae
C ontinent 244 499
portrayal of H ippolytus—Phaedra relationshp w ith G ilbert
m yth 11, 86n. 59 M urray 472, 491-4
as source 109, 112, 163 testim ony to im portance of
sensibility, eighteenth-century theatre xvii
concept of 90-1, 124 see also individual plays
Septem, Aeschylus 253 n. 41 ‘she-author’, origin of term 82 n. 42
Settle, Elkanah, The Siege of she-tragedy
Troy 54 classical sources 66-70
Seven Years W ar 170, 172, 183-4 coining of term 75
Seward, A nna 211 echoed in visual arts 89 and n. 71
Sewrin, C., L a Sorciere 404 n. 48 focus on ‘sensibility’ 90-2
sexual deviancy im pact of actresses, women
fascination w ith xvi authors, dram atists 78-8
M aud Allan accused of 548, 553 and n. 44, 90, 114
see also hom osexuality; incest im portance xviii
Shaftesbury, Earl of 27, 52 invention in British theatre 70—8
Shakespeare, W illiam move from passion to
conceptual links w ith G reek com passion 83—8
dram a xxi transform ation of original
inspiration for T o d h u n ter’s Agamemnon to 112-15
Alcestis 445 Shebbeare, John, The Marriage
productions of, fashion for A ct 141-2 and n, 41
classical sets 268 Shelley, Percy Bysshe (1792-1822)
source of inspiration for appeal of G reek tragedy to
burlesque 358-9 radicalism of xiii, 208,
use of chorus 196 231-3, 242
Shaw, Fiona 152, 429 engagem ent w ith O edipus m yth
Shaw, G eorge Bernard 217, 318
(1856-1950) im pact of acquisitions of classical
attitude to incest 534n. 27 antiquities 290 n. 35
cham pionship of Euripides 490 influence 228-9, 292-3
concepts of religion, inspiration for Beatrice 180
politics 497-9, 499-5 regenerative view of history
criticism s of E dith Olive 515 293 n. 42
fascination w ith N ietzsche, rom antic H ellenism 186—7,
Schopenhauer 493 266-7, 292-3
inspiration for Pygmalion 483 T odhu nter’s study of 531 n. 20
and n. 70 see also Hellas; Oedipus Tyrannus,
links w ith E uripides 490—1 or Swellfoot the Tyrant
on m arriage 488—9 Shelley Society 530-1
Index 707
Sheppard, John 521, 522-3 Sm ith, A ram inta, translation of
Sheridan, Richard Brinsley Heracles 254 n. 42
(1751-1816) 245, 394 Sm ith, E dm und
Sheridan, D r Thom as adaptation of E uripides’
(1687-1738) 3 ,1 1 0 ,2 4 4 -5 Hippolytus 43, 71—2
Sheridan, Thom as (actor) Phaedra and Hippolitus, ‘she-
(1719-88) 3, 4, 245 tragedy’ 66, 71-2 and n. 16,
Sherw ood, M ary 249 86 and n. 59
Shiels, R obert, Life of use m ade of G reek tragedy 61
Thomson 127 Sm ith, J., Creon the Patriot 112
Shirley, W illiam xiii, 103, 166-7, Sm ith, John 206
179, 277, 529 Sm ith, M adeleine 415
Short View of the Im m orality and Sm ith, Rebecca 425 n. 18
Profaneness of the English Sm ith, W illiam 194
Stage, A , Jerem y Collier 70 Sm ollett, T obias, lost m asque on
Short View o f Tragedy, A , Thom as Alcestis 118 and n. 44
R ym er 266 social hellenism
Shrew sbury School, Ion translated in fashion 481
into G reek iam bics at 286 and m anifestations of 479-82
n. 17 social status
Siddons, Sarah (1755-1831) disparities in, challenged by
nee K em ble 268 burlesque 348-9, 350; see
roles 94 and n. 91, 123—4, 152, also individual plays
180, 181, 211 im plications explored in
T alfourd im pressed by 307-8 W hitehead’s Creusa 142-3
techniques m odelled on Greek and n. 42
statuary 280 relevance to
‘Sim on and Pero (Rom an attitudes to infanticide
C harity)’, R ubens 180n. 71 518-19
Sitwell family, in The Tale of life of D orothy Dene 484
Troy 476 m arriage of G eorge W arr 472
Slangweazy tendency, and and n. 32
censorship 531 and Society of the Friends of the
n. 22 People 224
slavery Sohrab, W illiam Jones 265 n. 2
abolition 284—5, 306—7 Soldene, Em ily 353
opposition to 189 n. 10, 191 song
unendurable in T alfourd’s central to burlesque 366-71 and
A thens 311 n. 76
Sm irke, R obert 268-9 and n. 13, see also music
270 Songs of the Governing Classes,
Sm ith, Adam , Theory o f M oral R obert Brough 372,415
Sentiments 89 Sophianos, M ichael 265
708 Index
Sophocles South Villa, R egents’ Park,
concept of m onarchy, tyranny perform ances in 445 n. 35,
relevance in England 7, 513 n. 106
157-8, 159 Southey, R obert 211
Restoration interest in 9—10 Spain
topicality in 1820s 273 im perialism attacked by
D ryden’s debt to 21—4 M urphy 170-2
English engagem ent w ith 318 R istori’s M edea in 404
influence on Jam es Spanish A rm ada 266
T hom son 110 spectacle
P otter’s perception of 221 in burlesque 366, 370-1 and
proliferation of nineteenth- n. 90
century productions 316-18 developm ent in B ritish theatre
psychoanalytical readings of 7, 14, 35
T heban royal family in D ryden and L ee’s Oedipus
xxi-xxii 17-18
rew riting for perform ance in in Helena in Troas 459
English x increasing taste for 267-8,
R obert Louis Stevenson’s 277-81, 284, 392,441,478-9
reaction to 447-8 in Lewis T heobald’s Orestes
source for burlesque 360 59-60
translations, editions in productions of Alcestis 334,
by Adam s 147,172 459
by D acier 198 in W ooler’s Jason and M edea
by Francklin 147, 172-8, 220 399-400
by Jebb 473 n. 37 see also stage design
by Potter 220—2 Spedding, B. J., stage directions
by Stanley 154 365
by T heobald 55, 172 Sphinx, Brough brothers, actresses
by W illiam Bartholom ew in 368-9, 369
319n. 8 Spicer, H enry, Alcestis 439-2 and
see also individual plays n. 19, 440, 443
Sophonisba, Alfieri 124 sporting com petitions, routines
Sophonisba, Jam es T hom son 103, borrow ed from , in burlesque
109, 124 371
Sotheby, W illiam 213—14, 266 n. 7 stage design
Soum et, Alexandre, attem pts at authenticity 268-9,
Clytemnestre 275 277-80, 439, 463 and n. 8,
South Africa, see Boer W ar 477-8
South K ensington decor based on classical
building for ladies’ college 464 figures 389
and n. 12, 470 elaborate, in H oftheater,
‘H ellenism ’ 481 W eim ar 320
Index 709
for P arr’s period at 228
Bayley’s Orestes in Argos, state, the
visual im pact 277 concept of, in T alfourd’s Ion
burlesque 364 299
Covent G arden Antigone 324, U tilitarian concept of
439 functions 297
Dirce, im portance of 273 statuary, statues
Electra in a N ew Electric experim ents w ith sculptural
Light 361 effects 280, 335
F itzball’s Antigone 274—5 taste for 125-6, 280, 328, 484,
Helena in Troas 459, 463 and 545-6
n. 8, 477-8 Steele, Richard
M ason’s Caractactus 188—9 adm iration for G reek tragedy
M endelssohn Antigone, praise 88
for 478-9 The Conscious Lovers 135
Planche’s burlesque of The Stevenson, R obert Louis
Birds 345-7 447-8
R eading School’s G reek Stockdale, Percival 208
plays 251-2 Stoker, M rs Bram 476
Spicer’s Alcestis 439-41 stone circles, druidic, association
increased attention to 174 w ith ancient G reeks 204,
influence of 205
G ordon Craig 544 Stonehenge 204 and n. 81, 205,
R einhardt 539-40, 543 206
notable, in O U D S Alcestis Stowe gardens, classical m odels 50
458-9 and n. 56
see also spectacle Strafford, R obert Browning 286
stage directions, for burlesque Strand T heatre, burlesques
361-2, 365 perform ed at 362, 363,
staging, separation of chorus from 364, 365, 366, 374, 387,
actors 453 433—4-
Standard T heatre, Shoreditch Strauss, R ichard
352,417,419, 430 and n. 2 censored Salome 538, 551
Stanford, Charles Villiers 475, 478 reaction to Elektra 551
Stanislavsky, Antigone 336 Strong, Eugenie 463 and n. 4
Stanley, Thom as 40, 100-2 and Stuart, Jam es, The Antiquities of
n. 4, 154 Athens 268
Stanm ore School Stukeley, W illiam 203, 205
abandonm ent of chorus 197 Sturm y, Love and D uty or The
association of W illiam Jones Distres’t Bride 43 and n. 41
w ith 302 n. 66 Styrke, Issachar 434
G reek plays staged at 174 n. 55, Suetonius Paulinus, last stand of
192, 225, 245, 248, 431 druids against 184
710 Index
suffrage T acitus 184, 203
George W arr’s approach, in Taglioni, Paul, ballet
context of 474 Electra 360-1
universal male 298-9; see also T albot, W illiam Fox 324
R eform Act T alfourd, Field 287
w om en’s T alfourd, Francis (Frank)
cam paign for 414—15,420, (1828-62)
429, 512-13 as actor 286, 436 and n. 12, 437
D ickinson’s Private M em bers’ inspired by Ovid 359
Bill 512 obituary 385-6
im portance of Medea socio-educational
in 511-19 background 360, 372,
irrelevance of Alcestis 519-20 373-4 and n. 108,431
series of plays about 512-13 see also Alcestis: the Original
supported by M urray 511-12 Strong-minded Woman;
suicide Electra in a N ew Electric
com m itted in the com m on good Light
in A ddison’s Cato 308 see also T alfourd, Rachel 287, 310
Ion T alfourd, Thom as Noon
by T alfourd’s classical (1795-1854)
heroes 308 anti-slavery views 306—7,311
Sullivan, A rthu r 354; see also association w ith Bulwer-
individual operas L ytton 291
supernatural, the, rejection by concept of ‘fascination’ shared
D ennis 48 w ith Byron 295 and n. 47
Suppliants, Aeschylus, Isadora debt to Valpy 260, 287-9
D uncan’s dances for 546 editor of works of Charles
Swift, Jonathan 104 Lam b 287 n. 24
Sw inburne, A lgernon xv, 31 essays on D ennis and
sym pathy Rym er 287 n. 24
concept of, as pivotal elem ent in im pressed by Sarah
good society 85 Siddons 307-8
evocation of, in visual arts, influence of H annah M ore’s
dram a 89 ‘sacred dram as’ 310 n. 85
relation betw een passion, introduction of Infant C ustody
reason 84 Act, 1839 290, 394-5, 435
Synge, J. M ., protest at censorship philanthropy 290
529 pivotal position in British
theatre 308 and nn. 77, 79
tableaux vivants proponent of heroic tragedy 436
erotic, pornographic radical, republican stance 151,
aspects 389-90 284 and n. 5, 285, 299,
Victorian taste for 30 and n. 3,479 303-7, 312, 314-15
Index 711
reception of ‘T he Antigone and its M oral’,
initial trium phant George Eliot 331—2 and n. 41
success 285—7 The Antiquities of Athens, Jam es
later neglect 285 and n. 7, S tuart 268
311-12 The Athenian Captive, Thom as
reviews T alfourd
of Dirce 273-4 concept of utopian freedom
of R eading School’s in 293
Hecuba 255 death of T hoas 306 and n. 71
socio-political background xvii, dem ocratic ideals 300
255, 281, 287-91, 288, denunciation of slavery 306—7
318-21, 372 editions of 285 n. 9
sources of inspiration 233 n. 63, political trajectory 284, 303-7
262, 292-3,301,307-9,318 religious com m itm ent 310-11
style of Browning and, sources 304
com pared 308 n. 78 stage design 290
support for repeal of Theatrical The Auditor, started in opposition
Patents Act 416 to The N orth Briton 170
view of classical A thens as m odel The Bard, T hom as G ray 192 and
for national theatre 102 n. 25, 213
see also Ion; The Athenian The B attle o f Argoed Llwfain,
Captive W illiam W hitehead 192 and
T alfourd, W . 436n. 13 n. 26
Talm a, Citizen 125, 277 n. 45, The B attle of the N ile: A Dramatic
280n. 48 Poem on the M odel o f the Greek
Tamerlane, N icholas Rowe 42 Tragedy, anon. 266 and n. 7
Tarquin’s Overthrow, W illiam The Beggar’s Opera, John Gay
Bond 105 356
Taylor, H elen 396 The Birds o f Aristophanes:
T em ple, R ichard 50 A Dramatic Experiment in One
Tennyson, Lionel, in The Tale of A ct, Jam es Robinson
Troy 466 Planche 345-7, 346, 359,
Terence 34 n. 17, 244, 245 367-8, 381-2
T ernan, M rs 334 The B irth o f Hercules, m asque 166
T erry, Ellen 454, 544 The Briton, A m brose Philip 42
T est and C orporation Act, repeal, The Captives, John Delap 65 n. 3,
1828 284; see also U niversity 188n. 7
T est Acts The Careless Shepherdess, Thom as
Thackeray, W illiam Goffe 163-4
M akepeace 287, 375 The Cenci, Shelley
The A cting N ational Drama 355 association w ith D ryden and
The Ambitious Stepmother, L ee’s Oedipus 6
Nicholas Rowe, them es 75 banned, finally licensed 6, 530-1
712 Index
The Cenci, Shelley (cont.): The Destruction of Troy, John
sources 180, 531 Bankes 66, 67 n. 8, 78
them es of incest, parricide 6, The Distres’t M other, A m brose
530 Philips 67, 68, 69, 79, 98
The Chinaid, anon., burlesque The D oll’s House, Ibsen 488
of A eschylus’ Persians 266, The Double Tongue, W illiam
530 G olding 150-1
The Citizen, W illiam Shirley 166 The Duchess o f M alfi 417
The Clandestine M arriage, The Earl of Warwick, Thom as
G arrick and Colm an 141-2 Francklin 173
and n. 40 The Examiner, attacks on Shirley
The Comic H istory o f Rome, G ilbert in 170
A bott a Beckett 383 The Factory Girl, politicized
The Como-cal Hobby, m elodram a 314
G. H um phrey 232 The Fair Penitent, Nicholas
The Confidential Clerk, T . S. Eliot Rowe 75-6
151 The Fall of Saguntum, Philip
The Conquest of Granada, John Frode 42
D ryden 25-6, 66—7 The Fall o f the Mogul, A Tragedy,
The Conscious Lovers, Richard Founded on an Interesting
Steele 135 Portion of Indian H istory, and
The Continence o f Scipio, Benjam in A ttem pted P artly on the Greek
W est 46 M odel 234, 236, 266
The Death o f Agamemnon, see The F atal Friendship, Catherine
Agamemnon, Jam es T hom son T ro tter 83
The Death o f Alexander the Great, The Fatal Legacy, Jane Robe 44
fairground dram a 388 and n. 45, 66, 82-3
The Death of Demosthenes, The Finding o f the Infant Moses in
G regorios Palaeologus the Bulrushes, Francis
273 n. 30 H aym an 137-8
The Death of Lucretia, G avin ‘T he Fine Young English
H am ilton 89 G entlem an’, sung in The
The Decline and Fall o f the Roman Golden Fleece 344-5, 398
Empire, Edw ard G ibbon The Foundling, Edw ard M oore 135
183-4 The Golden Calf, politicized
The Deep Deep Sea; or, Perseus and m elodram a 314
Andromeda; an Original The Golden Fleece; or, Jason in
M ythological, Aquatic, Colchis and M edea in Corinth,
Equestrian Burletta, Planche Jam es Robinson Planche
366-7 actors, actresses in 368, 396, 410
The Destruction o f Jerusalem by burlesque 342-5, 344, 477
Titus Vespasian, John G reek tag phrases 364
Crowne 101 influence, popularity 356—7
Index 713
paratragic response to operatic The London M erchant, or The
tradition 438 H istory of George Barnwell,
relevance to debate on divorce Lillo 126
395 ‘T he Love of Alcestis’, W illiam
role of chorus 378 M orris 443 n. 25
significance of cross-dressed The Marriage of Bacchus, James
roles 397 Robinson Planche 365,378
sources 342—5, 359, 378, 402 The M erchant o f Venice,
spectacle in 344, 344 Shakespeare 249
The Golden Pippin, Kane O ’H ara The M ill on the Floss, G eorge
58 Eliot 332
The Grand Duke, G ilbert and The M onument: A Poem Sacred to
Sullivan 482 the Immortal M em ory o f the
The Grecian Daughter, A rthur Best and Greatest of Kings,
M urphy 153, 171-2, 180 John D ennis 44-5, 52
The Greeks and the Turks; or, the The M ourning Bride, W illiam
Intrepidity of Jem m y, Jerry, Congreve
and a British Tar, influence of Sophocles’
C. E. W alker 270 Electra 153, 161-2
The Grounds of Criticism in Poetry, M iss Younge as Zara in 158
John D ennis 52 popularity 157, 162
The Gypsey K ing, used in Antigone ‘recognition’ scene 157-62, 160
Travestie 341 sources 162, 170, 180
The Herald, or Patriot Proclaimer, The M u fti’s Tomb; or, The Turkish
W illiam Shirley 166 Misers 271
The Heroes, Charles Kingsley The M urder Room 316-17
424 The M ysterious M other, H orace
The H istory of Greece, W illiam W alpole 227
M itford 301 and n. 64 The N ereid’s Love, D avid
The H istory of Tom Jones, A Lyndsay 273 n. 30
Foundling, H enry Fielding 135 The N ew Antigone, W . Francis
The Importance of Being Earnest, Barry 332
Oscar W ilde 151 The N ew Spirit in Drama and A rt,
The Indian Queen, D ryden 38 H untly C arter 553-4
The Lady of Lyons, Edw ard The N orth Briton
Bulwer 308 n. 79 attacks on Bute 167-8
The Last Days of Pompeii, Edw ard The Auditor started in opposition
B ulw er-L ytton 296 and n. 50, to 170
314 The Oath o f the Young Warrior,
The Last of the Mohicans, Jam es M ichel Philibert G enod 301
Fenim ore Cooper 296 The Paphian Bower; or, Venus and
The Life and Death o f Jason, Adonis, Jam es R obinson
W illiam M orris 424 Planche 367
714 Index
‘T he Passions, A n O de for M usic’, The Siege of Troy, Robert
W illiam Collins 193 Brough 351-2,352,
The Persian Princess, Lewis 358-9,365-6,381,385
T heobald 58 The Sphinx, brothers Brough 380
The Pickwick Papers, Charles The Story of Orestes, George
Dickens 290 W arr 462—4 and n. 9, 464,
The Press Gang, politicized 467-8, 471, 478, 482
m elodram a 314 The Story of Troy, appearance of
The Queen o f Argos: A Tragedy in Rennell R odd in 453
Five Acts, W illiam Bell The Subjection of Women, John
Boscawen 273 n. 30 S tuart M ill 420
The Quintessence of Ibsenism, The Suliote; or, The Greek
George B ernard Shaw 488 Family 271-2
The Revolt o f the Greeks; or, the The Tale of Troy, G eorge W arr
M aid of Athens 271 actors, actresses in 464, 476
The R ing and the Book, R obert perform ances for K ing’s
Browning 330 College 465—6 and n. 12,
The R ival Queens; or, the Death of 470
Alexander the Great, supported by Frederic
N athaniel Lee 388 Leighton 482
The Roman Empress, W illiam tableaux from H om er 462, 464
Joyner 10-12 and n. 28 and n. 9, 465, 466
The Roman Father, W illiam The Taming o f Bucephalus, the W ild
W hitehead 141, 301 Horse of Scythia; or the
The R oyal Suppliants, John Youthful Days o f Alexander the
Delap 64—6, 90, 188 Great, A ndrew D ucrow 284
The Ruins o f Athens; A Dramatic The Tempest, Shakespeare xxi, 37,
Masque, A ugust von 60
K otzebue 333 The Tragedie of Cleopatra, Sam uel
The Ruins of Athens; A Dramatic Daniel 196
Masque, translation by The Tragedie of Orestes, Thom as
W illiam Bartholom ew Goffe 163
333-4 The Tragedies o f Sophocles,
The Seasons, Jam es T hom son 99, translated by R obert
125-6 Potter 220-2
The Shewing up o f Blanco Posnet, The Tragedy of Medcea, Charles
G eorge B ernard Shaw 535 Johnson 66, 86, 86—7, 88,
The Siege of M emphis, D urfey 92-3
38 The Tragedy of Tragedies; or, The
The Siege o f Missolonghi; or, the Life and Death of Tom Thumb,
Massacre o f the Greeks 271 H enry Fielding 58, 60, 355-6
The Siege of Troy, Elkanah The Tuscan Treaty, W illiam
Settle 54 Bond 105
Index 715
The Unnatural M other, anonym ous largest in Britain 352
w om an dram atist 82 R estoration 18-20
The Victim, Charles Johnson 35 restored Rom an, at O range
and n. 23 477
The West Indian, Richard scenic stage 18
C um berland 135 skene 18
The W inter’s Tale, theologeion/rooi space 18—19
Shakespeare 117, 335, 445-6, vista stage 18-20
519-20 see also stage design and
The Wishes; or Harlequin’s M outh individual theatres
Opened, R ichard Bentley T heatrical Patents Act, repealed,
201-2 and n. 69, 207 1843 290, 416
The W oman in W hite, W ilkie T hebes, conceptual link w ith plot
Collins 422 of Coriolanus xxi
The Works of Ossian, Son of Fingal, Themistocles (ship), captained by
Jam es M acpherson 193 H astings 267
T heatre Act, 1968 103 Themistocles, the Lover of his
T heatre de la R epublique, Country, Sam uel M adden 42,
form ation 125 105
Theatre des Grecs, Le, Pierre T heobald, Lewis (1699-1744)
Brum oy 172, 179, 200, 219, apolitical stance 41-2, 61
220 Apollo and Daphne 54
T heatre of D ionysus, A thens, characterization of
perform ance of Oedipe Roi, Electra 179-80
1899, 521 debt to D acier 218
T heatre R egulation Act, 1843 397, dram atic criticism 55 and n. 73
528-9, 529-4 G reek scholarship 55
T heatre Royal, D ublin influence of Circe 58-9
search for authenticity 326-7 m ingling of Shakespearean, Greek
structure 326—7 elements 56 and n. 76
see also individual plays possibly co-translator of
theatres (buildings) Sophocles’ A ja x 75 and
decor based on classical n. 19
figures 389 translations attacked by
ekkyklema 17 Francklin 175
exploitation of scenic translations by 55, 75 and n. 19,
innovations 7, 14, 17-18, 111 n. 26, 154-5, 156
277-80 w ritings on nature and function
forestage 17-18 of dram a 62
G reek, at Bradfield see also individual works
College 456—7 and n. 71 Theodectes, lost Lynceus 43 n. 41
influence of R einhardt 539-40, Theory of M oral Sentiments, A dam
543 Sm ith 89
716 Index
Thermopylae; or, the Repulsed Tieck, Ludw ig 320
Invasion, John Peter Timon o f Athens, Shakespeare
R oberdeau 248, 266 n. 7 269
T heseus, Sophoclean, m odel for Tiresias, representations
Arviragus 188 of 218-20, 222-4, 223, 274,
Thespis, or the Gods Grown Old, 294, 296, 302, 303-7, 304-5,
G ilbert and Sullivan 354, 321, 322, 331-2, 340-1
386-7 and n. 167 To a Friend, M atthew Arnold
T hirlw all, C onnop, H istory of 330
Greece 302 T odhunter, John (1839—1916)
Thoas debt to Browning 445
death of, in T alfourd’s The Helena in Troas 458-9
A thenian Captive 306 and preface for production of The
n. 71 Cenci 531 and n. 20
portrayals of 303 rivalry w ith W arr 467
representations of 39-40, 49, 62, study of Shelley 531 n. 20
303-7, 311 version of Alcestis 445 and n. 35,
Thom as, Neville 201 467
Thom son, Jam es (1700-48) Tom Thumb, H enry Fielding 1—2,
advocate of national 355-6
theatre 102-3 and n. 6 T om kins, Charles 274—5
ardent W hig 99, 102 T ories
classical scholarship 111—12 associated w ith oppression of
com pared w ith Pierre labouring classes 295-6
C orneille 126 defeat, 1830 284-5
forerunner of R om anticism 126 response to D ryden and L ee’s
im portance xv, xviii, 124—7 Oedipus 29
influence of Euripides on xiii, 66 unpopularity under George
m em orial 99, 100 IV 284
opposition to R obert T oynbee H all, extension
W alpole 99, 102, 103, lectures 472 and n. 33
104-8 Trachiniae, Sophocles
relationship w ith Aaron actors, actresses in 513
H ill 107 n. 22 as source 110, 197, 293-4
view of classical m odels for free Lewis C am pbell’s
nation-states 50 productions 447—8
see also individual works perform ances in aid of Building
T horndike, Sybil xii, 512 Fund 506 n. 106
T hrale, H ester 65 R obert Louis Stevenson’s
Thucydides, on A thenian hair reaction to 447-8
accessories 261-2 staged at Stanm ore
Thyestes, John Crowne 67 School 174n. 55, 225
Thyestes, Seneca 163 translations, editions
Index 717
by C am pbell 448-9 T ree, H erbert Beerbohm
by Parr, 253 (1853-1917) 462, 466, 534,
by T hom as Johnson 154 537
T raetta, T hom as, Iphigenia in T ree, M aud (M rs Beerbohm ) 462,
Tauride 62 466 a n d n . 13,479
tragedy T rench, H erbert 537, 538-9
acceptance of Aristotelian Trial by Jury, G ilbert and
definition 14—15 Sullivan 387
concept of, and death of T rin ity College, C am bridge 8
O edipus 9 Troades, Seneca 66, 244
D ryden on ‘grounds of criticism Troilus and Cressida,
in’ 21 Shakespeare 20-1, 33, 358
revival in England 308 and Trojan Women, E uripides
n. 79 Barker’s production 509, 543-4,
see also G reek tragedy 545
tragi-com edy, legitim acy parallels in Boer W ar ix,
discussed 53-4 xxi—xxii, 510
tragic heroines, see G reek tragedy; perm anent place in B ritish
she-tragedy and individual repertoire vii
characters translation by G ilbert
Tragoediarum Delectus, G ilbert M urray xvii, 508, 510-11
W akefield 253-4 Sybil T horndike in xii
T rail, F. T . 364 T ro tter, C atherine, The Fatal
translation Friendship 83
conflicting approaches to 451 T urkey, fashion for theatrical
and n. 54 settings, revivals 61; see also
grow ing awareness of O ttom an Em pire
perform ative context 473 T urner, W illiam
and n. 37 Dawson 468-9 n. 21, 470
into m odern languages xiv-xv, tyrannicides, liberty song in praise
xx, 46 of 302 and n. 66
recognition of need for 494 tyranny
see also under individual works contrast between idealistic youth
transvestism , see cross-dressed and 309
roles liberty in opposition to, asserted
T rapp, Joseph 53 and n. 64 by D ennis 46—8
travesty, sub-category of link w ith m onarchy, incest 7, 10
burlesque 339^10 Sophoclean them e
treason trials, reflected in dram a of relevance to English
period 221-8 m onarchy 7
Treatise o f H um an N ature, A , topicality in 1820s 273
D avid H um e 84 T alfourd’s concept of fight
T ree, Ellen 291, 292, 311, 321 against 284, 293, 300
718 Index
T yrtaeus, source for he attraction to plays w ith strong
Marseillaise 265 n. 2 female roles 258
career, characteristics 244—5,
Ulysses, Nicholas Rowe 76-8, 77 246-50
U ndershaft, A ndrew 502-5 and influence of Richard
n. 49 Porson 251-2
U nited States m ethods 259—60, 260
contribution of actresses perform ances directed
from xix—xx by 250-6, 270 n. 20, 431; see
popularity of T alfourd’s Ion also Reading School
in 286-7 T alfourd’s debt to 260,
see also Am erica 287-9
universities, British textbooks by 247
absence of perform ances of Vandenhoff, C harlotte 322, 326,
authentic G reek dram a 431 334, 348
effect of Vandenhoff, G eorge 321, 337
arrival of wom en 432 Vandenhoff, John 295, 322,
changes in classical 332n. 41
curriculum 431—2 Vanity Fair, Thackeray 347—8 and
see also individual institutions n. 82
U niversity College, London V aughan, Felix 224—5
co-production of M edea 513 V edrenne, Paul 496, 498
production of Alcestis 445 n. 35 Venus and Adonis; or, the Two
share of U niversity Endow m ent Rivals & the Sm all Boar,
F und 462 Francis B urnand
U niversity Endow m ent F und 462 antipathy to classical
U niversity T est Acts, m ovem ent education 376-7
for abolition 469 burlesque 357, 358
U tilitarianism , on function of the contem porary detail 381 n. 139
law 297 sem i-serious instruction in
m ythology 378
V alentius, in Joyner’s The Roman use of
Empress 10—12 G reek language 364
Valerius M axim us’ Facta et Dicta L atin puns 365
Memorabilia 180 and n. 71 Verrall, A rthur 151, 498 and n. 40,
Vallouis, Sim onin 175-6 and n. 60 519
Valpy, A braham John 248 and Verses to the People of England,
n. 18 W illiam W hitehead, link of
Valpy, Richard (1754—1836) singing in ancient Britain,
adm ired by M ary Russell ancient Greece 193
M itford 256 Vestris, Eliza (1797-1856)
association w ith Sam uel association w ith Planche,
P arr 248 influence of 477
Index 719
collaboration w ith R obinson in Virginius, Jam es Knowles 284,
Olympic Devils 358 300, 308
m anager of Olym pic virtue
T heatre 338-9, 357 com patibility w ith clandestine
m arriage to Charles love 139
M athew s 342, 396 concern for, in Aeschylean
roles 273, 342-5, 357, 366-7, choruses 221
396, 397 eighteenth-century
Vestris, Franfoise 125 understanding of 83—8
Vezin, H erm ann, in Helena in in distress, taste for, in eighteenth
Troas 462 century 72-3,98
Victoria, Q ueen 300, 303 female, ideological associations
Victorian age 92
aesthetic conservatism 373, 377 pro-fem inine representations
comic expression in 382—7 of 85-8
fad genre 422 R ousseau’s conceptualization
fascination w ith m urder of 86
trials 415, 421—3, 425 visual arts
position of wom en classical subjects favoured 27,
abandoned, w ithout 38,46, 89 and n. 71,
future 401 ,407-8 275 n. 38, 441 and n. 18, 453
identified w ith M edea’s and n. 64, 476
predicam ent 395, 398, im portance of G eorge W arr’s
422-3 associations w ith 479
in m arriage 420, 434—5 inspiration from G reek
see also custody; m arriage; tragedy xx-xxi, 89 and
N ew W om an n. 71, 123 and n. 51,
perception of Greek 130n. 11, 177 a n d n . 62,
tragedy xviii, 331 f 7S, 211, 213 n. I l l , 275 and
privileging of H om er 475—6 n. 38, 301
rise of m usic hall 377 Voltaire 33, 217, 220, 272-3, 277;
taste for see also individual plays
comedy, burlesque 379—82, V ondel, Joost van den 41 and n. 37
383-8 Votes for Women, Elizabeth
spectacle 441, 478—9 Robins 512-13, 514
tableaux vivants 30 and n. 3,
479 W agner, R ichard 127 and n. 63,
Videna; or, the M other’s Tragedy, 493 and n. 18
John H eraud 416 W akefield, G ilbert 253-4 and
Villiers, P., w ith P. A. Capelle, n. 42, 289
Bebe et Jargon 404 n. 48 W aldstein, Charles 479
Violante, M adam e, troupe of W ales, see W elsh language; W elsh
D ublin child actors 246 n. 8 m usic
720 Index
W alker, C. E., The Greeks and the W atts, G. F. 463-4, 471, 482, 483
Turks; or, the Intrepidity of W ayte, W illiam 472 n. 32
Jem m y, Jerry, and a British W ebb, Beatrice 504-5
Tar 270 W ebb, John 204 n. 81
W alpole, Horace 42, 113, 190-2, W ebster, Augusta
209-10, 227 cam paigner for w om en’s
W alpole, R obert rights 421
conflict w ith ‘Patriot’ criticism of B row ning’s
opposition 99, 102, 103, translations 451
104-8 translations 421 ,47 3,489
dram atists’ covert assaults on 50 W eekes, Eliza 361, 363
introduction of censorship 104, W elsh language 204
106-7 W elsh m usic, song 192-3 and
satirized as ‘Egisthus’ 115 n. 26; see also druids
unpopularity 58-9 W esley, John 121
W annam aker, Zoe 152 W est, Benjam in 46, 177 and n. 62,
W ard, Genevieve 335, 427 and 178
n. 125, 428 W est, Richard 61, 66, 124n. 53
W arr, C onstance Em ily (wife of W estm inster School
George) 472 and n. 32 perform ances of Latin
W arr, G eorge Charles W inter plays 34 n. 17, 248 and n. 19,
(1845-1901) 261
approach to translation 472-3 production of Alcestis 117
background, career xvii, 464—1 W helan, Frederic 539
and nn. 10, 19, 21, 23-4, 29 W higs
breadth of learning 468 and attitudes to religion 147-50 and
n. 19, 471 and n. 29 n. 49
engagem ent w ith visual arts 471 b utt of hum our in T heobald’s
G ilbert M urray I T 59
com pared 471-3 ideal of sacrifice for the public
im portance xviii, 486—7 good 11, 114-15
links w ith art w orld 479 internecine conflicts 167-72
m arriage 472 and n. 32 perception of link between
radicalism 469-70, 486 Graeco-Roman and early
translation of Oresteia 472 British cultures 190,191-2
see also individual plays pervasiveness of ideals in British
W arr, H enry 468-9 n. 21 theatre 40, 41—9, 50-4,
W arre-C ornish, D r 445 n. 45 58-9, 282-4
W arton, Joseph 85 presentation of G reek tragedy
W ase, C hristopher 40, 163-5, 164 to appeal to xviii, 44—9,
Wasps, A ristophanes, comic 50-4
update 384 response to D ryden and L ee’s
Waste, G ranville Barker 529 Oedipus 29
Index 721
sources for adaptations of G reek W ills, W illiam G ordon, M edea in
tragedy 50 Corinth 425-6
support for Queen W inchester School, perform ance of
C aroline 229-30 Agamemnon at 453-4
see also Iphigenia, John D ennis W inckelm ann, J. 475
W hite, H enry 219 Wine of Cyprus, Elizabeth Barrett
W hitehead, W illiam (1715-85) (Browning) 85
background, education 134, 143 W ingfield, Lewis 370
com bination of G reek and W offington, Peg 246 n. 8
druidical interests 192,193 W ollstonecraft, M ary 182
friendship w ith W illiam Woman: or, Ida of Athens, Sydney
M ason 130, 134 and n. 25 Ow enson 270
near-agnosticism 134, 139 women
poet laureate 130 and n. 12 access to higher education
use m ade of G reek tragedy xv, buildings for 464 and n. 12,
61 470, 484, 511 and n. 106,
W hig outlook 133,301 513 and n. 106; see also
see also individual plays rights below and suffrage
W ieland, C. M . 441 n. 19 effects 432, 456-7
W ife or no W ife, John H eraud 416 W arr’s am bitions 470
W ilam ow itz-M ohlendorff, actresses, see actors, actresses and
U . von 4 9 1 n .l0 , 498, 512 individual players
W ilberforce, W illiam , anti-slavery am bivalent position in
stance 189n. 10 burlesque 374
W ilde, C onstance 462-3 in audiences at burlesques 374
W ilde, Oscar (1856-1900) and n. I l l
association w ith authors, dram atists 78-88 and
Balliol Agamemnon 452—3 n. 44, 90
Lily L angtry 484 centrality of suffering female
editor of Women’s W orld 460—1 in sentim ental tragedy
friendship w ith Rennell 89-92
R odd 453 concepts of
inspiration for ‘handbag’ in Ibsen, Shaw 488
scene 151 sexuality 89-90, 419
interest in revivals of dedication of plays to 78
classics 453 enabled to sit on local
see also Salome councils 512
W ilkes, John 1 6 7 -8 ,20 8,2 27-8 equation of beautiful with
W illiam III and M ary 41, 43, statues 328
44-5 Francklin’s Sophocles aim ed
W illiam IV 284 at 173
W illiams, E dw ard (Iolo in G reek dram a
M organwg) 192n. 26 and erotic love 91
722 Index
wom en (cont.): traum atized, C harlotte Lennox’s
in G reek dram a (cotit.): novels about 90
value of different treatm ent of, B risted’s horror
interpretations, at 427 n. 125
reassessm ents xxii V alpy’s attraction to plays w ith
health, exercise m ovem ents, strong 258
‘hellenizing’ of 549 and victim s of male
n. 77 oppression 11 n. 28
ideals of w om anhood enshrined see also custody; divorce;
in A ntigone 328 m arriage; N ew W om an
jokes at expense of 383 n. 150 Women at the Thesmophoria,
playing male parts, see actors, Aristophanes 75
actresses; breeches roles; Women Beware Women, Thom as
cross-dressed roles M iddleton 391 n. 3
poor, awakening of social W om en’s Liberation
conscience about 518-19 M ovem ent 429
position in V ictorian age W om en’s Social and Political
abandoned, w ithout U nion 512
future 401, 407-8 W omen’s W orld 460-1
concept of ideal 327-8 W ood, Ellen, East Lynne 422
identified w ith M edea’s W ooler, John (Jack) 353, 399-401
predicam ent 395, 398, W oolf, Virginia 182
422-3, 488-90 W oolnoth, Thom as 278
in m arriage 420, 434—5 W ordsw orth, W illiam 211,282,
recoil from Sophocles’ depiction 290
of 178-9 working classes
rights, em ancipation access to classical m yth,
contribution of John Stuart history 388-90
M ill 420 exposure to G reek tragedy 350,
debate on m arital violence 362
427 see also classics
increasing debate over 393, W right, E dw ard 352-3, 408
395, 396-7, 414, 417-18
invidious property X uthus, representation of 142-3,
laws 4 0 1 -2 ,4 1 6 ,4 2 0 146, 148-9
significance of increased
theatre-going 78 Yates, M ary A nn (1728-87) 80, 81,
size of Euripidean roles 258 82, 94-5, 129, 152, 174-5 and
social realities reflected in n. 54, 176, 180
L em on’s M edea 407-8 Yeats, W . B., (1865-1939) 186-7,
suffragettes, see suffrage 486-7, 496, 528, 529,
suitability of Alcestis for 535-6
perform ance by 460-1 Y orkshire Petition, 1780 191
Index 723
Young, Edw ard, Busiris 42 Zante, island of 265 and n. 3
Young Pretender, Orestes as Zeno, Apostolo 132
analogue for 166 Zoroaster, W illiam
Young, Revd W illiam xvii, M oncrieff 277-80
111 n. 27 Zoroastrians, oppressed by Islam,
youth, perceived, in ancient identification w ith G reek
Greeks 309 chorus 234
Ypsilantis, A lexandrus 264

Greek Tragedy and The British Theatre 16 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greek Tragedy and The British Theatre 16 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G R E E K T R A G E D Y A N D T H E B R IT IS H T H E A T R E

G reek dram a is being perform ed on both the com m ercial and

K ierkegaard, the im m ediacy of ‘the M om en t’ of apprehension of a

7 Gascoigne and Kinwelm ershe (1566).

surviving tragedies— even obscure A eschylean w orks— had been

9 In the programm e, contained in a collection of papers related to Oxford

F i g u r e 0.1 Sybil T horndike as H ecuba and her daughter A nne Casson

16 Hazlitt (1917), 2; Shaw (1908), i, pp. xxiif.

21 For examples see below, pp. 279, 384.

23 On which see e.g. K estner (1988), Jenkyns (1991), Easterling (1991). On

List of Illustrations xxvii

Frontispiece E ngraving by W illiam S. L eney of Joseph G eorge

T h e spelling of prop er nam es varies enorm ously betw een different

Regicide, Restoration, and the

’T is the contrivance, the new turn, the new characters, which

W riting in the Preface to John D ryden and N athaniel L ee’s O edi­

F i g u r e 1.1 W illiam H ogarth, Strolling Actresses Dressing in a Barn

5 Genest (1832), iv. 64-5.

Ptiblipi'dfbrBrUj flriajh Thattre.funr -ri jjS

/ t if s / n //f,r r n r r A /tn s f/f/s n ,* em /tty * ia tr ts ?

F l G U R E 1.2 B urnet Reading, engraving of Thom as Sheridan in the title

17 e.g. Bevis (1988), 62-3; Hughes (1996), 261-2.

24 Boehrer (1992), 113-15.

37 M ilton (1997), 4 10, 1. 165 3 . 38 Ibid., 1. 1659.

48 Bruce R. Sm ith (1988), esp. 51 ff. 49 D ryden (1984), 120.

F i g u r e 1.3 G erard van der G ucht, engraving after H u bert G ravelot

52 Bruce R. Sm ith (198 8), 2 5 6-7 . 53 D ryden (1984), 213.

55 D ryden (1984), 233. 56 Ibid. 236. 57 Ibid. 237.

OEDIPUS AND POLITICS

68 Hughes (1996), 79. 69 Susan J. Owen (2000), 158.

FIGURE 2.1 M iss C hudleigh attends a m asquerade in the character of

professed intention was to free her lim bs from the restricting

12 See the detailed study of Gliksohn (1985).

25 See Harbage (1935), 102, 120-39.

LEED S UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

GREEK TRAGEDY AFTER THE

38 Hughes (1996), 452. 39 Loftis (1963), 5. 40 Ibid. 34.

JOHN LOCKE AMONG THE TAURIANS

F i g u r e 2.2 Louis du G uernier, frontispiece to Lewis T heobald’s

67 Gildon (1702), 37. 68 Richard Foster Jones (1919), 151.

F i g u r e 2.3 Benjam in W est, Pylad.es and Orestes Brought as Victims

F i g u r e 2.4 Frontispiece to Lewis T heobald’s translation of A ristopha­

As it i> pcrforsaed a: tie

F i g u r e 2.5 T itle-page and frontispiece, engraved by Isaac T aylor, to

the G reeks and R om ans. O ’H ara’s M idas, first perform ed in

an anonym ous libretto adapted from G iangualberto Barlocci’s

1 Bainbridge (2001), 16-20.

8 Bankes (1679), 50. On Bankes’s plays as the forerunners of ‘She-Tragedy’ see

F i g u r e 3.1 J. R oberts, engraving of M iss Elizabeth Younge (later M rs

FIGURE 3.2 J. T hornthw aite, engraving of W illiam Farren in the role of

11 Rym er (1678), 79-98. 12 See Ballaster (1996), 279-80.

13 See Rothstein (1967), 153. On G ildon’s religious radicalism, and progressive

F i g u r e 3.3 Jam es H eath, engraving of H ippolitus rescuing Phaedra

JL ctW . JPttSJD R A andllllPP'O JLlT lIJS o Scene

fJJ L d J t/t i~Ter //le'C /u i’imZe'r et^JPjXJEJHLtl.

>'€ jru y e '\y » a ,a m /m ^e e ^c m J ^ i e e / t a i

F i g u r e 3.4 J. T hornthw aite, engraving of M rs A nn Barry in a revival

18 Brissenden (1974), 29.

.—Vos ExempUria Grsca

F i g u r e 3.5 Frontispiece (designed and engraved by Louis du G uer-

FIGURE 3.6 J. T hornthw aite, engraving of M rs H u nter as Penelope in

A TH EATRE FOR THE LADIES

31 Thom as Davies (1784), iii. 467—9 . 32 Victor (1761), ii. 56—8.

W riting in the Preface to John D ryden and N athaniel L ee’s O edi

F i g u r e 2.4 Frontispiece to Lewis T heobald’s translation of A ristopha

F i g u r e 6.4 T itle-page and frontispiece depicting the dedicatee (Prin