David Garrick
3Dly, as an Author
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 8096748 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Holland (0000-0001-7256-2545, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1996 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 39-62 |
| Publication date | 1996-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Studies in eighteenth century culture/Studies in eighteenth-century culture (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0360-2370 • E-ISSN: 1938-6133 |
| Publisher | Project MUSE (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1353/sec.2010.0224 |
| OpenAlex | W2032791633 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
DavidGarrick:'3dly,asanAuthor' PETERHOLLAND On12thFebruary1736,theDockStreetTheatreinCharlestonopened withaproductionofGeorgeFarquhar'sTheRecruitingOfficer.1The playseemstohavebeenoddlypotentasaninauguratingtext:itwasalsothe firstplaytobeperformedbythecolonistsinAustralia.Thatperformanceby convictsformedthesubjectofThomasKeneally'sremarkablebookThe PlaymakerandKeneally'sbookwasinturnadaptedintoaplaybyTimberlake WertenbakerasOurCountry'sGood(1988). Hence,in1988,MaxStafford-Clark,theArtisticDirectoroftheEnglish StageCompanyattheRoyalCourtTheatreinLondon,foundhimselfdirect- ingTheRecruitingOfficerinaproductiondesignedtobeplayedneatlyin repertorywithWertenbaker'splayaboutTheRecruitingOfficerinperfor- mance.AssoonasrehearsalsforTheRecruitingOfficerbegan,Stafford- Clarkrealizedthatsomething—orrathersomeone—wasmissing:"itwas," hewrotelater,"thefirsttimeinoverfifteenyearsthatIhadbeeninrehearsal withoutawriter."2Relationsbetweenplaywrightsanddirectorsare,as Stafford-Clarkwouldbethefirsttoadmit,oftendifficult,but ImissedGeorgeterribly.Inrehearsalallofusbegantoconsulthimona fairlyregularbasis."WhatdoesGeorgemeanhere?"or"Howseriousis Georgeaboutthis?"OccasionallyoneoftheactorswouldtakeonGeorge's voiceandtalkback.3 39 40/HOLLAND Afewmonthsearlier,whenalreadycommittedtotheproduction,Stafford- Clark"neededsomeonetotalkto...soIwrotetoGeorge."4Throughoutthe rehearsalprocess,he"droppedintothehabitofwritingtoGeorgeeverynightwhenIgothome."5Myowncontactwiththeproductionwaslimitedto writingtheprogramnotes.Stafford-Clarkdidnotlikethedraftversion,com- plainingthatIhadfailedtoreadtheplayintheBrechtianwayhisproduction washeading;IrespondedintransigentlythatIwaswritingaboutFarquhar's RecruitingOfficer,notBrecht'sadaptation,DrumsandTrumpets.Bythe firstnight,theproductionhadabandonedBrechtandrediscoveredFarquhar; writingletterstoGeorgehadworked.MichaelBillington,reviewingthepro- ductioninTheGuardian,commented, ClassicsrarelysurfaceattheRoyalCourt.But,whentheydo,adeadau- thorisaccordedthesamerespectasalivingone.YoufeelthatifGeorge FarquharcoulddropinonMaxStafford-Clark'sexcellentrevival...he wouldactuallyrecognisehisownplay.6 FouryearslaterStafford-ClarkdirectedBrome'sAJovialCrewforthe RoyalShakespeareCompanyattheSwanTheatre.Thistimehishesitancy aboutthestage-worthinessoftheplayledhimtosolvetheproblemofthe absentauthorbyaskingStephenJeffreystoadaptit.Overone-thirdofthe textusedintheearlystagesofrehearsalwasbyJeffreys,whonotonlyadded comicandromanticscenesconsiderablylessfunnyandmoresentimental thanBrome'sbutalso,moresignificantly,offeredateleologicalreconstruc- tionoftheplay'shistoricalmomentsothatitwasviewedasanticipatingthe revolutionandapprovingoftheradicalsocialismofthesects-Bromere-read inthelightofChristopherHill.Thefollowingyear,ashisfarewellproductionasArtisticDirectoratthe RoyalCourt,Stafford-ClarkdirectedKingLear,thetextunalteredbutthe playseeninthelightofthecollapseofYugoslavia,theendpackedwith imagesfromthehorrificnewsreelsofBosnia.Lastyear,againfortheRSC, Stafford-ClarkdirectedTheCountryWifeand,respondingtothestrongcriti- cismsoftherewritingofBrome,invitedJeffreystocontributeanapologetic prologue,mockingtherecenttransformationofWycherley'splayintoaWest Endmusical,Lust—circa1661,andtryingtoappeasebothWycherleyand theaudience: ButshouldhisshadenowhauntthiswoodenO, Letit—andyou—resteasily,forthough Itmuchthefashiononthisstagehasbeen TomeddlewithDeadAuthors'wordsandscenes— OurrareBengutted,Shakespearere-assessed DavidGarrick:'3dly,asanAuthor'I41 Mouthingopinionstheyne'erprofessed—[...] Tonightouractorsscornadaptedwit Speakingnolinebutwhatourauthorwrit.7 Theresult,withitsdarkviewofmalebrutality,wasthefinestproductionof aRestorationcomedyIhaveseen. ItwouldbepossibletoconstructanaccountofStafford-Clark'sworkin termsofitsapproachtohistory:Farquhar,inBrecht'sword,"zeitgebunden," tiedtohisownviewofhistime,ahistoricizedrecordofaculture;Brometied toourviewofhistime;Shakespearemadeameansofwitnessingourtime; Wycherleyfoundtorevealacynicalcompatibilitybetweentwocultures' understandingsofmisogynyandmalebonding.ButIofferthesequencein- steadasaparadigmforthetrustanddistrustoperatingbetweenproductionandplay:Farquharinitiallyinvokedpreciselyforthefrustrationsofhisab-senceandeventuallyrespectedforhiswork;thedistrustofBromeleadingto theinterventionandmediationbyawriteravailablefortheprocessoftrans- formingthescriptintoonecompatiblewithStafford-Clark'spolitics; Shakespearetrustedtobeopentoaleft-liberalreadingandWycherleyfound asaspacefilledwithfrighteningmodernity.Thisismuchmorethanaconventionalattempttodefinevaryingdegreesofadaptation ;inthecaseofBrome onewriterispartiallydisplacedbyanotherandtherewerelengthydiscus- sions,inastylemorereminiscentofHollywoodthanStratford,aboutthe relativebillingofBromeandJeffreysinthepublicity. Thevulnerabilityoftheplaywrightintheprocessofproductionseems endemicinpost-classicalWesterntheatre.Stafford-Clarkandhisactorsboth yearnforthedramatistasanoriginatingsubjectand,attimes,seektodis- placethatauthoritybyreplacingthedeadplaywrightwithalivingone,placed intheeconomicsoftheatricalexchangeinapositioninwhichhis/hercontri- butioncanbetreatedasmalleablematerialsubjecttotheauthorityofthe productionteam.Allbutthemostnaivedramatiststhemselvesseekaposi- tionassovereigntextualauthorityevenastheyrecognizethattheprocessof productionwillquestionor,intheirterms,abusethatdesire.Theatreisnot able,throughitsfundamentallycollaborativenature,toaccepttheplaywright asautonomous. Butthetermswithinwhichtheconstrictionsonthatautonomyare negotiated—ifnegotiationisnottooplacidawordforthestruggles—needa historicallyspecificinvestigation.Attimes—andIshalllaterbeusing Garrick'sworkasanexemplificationofsuchatime—theperceptionofthe authorasanobjectofanalysisisrenderedproblematicbytheextraordinary difficultyofdefiningthecorpusofaplaywright'swork.Ifwecannotidentify, withanyconfidence,theextentofadramatist'scontributiontoanumberof 42/HOLLAND playsonwhichs/hehasworked,itisnotclearhowtodefineaconceptof authorforanindividualplaywright.Nor,insuchcircumstances,do conventionalconceptualizationsoftheculturaldefinitionofauthorship adequatelyreflectthenatureofsuchamaterialpractice.Theatricalpractice oftenmakesitpeculiarlyhardtocreateanotionofcorpus,thatbodyofwork whichidentifiesindividualityforamainstreamcriticaltradition. Eventhestatusofmultipletextsofthesameplay(manuscriptdrafts,cen- soredlicensingcopies,revisedpublishedversions)hastendedtobesimplis- ticallyconstructedasaprogresstowardsapositedfinalversion.Ifrecent advancesintextualcriticismofShakespearehaveestablishedtheprinciple ofauthorialrevisionasadenialoftheeditor'straditionalcreationofthe idealtext,ithasnoteffectivelyestablishedamethodologyappropriatefor thecriticalanalysisofthearrayofversionscompetingforattention.The definitionofthefunctionofvariantversionsrunsupagainsttheassumption thatthedominanttextispremisedonanintentionalistmodel,theversionthe criticassumesthatthedramatistwouldhavewishedtohaveperformed,so thatproductionis,withsurprisingfrequency,stillmostoftendemonizedasa distortionoftheperfect,intendedtextwhichtheeditororcriticcanhypothesize . Locatingdramaastextinthematerialpracticeoftheatrenecessitatesthe precisedefinitionofthestatusofdramatistwithinthepracticesofthepro- ducingtheatrecompany.Evenintheheadydaysofradicalpoliticaltheatrein Englandinthe1970s,writerscomplainedthatthedemocratizationofthe workingpracticesoftheatrecompanieshadnotalteredthesubordinateposi- tionofplaywrights.TheplaywrightMicheleneWandorcomplainedthat radicalperformers/directorsstillseethewriterasanintruder,abitofa threattotheproductionprocess__Writersstillexperiencedirectorswith suspicion,defensiveaboutwhetherthetextwillbetakenawayfromthem, changedwithouttheirknowledge. HerUtopianvisionimaginesasysteminwhich Whentheplayisfinishedthetheatrereadstheplayatleastthreetimes beforediscussingitwithme.Whendirectorsandperformersworkonit theyrespectthefactthatI'vespentfarlongerthinkingaboutitallthan theyeverhavethetimeto__Myopinionisfinal,Iretaincontrolovermy script,justasthedirectorretainscontrolovertheprocessofrehearsal,and eachperformerretainscontroloverherorhisperformance.Writershave rightsofpowerwhichhavetoberecognisedandworkedwith.8 DavidGarrick:'3dly,asanAuthor'I43 Inthestructuresofpowerinthesystemsoftheatrepracticethewriteris, withreasonablejustification,self-imagedaseffectivelydisempoweredby theinterventionsofothers,thenecessaryothersinthesystemofproduction, theothersinwhomtheplaywrightmusttrustbecauses/hecandosolittleto controlthembutwhomaythemselvesworkdistrustingtheplay,eventhough theyadmiretheplaywright. DrJohnson'sIreneexemplifiestheproblem.9Theplay,inwhichtheauthorhadinvestedaninordinatedegreeofpride ,tookthirteenyearstoreach production.BothPeterandDavidGarrickhadtriedtointerestCharles Fleetwood,themanagerofDruryLane,inIrenein1739.Tantalizinglyvague promisesfailedtomaterialize;attemptstopublishfarednobetter.WithDavid Garrick'spurchaseofashareinthemanagementofDruryLane,hissenseof obligationtoJohnsonmovedIreneintotheproductionqueue,thoughhere toothereweredelaysandreschedulingsothattheplaywasfinallyputinto rehearsalfor1749ratherthan1748.Garrick'sworkfromthispointonshifts fromthatofArtisticDirectorofthecompany,themodernequivalentforhis shareofresponsibilitiesasmanager,tothatofdirector,viewedbyJohnson withexactlythedefensiveanxietydescribedbyMicheleneWandor.Bril- liantlycastand,asCliffordcomments,with"noexpense...sparedinpro- vidinggorgeouscostumesandsplendidscenery,"10Ireneanditsauthorhad stilltoundergothereauthoringinvolvedinrehearsal,thetransformationfrom rehearsalscripttoproductionscript.Lineswerecutandemended,though, withoutanactingversionextant,theprecisedetailsareunclear.ThatJohnson wouldhaveviewedthisscriptdevelopmentintermsofhierarchiesandpower relationshadalreadybeendemonstratedbyhiscommentafewyearsearlier onSavage'sexperiences:"havinglittleinterestorreputation,hewasobliged tosubmithimselfwhollytotheplayers,andadmit,withwhateverreluc- tance,theemendationsofMr.Cibber."11Forcedtoacquiesceinmuch,Johnson theplaywrightcouldatleastrefusetowritenewmaterial:Garrickfailedto convinceJohnsonthatheshouldwriteamadsceneforMahometand,with Johnsonathiselbow,Garrickdidnotdare,Isuspect,towriteoneinhimself. Thedirector'sownnervousnessisevidencedinacuriouspieceofmiscal-culatedstagebusiness,theoneoccasioninhiscareerwhenGarrickseemsto havemadesuchamistake:thoughJosephCradocklatersuggestedtheidea wasJohnson's,121finditimprobablethatitwasheratherthanGarrick,the generallyacceptedculprit,whoproposedthatIreneshouldbestrangledonstage ratherthanoff,anactionthatwascutinsubsequentperformancesaftercries of"murder,murder"onthefirstnight.NothinginJohnson'sneo-classical, rule-bounddramaturgyallowedforsuchanaction;everythingaboutGarrick's 44/HOLLAND senseofthetheatricallyspectacularmightwellhaveledhimtosuchades- perate expedient. IhavetriedtosuggesttworolesthatGarrickplayedinthecontinuumof thisproduction,artisticdirectorofthecompanyanddirectoroftheplay, modernformulationsofrolesboth,forGarrick,embodiedinthejobdescrip- tionofthemanager.Afterthepremiere,themanagercouldreturntoanother role,histaskofbalancingthefinancialsuccessofthecompany'sworkwith hisbeliefinplayandplaywrightbykeepingtheplay'srungoingthroughthe additionofsuccessfulafterpieces. Buttherewereotherrolesandotherpressures.Wehave,rightly,been stronglyencouragedrecently,intheworkofJohnBrewerandothers,13to reconstructeighteenth-centurysocialrelationsintermsofthecultureofcom- merceandconsumption.Others,particularlyandbrilliantlyJean-Christophe Agnew,14haveurgedustoviewoverafarlongerperspectivethematerial connections,theexperientialpropertiessharedbetweenprofessionaltheatre andthemarketplace.YetthenegotiationsbetweenGarrickandJohnson overthetextofIrenearealsoconductedintermsofclientrelations,struc- turesofpatronageandintercessionintheexerciseofpowerthatseemtome tohavelittletodowithcommerceinthewayitisnowbeingoffered,struc- turesepitomizedinJohnson'sdescriptionofSavage's"havinglittleinterest" andinGarrick'sattempttoenforcethecreationofthemadscenethroughthe mediationoffriendslikeDrTaylorofAshbourne. AfurtherstructureofcontrolishintedatinJohnson'ssecondcausefor Savage'ssubmissiontoCibber,Savage'slackof"reputation,"atermofvex- ingresonancesemergingoutofthecomplexitiesofthepositionand,above all,thevisibilityoftheplaywrightinthecultureofthetheatre.Thecom- mentsofanticipationoÃ-Irene'spremierewerecloselyboundupbothwith Johnson'slackofreputationandwiththeperceptionofJohnsonasanunusu- allyvisibleauthor,afigurewithahigherprofilethanwasconventionallythe case.AsCliffordcomments,"Whowasthismanwhosefirstplaywasabout tobeproduced?Whathadhedonetodeservesuchfavour?"15JohnBlair evenassumedthatthepublicationofTheVanityofHumanWisheswaspart oftheplay'shype,published"inordertomaketheworldalittleacquainted withhisnamebeforehand."16 Butthehypewaslesstroublingforthetransformationsofthetextthanthe controlplacedinthepoweroftheactors.JohnsonsawSavageas"obligedto submithimselfwhollytotheplayers."ItissignificantthatGarrick'sattempts toaddthemadsceneforMahometoccurredwhenhewastryingtoaddtothe likelihoodoftheplay'ssuccessbyrecastinghimselfasMahometratherthan Demetrius.Itwasasstaractorratherthanasmanagerorasactor-manager ratherthandirectorthatheintervened,asJohnsonimmediatelyunderstood: DavidGarrick:'MIy,asanAuthor'I45 "thefellowwantsmetomakeMahometrunmad,thathemayhavetheop- portunityoftossinghishandsandkickinghisheels."17Theactoruseshis/her powerintheproductiontohavetheplayrewrittentoprovidetheperformer withthedesiredopportunitiesfordisplay.Inthespectacle-driven,actor-driven theatreoftheperiod,theauthorisrarelyabletostandoutagainstsuchpres- surefromtheactorstoreauthor. ThetransactionsoverIrenewereunusual.Johnson'sfriendshipwith Garrick,thatstrangeanomalyofcontrasts,radicallyconstrictedGarrick's normalfreedomandpowerofcontroloverthetext.Themoreusualpatternis aptlysummedupbyMrsInchbald:thenovelist"livesinalandofliberty, whilsttheDramaticWriterexistsbutunderadespoticgovernment"18but,as Conollyarguesinhisfinestudyofcensorship,"therewasmorethanone despotinthatgovernment-manager,actor,audience,critic,censor."19 Butmymajorconcerninthisessaywillbelesswiththevarietyofdespots thanwiththeparadoxesofGarrick'sownposition.In1801,ArthurMurphy, beginninghis"retrospectiveviewofaveryextraordinaryman"andwanting to"formajustestimateofhischaracter"attheendofhisbiographyof Garrick,suggeststhat Garrickpresentshimselfinfourdifferentattitudes.Inthefirstplace,as themanagerofatheatre;2dly,asanactor;3dly,asanauthor;and4thly,as aprivatememberofsociety.20 Murphy'sdivision,whileplacingtheactorafterorbelowthemanagerin theorganizationofhissummary,clearlydefinesGarrickprimarilyasaper- formerinthecontrollingimageofthesentence,aman"presenting]himselfin...attitudes,"posedlikeanengravingofanactorcaughtrepresentingone ofthecrucialdefiningmoments,theepitomizingpointsoftheperformance ofacharacter.Actingaptlydefinestheformsofsocialinteractionofa"man- ager"or"aprivatememberofsociety"asmuchasthebehaviorofanactor whoistodaystillexpectedandassumedtobeperformingforanaudience offstageasmuchason.Buttheanalysissitsmoreuncomfortablywiththe conceptofthewriter,fortheculturedoesnotnormallyimagethewriter's statusasthatofaperformer.Whilethetextitselfistobeperformedandisin theperiodoftenreferredtoasa"performance"ofthewriter,theplaywright isnotseenasperforminginrelationtoit,onlyofcreatingthetextforperfor- mance.Myconcern,then,willrecurrentlybewiththe"attitude"Garrick "presents"asauthor. Theconstructionoftheauthorasthevisibleoriginatoroftheproduction ofthetextisanassumptioncreatedfarmorebythetraditionofliterarycriti- cismthanbythedisciplineoftheatrehistory.Thestudyofdramahasneeded 46/HOLLAND toconstructitselfaroundtheidentificationofauthorship,thecreationof oeuvre,theassumptionsofindividualityinthepracticeofplaywrighting, but,forGarrick'stheatre,theauthorhadanextremelylowprofile,hardly daringattimes,itseems,toraiseaheadabovetheparapet.Goldsmith,in- veighingagainstthedominanceofactoroverpoet,complained"theactoris everinoureye,andthepoetseldompermittedtoappear."21Onepamphle- teer,notingthatitismucheasierintheFrenchtheatretohavenewplays performed,remarksthat itisusualinFranceforanaudiencethatassistsatanewtragedy,whose meritexcitestheiradmiration,tocallfortheauthor,thathemayinperson partakeoftheapplauseduetohistalents.Nothinglikethiseverhappened inEngland:indeedpeoplearesoengrossedwiththeplayers,thatthey scarcethinkthepoetworthyoftheirnotice,andthisIlookuponasa signalproofofthatdepravityoftaste,whichseemstocharacterizethe presentage.22 Likeothers,thewritergoesontocomplainofthehighnumberofrevivals ofoldplaysandtherelativepaucityofnewones,recommendingGarrick instead"torepresentasmanynewplaysaspossible...thecustomofreviving oldandobscureplays,whichwereperhapsneverworthrepresenting,should besuppressed."23JamesRalph,inthemostangryandanguishedargument forauthors,mentions,asothersdo,thefinancialadvantagesofrevivalsto thetheatremanagement,who
Art · Irish and British Studies · Joseph Conrad and Literature · Scottish History and National Identity
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,14 |
| Citation span | 2019 - 2019 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |