The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1888  Wednesday, 16 November 2005

From: 		Al Magary <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 16 Nov 2005 02:29:39 -0800
Subject: 	Shakespeare Travesties

Internet Archive has online from the Million Book Project a small book 
by William Davenport Adams, _A Book of Burlesque, Sketches of English 
Stage Travestie and Parody_ (Whitefriars Library of Wit and Humour; 
London:  Henry & Co., 1891): http://www.archive.org/details/ABookOfBurlesque

Ch. 6 deals with Shakespeare travesties written by once-popular comic 
dramatists like Maurice Dowling, Charles Beckington, Andrew Halliday 
(Duff), Gilbert Abbott a'Beckett (who did the only known burlesque of 
King John), H.J. Byron, Francis Talfourd, and F.C. Burnand; W.S. Gilbert 
remains popular, of course, for his collaborations with Sullivan.

The genre flourished in the 19th century after John Poole's _Hamlet 
Travestie_ (1810), with a run of 70 works up to Gilbert's _Rosencrantz 
and Guildenstern:  A Tragic Episode, in Three Tabloids, Founded on an 
Old Danish Legend_ (1891).

The Adams book summarizes the Gilbert R&G with some best bits including 
this scene in which the two chatterboxes meet the talkative Ophelia, who 
is engaged to Hamlet:

  GUILDENSTERN    And what's he like?
  OPHELIA     Alike for no two seasons at a time.
      Sometimes he's tall -- sometimes he's very short --
      Now with black hair -- now with a flaxen wig --
      Sometimes with an English accent -- then a French --
      Then English with a strong provincial "burr."
      Once an American, and once a Jew --
      But Danish never, take him how you will!
      And strange to say, whate'er his tongue may be,
      Whether he's dark or flaxen -- English -- French --
      Though we're in Denmark, A.D. ten-six-two--
      He always dresses as King James the First!

  GUILDENSTERN     Oh, he is surely mad!

  OPHELIA     Well, there again
      Opinion is divided. Some men hold
      That he's the sanest, far, of all sane men --
      Some that he's really sane, but shamming mad --
      Some that he's really mad, but shamming sane --
      Some that he will be mad, some that he was
      Some that he couldn't be. But on the whole
      (As far as I can make out what they mean)
      The favourite theory's somewhat like this:
          Hamlet is idiotically sane
          With lucid intervals of lunacy

In the second act the Queen, seeing Hamlet is about to soliloquize, 
tells the henchmen, "Prevent this, gentlemen, by any means."  Later, 
when instructing the Players, Hamlet tells them (in prose):  "Pray you, 
let there be no huge red noses, nor extravagant monstrous wigs, nor 
coarse men garbed as women, in this comi-tragedy; for such things are as 
much as to say, 'I am a comick fellow -- I pray you laugh at me, and 
hold what I say to be cleverly ridiculous.'  Such labelling of humour is 
an impertinence to your audience, for it seemeth to imply that they are 
unable to recognize a joke unless it be pointed out to them."

The a'Beckett _King John_ has a hilarious bit when the king tries to 
direct Hubert to do in Arthur:

    KING JOHN     Hubert, my friend, I had a thing to say.
        But let it pass -- the sun is shining bright:
        To suit my purpose, it had needs be night,
        If where we stand could be a railroad tunnel,
        As if we looked at Tartarus through a funnel;
        If you could only scent what I propose,
        Yet let it not smell rankly in your nose,
        If you could, or if I -- Hubert, my lad,
        Who made that coat? -- indeed, the cut's not bad.

The Gilbert R&G skit can be found at 
but a'Beckett's KJ is not online as far as I know.  Poole's _Hamlet 
Travestie_ is available as a facsimile online at Penn's SCETI/Furness 
Collection (http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/furness/index.cfm) 
along with Richard Gurney's _Romeo and Juliet Travesty_.  Stanley Wells 
assembled a large number in five volumes, _Shakespeare Burlesques_ 
(London: Diploma Press, 1977; Wilmington, Del.:  Michael Glazier, 1978).

A recent study is Richard W. Schoch's _Not Shakespeare:  Bardolatry and 
Burlesque in the Nineteenth Century_ (Cambridge UP, 2002), which was 
reviewed by Michael Dobson in Shakespeare Quarterly in Spring 2004.

While Google doesn't readily turn up any performances of the 19th 
century travesties these days, I think some of these burlesques have 
some sharp humor that could find a place in Shakespeare criticism.

Al Magary

S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.