In many of the somewhat violent attacks that have recently beenmade on that splendour of mounting which now characterises ourShakespearian revivals in England,it seems to have been tacitlyassumed by the critics that Shakespeare himself was more or lessindifferent to the costumes of his actors,and that,could he seeMrs.Langtry's production of ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA,he wouldprobably say that the play,and the play only,is the thing,andthat everything else is leather and prunella.While,as regardsany historical accuracy in dress,Lord Lytton,in an article in theNINETEENTH CENTURY,has laid it down as a dogma of art thatarchaeology is entirely out of place in the presentation of any ofShakespeare's plays,and the attempt to introduce it one of thestupidest pedantries of an age of prigs.
Lord Lytton's position I shall examine later on;but,as regardsthe theory that Shakespeare did not busy himself much about thecostume-wardrobe of his theatre,anybody who cares to studyShakespeare's method will see that there is absolutely no dramatistof the French,English,or Athenian stage who relies so much forhis illusionist effects on the dress of his actors as Shakespearedoes himself.
Knowing how the artistic temperament is always fascinated by beautyof costume,he constantly introduces into his plays masques anddances,purely for the sake of the pleasure which they give theeye;and we have still his stage-directions for the three greatprocessions in HENRY THE EIGHTH,directions which are characterisedby the most extraordinary elaborateness of detail down to thecollars of S.S.and the pearls in Anne Boleyn's hair.Indeed itwould be quite easy for a modern manager to reproduce thesepageants absolutely as Shakespeare had them designed;and soaccurate were they that one of the court officials of the time,writing an account of the last performance of the play at the GlobeTheatre to a friend,actually complains of their realisticcharacter,notably of the production on the stage of the Knights ofthe Garter in the robes and insignia of the order as beingcalculated to bring ridicule on the real ceremonies;much in thesame spirit in which the French Government,some time ago,prohibited that delightful actor,M.Christian,from appearing inuniform,on the plea that it was prejudicial to the glory of thearmy that a colonel should be caricatured.And elsewhere thegorgeousness of apparel which distinguished the English stage underShakespeare's influence was attacked by the contemporary critics,not as a rule,however,on the grounds of the democratic tendenciesof realism,but usually on those moral grounds which are always thelast refuge of people who have no sense of beauty.
The point,however,which I wish to emphasise is,not thatShakespeare appreciated the value of lovely costumes in addingpicturesqueness to poetry,but that he saw how important costume isas a means of producing certain dramatic effects.Many of hisplays,such as MEASURE FOR MEASURE,TWELFTH NIGHT,THE TWOGENTLEMAN OF VERONA,ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL,CYMBELINE,andothers,depend for their illusion on the character of the variousdresses worn by the hero or the heroine;the delightful scene inHENRY THE SIXTH,on the modern miracles of healing by faith,losesall its point unless Gloster is in black and scarlet;and theDENOUMENT of the MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR hinges on the colour ofAnne Page's gown.As for the uses Shakespeare makes of disguisesthe instances are almost numberless.Posthumus hides his passionunder a peasant's garb,and Edgar his pride beneath an idiot'srags;Portia wears the apparel of a lawyer,and Rosalind is attiredin 'all points as a man';the cloak-bag of Pisanio changes Imogento the Youth Fidele;Jessica flees from her father's house in boy'sdress,and Julia ties up her yellow hair in fantastic love-knots,and dons hose and doublet;Henry the Eighth woos his lady as ashepherd,and Romeo his as a pilgrim;Prince Hal and Poins appearfirst as footpads in buckram suits,and then in white aprons andleather jerkins as the waiters in a tavern:and as for Falstaff,does he not come on as a highwayman,as an old woman,as Herne theHunter,and as the clothes going to the laundry?
Nor are the examples of the employment of costume as a mode ofintensifying dramatic situation less numerous.After slaughter ofDuncan,Macbeth appears in his night-gown as if aroused from sleep;Timon ends in rags the play he had begun in splendour;Richardflatters the London citizens in a suit of mean and shabby armour,and,as soon as he has stepped in blood to the throne,marchesthrough the streets in crown and George and Garter;the climax ofTHE TEMPEST is reached when Prospero,throwing off his enchanter'srobes,sends Ariel for his hat and rapier,and reveals himself asthe great Italian Duke;the very Ghost in HAMLET changes hismystical apparel to produce different effects;and as for Juliet,amodern playwright would probably have laid her out in her shroud,and made the scene a scene of horror merely,but Shakespeare arraysher in rich and gorgeous raiment,whose loveliness makes the vault'a feasting presence full of light,'turns the tomb into a bridalchamber,and gives the cue and motive for Romeo's speech of thetriumph of Beauty over Death.
