ACTORS
General
The present play of Anthony and Cleopatra is barren, indeed, of adequate records of the few actors and actresses who have performed it. The dates of the revivals may be found in Genest. Comments on the revivals themselves are, in the Introduction to the play in Irving's Edition, set forth as follows: Joseph Knight (ed. Irving, Introduction, p. 115): Between 1704 and 1706, according to Downes, four plays, to be acted by the players of both companies— Drury Lane and Lincoln's Inn Fields—were commanded at Court. First among these was All for Love, in which Betterton appeared as Antony, Verbruggen as Ventidius, Wilks as Dolabella, Booth as Alexas, Mrs Barry as Cleopatra, and Mrs Bracegirdle as Octavia. Concerning these representations Downes says, with every probability of truth in his favour, ‘“These four plays were well acted and gave great satisfaction.”’ On 3rd December, 1718, at Drury Lane, when the management of Cibber, Wilks, and Booth was at the height of its good fortune, an important revival took place. In this Barton Booth was Antony; Mills, Ventidius; Wilks, Dolabella; Cibber, Alexas; Mrs Oldfield, Cleopatra; and Mrs Porter, Octavia. Concerning this revival Colley Cibber says, “‘The habits of that tragedy amounted to an expense of near six hundred pounds; a sum unheard of for many years before, on the like occasion’” (Apology, ii, 175, 176, ed. 1889). [Of this same revival we also find the following:Knight continues: While Antony and Cleopatra slept for another seventy years Dryden's play was revived at Drury Lane, 22nd Mar., 1766, with Powell as Antony and Mrs Yates again as Cleopatra; and once more at the same house, still under Garrick's management, 17th Dec., 1772, with Spranger Barry as Antony, Mrs Barry as Octavia, and Miss Younge, for the first time, as Cleopatra. On the 28th of the following March, at Covent Garden, Mrs Hartley, whose first season it was, made her first appearance as Cleopatra to the Antony of Smith and the Dolabella of Wroughton. With Miss Younge and Smith in the principal parts All for Love was played at Drury Lane on 12th May, 1775, and 13th March, 1776. With Smith as Antony, and Miss Yates from Drury Lane as Cleopatra, with West Digges as Ventidius, and Farren as Dolabella, it was given at Covent Garden 8th Jan., and 5th Feb., 1779. In Dryden's All for Love, and not in Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, Mrs Siddons essayed, at Drury Lane, 5th May, 1788, the character of Cleopatra, Kemble being the Antony; Palmer, Ventidius; Barrymore, Dolabella; and Mrs Ward, Octavia. That the performance by Mrs Siddons of a character so suited to her powers was fine may be assumed. Not being in Shakespeare, however, it calls for no further comment than the statement that Boaden (Life of Siddons, ii, 243) says that she showed ‘“the daring atrocity of crime,”’ and adds, with sub-acid banter, that ‘“the notion of frailty was visually banished.”’ Campbell (Life of Siddons, ii, 127) suggests that Octavia would under certain conditions have been a better part for the actress than Cleopatra; and says that ‘“she never established “the Siren of the Nile” among her popular characters.”’ On 24th May, 1790, at Covent Garden, Miss Brunton played Cleopatra to the Antony of Holman; and on 12th Jan., 1818, at Bath, Conway, the unfortunate actor, treated with so much perverse cruelty by Hazlitt and Theodore Hook, was the Antony to the Cleopatra of Miss Somerville, afterwards Mrs Bunn. . . . In November, 1833, Macready produced at Covent Garden an acting version of Antony and Cleopatra. The great feature of the revival was the scenery by Clarkson Stanfield. [According to Macready's own diary the revival was not eminently successful.] . . . Antony and Cleopatra was naturally included in the series of revivals of Shakespeare undertaken by the Phelps and Greenwood management at Sadler's Wells. It was first played 22nd October, 1850, with Phelps as Antony, G. K. Dickinson as Octavius, Henry Marston as Sextus Pompeius, George Kenrick as Enobarbus, and Miss Glyn as Cleopatra. This was one of the most successful of the Sadler's Wells revivals, and elicited much approval. Miss Glyn's performance of Cleopatra was the crowning triumph of her career. In personal appearance she conformed to the requirements of Talfourd, namely, ‘“a figure of voluptuous majesty, a mingling of dazzling beauty and intellectual command.”’ In her death scene she was pronounced equal to Pasta.“ In Dryden's All for Love, Booth's dignified action and forcible elocution, in the part of Antony, attracted the public to that heavy, though, in many parts, well written play, six nights successively, without the assistance of pantomime, or farce, which, at that time, was esteemed something extraordinary. But, indeed, he was well supported by an Oldfield, in his Cleopatra, who, to a most harmonious, powerful voice and fine person, added grace and elegance of gesture. When Booth and Oldfield met in the Second Act, their dignity of deportment commanded the applause and approbation of the most judicious critics. When Antony said to Cleopatra, ‘“You promised me your silence, and you break it Ere I have scarce begun,”’—this check was so well understood by Oldfield, and answered with such propriety of behaviour, that, in Shakespeare's phrase, her ‘“bendings were adornings.”’ The elder Mills acted Ventidius with the true spirit of a rough and generous old soldier. To render the play as acceptable to the public as possible, Wilkes took the trifling part of Dolabella, nor did Colley Cibber disdain to appear in Alexas; these parts would scarcely be accepted now by third-rate actors. Still to add more weight to the performance, Octavia was a short character of a Scene or two, in which Mrs Porter drew not only respect, but the more affecting approbation of tears, from the audience. Since that time, All for Love has gradually sunk into forgetfulness.]
”
“ In portraying the enchantress, Cleopatra, Miss Glyn had occasion to draw upon the entire resources of her art. The variety and fascination of the character she touched to admiration. The caprice, the grace, the pride of the character were exhibited with a power which exceeded expectation. It was evident that she had made a profound and industrious study of the part. The whole portrait was thrown out with decision and force, and richly coloured. Those parts in which dignity and anger were expressed—such as the interview with the messenger after Antony's second marriage—were given with a vehemence and power corresponding to the language she had to deliver. But it was in the Fifth Act, when preparing for her death, that the better phases of the character and the more refined parts of the action tested the fitness of the actress for this assumption. Indignant majesty, compulsory resignation, heroic resolve, and tender memory, were all adequately pronounced. The death itself was a triumph. —Athenæum, 27 October, 1849.
”
“ After some years' absence from the stage, in May, 1867 [Miss Glyn] reappeared at the Princess's Theatre, as Cleopatra, and according to The Athenæum (May 18, 1867), ‘the triumph of the evening was the assumption by Miss Glyn of Cleopatra. The witchery of the blandishments, the Asiatic undulations of the form, the variety of the enchantments, the changes of mood, the impetuous passion, and in the end the noble resignation—all these points were brought out with an accuracy of elocution and with a force of genius which left no doubt on the mind that Miss Glyn is as great an actress as ever adorned the English stage.’
”
[On the revival referred to in this notice, Joseph Knight (Introd. op. cit., p. 119) has the following remarks]: “Mr James Anderson appeared as Antony, and Miss Wallis, then almost a debutante, as Cleopatra. The piece had been arranged with a view to spectacular effect, and with no very reverend hand, by Andrew Halliday, and the general cast was far from strong. Mr Anderson's performance of Antony was picturesque and vigorous, but old-fashioned; Miss Wallis's qualifications for Cleopatra did not extend beyond good looks and some elocutionary ability, and the production was one of those experiments on the strength of which Chatterton, by whom it was tried, put forward the famous managerial dictum that ‘Shakespeare spelt ruin.’” [For the latest revival, by Mr Tree, see p. 591.]“ A man need scarcely be a veteran stage-goer to recollect when Miss Glyn, at Sadler's Wells, gave an embodiment of Cleopatra, which came as near a realisation of the ‘serpent of old Nile’ as anything modern art can afford. This impersonation was repeated at the Standard first, and subsequently at the Princess's, with no alteration of Shakespeare's text.
”Anon. (Athenæum, 27 Sept., 1873)
CAPELL'S VERSION
The Version which Edward Capell made for Garrick has the following title: ‘Antony and Cleopatra | an historical Play, | written by | William Shake- speare: | fitted for the Stage by abridging only; | and now acted, at the | Theatre- Royal in Drury-Lane, | by his Majesty's Servants. | No grave upon the earth shall clip in it A pair so famous. p. 99. | London: | Printed for J. and R. Tonson in the Strand. | MDCCLVIII.’ On the next page is the following:In the Textual Notes on the preceding pages, the various readings of this Version, where they decidedly differ from Capell's own text, are duly recorded. To avoid confusion I have designated this Version as Garrick's, abbreviated ‘Gar.’ It has received the following notices:
“ Antony and Cleopatra had long lain dormant, I believe ever since it was first exhibited, when, about the year 1760, Mr Garrick, from his passionate desire to give the public as much of their admired poet as possible, revived it, as altered by Mr Capell, with all the advantages of new scenes, habits, and other decorations proper to the play. However, it did not answer his own and the public expectation. It must be confessed, that, in Antony, he wanted one necessary accomplishment: his person was not sufficiently important and commanding to represent the part. There is more dignity of action than variety of passion in the character, though it is not deficient in the latter. The actor, who is obliged continually to traverse the stage, should from person attract respect, as well as from the power of speech. Mrs Yates was then a young actress, and had not manifested such proofs of genius, and such admirable elocution, as she has since displayed: but her fine figure and pleasing manner of speaking were well adapted to the enchanting Cleopatra. Mossop wanted the essential part of Enobarbus, humour.
”
“ Shakspeare's play, acted six times, was adapted to the stage by abridging and transposing only,—Capell's alteration is judicious on the whole, but might have been better,—for the convenience of representation it was right to reduce the number of characters, but this is done without any regard to propriety—the speech with which Philo opens the play, and the famous description of Cleopatra on the Cydnus (taken from Enobarbus) are given to Thyreüs—if a change were to be made it should certainly have been made in favour of some Roman of consequence on Antony's side, not in favour of Thyreüs, who was Cæsar's freedman, and who had never seen Cleopatra till he was sent with a message to her, as in the Third Act of the play,—what the Soldier and Scarus say in the Third and Fourth Acts is absurdly given to Diomedes, who was only Secretary to Cleopatra and could have nothing to do with military concerns—in the Second Act Antony says—‘If we compose well here, to Parthia: “Hark you Ventidius.” ’ Capell has changed the name to Canidius, which was wrong, as Ventidius was the person really sent to oppose the Parthians. Garrick revived this play with all the advantages of new scenes, habits, and decorations, but it did not answer his expectation—his own person was not sufficiently important for Antony; and Mrs Yates had not perhaps at this time displayed abilities equal to the representation of Shakspeare's best female character, Lady Macbeth excepted.
”
“ It is melancholy to find, though the fault appears to have been principally attributable to the actors, that this long-deferred production of [Capell's Version] was not a success. After half a dozen repetitions the piece was withdrawn. Why Garrick should not have been a good Antony is not easily seen. He was not, however, Mrs Yates, meanwhile, though popular as Lady Macbeth, won little recognition in other important female characters of Shakespeare, and made no impression as Cleopatra. Few of Garrick's revivals attracted less attention. Davies and Murphy in their biographies leave it unmentioned. Dr Doran, without advancing any authority, speaks of it as the great event of its season, and says, with what almost sounds like disingenuousness, but is only carelessness, that Garrick and Mrs Yates gained ‘even more laurels as Zamti and Mandane in the Orphan of China’ than in Antony and Cleopatra, in which they gained none at all. Mr Percy Fitzgerald confesses it a failure.
”J. Knight (Irving Ed. Introd., p. 117)
VERSION ATTRIBUTED TO KEMBLE
In 1813 there appeared Shakspeare's Tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra; with alterations, and with additions from Dryden; as now perform'd at the Theatre-Royal, Covent-Garden. Mr Abbot appeared as Octavius; Mr Young as Antony; Mr Barrymore as Lepidus; Mr Egerton as Enobarbus; Mrs Faucit as Cleopatra; Miss Cooke and Mrs Watts as Charmion and Iras; Mrs M'Gibbon as Octavia. The object of the Compiler of this Version (who is said to have been Kemble, but without sufficient foundation) is set forth in an ‘Advertisement,’ prefixed to the Text; very briefly stated, this object appears to have been to weld into one play the beauties of Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra and of Dryden's All for Love, after having eliminated from the former the features which tend to render it unacceptable to the public, and from the latter those weaknesses that have caused it to decline in popularity, or, in short, as the author expresses it, ‘an amalgamation of wonderful poetical powers.’ The various readings, transpositions, and additions have not been recorded in the Textual Notes on the preceding pages of this volume; within a space so restricted it would have been impossible to render them intelligible. In place thereof a description of this ‘amalgamation’ is here given which will convey an idea of the Version, as a whole, far more clearly than can be conveyed by any Textual Notes. This description is by Genest. (I happen to have Genest's own copy and almost every page bears witness to the fidelity with which he performed his task.) It is found in his vol. viii, p. 417, et seq. as follows: “‘First Act does not differ materially from the original [i. e. Shakespeare's] — Modena and Charmian are properly changed to Mutina and Charmion—but Mark Antony should have been altered to Marc Antony, as in the bill—the letter k in a Roman name is an unpardonable solecism. Second Act, begins with Shakespeare's Second Scene, but the conclusion of it, in which Enobarbus describes Cleopatra on the Cydnus, is most injudiciously omitted—Capell has transposed it—then follows Shakespeare's Fifth Scene with Cleopatra and her attendants—next comes an unimportant Scene between Antony and Octavia at Athens—this is from Shakespeare's Third Act—Cleopatra, etc., are discovered at Alexandria—the first part of this Scene is chiefly from Shakespeare, but when Antony enters, the remainder of the Act is from Dryden—Dryden's Scene is a very good one, but it is not introduced in this place with propriety—in Dryden's play, Ventidius in the First Act estranges Antony from Cleopatra, after which, naturally follows the Scene in which Antony reproaches her— but the Editor of the present play reverses the order of things, and makes Dryden's Second Scene precede his First—in Dryden's play the Scene lies the whole time at Alexandria, but in this alteration Antony is represented as coming back to Egypt merely to tell Cleopatra that they must part—which is not only contrary to the fact, but absurd in itself—there was nothing like a quarrel between Antony and Cleopatra until after the battle of Actium. Third Act begins with the Sixth Scene of Shakespeare's Third Act—then follows the Seventh Scene—the battle of Actium takes place in the sight of the audience—and the Act is concluded from Shakespeare with slight alterations. Fourth Act is nearly the whole of it from Dryden—the celebrated Scene between Antony and Ventidius is introduced with propriety—that in which Ventidius leads on Octavia, might have been spared—and the one from Dryden, which is improperly inserted in the Second Act, might have been substituted for it— Octavia's coming to Antony in Egypt is a poetical fiction on the part of Dryden, and the Scene itself is not equal in merit to the Scenes of Shakespeare, which are left out to make room for it—Dryden's description of Cleopatra on the Cydnus is omitted. Fifth Act is made up from Shakespeare and Dryden—Ventidius kills himself as in Dryden—when Antony has fallen on his sword, the play is concluded from Shakespeare—Cæsar and his party enter—after which, the Scene changes to the interior of the monument—Antony, Cleopatra, etc. are discovered—Antony dies—and the Act proceeds as in Shakespeare, but with great omissions—Cleopatra's speeches are sadly mutilated—the play concludes with two short Scenes, partly from Shakespeare—and a grand funeral procession. ‘This alteration is attributed to Kemble—but his name does not appear in the title-page—Capell's alteration is the better of the two—the modern editor omits too much of Shakespeare—yet it must be allowed, that no person has altered one of Shakespeare's plays materially, and has yet succeeded so well—the reason is obvious—he has selected the best parts of Dryden's best Tragedy, instead of patching up a play, with stuff of his own invention, as Davenant, Tate, Cibber, etc., have done. ‘This revival of Antony and Cleopatra did not meet with the success it deserved— it ought not however to have been brought forward without a first rate actress in Cleopatra—Mrs Siddons would have made a glorious part of Cleopatra (supposing the part not to have been mutilated) and perhaps have fixed the play in the favour of the public—she had been more than once or twice solicited by Kemble to act Shakespeare's Cleopatra, but she continually declined for a very foolish reason—she said she should hate herself, if she should play the part as it ought to be played.’” Genest mentions ‘a grand funeral procession’ with which the play ended, but he does not refer to an ‘Epicedium’ which was sung at the same time. It begins with a Chorus which will, I think, amply serve as a specimen: “Cold in death the Hero lies;Nerveless, now, the Victor's arm;
Quench'd the light'ning of his eyes,
The Foe to daunt, the Fair to charm.
Mourn, soldiers, mourn! your day is done;
Valour has lost its cheering sun;
The Roman Glory sets on Egypt's shore,
And great Mark Antony will rise no more.—etc.
”
KEMBLE'S VERSION
In the Textual Notes on the preceding pages of this present volume there occurs, not infrequently, the name ‘Kemble.’ Let it not be supposed that reference is hereby made to this Version of 1813, just described by Genest. It refers to a MS Stage-copy of this play, with Stage-directions in the handwriting of J. P. Kemble. This copy has been kindly lent to me by my highly valued friend, H. C. Folger, jr., of Brooklyn, New York, who bought it at the sale of the library of Lawrence Doyle, of Dublin, at Sotheby's, December, 1898, in whose catalogue it was described as ‘“J. P. Kemble's copy with MS notes, stage-directions, etc., in his autograph. Note on fly-leaf, “G. Lamb, bought at Kemble's sale, 1821.” ”’ The notes, stage-directions, etc., are unquestionably in Kemble's autograph, which is familiar to me. The principle which seems to have rigidly guided Kemble in constructing this Version is omission; there are not many transpositions, and no additions of moment. How extensive is this omission may be seen at once from the Dramatis Personæ, from whom, as given in Steevens's edition of 1793 (the edition which Kemble would have probably used), Kemble has omitted Pompey, Ventidius, Scarus, Dercetas, Demetrius, Philo, Dolabella, Proculeius, Menas, Menecrates, Taurus, Canidius, Euphronius, Mardian, and Diomedes; in all fifteen characters; in reality fourteen. Kemble has a new character, Titius by name, a friend of Antony, and highly accommodating in filling odd gaps. Hereby the thirty-four characters in Steevens's edition are reduced to twenty in Kemble's Version. It is evident, at once, that, by this reduction in the characters, the play is shortened by many hundred lines. In the following description no reference is made to the Scenes where those characters appear that Kemble has omitted; in speaking of Scenes ‘in the original,’ the Scenes in the Globe Edition are referred to. The directions for the setting of the stage at the opening of the Play are as follows: ‘“The Palace in Alexandria should be of the most magnificent orders of the purest Grecian architecture; yet the decorations and furniture of every apartment should remind one that the scene lies in Egypt. Portico of the Palace: Stage open as far back as possible. View of the sea, ships, etc., The Pharos, Pompey's Pillar, Cleopatra's Obelisk, Statues of Hercules, Alexander, Anubis.’ At the foot of the page, Kemble, in the spirit of a true scholar, notes his authorities: ‘Norden's Antiquities of Egypt. Montfaucon. Mr Knight's Antiques.”’ The First Scene opens with a conversation between Thyreus and Enobarbus; after the first ten lines, which in the original are spoken by Philo, but here by Enobarbus, the latter gives the description of Cleopatra and her barge on the Cydnus. When Antony and Cleopatra enter, the Scene continues to the end unchanged as in the original. The first eighty lines of the Second Scene are omitted, and then Shakespeare's Scene continues with some minor omissions to the end. The Third Scene remains unchanged, as do also the Fourth and Fifth, with trifling omissions, and the First Act ends. The Second Scene of the Second Act follows the original, with the exception of twenty or thirty lines omitted here and there together with the description of Cleopatra on the Cydnus which has been transferred to the First Scene in the play. The Third Scene of the original is omitted, and instead the Fourth is retained, and to it is added an abridgement of the first twenty lines of Act III, Scene ii. The Fifth Scene of the original (Kemble's Third Scene) is retained with trifling omissions. The Messenger, Kemble calls Seleucus. Kemble's Fourth Scene of Act II. is composed of the Fourth and Fifth Scenes of Act III. of the original, and after Octavia leaves (III, iv, 31) the Soothsayer enters, exclaiming, ‘“Antony! Antony! Antony! You, that wish yourself in Egypt.”’ Antony demands, ‘“What would you?”’ and then follows Act II, iii, from line 10 to ‘“I'the east my pleasure lies,”’ with the omission of a line or two. Kemble's II, v. is III, iii. of the original. Kemble's II, vi. is III, vi. of the original, but very slightly ‘cut.’ With this Scene Kemble's Act II. ends, his Act III. begins with III, vii. of the original. This ending and this beginning are the same as in Capell's Version, and much can be said in favour of the division at this point. The few words Canidius speaks in this Scene are, in Kemble's, spoken by Enobarbus. Scene ii. in Kemble is Scene viii. of the original, whereof Scene ix. Kemble omits, and begins his Scene iii. with Scene x. of the original. At its close Enobarbus (Canidius in the original) after line 27 adds the lines which he says aside in III, xiii. ‘“Mine honesty and I begin to square,”’ etc. Kemble's Scene iv, with little variation, is Scene xi. of the original. Kemble's Scene v. is the same as Scene xii. except that Euphronius is Kemble's Eros; his Scene vi. is Scene xiii, to the end of Act III. in the original, but Kemble continues the Scene by keeping Enobarbus on the stage, and, omitting Act IV, Scene i. of the original, has ‘Re-enter Antony and Eros’; Antony at once begins ‘“He will not fight with me Domitius,”’ etc., and so on to the end of the Scene as in the original, except that Cleopatra is omitted; it is Eros, and not Cleopatra therefore who asks Enobarbus aside, ‘“What does he mean?”’ This Scene concludes Kemble's Act III.; his Act IV. begins at IV, iv, 18, and, omitting Cleopatra and Charmian, continues through Scene v. of the original. Kemble's Scene ii. comprises the first ten lines of IV, vi. of the original. His Scene iii. begins with IV, viii, 1, and, after inserting eight or ten lines from the preceding Scene (IV, vii, 4-17), continues the Scene as in the original. Kemble's Scene iv. is composite; it begins with the Sentinels on their post (‘Silius and Varius’ in Kemble) as in IV, ix. Enobarbus enters; his address to the moon is followed by his reflections in IV, vi, 16 ‘“Alexas did revolt,”’ etc., through the rest of that Scene where his treasure is returned to him by Antony (IV, vi, 20-39). Act IV, Scene ix. is then resumed and the last five lines of his dying speech closes the Scene. Kemble's Scene v. begins with Scene x, and, omitting Scene xi. Cleopatra's entrance and the lines addressed to her, as well as sundry others, ends with ‘“she dies for't. Eros ho!”’ IV, xii, 57. Kemble's Scene vi. is the same as Scene xiii; his Scene vii. is the same as Scene xiv, with few omissions, the longest is from line 104-113. Kemble's Scene viii. is as follows: ‘“Alexandria. A Street. Mournful Music. Titius and Guards pass towards the Monument, bearing Antony on his Litter.”’ Kemble's Scene ix. follows very closely Scene xv, and with Act IV. ends. Kemble's Fifth Act adheres closely throughout to the original. The longest omissions are the episode of Seleucus and the Clown with the asps; and the most notable transpositions are the lines (62-72) ‘“I'll not wait pinion'd at great Cæsar's court”’ down to ‘“And hang me up in chains”’ —which are transposed to follow Cleopatra's directions to Charmian about the asps, line 228. In Kemble, Cleopatra says ‘ “Come hither Charmian [Whispers Charmian.] Char. The aspics, Madam! Cleop. I've spoke already and it is provided.” ’ Lines 208-226 are omitted. This Version was made by a man of rare intelligence, an excellent judge of stage-effect, a scholar, and reverential admirer of Shakespeare. If the play must be abbreviated to meet the requirements of the modern stage, it is not easy to see how it can be done more judiciously. I have deemed it befitting to give a description of it, thus minute, because, as far as I know, it exists only in manuscript.
Beerbohm Tree
While these pages are going through the press, word comes from London of a Revival there, unprecedented for splendour and sumptuousness, by Mr Beerbohm Tree. The performance is thus spoken of by the London Times, January 4, 1907: “‘[Antony and Cleopatra] is one of the classics of what M. Porto-Riche would call the Théâtre de l'Amour. Mr Bernard Shaw would give its theme a less elegant name, “sexual infatuation.” Cleopatra is the irresistible enchantress, Antony the colossal lover, and the whole play must burn to a white heat with their fire. . . . Nevertheless, if you present Antony and Cleopatra at all, you must present it, above everything, as a treatment of “sexual infatuation” in the grand style. And that is just what Mr Tree has perceived and has done. . . . [Mr Tree] has the supreme quality of thinking out the master-idea of a play, of disengaging its essential essence, and of comprehending the play “in its quiddity.” To get at the heart of the play, and to exhibit that heart to you, he will boldly lop here and still more boldly add there—and who shall blame him? The pedants, no doubt; but certainly not the great body of playgoers who come to Shakespeare, as they come to any other dramatist, simply and solely to get what pleasure they can out of him,—and whose pleasure is dependent upon the clearness, the unity, of what is put before them. . . . Where is that unity in Antony and Cleopatra? Is it in the Imperial Roman motif? No; that is merely North's Plutarch cut up into blank verse, and taken by itself would be as dull as ditch water. Is it in the Octavia motif, the contrast of the ultra-respectable matron, the pattern of domesticity, with the voluptuous orchidaceous Cleopatra? No; that is a mere additional touch of art. It is in the passion-motif of Cleopatra and Antony, there and not elsewhere; and it is upon that motif that Mr Tree concentrates the whole force of his stage. Hence the scenes in “Cæsar's House” are cut very short indeed. Hence the “camp” scenes become mere kinematographs. Hence the passionate duologue between Antony and Cleopatra is given all the advantage of scenic magnificence and orchestral illustration. Egypt, not Rome nor Athens nor Misenum, becomes the “hub” of the play. . . . A dissolving vision of the Sphinx opens and closes the play. Weird nerve-thrilling Oriental strains are in the air. You hear those same strains even in Rome or Athens—on the Wagnerian plan— whenever Antony's thoughts turn to the far-away Cleopatra. For example, Antony has just parted, not without conjugal tenderness, from Octavia. He seems, for once, to have in him the makings of a model home-loving husband. But there swiftly enters a messenger—Cleopatra's trusty messenger—with a scroll. Antony falls on his couch, murmuring “Cleopatra,” and covering his eyes that he may shut out the present scene and dream of her, again to the faint sound of the Oriental music. You will search in vain for any indication of this “business” in Shakespeare; but it is ingeniously, and quite legitimately, invented; it helps the unity of impression. Another example: in the text Cæsar describes Antony's return to Alexandria, how “I' th' market place on a Tribunal silver'd” [etc. III, vi, 4-9; 17-19]. All this Mr Tree actually shows you in a silent and yet extraordinarily eloquent tableau, which will, perhaps, vex text-worshippers, but certainly will delight everybody else. . . . One hardly knows which to admire most, the gorgeous interior of the palace in which Cleopatra loves and languishes, or the mysterious cavern-like vastness of the “Monument,” wherein she so nobly dies. Another masterpiece both of stage-carpentry and of stage management is the deck of Pompey's galley, where the Triumvirs and their officers get so imperially drunk. . . . It would be unjust not to mention the name of the designer of the costumes, Mr Percy Macquoid. . . . Mr Tree himself makes a fine figure of Antony. He does not fall into the error of showing him as a mere sensual weakling, “passion's slave.” Indeed his voluptuous thrills, even when he is encircled by Cleopatra's arms, seem to lack something of responsive warmth. No doubt Mr Tree will become more demonstratively amorous by and by. Meanwhile you cannot help liking his Antony—which, of course, is quite the right frame of mind. The Octavius of Mr Basil Gill and the Pompey of Mr Julian L'Estrange are both excellent performances—they are proper “Plutarch's men” and speak their lines roundly. Excellent, too, the Enobarbus of Mr Lyn Harding, good to look at and a treat to hear. His “purple patch” describing Cleopatra's galley could not be better delivered. The helpless intoxication of Lepidus on board Pompey's ship loses nothing of its grotesque repulsiveness in the hands of Mr Norman Forbes; Mr Fisher White makes a quite remarkable thing of the Soothsayer; and the unhappy messenger who is so bullied and terrified by the jealous Cleopatra is very cleverly played by Mr Charles Quartermaine. But Cleopatra herself? Everything in this play depends upon her. It is a terribly exacting part for any actress. She must have beauty, of course, and, what is even more important, she must have glamour. She must be able to run at a rapid sweep through the whole gamut of emotion—from dove-like cooings to the rage of a tigress, from voluptuous languor to passion all aflame, from the frenzy of a virago to the calm and statuesque majesty of one of the noblest death-scenes in all Shakespeare. It is a great ordeal for Miss Constance Collier. One trembled for her beforehand, but quite needlessly as it turns out, for she not only looks but plays the part splendidly. An occasional touch of our modern “fine spoken” accent, which jars against the music of Shakespearian verse is the only blemish in what is on the whole, as Enobarbus says of the Queen, “a wonderful piece of work.” ’”“ Never, probably, in his career has Mr Tree given us a more perfect stage adornment than that which he displays in Antony & Cleopatra. The gradation of colours, the delicate shades of violet, and puce, and purple, the glittering robes of the Queen, the pomp and ceremony of her court,—all these things, controlled by the practised artistry of Mr Percy Macquoid, add to the pleasure of the eye, and give bodily semblance to the inner meaning of the play. If for nothing else, the production would be extraordinary because of its stage pictures. The first glimpse of the landing-stage of Cleopatra's palace, with the barge that draws up to the steps, from which issue the regal pair of lovers; the beautiful gold-bedizened scene, when Cleopatra wreaks her vengeance on the messenger telling of Antony's betrothal; the magnificent tableau of the return of Antony to Alexandria; above all, perhaps, the scene on Pompey's galley, where, in the mysterious dark, lit by the fantastically-coloured lamps at the poop, the triumvirs watch the dancing-girls, and themselves join in a mad debauch—these and other pictures prove once more that whatever else we may have succeeded or failed in doing on the modern stage, we have advanced the ordinary scenic artifices to a pitch of success which was not dreamed of by our forefathers. In this, above all, lies the triumph of last night's play, on which Mr Tree is warmly to be congratulated. . . .
Certainly the piece is very well played. Miss Constance Collier, handsome, dark-skinned, barbaric, dominates the scene wherever she appears. Nor has she ever had a better chance, or more fully availed herself of it, than when in the second act she has to prove how close the tiger's cruelty lies under the sleek skin of the cultivated woman. Mr Tree's Mark Antony was a fine, masculine, resolute rendering of a hero ruined by love. There is not much subtlety or complexity in the part. Antony is the Samson caught by Delilah; a sort of primitive, elemental hero, whose degradation is all the more sure because his intellect is so inferior to his heart. And this is precisely the hero whom Mr Tree so skilfully rendered. Apart from these two principal personages, there were many others who gained a significant success on the boards. Mr Basil Gill was very alert and vivid in the part of Octavius Cæsar, saying his lines with that prompt energy which belongs to the nature of the Shakespearian conqueror. Mr Norman Forbes gave adequate presentment of the weakness of Lepidus, an invaluable help in the evolution of the play, keeping the figure within its proper limits, as wholly subordinate, yet illustrative of the increasing degeneracy of the Roman. Mr Lyn Harding's Enobarbus was also a fine performance, picturesque, and varied, done with admirable lightness and no little artistic skill; while Mr Julian L'Estrange, in such brief opportunities as he possessed, gave a firm sketch of Sextus Pompeius. Cleopatra's two attendants, Iras and Charmian, were both excellent—especially, perhaps, Charmian, as played by Miss Alice Crawford, who revealed real dramatic power in the last act, and throughout presented a beautiful picture of Eastern womanhood. Nor ought we to forget the dignified Sooth-sayer of Mr J. Fisher White—a characteristic personage, who at various crises in the story illustrated before our eyes the noiseless steps of on-coming Destiny. It would be interesting, also, if it were possible, to recount all those clever adaptations and contrivances by means of which so diffuse a play was brought within manageable compass on the stage. We must limit ourselves, however, to one example, where Shakespeare has given a real difficulty to the stage manager. Antony who has tried, very imperfectly, to commit suicide, is lying outside the walls of Alexandria. Cleopatra and her maids have taken refuge in the monument. The problem is how to get the wounded man into the monument, in order that the final scene of death may be enacted before us. Mr Tree solves it as follows. In the gloom of on-coming night the fallen hero, Mark Antony, is carried to the bottom of the walls, and above, at a window, Cleopatra is looking out, to answer the cry of her defeated lover. As the lights go out we see the body being hoisted upwards to the window; then, by a quick change, we are transported to the interior of the monument, and once more see Antony being lifted inwards through the open window, and brought to the couch to receive Cleopatra's farewell. It was a clever bit of stage work, which gave a complete and satisfactory impression without any lack of verisimilitude.”The Daily Telegraph (28 December, 1906)
“ For the first time, so far as records extend, Antony and Cleopatra has been set upon the stage in a manner worthy of the place it occupies in the Shakespearian drama, and its reception,—not that accorded it by the first night's public at His Majesty's, but the lasting empire it exercises over the play-going world,—should settle definitely its claims to rank among the great acting plays. . . . As re-arranged by Andrew Halliday, the piece was produced at Drury Lane in 1873. At the Standard it was also given; and in Manchester there was a noteworthy revival. The experiment of Mrs Langtry; that of Madame Bernhardt, which, however, was in Sardou, not Shakespeare; and that, sadly misjudged, of Signora Duse, belong to days comparatively modern. Irving, urged to present the play at the Lyceum, was discouraged by its record of indifferent success. Among these efforts, that of Mr Tree is the most serious,—it might almost be said the sole serious attempt. That in 1873 at Drury Lane came nearest to it in splendour and had a certain amount of imaginative grace. . . . In the case of Antony and Cleopatra it is impossible to regard with favour the restrictions upon scenic display which some sticklers for the text, and nothing but the text, would have us observe. Here, if anywhere, is to be shown the full splendour of a court in which Egypt strove, if not with Assyria, with Rome in wealth and luxury, when Cleopatra wore, as now she wears the garb of Isis and accepted her worship, and her regal lover took on him the state and splendour of his ancestor, Hercules. Nowise burdensome is the environment Mr Tree provides. It is on the contrary splendidly helpful and serviceable, as well as pleasurable to the spectator. As regards the mounting, it is not only the best that has been given to this play—it may be regarded as the best that has been bestowed upon any work of the author. . . . A splendid effect is realized in the scene at the portals of Cleopatra's Palace where the royal lovers arrive at the river front and disembark. Still more superb is that in which, apparelled like Isis, the queen greets her returning warrior. As an example of scenic decoration and pageantry this is unequalled. More sedate in beauty, but still unsurpassable, is that in the Palace in which Cleopatra receives the unfortunate messenger who brings her intelligence of the marriage of Antony and Octavia. Very fine, too, is the picture of debauch on the galley of Pompey. A word of special praise is deserved by the costumes of the Roman warriors, which are perfect. Those of Cleopatra and her hand-maidens ‘beggared all description.’
The general interpretation is admirable. Looking Antony to the life, Mr Tree shows something more than the inspired sensualist who for Cleopatra's sake counted the world well lost. With him are well contrasted the forceful, passionate, resolute Cæsar of Mr Basil Gill, and the weak, bibulous Lepidus of Mr Norman Forbes. Enobarbus, Sextus Pompeius, Eros, the Soothsayer, and other prominent characters find effective exponents. Miss Constance Collier is a splendid Cleopatra, and shows well the forcible passions that underlie the sensual charm and allurement of the queen. The most dramatic scene in the play—her onslaught on the messenger bringing her the unwelcome news of Antony's marriage—is thrilling in savage, passionate intensity and energy, and was greeted with rapture by the audience. Iras and Charmian have delightful exponents, the latter, in the person of Miss Alice Crawford, displaying dramatic power as well as charm. For the first time the play has been adequately set before the public, by which it was received with ecstasy. Whether the magnificence of the production will break the spell under which Antony and Cleopatra supposedly labours remains to be seen. It can hardly, however, be otherwise, since as spectacle and as intellectual entertainment the whole is equally noteworthy.”The Athenæum (5 January, 1907)