_Letter from Mr. Nichols, Literary Agent, to Lord Bacon_
My Lord,
I have now submitted the plays which your lordship forwarded to me
to seven publishers: Messrs. Butter, Mr. Blount, Mr. Thorpe, Mr.
Waterson, Mr. Andrew Wise, Mr. Steevens, and Mr. G. Eld; and I very
much regret to inform your lordship that I have not been able to
persuade any of these publishers to make an offer for the publication
of any of the plays, although Mr. Thorpe would be willing to print them
at your lordship’s expense, provided that they appeared under your
lordship’s name. The cost, however, would be very great. No one of
these publishers is willing to publish the plays anonymously, and they
agree in saying that while the plays contain passages of exceptional
merit, there is, unfortunately, at the present moment no demand in
the market for the literary play. This form of literature is in fact
at present a drug on the market; and they suggest that your lordship,
whose anonymity I have of course respected, should convert these plays
into essays, epics, masques, or any other form which is at present
popular with the reading public. There is certainly very little chance
at present of my being able to find a publisher for work of this
description. Therefore I await your lordship’s instructions before
sending them to any other publishers.
At the same time I would suggest, should your lordship not consider
such a course to be derogatory, that I should submit the plays in
question to one or two of the best known theatrical managers with a
view to performance. I would of course keep the authorship of the plays
a secret.
Awaiting your lordship’s commands in this matter,
I am,
Your lordship’s most humble and
obedient servant,
J. J. NICHOLS.
_Letter from Mr. Nichols to Lord Bacon_
My Lord,
I am in receipt of a communication from Mr. Fletcher, the chief of
the Lord Chamberlain’s servants, now playing at the Globe Theatre.
Mr. Fletcher informs me that he has read the plays with considerable
interest. He considers that they are not only promising but contain
passages of positive merit.
Mr. Fletcher, however, adds that your lordship is no doubt fully aware
that such plays are totally unsuited to the stage; indeed it would be
impossible to produce them for many reasons. With regard to the first
batch, namely, the Biblical series, the David and Saul trilogy, Joseph
and Potiphar, and King Nebuchadnezzar, there could of course be no
question of their production, however much they might be altered or
adapted for the stage; for it would be impossible to obtain a licence,
not only on account of the religious subject matter, which of necessity
must prove shocking to the greater part of the audience, but also
owing to the boldness of the treatment. Mr. Fletcher begs me to tell
your lordship that he is far from suggesting that your lordship has
handled these solemn themes in any but the most reverent manner; but
at the same time he is anxious to point out that the public, being but
insufficiently educated, is likely to misunderstand your lordship’s
intentions, and to regard your lordship’s imaginative realization of
these sacred figures as sacrilegious.
With regard to the second series, the tragedies, Mr. Fletcher states
that the play entitled “Hamlet” might, if about three-quarters of the
whole play were omitted, be made fit for stage presentation, but even
then the matter would be extremely hazardous. Even if enough of the
play were left in order to render the story coherent, the performance
would still last several hours and be likely to try the patience of any
but a special audience. Such a play would doubtless appeal to a limited
and cultivated public, but as your lordship is aware, the public which
frequents the Globe Theatre is neither chosen nor cultivated, and it is
doubtful whether a public of this kind would sit through a play many
of the speeches in which are over a hundred lines long. Mr. Fletcher
adds that a play of this kind is far more suited for the closet than
for the stage, and suggests that your lordship should publish it as
a historical chronicle. With regard to these tragedies Mr. Fletcher
further points out that there are already in existence several plays on
the themes which your lordship has treated, which have not only been
produced but enjoyed considerable success.
With regard to the third series, the comedies, Mr. Fletcher states
that these plays, although not without considerable charm and while
containing many passages of graceful and melodious writing, are far
more in the nature of lyrical poems than of plays. Mr. Fletcher adds
that if these were also considerably reduced in length and rendered
even still more lyrical and accompanied by music, they might be
performed as masques or else in dumb show.
Finally, Mr. Fletcher suggests, if the author of these plays is anxious
that they should be performed, that your lordship should send the plays
to an experienced actor who should alter and arrange them for stage
presentation. Mr. Fletcher suggests that should your lordship see your
way to agree to this, he has in his company a player named William
Shakespeare who is admirably fitted for the undertaking, and who has
already had much experience in adapting and altering plays for the
stage.
I am,
Your lordship’s most obedient
and humble servant,
J. J. NICHOLS.
_Letter from Mr. Nichols to Lord Bacon_
My Lord,
In accordance with your lordship’s instructions I submitted the plays
to Mr. William Shakespeare. I am now in receipt of Mr. Shakespeare’s
full report on the plays.
Mr. Shakespeare confirms Mr. Fletcher’s opinion that the plays in their
present state are far too long for production. The religious series he
does not discuss, as being by their nature precluded from performance.
With regard to the historical tragedies, “Edward III,” “Mary Tudor,”
“Lady Jane Grey,” and “Katherine Parr” Mr. Shakespeare points out that
none of these plays would be passed by the Censor because they contain
many allusions which would be considered to touch too nearly, and give
possible offence to, certain exalted personages.
With regard to the tragedies, Mr. Shakespeare is quite willing to
arrange “Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” for the stage. More than half of
the play will have to be omitted: the whole of the first act, dealing
with Hamlet’s student days at Wittenburg, Mr. Shakespeare considers to
be totally irrelevant to the subsequent action of the play, although
the long scene between the young prince and Dr. Faustus contains many
passages which are not only poetical but dramatic. Mr. Shakespeare
regrets to have to sacrifice these passages, but maintains that if
this act be allowed to stand as it is at present, the play would be
condemned to failure. Mr. Shakespeare is also anxious to cut out the
whole of the penultimate act, which deals entirely with Ophelia’s love
affair with Horatio. This act, though containing much that is subtle
and original, would be likely, Mr. Shakespeare says, to confuse, and
possibly to shock, the audience. As to the soliloquies, Mr. Shakespeare
says that it is impossible to get an audience at the present day to
listen to a soliloquy of one hundred lines. Mr. Shakespeare suggests
that if possible they should all be cut down to a quarter of their
present length.
Out of the remaining plays, Mr. Shakespeare selects the following
as being fit for the stage: “Macbeth,” “Romeo and Juliet,”
“Mephistopheles,” “Paris and Helen,” “Alexander the Great,” and “Titus
Andronicus.” Of all these Mr. Shakespeare says that by far the finest
from a stage point of view is the last. It is true that the action of
this play is at present a little slow and lacking in incident, but Mr.
Shakespeare says that he sees a way, by a few trifling additions, of
increasing its vitality; and he is certain that, should this play be
well produced and competently played, it would prove successful. The
tragedy of “Macbeth” might also be adapted to the popular taste, but
here again Mr. Shakespeare says the play is at least four times too
long.
I would be glad if your lordship would inform me what reply I am to
make to Mr. Shakespeare.
I am,
Your lordship’s obedient and humble
servant,
J. J. NICHOLS.
_Letter from Lord Bacon to Mr. Nichols_
Sir,
I am quite willing that Mr. Shakespeare should try his hand on
“Hamlet,” “Macbeth,” “Romeo and Juliet,” and “Titus Andronicus,” but I
cannot consent to let him shorten my “Mephistopheles,” my “Alexander
the Great,” or my “Paris and Helen.” I should of course wish to see a
printed copy of the play as arranged by Mr. Shakespeare before it is
produced.
I am,
Your obedient servant,
BACON.
_Letter from Lord Bacon to Mr. Nichols_
Sir,
I received the printed copies of my four plays as arranged by Mr.
Shakespeare. I would be much obliged if you would communicate to him
the following instructions: (1) “Hamlet” may stand as it is. The whole
nature of the play is altered, and the chief character is at present
quite unintelligible, but if Mr. Shakespeare thinks that in its present
form it will please an audience, he is at liberty to produce it, as
it is not a piece of work for which I have any special regard, and
it was written more as an exercise than anything else. (2) I cannot
allow “Romeo and Juliet” to appear with the changed ending made by Mr.
Shakespeare. Mr. Shakespeare is perhaps right in thinking that his
version of the play, ending as it does with the marriage of Juliet and
Paris and the reconciliation of Romeo and Rosaline, is more subtle and
true to life, but in this matter I regard my knowledge of the public
as being more sound than that of Mr. Shakespeare. As a member of the
public myself, I am convinced that the public is sentimental, and
would be better pleased by the more tragic and romantic ending which I
originally wrote. (3) With regard to Mr. Shakespeare’s suggestion that
in “Macbeth” the sleep-walking scene should fall to Macbeth, instead of
to Lady Macbeth, I will not hear of any such change. (Confidential: The
reason of my refusal is that this change seems to me merely dictated
by the vanity of the actor, and his desire that the man’s part may
predominate over the woman’s.) (4) “Titus Andronicus.” I have no
objection to Mr. Shakespeare’s alterations.
Your obedient servant,
BACON.
_Letter from Lord Bacon to Mr. Nichols_
Sir,
I was present last night at the Globe Theatre at the performance of my
play “Macbeth,” as produced by Mr. Shakespeare. I confess that I was
much disgusted by the liberties which Mr. Shakespeare has taken with
my work, which I am certain far exceed the changes and alterations
which were originally presented to me, and which I myself revised and
approved. For instance, Mr. Shakespeare has made a great many more
omissions than he originally suggested. And at the end of many of the
scenes he has introduced many totally unwarranted tags, such as, for
instance:
I’ll see it done.
What he hath lost noble Macbeth hath won.
And, worst of all:
It is concluded:--Banquo, thy soul’s flight,
If it find Heaven, must find it out to-night.
The whole play is riddled with such additions, not to speak of several
incidents of an altogether barbarous and outrageous character, and
of certain other interpolations of coarse buffoonery, inserted in
the most serious parts of the play to raise a laugh among the more
ignorant portions of the rabble. Of course I cannot now withdraw them
from the stage without risking the discovery of their authorship. Mr.
Shakespeare is at liberty to produce and perform in any of the plays
written by me which are now in his possession, provided that they
appear under his name, and that the authorship is attributed to him.
Your obedient servant,
BACON.