T HE decision of the London County Council to provide a
site for "an adequate Shakespeare Memorial" is one of those decisions arrived at by a public body which it is impos- sible to regard without approval, but which compel mis- givings. Now that a suitable site is assured, what is proposed is to collect funds and to organise a great international tribute to Shakespeare's memory, and for that purpose a Provisional Committee has been formed, with certain definite objects. It may be as well to state these in full. They are,—First, the memorial to be erected on some prominent site in London ; the funds collected to be, in the first instance, devoted to the erection of some such monument in London as the Scott. Memorial or the Albert Memorial ; any sum over that required for the monument to be used for some object or objects tending to promote the study or appreciation of Shakespeare, to be determined by a General Memorial Committee. Second, the General Committee to consist of leading men and women belonging to all parts of the Empire, representatives of the American people, and distinguished foreigners. Third, a Shakespeare commemoration to be held in all parts of the world during "the Shakespeare week," 1905 (April 23rd to May 1st), so that a concentrated effort may be made in connection with the commemoration to collect the funds necessary for the memoriaL The last two provisions occasion no difficulty ; but that can- not be said of the first, as to which obviously there will be the widest possible differences of opinion, even among those who do not hold that Shakespeare has built himself the only necessary monument in his works. The point is, of course, that the Provisional Committee have set before themselves first, before everything else, the erection of "some such monument as the Albert Memorial," that many people dislike the Albert Memorial, and that many more would rather that, if a monument is to be erected to Shake- speare's memory, it should not take the form of a decorative column or statuary. We are certainly among the latter number ourselves, and think, not only that we are unlikely to get what is wanted if a column or statue is decided upon, but that, even if we were, it would be better to begin by deciding in the first instance for something else. There is, no doubt, a great deal to be said in favour of columns or statues as a means of perpetuating the memories of dead men—nobody who has watched the enthusiasm with which wreaths are sent every year to Trafalgar Square could deny that—and even as to the much-criticised Albert Memorial itself, it is no more than the truth that it has its decorative aspects, though they may not exactly fit their surroundings, and though, in any case, such a monument must be left to be mellowed and graced by the mildew and lichen of time. [How many persons there must be who every year purchase old furniture and old decorative work of all kinds, and who sometimes admire such work simply because it is old, yet who do not reflect that some day the Albert Memorial will be at least interesting simply because it will be old.] There were plenty of people, probably, when King's College Chapel was first built, who thought it something garish and wrong. Not, of course, that the Chapel and the Memorial can be bracketed together; but still, any work of the nature of the Albert Memorial, which is to depend for its artistic value partly on the effect of time in mellowing its colour, must be BO strikingly glaring and gilded at first as to appear almost cheap and showy.
But even granting the value of columns and statuary considered as means of perpetuating the memory of the dead, is there no better method of doing honour to Shakespeare's memory than the erection of a column or a statue P In the first place, it must be conceded that British art has not hitherto been conspicuous for its success in statuary work, and that there is, unfortunately, no reason to suppose that it is likely to achieve anything wonderful in the near future. Without going so far as the enthusiastic critic who declared that the best way of celebrating the Diamond Jubilee would be to pull down the Imperial Institute and to bury the statues which at present decorate the interior of Westminster Abbey, it is at least possible to contemplate without dismay the sugges- tion that a statue of Shakespeare is not the best memorial which could be erected to his memory. And ,what else, instead of a statue or column, might be built up ? In the first place, ought it not to be remembered that the object to aim at is hardly so much to give a living sculptor or architect a chance of doing something "adequate," as to try to ensure that the work and memory of Shake- speare shall be kept green,—preserved, that is, not only before the eyes of those who are least likely to forget him, but in the memory of those who, by the queer chances of life, might not get to knowledge of his mind unless through the means of some public work or monument insistent on their daily attention ? If so, then the first thing to do is to bring to the people Shakespeare's thought, not his face. And could that be better done than by erecting a real Shakespearian theatre, —a theatre in which the plays should be acted and the great speeches spoken, year after year, with just, so to speak, the simple setting of the written manuscript ? The thought suggests possibilities which are surely not less practicable than they are fascinating. Imagine a building erected in London on some spacious site,—Elizabethan in design, a theatre, and more than a theatre. A library, with the quartos and folios stored so that every Englishman might see them ; a reading-room, providing the student with ready reference to every atom of criticism or comment that has been given to the work of the greatest mind of English history; and besides library and reading-room, a theatre endowed with one object,—to bring home Shakespeare's thought to the mind of the people. With that object, the theatre would be provided with funds which would make it possible for a Committee to arrange that once in a certain cycle of time —perhaps, since there are more than thirty plays that could be acted, a year would be too short a space—all the plays which can be acted should be acted. The acting, of course, must be as good as possible ; and for that reason it would not be best to endow or provide for a single company of actors,—rather, just as the old Italian signors called for this or that company of players, or, for that matter, just as companies are " commanded " by Royalty to play at Sandring- ham or Windsor to-day, it should be made possible for the Committee to invite the companies of the London theatres to play King John or The Tempest or The _Merchant of Venice for a week or more at the Shakespeare Theatre. That would • be done without loss of income to the players, and certainly with immensely increased opportunities of adding to their own reputations,—though that is, to be sure, not the highest aspect of the possibilities involved; still, it would make the theatre attractive. And if such an idea were realised—if, that is, it should be permanently possible for every British subject to know that to the Shakespeare Theatre he could go any night, and that at the Shakespeare Theatre he would hear Shakespeare's poetry spoken by the best among British actors—who can suppose that there would not be added to British thought an increased appreciation of the greatness of the greatest of English minds? More so, surely, in this way than by the casual glance at a column of statuary, how- ever finely conceived. It must be by the hearing of Shake- speare's own voice, rather than by the contemplation of what may or may not be like Shakespeare's face and figure, that his countrymen can best learn the magnificence of their heritage, and can know something of what Carlyle meant when he asked : "What item," as an orna- ment to our English household, "is there that we would surrender rather than him P Consider, now, if they asked us" —and let the reader, for the sake of argument, substitute a Shakespeare Theatre such as we have suggested for Shake- speare himself, and a column or a statue for the glory of the Indian Empire—" Will you give-up your Indian Empire, or never have had any Shakespeare ? Really it were a grave question. Official persons would answer doubtless in official language ; but we, for our part too, should not we be forced to answer : Indian Empire, or no Indian Empire ; we cannot do without Shakespeare ! Indian Empire will go, at any rate, some day; but this Shakespeare does not go, he lasts for ever with us ; we cannot give-up our Shakespeare !" The parallel is not so inexact, applied to Shakespeare seen and Shakespeare heard. Shakespeare heard will last for ever; Shakespeare seen—that is, Shakespeare as represented by a great monument or memorial—is not Shakespeare, but our own modern translation of his spirit into an idol. Which Shakespeare should the great memorial bring home to the thought of the inheritors of Shakespeare's kingdom,—the idol or the voice ?
That is, we think, the danger which the Committee of the Shakespeare Memorial ought to consider, and no doubt will consider,—whether, in forwarding such ideas as the erection of great statues or memorial buildings, they may not mis- represent the personality of the man to whose work they wish to pay tribute. It would be, after all, so fatally easy to put up an enormously expensive but hopelessly unsatisfactory
spectacular memorial to Shakespeare. At the outseti:to mention the very first difficulty, that occurs, would only British sculptors be allowed to compete in designing la memorial ? If so, would it be right to exclude a design proffered by Mr. St. Gan dens because he is an American ? The Americans are inheritors of Shakespeare's kingdom just as we are; and yet we suppose that it is likely that British opinion would prefer a British sculptor's work to that of Mr. St. G-audens, even though the latter might suggest a design more Shakespearian than the other in breadth and nobility of conception. That is only one suggestion as regards the difficulties which are likely to arise if the great memorial is to represent Shakespeare seen rather than Shakespeare heard. There are others which will readily occur. We ourselves, at all events, see much more likelihood of a really satisfactory Shakespeare memorial in something on the lines of a library theatre than in statuary work, which if it is to stand the test of time is quite likely to displease for the moment, and which in any case we are not likely to get. Whereas Shakespeare spoken, and Shakespeare heard, however worthily or on- worthily modern actors may interpret him, is, after all, Shakespeare himself.
Previous page
