Tutor HuntResources English Resources

Shakespeare & Children`s Literature

Children’s Literature as an Ameliorative Reading of Shakespeare: The Winter`s Tale & Cymbeline

Date : 28/06/2020

Author Information

Lydia

Uploaded by : Lydia
Uploaded on : 28/06/2020
Subject : English

Title:


Polixines: We were as twinn d lambs that did frist i th sun,

And bleat the once at th other: what we changed

Was innocence for innocence: we knew not

The doctrine of ill-doing, nor dream`d

That any did. (The Winter s Tale, I.ii, 67)


Children s Literature as an Ameliorative Reading of Shakespeare lt;/p>

Word Count: 2,000


Warren Chernaik identifies four categories of children within Shakespeare s oeuvre: infants, pages and serving boys, sons and heirs to a throne or royal family, and innocent victims, dying young. (2013: 103) Rarely does the innocence (I.ii, 69) to which Polixines refers exist uncompromised. Shakespeare s children often bear the burden of adult anxieties. When Shakespeare wrote The Winter s Tale (1609, henceforth Tale) (1609) and Cymbeline (1611), he adapted his sources (Robert Greene s Pandosto (1588) and the medieval Matter of Britain) to re-invent their children. Shakespeare s children become central to moral questions. What are the limits of forgiveness and kindness? The amelioration of such questions has been a concern of children s adaptations. One such adaptation is Charles Lamb s Tales from Shakespeare (1807). Later Edith Nesbit wrote The Children s Shakespeare (1895-7), republished as Beautiful Stories From Shakespeare (1907), using recollection of Lambs tales. (1900: 6) As the latter title suggests, Nesbit s agenda was to beautify Shakespeare. Surprisingly then, both anthologise the later plays (Pericles (1607), Cymbeline, The Tempest (1610-11) and The Winter s Tale) which are anything but beautiful , especially for the plays children. Lamb came from the Romantic tradition which emphasised the imaginative potential and innocence of the child. The Victorian era in which Nesbit wrote was concerned with innocence, but also more realistic outlooks. Despite their different sensibilities, both endeavour to make Shakespeare accessible for children, and in doing so use a pointedly ameliorative lens. Reading children s version of plays, we see how moral issues are sidestepped, yet, such ameliorative practice reveals (counterintuitively) a crueler reading. lt;/p>

One such moral issue to ameliorate is the parental fear of imperfection. Shakespeare s parents control their children. In Cymbeline, the eponymous king controls his daughter s marriage. Posthumous Leonatus is an honourable husband in every way excluding status - a poor but worthy gentleman. (I.i.7) Status is a pretence. Cymbeline truly fears imperfection within the hereditary line. He calls Innogen s marriage poison to my blood, (I.i, 128). The parent fears the imperfection or influence of another within his family s line. Such fear fuels his behaviour as much as the pressure of his wife. However, in Nesbit s Cymbeline, it is not imperfect breeding which upsets Cymbeline. Cymbeline is upset because the marriage happened secretly (1900: 30) and this disobedience requires punishment. Lamb similarly categorises Cymbeline. Innogen married without the consent or even knowledge of her father. (1901:114) Disobedience motivates Cymbeline rather than fear in children s literature: childish transgression, rather than parental insecurity.


Nesbit and Lamb have a requirement to present parents to child readers appropriately. Whilst parents are flawed, they cannot be irredeemable. Thus these authors must also ameliorate an additional fear of Shakespeare s parents - the fear of their own influence. In Tale, fathers describe a parent s influence though the passing of blood. Leontes condemns Hermione: Though he does bear some signs of me, yet you / Have too much blood in him. (II.i, 56) Polixenes fear of his own influence extends further. His child, Florizel, wont only disappoint him, but may threaten him: With his varying childness cures in me / Thoughts that would thick my blood. (I.ii.167) Both fathers want to have their own blood in their child to protect their lineage from imperfection, yet they simultaneously fear their own influence. Nesbit and Lamb must balance the childish simplicity of disobedience and punishment with the fact that parents, being themselves flawed, can be irrational. For ameliorative authors, this balance seems impossible given how aggressively Shakespeare s children are yoked to tragedy and consequence. lt;/p>

Shakespeare s children are the bearers of consequence, from their birth and naming. In Tale and Cymbeline, children are named after the tragedies which define them. Laurie Maguire questioned the function of such characters, and the priority in the relationship between name and behaviour. (2007: 12) These children are burdened with Shakespeare s project (they represent what he requires of them for dramatic function). They also carry the burden of their parents, who also name them. The burdensome name bestowed on a child by the parents takes priority. Cymbeline s Posthumus Leonatus, as his name suggests, lives in the wake of his parents death. His father old and fond of issue, took such sorrow / That he quit being, (I.i, 37) and his mother deceased / As he was born, (I.i,39). Posthumus is driven by fear of repeating their mistakes, wondering as my mother seem d / The Dian of that time so doth my wife. (II.v, 6) Posthumus is haunted by his parents psychologically and literally. In Act V.iv apparitions physically haunt him. The same naming burden applies to Innogen, whose name means daughter: she is defined as such. With such irrational parents, a father cruel and a stepdame false. (I.vi,1) her case too seems hopeless. The same logic applies to Tale. Shakespeare changes Greene s names to add this layer of meaning. Perdita, whose name means lost , is central to the play s conclusion as she must be found.


It is Mamillius however, who is the most poignant example of a child bearing consequence. Mamillius case requires the most amelioration. On the Early Modern stage Mamillius was played by a boy actor aged ten to twelve. Blanche McIntyre s (2018) Mamillius is played by Rose Wardlaw, a small energetic woman, reminiscent of such a boy actor. The robust innocent child, however, dies hearing of his mother s death. The staging of Mamillius death changes how we view the play. In the First Folio (1623) Tale was grouped under Comedies, and later under Romances. However, attention to Mamillius death makes the play a Tragedy. After his death the play forgets Mamillius but the audience remembers him. Directorial pressure pivots on whether or not to bring Mamillius back to life we must ask, how much, (if at all) do we ameliorate the issue of an innocent child s death. In Christopher Wheeldon`s ballet adaptation of the play (2014), as the statue of Hermione moves from stasis to dynamism with her husband and daughter, the statue of Mamillius is the only static thing left onstage. We cannot discern whether the statue is living or sculpture. We hope the magic that saved Hermione will inspire Mamillius to life. It does not. Mamillius remains dead. lt;/p>

Productions which resist amelioration and don t revive Mamillius create an uncomfortable concept of the child as carrier of the parent s burden. Mamillius ultimately represents consequences. Such an unfair idea seems incompatible with children s literature. Nesbit chooses to ameliorate the issue. Instead of resurrecting Mamillius, she reduces his presence in her story. Mamillius exists unnamed in only a few lines: the heir to the throne dies of sorrow, (1900: 72) then a man came and told them that the little prince was dead. (1900: 73) Nesbit wants us to forget Mamillius. She ameliorates the issue by minimising it into insignificance. Charlotte Scott described the child in Shakespeare as an impassioned plea for justice. (2018: 0) Nesbit removes any plea. There is no problem to solve at the play s end as we do not remember it.


By contrast, Shakespeare and Lamb choose not to ameliorate. They allow Mamillius space and poignancy. In Act II.i of Shakespeare, Mamillus begins a story: A sad tale`s best for winter: I have one / Of sprites and goblins. (II.i.25) In Lamb this moment is echoed. Hermione sits with lt;/p>

her little son Mamillius, who was just beginning to tell one of his best stories to amuse his mother, when the king entered. (1901: 37) lt;/p>

In both instances, Mamillius story, like his life, is cut off. Lamb chooses to include this moment, allowing Mamillius space within the parameters of a short story, before he, like Shakespeare, cuts him off and then neither ameliorates or justifies his death. Nesbit s happy ending implies a sense of finality. Lamb s, however, reads, As if nothing should be wanting to complete this strange and unlooked for joy, King Polixenes himself now entered. (1901: 49) Lamb s ending is only as if nothing more could be asked for. For a moment one may even think Mamillius might enter rather than Polixenes. The ending, though complete, is jarring. Lamb, like Shakespeare, won t allow Mamillius to be written out of the text completely. A child reading Lamb or Shakespeare might ask what became of Mamillius in a way discouraged by Nesbit. Shakespeare and Lamb won t sacrifice the child for moral easement.


Arguably, in Cymbeline there is less ameliorative work to be done. No son or daughter, (aside from Cloten and his evil mother), is left dead. All there is left to ameliorate are the twenty years, the lost undramatised childhoods of Guiderius and Arviragus. In Cymbeline, the way the play is drawn to a close is unrealistic and idealised, left to The fingers of the powers above to turn / The harmony of this peace. (V.v,465) Loose ends and unfortunate mistakes (such as lost childhoods, kidnapping and lies) are tied up or ignored. lt;/p>

The virtue in both Cymbeline and Tale which allows for these tidy endings, is forgiveness. In Lamb and Nesbit, forgiveness and kindness are the main modes of amelioration which transcend the play s moral ambiguities. Nesbit uses binaries to end her stories. There is clear distinction between who is good and who is bad what is forgivable and what is not. Shakespeare s ambiguity is lost. Nesbit s Cymbeline ends with a balanced sentence: the wicked were punished and the good and true lived happily ever after. (1900: 36) Nesbit s model doesn`t recognise Cymbeline as at fault. Lost childhoods are accidents and therefore not punishable. The only villains are Imachio and the wicked Queen, (1900: 36) whose death is never explained fully. In Nesbit s Tale Leontes also is not at fault. His flaws are forgiven much earlier: Camillo had long known how sorry Leontes was. (1900: 74) Leontes is characterised as an unfortunate King rather than a bad, punishable one. Nesbit repeats forgiveness and kindness like didactic mantra: ask forgiveness of the king , She had lived hidden in Paulina s Kindness , She forgave her husband. (1900: 75 - 76) lt;/p>

The same is true of Lamb (despite his earlier inclusion of Mamillius). Forgiveness is crucial. Finding Perdita ultimately allows forgiveness for Leontes. Hermione, though she had long forgiven the injuries which Leontes had done to herself, she could not pardon his cruelty to his infant daughter. (1901: 48) To achieve total forgiveness, crucially, only Perdita is mentioned. If Mamillius is forgotten the emphasis on forgiveness ultimately occurs at the expense of a child. The same is true of Shakespeare. In Act III Leontes grieves for my queen and son. (III.ii, 235) Yet by Act V Leontes forgets Mamillius. He remembers Her, and her virtues, (V.i, 7) and she I kill d but not he. (My emphasis) In forgetting Mamillius, Leontes can be forgiven. Shakespeare leaves a noticeable absence for Mamillius. Arguably Leontes forgetting represents moral decrepitude rather than a vehicle for eventual forgiveness. However, in children s ameliorative literature no such reading exists. Ameliorative readings rewrite Shakespeare in ways which edits out human sentience towards the children in favour of forgiveness. Criticism hasn`t been immune to dramatising forgiveness as a virtue. Beckwith argues Shakespeare s Tale offers Leontes a transformation that will take up and redeem the past. (2016: 130) Beckwith over-idealises forgiveness. lt;/p>

True forgiveness requires contrition - taking full responsibility for all wrongs. This is not the forgiveness of children s literature. Despite preaching forgiving kindness, ameliorative readings are far from kind. In children s literature virtues like kindness and forgiveness produce a moral didacticism which turns a blind eye to a child that needlessly dies. Noble s film (1996) retells Shakespeare through the eyes of a child narrator whose final vision of childhood is one of harmony. Lamb and Nesbit, by contrast, suppress the experience of being a child to teach moral didacticism. Yes, Shakespeare s children unfairly suffer, but, that suffering has a narrative and thematic significance. Ameliorative readings, by robbing children of their significance, still carry elements of injustice enacted upon children, but with none of the purpose, resulting in an erasure crueler than Shakespeare s own treatment.


Bibliography:


Primary:


Lamb, Charles, and Mary Lamb, Tales from Shakespeare, illust. by W Paget, (London: Ernest Nister, 1901)


Nesbit, Edith, The Children s Shakespeare, (Philadelphia: Henry Altemus Company, 1900)


Nesbit, Edith, Beautiful Stories from Shakespeare, (Radford: Wilder Publications, 2008)


Shakespeare, William, The Winter`s Tale, ed. by John Henry Pyle Pafford, The Arden Shakespeare, (London: Routledge, 1989)


Shakespeare, William, Cymbeline, ed. by Valerie Wayne, The Arden Shakespeare Third Series (London: Bloomsbury, 2017)


Films / Performances:


A Midsummer Night`s Dream, dir. by Adrian Noble, et al (FilmFour, 1996) lt;/p>

The Winter s Tale, dir. by Gregory Doran (Royal Shakespeare Company Heritage Theatre, 1999)


The Winter s Tale, dir. by Christopher Wheeldon (Opus Arte, 2014)


The Winter s Tale, dir by Blanche McIntyre (Royal Shakespeare Company, 2018)


Secondary:


Beckwith, Sarah, Shakespeare and the Grammar of Forgiveness, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016)


Cavell, Standley, Recounting Gain, Showing Losses, Reading The Winter s Tale , in Disowning Knowledge in Seven Plays of Shakespeare, updated ed, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003), pp. 193 - 121


Chernaik, Warren, Dying Young: Shakespeare s Children, in English: Journal of the English Association 62.237 (June 2013), pp. 103 126 (p.1)


Edwards, P. Seeing is believing: Action and Narration in The Old Wife`s Tale and The Winter`s Tale`, in Shakespeare and his Contemporaries, ed. by E. Honigmann (Manchester: Manchester University Press: Publication details, 1986) pp. 79 - 93


King, Ros, The Winter s Tale: A Guide to the Text and the Play in Performance, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009)


Maguire, Laurie. E, Shakespeare s Names, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)


Miller, Naomi J. Reimagining Shakespeare for Children and Young Adults, (London: Routledge, 2003)


Scott, Charlotte, The Child in Shakespeare, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)


Online Resources:


Hidwitz, Adam. What Makes A Children s Book Good , The New Yorker (3 October, 2016), < yorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-goosebumps-conundrum-what-makes-a-childrens-book-good > [accessed June 2018 ]

This resource was uploaded by: Lydia