On Saturday 26^th October, Liz, Helen, and I journeyed down to Sheffield to attend a symposium on the Earl of Essex. The day was organised by Lisa Hopkins and Annaliese Connolly at Sheffield Hallam University, and marked the launch of their co-edited collection of essays: Essex: The Cultural Impact of an Elizabethan Courtier (Manchester University Press, 2013).

Within the relaxed and friendly atmosphere we enjoyed several papers from contributors to the book, all of which demonstrated a high calibre of research and were thoroughly engaging. Between papers, we had the opportunity to catch up with fellow scholars over coffee, and to purchase copies of the book, and a selection of others, which were kindly brought to the event by Matthew Frost of Manchester University Press.

At the beginning of the symposium, Lisa explained how the book had come into being from her conversation with a postgraduate student several years ago, to the publication we saw before us. Though the amount of time to have elapsed between the conception of the idea for the book and its publication seemed a rather long process, she explained that one of the reasons for this was the abundance of new research connected to the Earl of Essex. It was worth the wait though, as every paper provided fascinating insights into the life of Essex and his contemporaries, often using previously unknown material or reinterpreting it in light of more recent discoveries.

The first three papers of the afternoon raised questions of authorship, textual authenticity, copy-culture and imitation, and influence. The first paper was given by Richard Wood (Sheffield Hallam University), entitled ‘“Mine excuse must only be the worthiness of former precedents”: Gervase Markham’s English Arcadia and the Earl of Essex’s Sidneian Inheritance’. This paper discussed Markham’s processes of writing his English Arcadia, and took into account the cultural history of Philip Sidney’s Arcadia and how it became a source of inspiration for other writers.

The second paper of the afternoon, ‘More Poetry by the Earl of Essex?’, was given by Hugh Gazzard (St Hugh’s College, Oxford) and considered the authorship of the printed verse miscellany ‘The Muses Garland’. He considered how the poems might be interlinked and their possible authors, which include Sidney, Nicholas Breton and Essex. Gazzard was thorough in his consideration of the various issues surrounding this poetry from questioning the initials subscribed to the sonnets to the incorrect imprint of the printer’s initials, and the implications of these minutiae.

Andrew Gordon (University of Aberdeen) gave the penultimate paper of the day, entitled ‘From Imitation to Counterfeit: Essex’s Hand in Correspondence’. He considered the nature of writing from Sidney’s thought to the more practical skills of handwriting as outlined in Peter Bales’s The Scholemaster. This led to a discussion of penmanship and imitation in which the poet as penman is responsible for what he copies or imitates: bad poetry is synonymous with bad copying. He then spoke about John Daniel’s prosecution for having copied letters by the Earl of Essex, which brought up questions of purpose and the speculative space of letters. Gordon provided an interesting analysis of the culture of copying and penmanship in the context of the Essex’s patronage and politics.

Whilst all of the papers demonstrated a high quality of new research and were each fascinating, the final paper of the day was, for me, the icing on a very rich cake. Chris Laoutaris (Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham) and Yasmin Arshad University College London) presented their theory surrounding Marcus Gheeraerts’ portrait of a Persian lady: ‘”Still renewing wronges”: Gheeraert’s Persian Lady Revealed’. Through their own close analysis of the painting itself, they have been able to construct a narrative about the painting and believe that they may have identified the sitter of the painting itself as the Earl of Essex’s sister, Lady Penelope Rich. Their argument involved an awareness of the symbolism associated with Essex, his sister’s involvement in politics, and close scrutiny of aspects of the painting that had previously gone unnoticed, such as a bezoar stone and the species of bird in the background. They argued that the painting could have been Lady Rich’s gift to Elizabeth as an apology for her involvement in the political events surrounding her brother, Essex. The story is not done and dusted yet, however, and I look forward to hearing more about it as it develops.

Many thanks to Lisa and Annaliese for organising such an informative and interesting afternoon! I look forward to reading more on this fascinating topic in their book.

Having neither read nor seen Titus Andronicus it only dawned on me what I had let myself in for as I entered the Swan Theatre to be greeted by three coffins and a nurse idly smoking. Spoilt with near front row seats, I – along with the majority of the audience – was overwhelmed by the RSC’s perfect combination of humour and gore in their adaptation of Shakespeare’s bloodiest revenge tragedy. The RSC demonstrated how Shakespeare is very much our contemporary blurring the distinction between then and now with guards in SWAT-type uniforms, Demitrius and Chiron riding onto the stage in hoodies on BMX bikes, and the Godfather-esque closing banquet with the cast dressed in crisp tailored suits (bar Titus in a maid’s outfit). These contemporary elements brought a 400 year old play uncomfortably close. Infused with sadistically comic elements, mere seconds of laughter were afforded to the audience before it was stifled by a bloody murder, rape or mutilation. But what would Titus Andronicus be without a bit of blood?

Alongside Katy Stephens’s bewitching portrayal of Tamora, Stephen Boxer (Titus) and Rose Reynolds (Lavinia) must be applauded for their enamouring performances. As a researcher in disability studies, I found the body of Lavinia shifting in and out of the spectrum of disability throughout her tragic performance most thought-provoking. Credit must also be paid to John Hopkins’s brilliant interpretation of Saturninus. His comic expressions paired with the -presumably unscripted – struggle to hide his decency whilst clambering out of the bath tub filled the room with laughter each time he stepped foot on stage. Although little is left to the imagination, Michael Fentiman has directed an artistically balanced portrayal of tragic humour with explicit bloody violence which leaves the audience in a state of wondrous shock.

After a brief walk to blow away the cobwebs and flashing bloody images of Titus, it was back into the theatre to be greeted by the biblical visage of David Tennant complete with long flowing hair, white attire and a cross around his neck. Whilst there was no point in the play where I thought he should enter the Tardis rather than sit upon the throne, Tennant could not fully shake off the Doctor to embody the beautifully troubled poetics of Shakespeare’s Richard. There were, however, moments of sheer comic genius throughout the performance: a particular crowd pleaser saw Aumerle, Fitzwater, Percy and Bagot all throw down their gauntlets, likening the scene to handbags at dawn. Individual applause must be given to Oliver Ford Davies whose performance as the Duke of York injected a great source of humour into the play.

With an evident focus on the spatial importance between the divine Richard and earthly Bolingbroke, the space of the theatre was transformed into a moveable chasm with an assortment of mechanical props that situated Richard and Bolingbroke in contrasting spaces. This was further accentuated by the musical accompaniments of an angelic trio of sopranos and trumpets provided a bold contrast between the biblical image of Richard and the earthly performance of Bolingbroke. The play was brought to a chilling close in the final scene when the ghost of Richard takes his rightful position next to the throne high above the usurping Bolingbroke. With a strong cast and excellent staging, David Tennant and Gregory Doran have created a good adaptation with some beautifully witty interpretations throughout, yet I couldn’t help but feel a pang of disappointment that it didn’t quite hit the mark.

 

Watch this space….