Guthrie Theater

Four Hundredth Birthday


An article by Sir Tyrone Guthrie on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of William Shakespeare's birthday.

Shakespeare was born four hundred years ago. All over the world, not just in the English-speaking world, the occasion is being "marked." Hundreds of thousands of printed words will have appeared in newspapers and magazines, hundreds of thousands more will have been uttered in lectures, speeches, eulogies - at occasions as various as Book-of-the-Week Clubs, Rotarian lunches, University seminars, trades union gatherings, the meetings of Learned societies or where two or three are gathered together, animated by nothing more than affection and respect for a person about whose personal life extraordinarily little is known.

Few birthdays are so celebrated. It is true that every year another birthday is celebrated on December the twenty-fifth and I do not think it is entirely cynical to note that this birthday has become a grand commercial jamboree, a shot in the arm to Retail Trade.  Its joyous but mysterious significance has been pushed well into the background to make room for what is really pleasant and important, the exchange of lucky charm bracelets, bottles of booze and, since this is the Kiddies' Festival, space age toys like model rockets and cyclotrons. Shakespeare's birthday has not yet been desecrated quite so violently. But already it is apparent that what is absurdly described as "The Quatercentenary" is being used as a grand jamboree in the Degree Mills, a shot in the arm to Education.

If this only happens once every hundred years it won't do much harm. It very well may never happen again. To the best of my knowledge neither the first, second nor third century of Shakespeare's birth caused any particular stir. I think we must assume that all the pother this year is because at this particular time Shakespeare is more "up," more "in," is more famous than at any time since his birth.

Do you agree that the reason for this is the tremendous recent advance in methods of communication and the spread of popular education? Enormously more people now "study" Shakespeare in school and college than was the case a hundred years ago. Countless thousands more hear his name mentioned, usually favourably, in radio and television programmes. They may never have read or seen any of this plays, but the name and, in a vague way, its connotation are familiar.

Is this a good thing? I simply do not know. Was it a good thing that for a brief period in the United States last year Leonardo's Mona Lisa became almost as well known as Miss Reingold? For a brief period Mona Lisa seemed as hackneyed and as boring as one of the top ten or anything else which is forcibly rammed down the public gullet by a violent publicity campaign. A lot of people "bought" her; but, in general, not the best educated or most intelligent. But artificially-created demand like this does not last. The excitement is already forgotten and so, by most, is the picture which caused it. But who is to say that a few hundred - maybe no more than a few dozen - of those who succumbed to the furore were led by that experience to a lasting appreciation not only of this particular picture but of works of art in general? Also, great works of art have extraordinary durability. It takes more than vulgar publicity to destroy the Mona Lisa. Think of the outrageous performances of Beethoven or Verdi which are taking place all the time. The great masterpieces survive such mauling, albeit not unscathed.

So with Shakespeare; his reputation will survive even the tedious furore of the Quatercentenary. Maybe when the tumult dies, perhaps even just because of the tumult, we shall recall that celebrity, even theatrical celebrity, cannot be measured in solely quantitative terms. The best known is not necessarily the best.

The wise man or woman will pause to wonder why in 1964 Shakespeare is, with the possible exception of the four Christian Evangelists, the best-known, best-loved, most frequently quoted author who the world has ever known. Is this just a flash in the pan like the fever over Mona Lisa? Or has popular opinion now caught up with what mandarin opinion has long believed to be true? In that case will the mandarins continue to love Shakespeare? There is a tendency for mandarins to shun their one-time haunts, once they become popular. Is Shakespeare beginning to be the literary equivalent of Miami or Niagara Falls?

I do not believe so, if only because he is quite difficult of access. Not all the ballyhoo can make his work as easily apprehensible as "Dragnet" or "Dr. Kildare." Those who arrive at the summit of a mountain, puffing and panting, with aching muscles and a consuming thirst, are apt to consider that they have achieved a finer view than those who were content with the view from the window of the restaurant. The view may be no finer, but I don't think many people would seriously agree that "Dragnet" or "Dr. Kildare" afford quite the panorama of King Lear. The thing is: can we bother with the climb?

3/25/1964