JOHN KEATS AND THE STAGE: OTHO THE GREAT (1819) AND KING STEPHEN (1819)

Abstract

Leaving aside the actual meaning of the two plays (which, nonetheless, will be the object of further investigation in this essay), the general dismissal of Otho the Great and King Stephen as second-rate works stems primarily from the sheerly economic reasons that apparently prompted Keats to undertake the challenge of writing for the theatre: in his letters, he remarked that, given the lucrative nature of theatrical productions, Otho "would have been a bank" (Buxton Forman 1900: 101) to him, had it only proved successful. [...]Charles Armitage Brown's selfflattering comments in his biography of John Keats, suggesting that, with the sole exception of the fifth act (entirely ascribed to his friend), the poet's role in the creation of Otho had been only secondary, seriously undermined the reputation of the drama: "I engaged to furnish [Keats] with the fable, characters, and dramatic conduct of a tragedy, and he was to embody it into poetry" (Armitage Brown 1937: 54). [...]in one of the very few critical essays devoted to the play, Catherine Burroughs (1992: 131) has focused on the concept of female sexuality, perceived as "a strong preoccupation for Keats during the writing of Otho". First of all, the fierceness of the conflict and the brutal ruthlessness of the German troops (clashing against the supposed righteousness of their leader) are hinted at through the mention of the numerous Hungarian "slain battalions" (I.ii.126), as well as of Otho's "blood-stain'd ensigns" (I.i.51), earlier on in the play. [...]Ludolph's vicious dreams of immolating Auranthe "upon the altar of wrath" (V.v.156), and his fantasies of male domination, soon mingle with visions of war which, far from being auspicious, are turned by Keats into the ominous hallucinations of a diseased mind: [Ludolph] Father, I will lead your legions forth, Compact in steeled squares, and speared files, And bid our trumpets speak a fell rebuke To nations drows'd in peace! (V.v.159-162) Being an unfinished fragment, very little can be said about King Stephen; all the same, from its very beginning, political considerations are embedded even in this text.

Headnote

Abstract: At the beginning of the nineteenth century, theatrical performances underwent substantial transformations: dazzling backgrounds and unexacting plots aimed at attracting large audiences that wished to be entertained rather than instructed. This paper aims at exploring the way John Keats strived to reform the stage by addressing political and social issues in his two plays: Otho the Great and King Stephen.

Keywords: John Keats, Charles Armitage Brown, Romantic drama, Hunt Circle, Edmund Kean

1. Introduction: John Keats' neglected plays

The extraordinary theatrical quality of John Keats's poetry has been admiringly highlighted by several critics: Beth Lau (1998: 47), for example, has detected "traditional dramatic elements" in his most famous odes, featuring the "development of a debate", "a confrontation that is charged with dramatic tension, climax, and resolution". O.P. Mathur (2007: 39) has praised "the highly dramatic moments of suspense and action" as well as the notable "scenic effects" in poems such as "The Eve of St. Agnes" and "Lamia"; even though he admitted that the association between the word drama and Keats's poetic output may seem "rather unusual, if not unjustified" (Mathur 2005: 111), in another article, Mathur has also emphasised the meticulous attention paid by the author to the "stage-settings" (Mathur 2005: 115) and the background details of his compositions, besides noticing that Keats often acted as a chorus-like narrator and commentator in his texts (Mathur 2005: 117). It is all the more surprising, therefore, that his two existing theatrical attempts, namely Otho the Great (in collaboration with his friend Charles Armitage Brown) and King Stephen (left incomplete after the first four scenes), have been largely overlooked - when not openly rejected and condemned - by most scholars. Written in July-August 1819 (in parallel with the abovementioned, celebrated poems), with the clear intention of securing an income which would enable Keats to marry Fanny Brawne, Otho the Great was regarded by Amy Lowell (1925: 282) as a mere "pot-boiler" and "a failure" (294), also because it was never staged while the poet was alive; as Lowell (1925: 294) underlined, "[Otho] is dull beyond belief, it is unnatural, perfervid, and weak [...] To a modern reader, [it] is inconceivably dreary and stupid". The American writer was less critical of King Stephen (begun in November 1819), even if she censored the poet's "slavish adherence" (Lowell 1925: 362) to the Shakespearian model. Over the years, her disparaging observations have been echoed by quite a number of academics: Philip Eggers (1971: 997) argues that both dramas lack "the suppleness and depth of [Keats's] best poetry"; John Bayley (1993: 116) maintains that "Keats had not, and probably never would have had, any true dramatic talent"; conversely, despite labelling Otho the Great as "undistinguished" (White 2010: 183), White (2010: 186) has attempted a timid reassessment of the tragedy's value, stating that it "is no worse, and probably much better than many of the original plays performed in the West End of London during the period".

Leaving aside the actual meaning of the two plays (which, nonetheless, will be the object of further investigation in this essay), the general dismissal of Otho the Great and King Stephen as second-rate works stems primarily from the sheerly economic reasons that apparently prompted Keats to undertake the challenge of writing for the theatre: in his letters, he remarked that, given the lucrative nature of theatrical productions, Otho "would have been a bank" (Buxton Forman 1900: 101) to him, had it only proved successful. Moreover, Charles Armitage Brown's selfflattering comments in his biography of John Keats, suggesting that, with the sole exception of the fifth act (entirely ascribed to his friend), the poet's role in the creation of Otho had been only secondary, seriously undermined the reputation of the drama: "I engaged to furnish [Keats] with the fable, characters, and dramatic conduct of a tragedy, and he was to embody it into poetry" (Armitage Brown 1937: 54). He (1937: 56) also credited himself with selecting the subject of King Stephen, although he had to eventually confess that, tired of being in "leading-strings", Keats had decided to develop the theme of the play on his own.

This essay sets out to demonstrate that John Keats actually attached much greater importance to his plays than it is commonly thought and that, like other artists belonging to the Hunt circle, he viewed the stage as the perfect site to promote a message of communal regeneration and political reform, during the tumultuous and difficult times of the Regency Period. A brief account of Keats's abiding - albeit not much known - commitment to the theatre, in its inextricable connection with his frequently disregarded engagement in current political debates, will provide the necessary information to contextualise and support the analysis of Otho the Great (a drama in which social institutions are covertly criticised and hypocrisy finally unmasked) and King Stephen.

2. John Keats's keen interest in the theatre

As Jonathan Mulrooney (2003: 233) has elucidated, in the time-span between 1815 and 1819, Keats was a habitual theatre goer; besides, he regularly attended Hazlitt's lectures on Elizabethan drama at the Surrey Institute (Slote 1958: 114). In 1818, he composed a fair number of short texts "intended as songs towards an opera" (White 2010: 177), and a play on the Earl of Leicester might be listed among his tentative literary endeavours (Eggers 1971: 997). The very notion of the poet as a chameleon (formulated in a letter to Richard Woodhouse, dated October 27, 1818) closely resembles the definition of an actor, the description of a histrionic figure capable of adjusting to an ever-changing scenario: "he has no identity; he is continually in for, and filling some other body" (Houghton 1867: 189); "the poetical character itself [...] is not itself-it has no self-it is everything and nothing-it has no character-it enjoys light and shade-it lives in gusto, be it foul or fair, high or low, rich or poor, mean or elevated" (Houghton 1867: 189). Keats's correspondence bears witness to the pivotal role he attributed to his theatrical experience: on November 17, 1819 (while he was immersed in the creation of King Stephen), he declared to John Taylor that "the writing of a few fine Plays" was his "greatest ambition" (Buxton Forman (ed.) 1900: 133); furthermore, on August 14, 1819 (when he was absorbed in the writing of the conclusive sections of Otho the Great), he disclosed to Benjamin Bailey that one of his innermost aspirations was "to make as great a revolution in modern dramatic writing as Kean ha[d] done in acting" (Buxton Forman (ed.) 1900: 81). The reference to the renowned actor Edmund Kean should not pass unnoticed. Otho the Great (as well as King Stephen) had actually been devised with Kean in mind for the part of Ludolph, Otho's defiant son. The breaking news that the actor was about to leave for his long American tour and that, for this very reason, he would not be able to star in any of Keats's plays, prompted the poet to withdraw Otho from Drury Lane (as one gathers from Armitage Brown (1937: 54), the play had been accepted), and to abandon his second theatrical venture after the initial 200 lines (Lau 2010: 755). The illegitimate son of a (most likely) Jewish father, an outsider in a society that considered class and a refined upbringing as primary values, like Keats, Kean experienced harsh ostracism and turned to art (his acting career) as a means to gain authority and recognition (Lau 2010: 755). Famous for privileging the role of the underdog or the unsettling other (Shylock, Richard III, Othello), averse to any form of mannerism, Kean sided with the liberals, worked for the staunchly Whig Drury Lane and, in the words of Stanley Jones (1991: 134), "he also symbolised a threat to the Tory establishment in his revolutionary style of acting, a threat to which he gave voice in his off-stage ranting against the social order". Mentioned twenty times in Keats's letters, Kean as a Shakespearian actor was also the subject of the first of the three dramatic reviews that the poet wrote for The Champion (the remaining two focused respectively on a Covent Garden tragedy entitled Retribution, and on a Drury Lane pantomime version of Don Giovanni). Published on December 21, 1817 to celebrate Kean's return to the stage after six weeks of illness, Keats's article is meaningfully charged with political overtones. He begins by making a bold and ironic reference to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act (enacted six months before), while portraying the current climate of cultural stagnation and degradation, enlivened, in his opinion, only by the thought-provoking talent of the actor:

'In our unimaginative days', - Habeas Corpus'd as we are, out of all wonder, uncertainty and fear; - in these fireside, delicate, gilded days, - these days of sickly safety and comfort, we feel very grateful to Mr. Kean for giving us some excitement by his old passion in one of the old plays. (Houghton 1867: 335)

The review - which, as John Kandl (2001: 130) has emphasised, presents Kean "as an energised embodiment of reformist values" - ends with another allusion to the present "cold and enfeebling times" (Houghton 1867: 337), thus tightening the connection between the actor, the invigorating potential of the stage, and Keats's active commitment to public and political issues through his writings for/on the theatre. Observed from this unusual perspective, far from identifying himself with the figure of "the pre-eminently apolitical or even anti-political Romantic poet" (Rohrback and Sun 2011: 229) (as he was depicted by many scholars until the mid-1980s), Keats can be regarded as a fully-fledged member of that new Cockney school of intellectuals that was striving to challenge and transform the Regency culture. The strenuous engagement of the Hunt circle (especially of Shelley and Byron) in the production of theatrical performances should not be overlooked. What is more, as Michael Eberle-Sinatra (2005: 25) has elucidated, Hunt himself, in his capacity as both theatrical critic and political journalist, considered drama not just as mere entertainment, but rather "as one of the major social influences on the citizens of a country".

3. Otho the Great and King Stephen

Given what has been argued so far, Keats's Otho the Great and King Stephen acquire a much deeper significance. The first play is named after the historical figure of the German Otho I (912-973 A.D.), "the first European ruler since Charlemagne to unify Europe under one rule", in the words of Daniel P. Watkins (1989: 103). The real protagonist of the drama, however, is his son Ludolph (the character Kean was supposed to play), who initially rebels against his father, only to be reconciled with him once the object of his desire, the attractive but treacherous Auranthe, is granted to him as a wife. Apparently, the text is centred on a domestic tragedy, namely Auranthe's disreputable behaviour and her unfaithfulness to the one who loves her, resulting in Ludolph's madness and the sudden (but natural) death of both spouses. Hence, in one of the very few critical essays devoted to the play, Catherine Burroughs (1992: 131) has focused on the concept of female sexuality, perceived as "a strong preoccupation for Keats during the writing of Otho". The metatheatrical quality of the text (a feature possibly influenced by the poet's enthusiasm for Shakespeare) has been underlined by Charles J. Rzepka, who has noticed that the characters are often conscious of playing different roles according to the circumstances; as the scholar has pointed out, Keats probably wished to "make his audience aware of the 'theatrical' nature of everyday life" (Rzepka 1984: 35). Nevertheless, I contend that the social and political implications of Otho the Great deserve greater critical attention. Like Regency England (characterised by bribery, corruption, immorality, and pretence, against a background of riots, treason trials, and the 1819 Peterloo Massacre), the world John Keats depicts is peopled by "prodigious sycophants" (II.i.25), who use "dexterous policy" (I.i.8) to achieve their goals. Appearances are always deceptive and each character pursues solely his/her own interest. Conrad, Auranthe's brother, passes from being a rebel to "most believing" (I.i.50) Otho's favourite, joining forces with him only when threatened by the Hungarians (their mutual enemy). Impelled by his lust for power, he favours his sister's marriage with Ludolph, inducing the king to consent to their union, even if he knows that Auranthe has a furtive liaison with another man, and that Ludolph was originally betrothed to Erminia (whose reputation he succeeds in tainting). In turn, Auranthe is perfectly aware that no brotherly love drives Conrad's actions and that, knowing her secret, he will always hold her in his grip; as she states:

[Auranthe] 'twas for yourself you laboured-not for me!

Do you not count, when I am queen, to take

Advantage of your chance discoveries

Of my poor secrets, and so hold a rod

Over my life?" (I.i.112-116)

Even the king, who appears to be so noble and magnanimous as to release Gersa (the defeated Prince of Hungary) from his shackles, is an ambiguous figure. First of all, the fierceness of the conflict and the brutal ruthlessness of the German troops (clashing against the supposed righteousness of their leader) are hinted at through the mention of the numerous Hungarian "slain battalions" (I.ii.126), as well as of Otho's "blood-stain'd ensigns" (I.i.51), earlier on in the play. Then, the relevance of his carefully pondered act of mercy is considerably diminished when one realises that Gersa was actually not a strong opponent to the king:

[Otho] Though I did hold you high in my esteem

For your self's sake, I do not personate

The stage-play emperor to entrap applause,

To set the silly sort of the world agape,

And make the politic smile; no, I have heard

How in the Council you condemn'd this war,

Urging the perfidy of broken faith,-

For that I am your friend. (I.ii.142-149)

Feigned compassion, ostentatious forgiveness, and callous manipulation are, therefore, the political weapons employed by the monarch to acquire another grateful and obedient ally to his power: "And thus a marble column do I build/ to prop my empire's dome" (I.ii.160-161). The king's morality and his honesty of conduct are further questioned when Conrad (the real villain of the play, whom Otho supports with the sole intention of being backed by him) is acknowledged among his closest partners:

[Otho] Conrad, in thee

I have another steadfast [pillar], to uphold

The portals of my state; and, for my own

Pre-eminence and safety, I will strive

To keep thy strength upon its pedestal. (I.ii.161-165)

In this perplexing and ambivalent context (reminiscent of Keats's own times) the only character who seems capable of perceiving and defending the truth is Ludolph, the wronged and unruly prince whose part perfectly suited liberal Kean in the intentions of the author. Ludolph understands the contradictions of Otho's personality, highlighting both his "noble nature" (I.iii.55) and his "hot, proud, obstinate" (I.iii.89) temper; he criticises his herds of flatterers and minions, "curling, like spaniels, round [his] father's feet" (I.iii.82), besides comparing Conrad to "a tight leech" (II.1.56), feeding on Otho's blood. This modest and dignified figure (who even disguised himself as an Arab to protect his father in battle without him knowing) is often associated to a fool throughout the drama, a Shakespearean fool, one may be tempted to add, given his inclination to tell the truth that the others deny. His actual madness at the end of the tragedy, stemming from the discovery of his newly-wed bride's infidelity, may be interpreted as Keats's final coupe de theatre, his strategy to expose and stigmatise, through the filter of a mentally deranged person, the very rhetoric of power and control which was deemed legitimate if employed to describe territorial conquests and possessions. Hence, Ludolph's vicious dreams of immolating Auranthe "upon the altar of wrath" (V.v.156), and his fantasies of male domination, soon mingle with visions of war which, far from being auspicious, are turned by Keats into the ominous hallucinations of a diseased mind:

[Ludolph] Father, I will lead your legions forth,

Compact in steeled squares, and speared files,

And bid our trumpets speak a fell rebuke

To nations drows'd in peace! (V.v.159-162)

Being an unfinished fragment, very little can be said about King Stephen; all the same, from its very beginning, political considerations are embedded even in this text. In truth, Keats appears to be particularly fascinated by the character of Queen Maud, placing a strong emphasis on the wisdom a proper ruler has to display; as she says to Gloucester, "to sage advisers let me ever bend/ a meek attentive ear" (I.iv.10-11).

4. Conclusion

Speculating on the development of King Stephen's plot proves fruitless, also because very few references to the play are scattered in the poet's letters. Conversely, one more chapter can be added to Otho the Great's story. After Severn's unsuccessful attempt at staging it in Rome, in 1838, the tragedy was eventually performed for the first time by the Preview Theatre Club in London, on November 26, 1950. The play was directed and revised by Tom Rothfield and Robin Bailey played the part of Ludolph. As Dorothy Hewlett (1952: 83) observed, "the play, judiciously cut, well played and presented, held the audience to a remarkable degree": a belated, but still meaningful success for John Keats as a dramatist.

References

References

Armitage Brown, Ch. 1937. Life of John Keats. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bayley, J. 1993. 'Keats and the genius of parody' in Essays in Criticism 43(2), pp.112-122.

Burroughs, C. 1992. 'Acting in the closet: a feminist performance of Hazlitt's Liber Amoris and Keats's Otho the Great' in European Romantic Review 2(2), pp. 125-144.

Buxton Forman, H. (ed.). 1900. The Complete Works of John Keats, Vol. V. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co.

Eberle-Sinatra, M. 2005. Leigh Hunt and the London Literary Scene. A Reception History of his Major Works, 1805-1828. New York and London: Routledge.

Eggers, Ph. 1971. 'Memory in mankind: Keats's historical imagination' in PMLA 86(5), pp. 990-998.

Hewlett, D. 1952. 'Otho the Great' in Keats-Shelley Memorial Bulletin IV, pp. 82-83.

Houghton, L. 1867. The Life and Letters of John Keats. London: Edward Moxon & Co.

Jones, S. 1991. Hazlitt: A Life. From Winterslow to Frith Street. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kandl, J. 2001. 'Plebeian gusto, negative capability, and the low company of 'Mr. Kean': Keats' dramatic review for The Champion (21 December 817)' in Nineteenth Century Prose 28(2), pp. 130-141.

Keats, J., P.B. Shelley. 1932. John Keats and Percy Bysshe Shelley. Complete Poetical Works. New York: The Modern Library.

Lau, B. 1998. Keats's Paradise Lost. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Lau, B. 2010. John Keats in Holland, P. and A. Poole (eds.). Great Shakespeareans: Set I. London and New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, pp. 745-795.

Lowell, A. 1925. John Keats, Vol. II. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Mathur, O.P. 2005. 'Keats's dramatic genius with special reference to his shorter poems' in Nagar, A. and A. Nath Prasad (eds.). Recritiquing John Keats. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons, pp. 111-123.

Mathur, O.P. 2007. 'Closet drama: the Romantic poets as dramatists' in Mukhopadhya, P. K. (ed.). Literary Spectrums: Recent Studies in English Literature. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons, pp. 30-41.

Mulrooney, J. 2003. 'Keats in the company of Kean' in Studies in Romanticism 42(2), pp. 227-250.

Rohrback, E., E. Sun. 2011. 'Reading Keats, thinking politics: an introduction' in Studies in Romanticism 50(2), pp. 229-237.

Rzepka, Ch. J. 1984. 'Theatrum Mundi and Keats's Otho the Great: the self in 'Society'' in Romanticism Past and Present 8(1), pp. 35-50.

Slote, B. 1958. Keats and the Dramatic Principle. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Watkins, D. P. 1989. Keats's Poetry and the Politics of the Imagination. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.

White, R.S. 2010. John Keats: A Literary Life. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.