university press scholarship online procreativity: remediation … · 2015. 1. 8. · london...

Procreativity: Remediation and Rob Roy

of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: KingsCollege London; date: 08 January 2015

UniversityPressScholarshipOnline

OxfordScholarshipOnline

TheAfterlivesofWalterScott:MemoryontheMoveAnnRigney

Printpublicationdate:2012PrintISBN-13:9780199644018PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:May2012DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644018.001.0001

Procreativity:RemediationandRobRoy

AnnRigney

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199644018.003.0003

AbstractandKeywords

Scott’sworkwasnotonlyimmenselypopularbutalsoextremelyprocreative:thatis,itgeneratedmanynewversionsofitselfinbothprintandothermedia.Usingtheconceptofremediation,Chapter2focusesonScott’sprocreativityinothermedia,especiallythetheatre,inordertoexplaintheapparentparadoxthatnovelisticadaptationwaslinkedbothtothedesirefornewformsofimmediacyandtothepleasureofreiteration.Afterabriefsurveyoftheadaptationsofhisworktothevisualartsandmaterialculture,thechapterturnstodramatizationsoftheWaverleynovels,focusinginparticularontherepeatedproductionsofRobRoy(1817)whosepopularityonstageisexplainedasawayofperformingScottishness‘live’.ThelateradaptationsofthenoveltothescreenshowhowScott’snovelhelpedrelaypopularcultureintothetwentiethcentury.

Keywords:RobRoy,procreativity,adaptation,remediation,painting,performance,theatre,cinema,Scotland,popularculture


of 35


Aswithgenes,immortalityismoreamatterofreplicationthanofthelongevityofindividualvehicles.

—DanielC.Dennett,Darwin’sDangerousIdea(1995)

InApril1819,theCoventGardentheatreadvertisedaplaycalledHeartofMidlothian:MusicalDramathatwouldmeetwithenoughpublicenthusiasmtorunforsixteennights.Thedailyplaybillsdidnotmentionthenameoftheplaywright,buttheydididentifythepersonresponsibleforthemusicalarrangements—‘TheOvertureandMusick,whichareselectionsfromthemostapprovedScotchAirs,arrangedbyMrBishop’.Theyalsoidentifiedtheartistresponsibleforpaintingthescenery:‘fromSketchesmadebyAlex.Nasmith,EsqofEdinburgh’.Apparentlythescenerywasoneofthedistinctivesellingpointsofthisparticularproduction,sincethebillsalsolistedthemanylocationsthatwouldbeondisplay:‘SalisburyCraigsandArthur’sSeat,withDeans’scottageinthedistance;Deans’scottageonSt.Leonard’sCraigs…HallofTolbooth;Muschat’sCairn;andHolyroodHouse…TheHighStreet,withtheTolbooth,StGiles’sChurch’,andsoon.1

ThiswasoneofthemanytheatricalproductionsofTheHeartofMid-LothianmentionedearlierandassuchjustoneofthemanyhundredsofproductionsofScott’sworkthatfilledtheBritishstagefromthemid-1810sonwards.TheCoventGardenproductioninApril1819wasanephemeralaffairlastingjustacoupleofweeks.ButitwaspartofalargerseriesofScottproductionsthatcontinuedforalmostacenturyinwhichthenovelswererecursivelytransposedtothestage.Justasthebookshadprovidedapublicforumforreworkingotherstories,thetheatreinturnprovidedaplatformforrecyclingthenovelsandgivingthemnewlife.Inthiscase,Scott’sstory,traditionalmusic,andlandscapepaintingcombinedtogenerateanatmosphereofpureScottishnessforaLondonaudience.Indeed,theimportanceoftheScottishscenerytothisparticularproductionsuggeststhatthetheatricalspectaclewasavariationonyet(p.50) anotherculturalpractice:tourism(whichwasitselfinpartinspiredbyScott’swork,asIshallshowinChapter5).Whethertourismwasshapedbytheatreortheotherwayaround,itisclearthatthistheatricalproductionwascaughtupinanintermedialdynamicinwhichScott’sstorieswerebothobjectsofappropriationandculturalagents:reproducedandtransformedonmanyplatformswiththeencouragementofScotthimself,theywerealsohelpingtoshapeotherculturalpracticesandinspirenewwork.

Thecombinationofpainting,music,scriptwriting,andactingofferedbythetheatreservesasareminderthatmultimediality(thesimultaneoususeofdifferentmedia)andintermediality(thecross-fertilizationbetweenmedia)arenotrecentphenomena.NordidtheconvergenceofmediaonacommonplatformhavetowaitforthearrivaloftheInternet:thepopulartheatrebroughttogetherandrecycledelementsfromotherplatforms,asdidindeedScott’snovelsthemselves.2Thesewerebothautonomousworksofartandculturalcogwheels,caughtupintheongoingtransferofstoriesacrossdifferentmediaanddifferentplatforms,inwhichbothrepetitionandtransformationwereatplay,andmanyagentsinvolved,includingScotthimselfandhispublishers.Thisbearsemphasizinginviewofthetenaciousassumptionamongliterarycritics,notonlythattheproperunitofculturalanalysisisadiscretetext,butalsothatadaptations,imitations,and


of 35


tie-insaremerelyderivativeformsofculture.Myconcernwiththesociallifeoftextsentailsbreakingwiththistraditionbyfollowingthemorphingsofindividualworksastheytraveltoothermediaandbyconsideringthesederivativeformsofproductionasinterestingintheirownright.Inordertograspthecombinationofinnovationandrepetitionatworkinsuchderivativeforms,Iwillrefertoproductiveremembrance(actsofrecallthatalsoinvolveproducinganewimageorstory)andlinkitwithwhatIhavebeencallingScott’sprocreativity:theabilityofhisworkstogeneratenewversionsofitselfinotherpeople’sactsofproductiveremembrance.Procreativity,asweshallsee,producesunexpectedcontinuitieswithinacultureofrapidturnoversandephemeralsensations.Linkedtothis,Ishallargue,italsoplaysadistinctroleinshapingcollectiveidentitiesbyappealingtothefamiliarandthetraditional,butinamodernguiseandinanimmediateway.Theseidentitiesarebasedonthecommonappreciationofearlierstoriesandonmaximizingthepleasurableinteractionwiththem,ratherthanonthesolemnrecollectionofpoliticalandmilitaryevents.

(p.51) RemediatingandRemembranceTheusualwayofjudgingtheculturalimpactofwritersisbycountingthenumberofneweditionsandsalesfigures.Analternativeistoexaminetheintensitywithwhichtheirworkwasreplicatedinotherculturalexpressions.Inthisregard,theWaverleynovelshadanastoundinglyfertilesecond-life.Theintensityandrangeoftheirproductivereceptionbyotherpeopleistestimonytotheirmnemonicpower:theyinvitedrecallandsetcreativeenergiesinmotiontoproducenewpaintingsandplays,andindeedversionsinalmosteveryconceivablemedium.OneoftheparadoxesofthepopularityoftheWaverleynovels,asalreadyindicatedinthecaseofJeanieDeans,isthattheybecamecommonpropertyandlefttheauthorialcontroloftheirmaker(althoughScott,asweshallseeinChapter6,wasalsofetedasaculturaliconinhisownright).Thevalueofhisfictionwasnotlinkedtoauraticscarcity,butrathertocommunality.Itenjoyed‘socialcanonicity’,thetermDavidBreweruseswithreferencetopopularfictionatthisperiod,inwhichvaluewasexpressedbycollectiveappropriationandproliferationinamaximumnumberofmedia.3

Thechallengeistoanalysethisparticularinterplaybetweenremembranceandcreativity,betweenrepetitionandnovelty.AstartingpointisofferedbyJohnEllis,whooncewroteinaverybriefbutilluminatingessaythatadaptations‘tradeonthememoryoftheoriginal’andrepresent‘amassiveinvestment(financialandpsychic)inthedesiretorepeatparticularactsofconsumptionwithinaformofrepresentationthatdiscouragessucharepetition’.4Inmanyways,Scotthimselfhadsettheballrollingbybecominghisownreplicatorandcreatinganewpleasureinrepetitionwithintheframeworkofconstantlyrenewednovelty.HedidsobypresentingtheWaverleynovelsaspartofaseries(itselfrevolutionaryandaforetasteofmuchculturetocome),andbyproducingnovelsthat,whileprojectinghighlydistinctivenarrativeworlds,alsoresonatedwitheachotherand,aswehaveseen,withotherstoriesalreadyincirculationinoralhistoryaswellasinprint.Forallthateachnovelbroughtintolifeanewrangeofremarkablecharactersandsituationsheldtogetherbyauniquestoryline,theyalsorepresentedvariationsonthesameWaverleymodel—tothedelightofmanyofhisreaders,tothedismayofsome


of 35


critics.5Whatismore,Scott’swritingsalsogaverisetonewversionsintheformofimages,dramatizations,costumes,touristitineraries,architecture,interiordecorating,aswellasthenamesofplaces,ships,andrailwaysmentionedearlier.Thiseverydayremembrancereflectedthepenetration(p.52) oftheWaverleymodelintobothprivateandpublicspheres,andtheubiquitouspresenceofthepastthatScotthimselfhadhelpedtocultivate.

Becauseofthetraditionalpredilectionoftwentieth-centurycriticismforinnovationanddefamiliarization,andforthoseexceptionalindividualswhostakedoutthefutureratherthanrecycledthepast,thisenormousbodyofdiversematerialhasnotbeenstudiedinanyintegratedandextensiveway(thoughhappilytherearesomespecialiststudiesofScott’simpactonpaintinganddramauponwhichIcandraw).Thisneglectcanbelinkedtothederivativeandsometimestrivialcharacterofmanyofthesespin-offsandtie-ins,whoseaestheticmeritandhistoricinterestismoot.Butithascertainlyalsotodowithagenerallackofconceptualtoolswithintraditionalliterarycriticismtotalkaboutreiterations,repetitions,andgradualtransformationsinculture.6Giventheall-outprioritizingof‘thefirst’above‘therepeated’intwentieth-centuryaesthetics,itisonlyrecentlythatrepetitionandrepetition-with-a-differencehasemergedasanactiveingredientinthemakingofcultureandhenceasanissueinculturalanalysis.Thingschangedwiththeemergencesincethe1960sofanacademiccritiqueoforiginalityandcontinuetochangewiththegrowingsalienceofintertextuality,‘sampling’,and‘covering’asdominantmodesofculturalproductioninthedigitalage.7Asourappreciationofthesederivativeformsincreases,sotoodoestheretrospectiveperceptionthatreworking,recycling,andtie-inswerealsoanimportantfeatureofnineteenth-centuryculture,sometimesdrivenbyacommercialdesiretomaximizethenumberofproductsfromanygivenoriginal,butsometimesalsobyadesiretoprolongandintensifythememoryofstoriesthathadalreadygivenpleasure,whileyetofferingsomethingnew.8TheimportanceofsamplingisbroughtoutinthefollowingtitlepublishedbyThomasHailesLacyinthe1860swithitsextraordinarysedimentationofversionsandagents,ofreplicationandnovelty:TheHeartofMid-Lothian;or,theSistersofSt.Leonard’s:ADrama,(withunregisteredeffects)inThreeActs.AdaptedfromSirWalterScott’sadmirednovel,withintroductionsfromT.Dibdin’splay,W.Murray’salterationofthesame,EugèneScribe’sopera,andDionBoucicault’samalgamationoftheabove;ColinHazlewood’sadjustmentandre-adjustment,J.B.Johnstone’sappropriation,andotherequallyoriginalversions,togetherwithaverysmallamountofnewmatter(London,c.1863).

AsLindaHutcheon’sTheoryofAdaptation(2006)clearlyshows,recentattemptstoanalysederivative(palimpsestic,second-hand)formsofculturalproductionhaveyieldedavarietyofconcepts(intertextuality,appropriation,transcoding…)andarangeofinsightsintowhatisatstakeintellectually,aesthetically,andevenlegally,whenanewworkreworksanoldone.9Byandlarge,however,studiesofadaptation(tostickwiththis(p.53) umbrellatermforthemoment)havetakenwhatIcallabilateralapproach:thatistosay,theyfocusontherelationsbetweentwoversionsofastoryand,takingthelaterversionastheterminusadquemoftheexchange,theyexaminethedifferencebetween


of 35


theearlierandthelaterversions,oftentotheadvantageofthelatter,which,followingamodernistnarrativeofprogress,isoftenconstruedasacriticalsubversionoftheoriginal.WhileIdrawinwhatfollowsonsomerecentstudiesofadaptation,myapproachwillneverthelessbesignificantlydifferent.Sincetheconcernofthisstudyisnotsomuchwiththeaestheticeffectsofparticularversions,butwithhowreworkingScottwasanagentofculturalmemory,itsfocusinevitablyextendsbeyondthebilateralrelationsbetweendiscretetextstothebroaderculturallandscapeandtothelong-termframeworkinwhichparticularadaptationshadbothaprehistoryandanafterlife.Thepointisnotjusttoreiteratetheover-familiarargumentthattherearenoabsoluteoriginsincultureandnoplacesofabsolutestabilitysincecultureisalwaysonthemove.Instead,itistotakethisfactasastartingpointforlocatingdifferentsortsofrepetitionswithinthedynamicsofchangeor,morespecifically,forlocatingremembranceinamodeofproductionthatwasbasedonnovelty.Howtoconceptualizeadaptationsinsuchawaythattheyareneitherreducedtomererepetitionsnorautomaticallyassumedtobecriticalsubversionsoftheoriginal?

ThereiscertainlyevidencethatScott’sworkswerepickedupandreworkedinawholerangeofculturalpractices,fromtheeveningdressesin‘Lamodeécossaise’thatwerepopularfashionstatementsin1820sParis,totheWaverleytextilesthatweredesignedtofilltheinteriorsofneo-gothichousesinspiredbyAbbotsford,tothetableauxvivantsofWaverleycharactersperformedinprivatehomes,tothehundredsofpaintings,themanyfilms,andthethousandsoftheatricalproductionsinspiredbyhiswork.10Althougharchitecture,fashion,andplace-namesdonottraditionallyfallwithinthepurviewofliterarycriticism,theyareimpossibletoignoreinthecaseofScott.OneoftheclaimsofthisstudyisthatanimportantpartofScott’slegacyliesinhishavingextendedthelifeofthehistoricalimaginationtothematerialworld(especiallytheurbananddomesticworldsofmiddle-classreaders)andtohishavingintegratedmemoryintoeveryday,embodiedlife—downtotheclothespeoplewore,theupholsterytheysaton,andthegamestheyplayed.11Whatbeganaspoetryandnarrativethusendedupinthewayinwhichpeoplenamedtheirstreets,decoratedtheirhouses,and,laterinthecenturywiththeproductionbytheWedgwoodCompanyofanIvanhoedinnerservice,atetheirmeals.12Inthisway,hisworkhelpedtore-introducesignsofcollectivememoryintotheeverydayenvironment,creatingthebanalcanonicityreferredtoearlier.Incontrasttotraditionalmilieuxdemémoire(p.54)


of 35


Figure2.1: TheLadyoftheLake,printedcotton(c.1830).

(p.55) inPierreNora’ssense,however,thiseverydaymemorywasahighlymediatedoneinwhichtheimaginationplayedakeyrole,thusexemplifyingAppadurai’scontentionthatoneofthekeyfeaturesofmodernityisthefactthatimaginationisnolongerconfinedtotheartsandritual,butinformseverydaylife.

ItwouldbegoingtoofartoclaimthatScottconsciouslyenvisagedhowhisstorieswouldbetranslatedintoothermediaandpractices.Buthecertainlycolludedwithit.Althoughheworkedwithintheconfinesoftheprintedbook,hisuseoflanguageandnarrativedesignseemtobealreadyonthevergeofturningintoapieceoftheatre,apainting,oreventouristexcursion(towhichIwillreturninmoredetailinChapter5).Becausehisdepictionsofthepastwerehighlyvisual,hecanbesaidtohavehelpedimaginethepaintingsandspectacles,includingthecinematicones,towhichhisownworklatergaverise13Indeed,thetermcinematographiccanbelegitimatelyappliedavantlalettretohisdepictionofthePorteousriotsinTheHeartofMid-LothianorthesiegeofTorquilstonecastleinIvanhoe.OnereviewerofTheLadyoftheLake(1810)exclaimedthatScott‘seeseverythingwithapainter’seye’,14apointechoedin1834withreferencetothenovelsbyaFrenchcriticwhopraisedScottforhaving‘drawn’allhisscenes:‘Everyoneof[his]pagesisapaintingwhichoneonlyhastoreproduce.’15Certainlyascenesuchas


of 35


thatinWaverleywheretheromanticherohasavisionofFloraMcIvorwithinanaturalamphitheatrelentitselfeasilytothewordtableau;andindeedScottinvitedthiscomparisonbycomparinghischaractertoone‘ofthoselovelyformswhichdecoratethelandscapesofPoussin’.16

Theinvitationtovisualizethenovelswaseagerlytakenup.Tobeginwith,Scottandhispublishersincludedengravings,speciallycommissionedfromateamofartists,inthemagnumopuseditionoftheWaverleynovels(1829–33)sothatlatereditionswereusuallyaccompaniedbyactualandnotjustvirtualimages.AsRichardHillhasshown,Scottvaluedantiquarianandtopographicalaccuracyasavisualauxiliarytohisownnarrativeratherthanillustrationsofhighdramathatwouldhavebeenadistractionfromit,andtriedtocontroltheselectionofimageswiththisinmind.17Thesymbiosisbetweenthenovelsandillustrationswasfacilitatedbytheintroductionofcheapsteel-plateengravinganditculminatedinthelavishlyillustratedAbbotsfordEditionof1842–7thatsetanewtrendinVictorianpublishing.18Thistendencytotranslatethestoriesintopicturesalsoledtothepublicationofstand-alonecollectionsofengravingssupplementingthetextsintheformofvirtualartgalleries.Theseofferedportraitsofthemaincharacters,asinTheWaverleyGalleryofthePrincipalFemaleCharactersinSirWalterScott’sRomances;FromOriginalPaintingsbyEminentArtists(1841),butmoreoften,theyconsistedofdepictionsof(p.56) thelocationsassociatedwithparticularscenesinthenovelsandseenthroughthelensofthestory;theseincludedLandscape-HistoricalIllustrationsofScotlandandtheWaverleyNovels;fromDrawingsbyJ. M. W.Turner,ProfessorR.A.(1836–8)andLandscape-HistoricalIllustrationsoftheWaverleyNovels(1840).19

Outsidethefieldofbookpublications,Scott’swritingsalsogaverisetocountlessstand-alonedrawings,engravings,andpaintingsbothinGreatBritainandelsewhere,especiallyFrance.20Hiswork,accordingtoRichardAltick,almostsinglehandedlytouchedoffacentury-longtraditionof‘literarylandscapes’inspiredbypoetryandnovels.21PainterscontinuedtoproduceScottpaintingsuntilthe1880s,whileshiftingintheprocessalongwiththefashionsofthetimefromtheaestheticsofsublimelandscapestohistoricaldrama,togenrepainting.ThusTurner’sdrawingsforthemagnumopuseditionofthenovelsgavewaytoDanielMaclise’senormoushistoricaltableauxofthe1840sandtotheintimatescenesofJohnEverettMillais’sTheBrideofLammermoor(1878)andJamesMcNeillWhistler’sArrangementinYellowandGrey:EffieDeans(1876–8).Althoughitlastedintothefinaldecadesofthecentury,astheselastexamplesshow,Scott’spowertogenerateimagesreacheditshighpointintheperiod1830to1850whenmorethanfourhundredpaintingsillustratinghisworkswereexhibited.In1843,forexample,nofewerthanthirtyofsuchpaintingsappearedattheannualexhibitionoftheRoyalAcademy,theScottishAcademy,andtheBritishInstitution.AttheParissalonof1831,thirtyitemswereinspiredbyScott,whichwasmorethanthenumberinspiredbybiblicalormythologicalthemes.22Wheretheearliervisualizationsofhisworkhadconcentratedonlocations,tooktheformofengravings,andwerelargelyinspiredbyhispoems,themanypaintingsproducedfromthe1830sonwardsfollowedthemodelofhistoricalgenrepaintings,concentratinginfullcolouroncharactersatadramaticmomentintheaction.23


of 35


InallthispainterlyactivityrecallingScott’snovels,selectivemechanismswereneverthelessatworkandthesetakesomeunravelling.GivenWaverley’sprominenceasaflagshipoftheseries,forexample,itissurprisingtonotethatitinspiredvirtuallynopaintingatall(nordiditinspiremuchdramatization,aswewillseebelow).Incontrast,scenesfromTheBrideofLammermoorandTheHeartofMid-Lothiangaverisetonofewerthaneightypaintingseach.TheirpopularitywasonlysurpassedbythatofIvanhoe,whichwaspaintedmorethanonehundredtimes.Moreover,withinthatIvanhoecorpusprideofplacewasgiventothefigureofRebecca,towhomathirdofthesepaintingswasdevoted.24Asweshallsee,thepreferenceofpaintersforcertainworkscoincidedtoalargeextent,butnotentirely,withthepreferencesofdramatists.Ivanhoewasnotably(p.57) prominentinbothspheres,apointIwillcomebacktoinChapter3.Evenwithinthetreatmentofparticularstories,moreover,therewasselectiongoingon:TheHeartofMid-Lothianhasalreadyshownhowsomescenes,suchasthemeetingofthetwosistersinprison,weredepictedoverandoveragain,becomingiconicforthestoryasawhole.Insomecases,popularimagesfedintotheatricalproductionsintheformofcostumes,decors,andtableauxvivants,whiletheatricalproductionsinturninspiredsomeofthepopularimagesincirculation.25

Whilethepaintingsanddrawingsoftencirculatedindependentlyofthenovels,theynevertheless‘tradeduponthememory’oftheoriginal,torecallJohnEllis’sphrase.JamesMcNeillWhistlerwasaskedbythebuyerofhisEffieDeanspaintingtoaddScott’swordstothecanvas:‘shesunkherheaduponherhandandremainedseeminglyunconsciousasastatue’.26Thepainting(nowwithwordsadded)wasatriggertorecallScott’sworkatthesametimeasitalsoofferedthevisualdelightsofapaintinginthehereandnow.TheadditionofthewordsinthecaseofWhistler’spaintingmadeexplicitamechanismthatwassurelybehindalloftheotherScottpaintings:thesewerebothautonomousvisualartefacts,interestingintheirownright,andcuesrecallingastorythatwastoldelsewhereandwhosebroadoutlineswerepresumedfamiliartotheviewereveniftheydidnotnecessarilyhavedirectknowledgeofthetext.AsthepainterlyshiftoffocustoEffieindicates,‘tradingonthememory’ofthenovelalsoinvolvedmodifyingittofitlatter-daypreoccupations:inremediatingandrecallingthestory,peoplewerealsoadaptingittocurrentnotionsofwhatwasmemorable.

WhenScott’scontemporarieshighlightedthevisualqualitiesofhiswritingsandclaimedexcitedlythattheyweresuitableforreproductionaspaintings,theywereintuitivelyoperatingfromanunderstandingoftherelationsbetweenthedifferentartsthatresonateswithmorerecenttheories,whichseemediaasinterrelatedratherthanasdiscretesystems,andascontinuouslyemergentratherthanstable.Themostthorough-goingelaborationofthisemergenceviewofmediationisofferedinJayBolterandRichardGrusin’sseminalRemediation:UnderstandingNewMedia(2000),whicharguesthateveryactofmediation(thatis,everyattempttodescribetheworld)isalwaysalreadyanactofremediation(thatis,are-workingofanearlierattempt,notnecessarilyusingthesametechnologies).Culturaldynamicsarethusdrivenbytheconstantlyrenewedefforttocreateagreatersenseofimmediacywiththehelpofnewtechniquesandrepresentationaltechnologies.Intheprocess,mediaarecontinuously‘commentingon,


of 35


reproducing,andreplacingeachother’sincethey‘needeachotherinordertofunctionasmediaatall’.27

(p.58) UptoapointthetheoryofremediationprovidesamodelfortheanalysisoftheproductiveremembranceofScott’sworkandthecomplexinterplaybetweenword,image,materialculture,andperformativepracticesthatitentailed.Thehistoryofhisafterlifeinothermediarunsparalleltothehistoryofmodernmediatechnologies:steelengravings,dioramas,photography,magiclanterns,and,fromthetwentiethcenturyon,film,radio,television,computergames.28Theemergenceofnewtechnologiesoverthedecadesseemsindeedtohavecontinuouslystimulatedfreshadaptationsbyprovidingnewpossibilitiesforrevivifyingthestory.BolterandGrusinlinkremediationexclusively,however,tothedesiretoproducenewsensationsandtheyviewculturalhistoryasanasymptotic,ever-renewedgravitationtowardstheproductionofimmediacywiththehelpoftechnology.Theevidencecollectedhereshows,however,thatremediationsofScottwerecaughtupincomplexwayswithrememberingratherthanoverwritingearlierstories;whiletheyfedintoadesireforthesensationofimmediacy(andthismakesthemhighlymodern),theydidsowhileevokingthememoryofastorytoldinanothermedium.Immediacyandrecollectionworkedtogetheror,toputthisinmedia-theoreticalterms,remediationworkedtogetherwithpremediation:theshapingforceofanearliernarrativeonnewproductions.29Productiveremembranceneedstobeseenascaughtupbetweentheoldandthenew,andboundupwiththedesiretoappropriatetheoldinsuchawayastomakeitfitintocontemporaryinterests.

Inwhatfollows,IdescribesomeofthiscomplexitybyexaminingadaptationsofScott’sworkinoneparticularmedium:thetheatre,where‘liveness’wasboundupwiththerecyclingofstories,paintings,andotherexpressions.Itwasalsothemostpopular,ifmostephemeralplatformwhenitcametoremediationsofScott’sworksinthenineteenthcentury.Howdidperformance(theuniqueimmediacyofthingshappeninginthehereandnow)connecttotheremembranceofthingsreadorheardelsewhere?Iarguethatthelivenessoftheatreprovidedaplatformforperformingidentityandmemoryinanon-historicizingmode.

StagingScottAspartofageneralperformativeturninthehumanities,theatricalityandthepopulartheatrehaverecentlycomeintocriticalfocusaskeyelementsofnineteenth-centuryculturallifeinGreatBritain.30Withinthisframework,theafterlifeofScott’sworkmustbesoughtnotonlyinreading,butalsoonthestagewhereithadasalientroleintheninety-oddyearsbetweenthepublicationofWaverleyandthefirstfeaturefilmsofthe(p.59)1910s.31Thetheatreplayedanimportantroleindisseminatingnovelisticworksamongurbangroupswho,becauseoflimitationsineducationorincome,wouldotherwisehavehadlittleaccesstothem.InsomecasesthetheatricalscriptswerethemselvesthebasisfornewchapbookeditionsoftheWaverleynovels,whichfurtherextendedtheirsocialreach.32Thedramatizationsalsogeneratedthepublicationof‘Musicalillustrations’tothenovelsonaparwiththecompilationsoflandscapedrawings.33Forthosetheatreaudienceswhohadnotactuallyreadthenovelsinquestion,butknewthembyreputation


of 35


aspartofwhatElliscalls‘generalculturalmemory’,34watchingtheplayswasasubstituteforreadingand,astheplaybillsoftensuggested,awayofputtingastoryindramaticformtothenameofafamousbook.Forthosegroupswhohadaccessbothtothenovelsandtothetheatre,thelattercouldservetorecalltheoriginalthroughthelensesofthedrama,withallthesensualimmediacyofaliveperformance,somethingthatduringthebestpartofthecenturywaslikelytobeafairlynoisyandcrowdedaffair.35

Inviewoftheimportantroleattributedtonewspapersandnovelsingeneratingimaginedcommunitiesinthenineteenthcentury,thefactthatthetheatreprovidedacontinuingforumforface-to-facecontactswithinanurbansettingissometimesoverlooked.DavidWorrallhasshownwithrespecttotheGeorgianerathatthetheatresprovidedanimportantplatformforsociability,givingrisetosubculturalnetworkswithinthelargercitiesthat,insomecases,workedasanalternativepublicsphere.36Inanagewhentelevisionhadnotyetbeenimaginedandpanoramasordioramaswerethebestalternative,theatresalsoofferedaplatformforre-enactingeventsfromrecenthistoryinthemodeofgrandspectacle:thusthecoronationceremonyofGeorgeIVinWestminsterAbbeyin1820wasre-enactedintableauformeverynightonaweeklybasisjustassomeoftheseabattlesagainstNapoleon’sforceswerereplayedonstage‘withrealMenofWarandFloatingBatteries’.Scott’sownfuneralwouldbetransposedtothestageintheformofafunerarymasquein1832.Thestepfromthetheatricalstagetothestagingofpubliclifewasasmallone.

Thatbeingsaid,thevalueoftheatricalversionsofcontemporaryeventsseemstohavelainnotintheirnewsvalueassuch,butintheircharacterasaspectacletobeenjoyedcollectivelyasasensualexperienceand,asoneadvertisementputit,toproduce‘anunprecedentedclimaxofastonishmentandapplause’.37InadvanceofthegreatspectaclesoftheVictorianAge(exemplifiedbytheGreatExhibitionof1851andtheCrystalPalace),thetheatrewasthevenueforcollectivelyshareddisplays,withliveperformanceinanimpressivesettingasimportantasthestorybeingrelated.38SostrongwasthevisualcomponentinoneScott(p.60) productionthatacriticcomplainedin1826thatintime,‘OldDrurywillbecalledtheDramorama.’39

ScottwasaveryactivesupporteroftheTheatreRoyalinEdinburgh,evenreputedtohavearousedScottishtheatre‘fromlethargyandstagnation’.40HealsoattendedproductionsoftheWaverleyplaysinvariouslocations,andwroteaboutthetheatre.Itisallthemoresurprising,then,givenhisimmensesuccessinsomanyotherfieldsfrompoetrytoantiquarianism,andthepresenceofsomanytheatricalelementsinhisfiction,thathehadlittletalentorinclinationforplay‐writing.41Hisimaginationwasapparentlymoresuitedtothelooserformoftheromancethantotherigoursimposedbyabriefperformance,andtowritingratherthanperformanceassuch.TheclosesthecametotheatricalsuccesswashisorchestrationofGeorgeIV’sspectacularvisittoEdinburghin1822,whichhasbeendescribedasanadaptationtothetheatreofpubliclifeofthestoryofWaverley.Withlavishdisplaysoftartanthatextendedeventothepersonoftheking,thedistinctivenessofScottishculturewascelebratedhyperbolicallyevenasthepoliticalunionwithEnglandwasbeingactedoutagain.42AstheRoyalVisitillustrates,andasI


of 35


shallshowinmoredetailinChapters4and6,thetheatreandpubliclifewerecloselyinterlinkedinacenturywhenpublicprocessionsandmassmeetingsweremoreregularoccurrencesthanhasbeentraditionallyrecognized.

IfScotthimselfwasnoplaywright,hisoeuvretriggeredastaggeringamountoftheatricalproductions,includingthemanyversionsofTheHeartofMid-Lothianmentionedearlier.From1816on,whenDanielTerrystagedaversionofGuyMannering,almostalltheWaverleynovelswereputonstagewithinmonthsofbeingpublished.Wheneveranewnovelseemedimminent,dramatistsjostledtogetholdofthemanuscriptoradvancecopiesofthebooksoastoscoreapremière(indeed,ScottisknowntohavehelpedhisfriendTerryinthisway).43Whileitbecamequitecommontodramatizefictioninthenineteenthcentury(novelsbyDickensandtheBrontës,forexample,alsomadeitveryquicklytothestage),thesheernumberoftheatricalproductionsinspiredbyScotthasbeensurpassedonlybyproductionsofShakespeare.44InScottDramatized(1992),H.PhilipBoltonprovidesevidenceformorethanfourthousandtheatricalproductionsderivedfromScott’sworksinthecourseofthenineteenthcenturyinGreatBritainandNorthAmerica,someofwhichhavebeenmentionedinChapter1;BarbaraBellhasanalysedmorethanfivethousandScottplaybillsrelatingtoproductionsinScotlandalone.45Thecrestofthattheatricaltsunamifollowedontheinitialpublicationofthenovelsandlastedthroughoutthe1820sand1830s.Butevenwiththeebbingofthistide,Scottplayscontinuedtobeperformedforthebestpartofahundredyears,albeitmoreselectively:therewereseveralnewscripts(p.61) andlibrettiproduceduptothe1890sandasmallerpeakinproductionsinthe1870s,presumablyaspartoftherenewedattentiontoScottasaculturalmonumentontheoccasionofhiscentenary.46Inthetwentiethcentury,cinemaandtelevision(andtoalesserextent,radio)tookoverasaforum,thoughtheydidso,asweshallseelater,withreferencetoanevermorereducedrepertoire.Thisvastbodyoftheatricalactivityhasbeencharted,butwithacoupleofexceptions,notyetstudiedinmuchdepth.

Themultimedialcharacterofthestageperformancesisindicatedbytheubiquitoususeof‘melodrama’,‘musicaldrama’,‘musicalplay’,‘romanticopera’,and‘operaticromance’inthesubtitlesoftheScottadaptations.Theproliferationoftermsisalsosymptomaticofthediversity,bothsocialandartistic,ofthetheatricalproductionsoftheWaverleynovels.WhenScott’sfictionfirstappearedinprint,theonlytheatreslicensedbylawtoputonseriousdrama,i.e.basedonthespokenword,weretheso-calledlegitimateor‘patent’theatres(includingtheTheatreRoyalsatDruryLaneandCoventGarden).47ThisleftthemanyothertheatresemergingthroughoutGreatBritaintospecializeinperformanceswherethespokenwordwassubordinatedtootherformsoftheatricality.Inpracticethedivisionsbetweentheseriousandthepopulartheatreswerelessstrictthanthelawenvisagedandthansomemorehigh-mindedcritics,regrettingtheabsenceofathrivingliterarytheatre,wouldhaveliked.48ThecorpusofScottproductionsindicatesthatvaryingcombinationsofscript,music,andspectacleoccurredacrosstheboard,bothinthepopularandinthelegitimatetheatres(alegaldistinctionthatwasdroppedin1843).49TheScottdramatizationsweresoinfluentialinthelongterm,accordingtoBarbaraBell,becausetheyhelpedgivethenon-patentedtheatresa‘respectable,semi-legitimate’


of 35


repertoirethatwasbasedinliterature.50AswehavealreadyseeninthecaseofTheHeartofMid-Lothianthetheatricalproductionswereoftentheoccasionfortie-insintheformofchapbookversionsofthestories.HeretooweseehowtheWaverleyphenomenonoperatedinatranslationzoneattheinterfacebetween‘high’and‘low’culture.

Withvaryingdegreesofemphasis,musicwasakeycomponentoftheatricalproductionsinthe1820saswerethespectacularsettings,thelattermorphingintothesensationalistaestheticsofhighVictorianmelodramaaswellasintograndopera.InhisclassicstudyTheMelodramaticImagination(1985),PeterBrooksarguedthata‘modeofexcess’,arisingfromthenon-verbalaestheticsoftheillegitimatetheatres,penetratedallwalksoftheatricalandliterarylifethroughoutthenineteenthcentury,andcutacrossdistinctionsbetweentheseriousandthepopular.51WhiletheaestheticsdescribedbyBrooksdefinedthebasictheatricallanguageoftheScottdramatizations,oneshouldbewaryoflumpingallproductions(p.62) togethersincetheyserveddifferentgroupsoftheatre-goers.Therewasalsoconsiderablegenericrange:‘international’operaintheItalianstyle,spectacularmelodramawithhugeproductionvalues,sensationalistmelodramainVictorianstyle,andcircus-likeactswithliveanimals(asinAstley’sAmphitheatre,whichwasinoperationfromthelateeighteenthcenturyupto1895).Symptomaticoftheirpositionbetweenaliterarycultureincreasinglyprotectedbycopyrightandapopularcultureservingagrowingurbanpopulationwasthefactthatthesevariousdramaticversionswereregularly(re)composedonacut-and-pastemethodfromearlierplays,stories,andmusicalevents,formingcompositionalmedleyswhoseauthorshipwasmultipleandoftenanonymous.52TherearesometwohundredandfiftypublishedScottscriptsextant,alongwithmanysongbooksderivedfromthetheatricalproductions.53Therewereprobablyotherunpublishedversionsbutthesecannolongerbetracedsincetherecordsofperformancedonotalwaysindicatethenameoftheplaywright.

IntrackingScott’simmenseandlong-lastingripplesintotheworldoftheatre,Ihavebeenfortunate,asmentionedearlier,inbeingabletodrawonthetreasure-troveofinformationofferedinBolton’sScottDramatized.IhavealsobenefitedfromJeromeMitchell’sWalterScottOperas(1977)andMoreWalterScottOperas(1996),whoseaccumulativetitlesalreadyspeakvolumesabouttheproliferationinvolved(arguablybecauseoftheirassociationwithclassicalmusicandhighculture,theScottoperashavebeenstudiedinmoredetailthantheplays).54MitchellhasidentifiednofewerthanninetyoperasinspiredbyScott,someofwhichwerekeyincirculatingScott’sstoriesacrossEurope:TheLadyoftheLakeisbynowbestknowninternationallythroughthemediationofRossini’sDonnadelLago(1819),whileTheBrideofLammermoorisrememberedthroughDonizetti’sLucia(1835),astapleofthemoderninternationaloperaticrepertoire.Versionsinwhichclassicalmusicwasnotthedominantmode(i.e.thevastmajorityoftheScottplaysthataremyfocushere)wouldseemtohavebeenlargelyconfinedtotheEnglish-speakingworld.55Conversely,theoperaticversionsbyRossini,Donizetti,andotherEuropeanswerelesswidespreadinEnglandthantheotherdramaticformsand,asChristinaFuhrmanhasshowninarecentarticlecalled‘ScottRepatriated’,weregreetedwithsomereticenceinLondonasEuropeanappropriationsofwhathad


of 35


cometobeseenasdistinctlyBritishheritage.56

Particularlyinthe1820sand1830sitwasnotuncommonforvariousWaverleyplaystobeofferedinBritishtheatressidebysideaspartofaneveningprogramme;forexample,patronsoftheTheatreRoyalinGlasgowweretreatedtobothTheHeartofMid-LothianandRobRoyon30December1826whilepatronsoftheTheatreRoyalinEdinburghwereofferedadoublebillofWaverleyandTheHeartofMid-Lothianon(p.63) 23February1830.57Norwasituncommonfortwoversionsofthesameplaytorunconcurrentlyatdifferenttheatres—inMarch1825citizensinEdinburghcouldchoosebetweentwoversionsofRobRoy,oneattheTheatreRoyal,theotherattheCaledonian;aslateasFebruary1863,patronsinLondoncouldchoosebetweentwoHeartsofMid-Lothian:DionBoucicault’sTheTrialofEffieDeans;or,theHeartofMidlothianatAstley’sTheatreRoyaland,acrosstheriverattheSurreyTheatre,ananonymousEffieDeans:or,TheLilyofSt.Leonard’s.58Givenallthesedifferentversionsmultipliedbythenumberofproductionsandperformancesatmultiplelocations,itisdifficulttoassessthescaleoftheseactivitiesandtheirsocialpenetration.Buteventhemostconservativeestimatespointtoamajorculturalphenomenonthat,withonlyacoupleofnotableexceptions,hasbeenallowedtopassundertheradarscreenofliterarycriticsandevenoftheatrehistorians,itsexistencenoted,ifatall,asacuriousformofculturalpathology.59

ForsometheatregoerstheplaysmayhavebeenthefirstoronlyencounterwiththeWaverleynovels,thoughthereisincidentalevidenceshowingthatsomepeopleattendedmorethanonestageversionofthesameplayorwentbacktoseethesameproductiontwice.WilliamHazlitt,forexample,attendedthetwoversionsofIvanhoerunningconcurrentlyatDruryLaneandCoventGardenin1820andwroteupacomparativeanalysisfortheLondonMagazineinwhichheintimatedhisdesiretogobackandseetheDruryLaneproduction.60OneenthusiastcomplainedofaGlasgowproductionofRobRoyin1840that‘althoughwehaveseenit[RobRoy]playedabovetwohundredtimes,includinginitscastsallsortsofpersons,fromMacreadytoMumford,an[sic]inallsortsofplaces—theatre,barn,andbooth,weneversawitmorewretchedlyperformed.’61Thewordingsuggeststhatthispatron’sdisgruntlementwaswiththequalityoftheperformanceratherthanwiththefactitwastheumpteenthproductionofRobRoythathehadattended.Afterall,newproductionsandliveperformancesmeantthattheplaywascontinuouslybeingrenewedincontrasttothemorefixedformofbooksandfilms.

TheplaybillsadvertisingsuchproductionsregularlyinvokedScott’sreputation,withreferencestothe‘celebrated’authororthe‘celebrated’novel.Itwasquitecommon,however,fortheperformancetobepresentedwithoutanyexplicitreferencetoScottwhileassumingthatthepublicknewtheyweredealingwithanewversionofanoldstory.VeryquicklyScott’sstoriesseemtohaveacquiredthestatusofcollectivetextsandtreatedascommonproperty,althoughinthiscasetheyalsoretainedtheirassociationwiththepseudo-anonymous‘authorofWaverley’.AsIsaacPocockwrotein1820intheprefacetotheprintededitionofhisversionofRobRoy,hiscontemporariesexpectedfidelitytothenovelandtothe(p.64) ‘nameofWalterScott’—adirect,butnotuniquereferencetoScotthimselfthatisallthemorestrikinginviewofthefactthathehadnot


of 35


officiallydeclaredhisauthorship:

thewholeofthenovel-readingworld,inwhichisincludedninetenthsoftheaudience,comewiththeromanceattheirfingers’ends,andexpecttofindaliteraltranscriptofitonthestage;thewholethreevolumes,theusualquantuminwhichthesepopularworksaredoledout,mustbespokenandactedinthreebriefhours,oratleastwithoutanymaterialdeviations.Anyaberrationfromthedirectbroadroadofromance,isconsideredahighcrimeandmisdemeanouragainstthenameofWalterScott.62

Playbillsfromthelate1810sonseemedalsotosupposearoughknowledgeofthemainoutlinesofthestorysincetheyunhesitatinglyrevealedtheoutcomeofthedramaandregularlyenumeratedthevariousscenesthatthepubliccouldlookforwardtoenjoyingalongwiththemusicalinterludes.Thepleasureonofferapparentlylay,then,inthefreshre-enactmentofsomethingthatwasalreadyknownratherthanintheunfoldingofsomethingunpredictable.Thisisborneoutbythefactthatcritics—andjudgingbythepassagejustquotedabove,theaudiences—usuallyevaluatedthesuccessoftheproductionintermsofitsfidelityorlackofitwithrespecttotheoriginalnoveland,astimepassed,alsowithrespecttoearlierproductions.OnlyonrareoccasionsdidWaverleyplaywrightsbreaksofreefromthememoryoftheoriginalastobeevaluatedontheirownmeritsasautonomousdramas.ThisdidhappenagenerationafterthefirstadaptationsinthecaseofBoucicault’sTheTrialofEffieDeans(1863),whichreducedthewholeofScott’sramblingnoveltoacourtroomdrama.63TheLondonTimespraisedtheplaywrightforhaving‘endeavouredtoconstructadramathatwillcreateaninterestindependentofitsconnexionwiththenovel’incontrasttotheotherversionattheSurreyTheatre,runningatthesametime,whichwasbothmorefaithfultotheoriginalandmorespectacularinitsappeal.64WhilethereviewerfromtheTimes,perhapssufferingfromaspotofWaverleyfatigue,implicitlypreferredBoucicault’sinnovationstohisrival’sfidelitytothememoryofScott,thecrowdattheSurreyseemstohavehadnosuchdesiretochangeawinninghorse.Havingbeentreatedtoascaffoldonstagealongwith‘ahugecataractofrealwater,whichfallsfromnearlythetopofthestageandreallybreaksagainstthecraggyrocksatthebottom’,the‘massofhumanitythatcrowdedeverypartofthetheatreburstoutintoanuproariousdemonstrationofsatisfactionattheterminationofthedrama.’65

SofarI’vebeenreferringtotheWaverleynovelsasiftheywereuniformlyprocreativeinthetheatre.Buttherewereimportantdifferencesbetweenthemandtheseareworthconsideringasindicationsofthewayin(p.65) whichthetheatricalmediumfiltered,channelled,andpromotedmemories.Boltonshowsthatfivenovelsinparticular—RobRoy,GuyMannering,TheBrideofLammermoor,TheHeartofMid-Lothian,andIvanhoe—inspiredalmosttwo-thirdsoftheWaverleyproductions,withmorethanhalfaccountedforbyRobRoyandGuyManneringalone.Thepopularitypresumablyalsoworkedaccumulatively,withsuccessbreedingsuccessandlaterproductionsmixingandmatchingthesuccessfulfeaturesofearlierones.Forreasonsthathaveyettobecomeclearsomeworksfelloutofthepicturewhileothers,likeGuyMannering,enjoyedan


of 35


intenseafterlifeonthestagebutnotelsewhere.Ishallcomebacktosomepossibleexplanationslater.SufficeitheretorecallthatthefirstnoveltofallbythetheatricalwaysidewasWaverleyitself.Despitethesymbolicimportanceofthename,Waverley(1814)generatedfewpaintings,ashasbeennotedalready,anditonlygaverisetothreedozenorsotheatricalproductions,beginningin1822(thatis,aftertheothernovelshadbeendramatized)andendinginthe1870s.Itgeneratedjustoneoperaticversion,Holstein’sHochländer(1876),whichledatenuouslifeuntilitslastrevivalin1900.66Unlikeotherworks,moreover,Waverleydidnotevenenjoythehonourofbeingparodied.Mostsurprisingofall,therehasneverbeenaproductionofWaverleyinfilmortelevision(nor,asfarasIhavebeenabletoestablish,onradio).67Despitethefactthatitgaveitsnametostreetsacrosstheglobe,asmentionedearlier,andbecametheiconofWalterScottandallhisworks,thestoryofWaverleynevercrossedoverintodrama.Thismayhavebeenbecausethenovelwasthefirstoneanddifficulttoadapttothestage;butsincethelatterdidn’tstopplaywrightsinothercases,itseemsmoreplausibletolooktothefactthatitarrivedtoosoontoridethedramatizingwaveandwassoquicklyovertakenbyGuyMannering(1815)andRobRoy(1817)thatitwaslesssubjecttoremembranceinitsownright.68Theafterlifeofeachworkfolloweditsowntrajectory.

Ananalysisofallthismaterialwouldtakealifetime.Ihaveoptedtoconcentrateinsteadinwhatfollowsonthedramatizationsofthemostpopularofalltheplays,RobRoy.TheintensitywithwhichitwasproducedoverandoveragainuptoWorldWarI,especiallyintheScottishtheatres,offersauniqueperspectiveontheculturalresonanceofWalterScottandakeyto‘live’theatreasamediumofculturalremembrance.

RobRoyOnthelasteveningofhisvisittoEdinburgh,KingGeorgeIVattendedaperformanceattheTheatreRoyalofRobRoy;or,AuldLangsyne;National(p.66) Opera.69Awetnightitwasandaverycrowdedtheatre,asJamesDibdinrecalledtheoccasioninhisAnnalsoftheEdinburghStage:

Insidethehousethecrushwasintense,whilemattersweremadeinfinitelyworsebythecloudofsteamthatascendedfromthesaturatedgarmentsofthosepresent.Goodhumour,however,prevailed,andScotchsongsweresunginchorustopassthetimeawayuntilthearrival,about7.30oftheboxoccupants.70

Whenthekingarrivedandthecurtainrose,thechorusofScottishsongsturnedintoanenthusiasticsinging(conamore,asDibdinputit)of‘GodSavetheKing’.ThatitshouldhavebeenRobRoyaboveallthatwasusedonsuchapoliticallysensitiveoccasionisindicativebothofitspopularityandofthestatusithadacquiredasaspecifically‘national’opera.Thisstatuswouldbemaintainedforalongtime:acenturylaterin1962,whentheKingofNorwaycameonastatevisittoEdinburghinthecompanyoftheBritishRoyalFamily,itwasagainRobRoythatwasputonfortheirmajesticbenefit.71Althoughbythattimeneithertheplaynorthetheatreenjoyedthesamepopularityasin1822,itwasapparentlyfeltappropriatetoperformRobRoyonceagain,notasamatterofcurrentfashionortaste,butratheraspartofaself-reflexivetraditionofperformingScottishnessand‘conveying’itathomeandtotheoutsideworld.72


of 35


AlthoughtherearerelativelyfewvisualizationsofthenovelRobRoyextant,thereisnodoubtbutthatitdominatedthestage,especiallyinScotland.73Betweenitsfirststageappearanceinearly1818andthemostrecentonein1990,thestoryoftheeighteenth-centuryScottishoutlaw,whosecareerwasembroiledinbothmoderneconomiclifeandJacobiterebellion,hasbeenproducedalmostonethousandtimes.74Thehundredsofprogrammebillsextant,advertisingbothnewproductionsandrevivalsofoldones,ofteninvokedthe‘popularnovel’,the‘verypopularnovel’,orthe‘highly-admirednovel’onwhichtheplaywasbased(‘foundedonthepopularnovelofRobRoy’;‘foundedonthehighlyesteemedworkofthelateSirWalterScott’).75Whilethememoryofthenovelanditsauthorwasregularlyinvokedwithvariousdegreesofsolemnity,thenameofthedramatistwasonlyseldommentioned.Butitseemsprobablethatthevastmajorityoftheseanonymousversionswerebasedonasingleversion:IsaacPocock’sRobRoyMacGregor;or,AuldLangSyne!Amusicaldrama,inthreeacts,foundedonthepopularnovelofRobRoy,firstperformedattheTheatre-Royal,Covent-Garden,Thursday,March12,1818(London:JohnMiller,1818).

Inarareappearance,Pocockturnedupinan1879advertisementforaRobRoy‘dramatizedbyIsaacPocockwiththeconsentandapprovalofSIRWALTERSCOTT’.76ThereisnoevidencethatthisversionhadbeenofficiallyendorsedbyScott,astheplaybillclaimed,buttheinvoca(p.67)

Figure2.2: PlaybillRobRoy,TheatreRoyal(1821).


of 35


tionoftheGreatMan’sauthorityimpliesthatPocock’sversionwasseenassomehowthe‘official’orcanonicalone.ThefactthatPocock’sscriptwasoftenrepublished(therewereeighteditionsupto1864)isalsoindicativeofitspopularityasthebasisfornewproductions.77Therewasnootherobviousrival,theonlyotherpublishedversionsbeingGeorgeSoane’sRob(p.68) Roy:ADramainThreeActs(1818)andtheburlesqueRobbingRoy;or,ScotchedandKilt(1879),neitherofwhichwasproducedveryoften.ButthemostimportantindicationofPocock’sinfluenceisinthetitlesgiventothemanyproductionswhich,byandlarge,carryavariationonhissubtitlewiththetell-taleinclusionofAuldLangSyne.

WhatmadePocock'splaystickinthepublic'smind?ScotthadprovidedaportraitofcommerciallifeinGlasgowthatwasrecognizabletoamiddle-classpublic,whileatthesametimehetappedintoavibrantinterestinRobRoyamongthepublicatlarge;hispublishershadalsowhettedtheappetitesofthepublicbyre-circulatingsomeofthefamiliarlegendsinadvanceofthenovel’sappearance.78RobRoy,beforeeverhebecamethefigureheadofScott’snovel,wassomethingofacelebrityandhad,amongotherthings,givenhisnametoaplaystagedinDurhamasrecentlyas1810.79ThisinterestinRobRoywasitselfalsopartofacertainvogueforoutlawfiguresinthepopularcultureofthetime;witnesstherenewedinterestinthefigureofRobinHood,whoseubiquityinthisperiodhasbeenwellmapped(indeedStephenKnighthassuggestedthattheappearanceofScott’sRobRoymayinturnhaveinspiredanothernovelcalledRobinHood,whichappearedin1819).80Thatthetwooutlawswerelinkedinthepopularimagination—oneworkingasanavatarfortheotheraroundabasicnarrativeofresistance—isborneoutbyWilliamWordsworth’spoem‘RobRoy’sGrave’(1803),whichpredatesScott’snovelbyadecadeandbeginswithacomparisonbetweenthetwomen:‘AfamousmanisRobinHood|theEnglishballad-singer’sjoy!|AndScotlandhasathiefasgood|Anoutlawofasdaringmood;|ShehasherbraveROBROY!’Scott’snovelhadresonatedwiththesedeep-seatedstoriesofbanditry—whatmightbecalledthepopularmemoryofbandits—whilegivingthemarenewedandculturallylegitimateimpulse.Reflectingthisinterplaybetweenliterarycultureandpopularmemory,thenovelanditstheatricalversionstogethergeneratednewspin-offsintheformofchapbooksandballads.81

SincePocockstuckquiteclosetothenovel(andrelativetootherWaverleydramatizations,heusedextensivedialogue)hisplaydrewitsimaginativeappealfromScott’soriginalexplorationoftheinterfacebetweentheworldsofGlasgow,London,andtheHighlands.Uptoapoint,then,hissuccesswasmerelyamatterofhisridingonthecrestofthenovel’ssuccess,inheritingtheimaginativepowerofthenovelalongwithitsdeeperrootsinpopularmemory.Inadaptingthenovel,Pocockalsodemonstratedconsiderableskillasaplaywright.HesucceededintransposingScott’slengthyandunwieldyromanceintotheconfinesofathree-actdramawithoutdeviatingonanymajorpointsfromtheoriginal(thisagainin(p.69) contrasttoGeorgeSoane’sversion,whichhadappearedalmostsimultaneouslyin1818butwasdeemedtohavesofardeviatedfromthe‘popularnovel’astohavemadethelatterunrecognizable).82PocockreducedthenumberofcharacterswhilegivingaprominentplacetothecomiconesalongsideRob


of 35


Roy;hecondensedcertainincidentsintheplot,channelledtheactorstowardsthesamelocations,andbeganinmediasreswhenRashleighOsbaldistonehadalreadyengineeredthedownfallofthefamilyfirm.ThebroadlinesoftheplotareneverthelessmaintainedandindeedsomeofitsinconsistenciesareironedoutwithonlyafewofScott’smanythreadsleftdangling.Giventhelimitationsofthedramaticmediumthiswasitselfsomethingofanachievement,aswasthecolourfuldialogue,whichallowedroomforsomegreatcharacter-acting,particularlyintheroleoftheBailieNicolJarvie.Thiswastobecomesomethingofafamousset-pieceforactorCharlesMackay(theoriginofthe‘RealMcKay’,accordingtoBolton)ofwhoseperformancesitwassaid:‘itisnotacting,itisreality.’83

Beyonditsqualitiesasaplayandtheeffectiveacting,whatseemstohaveclinchedthesuccessofPocock’sversionwasitsmusic.ThehistoryofthemanystageproductionsofRobRoyisaboveallahistoryofthesongsthataccompaniedit.Itwas,asthesubtitleputit,a‘musicaldrama’—literally,amelodrama.Themelodramaticinthiscase,however,waslessamatterofBrooks’‘aestheticsofexcess’andtheabundantuseofpathetictableaux,thanitwasamatterofembeddingmusicalinterludesinthenarrative.Insomelaterproductionsindeedthegenericlabelshiftedto‘operaticdrama’,‘musicalplay’,andeven‘opera’.84Fromthewordgo,songswereinsertedintothescript,manyofwhichhadbeencomposedfromwell-knownpoemsandsettotraditionalScottishairsbyJohnDavyandHenryBishop.Thelyricswereonlytangentiallyconnectedtothenarrative,butthiswasnotacompositionalproblemwithinatheatricalframeworkthataccommodatedmedleysand‘variety’moreeasilythanalongandcontinuousscript.TheAuldLangSynethatwassuchafixedfeatureintheplays’titlesreferredofcoursetoBurns’song,whichalreadythematizedtheinjunctiontoremember(andspecificallytocollectivelyrememberthismoment):‘Shouldauldacquaintancebeforgot,andneverbroughttomind?’RepeatedfromoneproductiontothenextBurns’AuldLangSynebecameasignaturesongfortheplayitself—indeed,BoltonarguesthattheculturallongevityofthesongthathassincebecomeafixedfeatureofNewYear’scelebrationsintheEnglish-speakingworldwasgeneratedbythesuccessoftheRobRoyplay.85

Thevariousproductionswerebuiltuparoundafixedrepertoireofsongsthatincluded,alongwithAuldLangSyne,MyLoveislikeaRed,RedRose(alsofromBurns),andAFamousManwasRobinHood(basedonthe(p.70) poembyWordsworth).These,togetherwiththeopeningsongSoontheSunwillGaetoRestandtheclosingsongPardonNowtheBoldOutlawwereregularfeaturesinproductions—adegreeof‘stickiness’thatissurprisinginviewofthecut-and-pasteaestheticsevidencedinmanyoftheotherWaverleyplayswherescriptstendedtobecontinuouslymodifiedfromoneproductiontothenext.InthecaseofRobRoy,thefixeditemsonthemusicalmenuwereregularlysupplementedbyothersongs,usuallyselectedfromarepertoireoftraditionalScotsairsorfromotherWaverleyplays(thoughitisinterestingtonotetheadditionofapopularIrishair—ThomasMoore’sMinstrelBoy—ataperformanceinDublinin1851).86Astheprogrammebillsindicate,eachproductionsolditselfineffectonthesongsithadonoffer:whereasinotherplays,thetableauxwereadvertised,inthecaseofRobRoyitwasaboveallthemusicalinterludesand,toalesserextent,thedancesandactorsthatwereimportant.87Thepublicwaspromisedbothaplayandamedleyoffamiliarsongs


of 35


thatwerealmostinvariablycodedasScottish.Byallaccounts,theperformanceshadsomethingofthecharacterofaconcert.Thedramatizationofthenovelprovidednotjustanoccasionforrevisitingapopularstory,butalsoanoccasionforactivatingotherformsofculturalheritageinothermedia,though‘evergreens’or‘favourites’maybeamoreappropriatewordherethanheritage.Boltonhassuggested,moreover,thattheinclusionoftraditionalballadsandairsofferedinparticularawayfordisplacedHighlandersnowworkingintheindustrializedcitiestoenjoyfamiliarmelodies,copiesofwhichweresometimessoldinthelobbies.88

Surprisingly,relativelylittleattentionhasbeenpaidinculturalmemorystudiestothemnemonicfunctionofmusicandtoauralityasaconnectorbetweenpastandpresent.89Buttheterm‘evergreen’itselfindicatesthatsingingisanimportantmediumofcollectivememory,onethatprovidesalivingand,indeed,embodiedconnectionbetweenthepastandthepresentthroughthevoicesoftheparticipants.Thememorabilityofsongs,likethatofthepoetryonwhichtheyareoftenbased,islessbasedonnarrativeandtherecollectionofpastevents,thanitisontheself-reflexivereiterationofsoundandwordpatterns.90Remarkably,manyofthesongsthatfiguredattheRobRoyperformanceswerebasedonpoemsbyBurns,Moore,Wordsworth,andScotthimself.Asiftodoublyensuretheirstickinesstheywerenowcombinedwithtraditionalmelodieswhosemusicresonatedinthehereandnowwiththedeepauralmemoryofthelisteners.(Ihavefoundnodirectevidenceofsing-alongsduringtheplaysthemselves,thoughenthusiasticfansareknowntohaveleftthetheatreinPerthin1818roaring‘RobRoyforever’andtheaudiencewaitingfortheroyalperformancein1822,aswehaveseen,passedthetimeincollectivesinging.91)

(p.71) ThecaseofRobRoysuggestsindeedthatmusicinthenineteenth-centurytheatreprovidedwhatPierreNorahascalledamilieudemémoire(memoryenvironment):arelationshiptothepastbasedonthecontinuityofrepetitionratherthanontheruptureimpliedinhistoricizingmodesofremembrancethatlookbacktothepastfromadistance.Repetitionandre-citationwouldcertainlyseemtobekeytotherevivalsofRobRoythroughoutthenineteenthcentury,wherethecharmofthesongslayintheirfamiliarityratherthanintheirnovelty,andinthe(nostalgic)presenceofthepastinthemusicalperformance.

InthecaseofRobRoy,moresothaninthecaseofGuyMannering,whichitresemblesinmanyotherrespects,thispleasureofreiterationtookonadistinctlynationalcharacter.Assuch,itbearsoutthegeneralpointmadebyMichaelRagussisinhisrecentTheatricalNation(2010),namely,thatthetheatreprovided‘unusuallyvivid(visualandaural)representationsofethnicandnationalidentities’andtherebyconstitutedalivecommunalenvironment‘inwhichthecommunitypubliclyinspectedandrespondedtotheserepresentationsandtooneanother.’92RagussisdoesnotexplicitlyrefertoadaptationsofRobRoy,buthisformulationisparticularlyapttodescribetheircharacter.Therepeatedinvocationoftheconceptofthenational(whichwehavealreadyencounteredinthecaseofTheHeartofMid-Lothian)indicatesthatperformancesoftheplaywerealsoperformancesofwhatitmeanttobeScottish.Indicativeinthisregardisthefactthat


of 35


ScottandBurns—theSiamesetwinsofScottishliterature—weresometimesmentionedsidebysideonthesameprogramme,inapotentcombinationwhichwewillbeencounteringagaininChapter6.93Whilethetitleofthefirstknownperformanceon17January1818simplyreferredtoRobRoy,theinfluenceofPocock’sversionensuredthatitbecamemoreandmorefrequentlysubtitledOr,AuldLangSyne.ThismemorycueforScottishnesslaterbecamewrittenintothetitleoftheplay,towhichwasthenaddedafurthersubtitledesignatingitsnationalcharacter.FromAugust1819,then,whenRobRoyMacGregor;or,AuldLangSyneattheTheatreRoyalinEdinburghwasannouncedasa‘nationalopera’,itbecamecommonfortheattribute‘national’tobeappliedinvariouscombinationstosubsequentproductions,includingtheoneattendedbyGeorgeIV.‘Nationaldrama’,‘nationalplay’,‘nationalmelodrama’,‘nationalopera’:theseallfeaturedatvariouspoints.94Theterm‘national’wasalsoextendedtoparticularfeaturesoftheproduction:in1849,forexample,aprogrammebillreferredtothe‘nationalair’ofAuldLangSynewhileanotherreferredtothe‘admirednationalpasseulofMissEyre’,andyetanotheradvertisedadancetothe‘nationalair’ofthe‘TheBlueBellsofScotland’.95Allthistalkof‘national’suggeststhatproductionsofRobRoywerebothawayofreiteratingnarrativeandsongs(p.72) andawayofperformingacollectiveidentityinapleasurableandconvivialform.AsBarbaraBellhasargued,theywerealsopartofanewawarenessofthedistinctivenessofScottishtheatre,withitsownkeyactors,decors,stories,thattheScottrepertoirehadhelpedgenerateasanobjectofprideandcultivation.96

AlloftheseingredientsarepresentintheaccountgivenbytheScotsmanon20February1819oftheopeningnightofPocock’splayinEdinburgh(attendedincidentallybyScotthimself,againrecognizedasitsprogenitor):

Hewhoiswithoutaffectionsdoesnotdeservethenameofman.ButhewhoisatonceamanandaScotsman,mustbedelightedwith‘RobRoyMacGregor,of[sic]AuldLangSyne.’…Whyshouldnotwebeproudofournationalgenius,humour,music,kindnessandfidelity?Whynotbenational?Wefoundourselvespre-eminentlysoonMondayevening.OurrecollectionofthenovelofRobRoy,andthealmostuniversalgeniusofitsauthor,withtheperfectconvictionthatheisaScotsman,andwasthenpresentinthetheatre,gavesufficientinteresttothismusicaldramaatthecommencement;andthemannerinwhichthedifferentpartswerecastandsupported,notonlypreservedittothelast,butmadeitgrowuponus,soastobecomeabsolutelyintoxicating.Soperfectwastheillusion,fromtheadmirablecombinationofscenery,costume,character,expressionandacting,that,inaword,wewere‘hurriedoffourfeet.’[emphasisAR]97

Asthisravereviewsuggests,‘beingnational’wasnotjustafeatureoftheproductionassuch.Itwasratherthecapacityofallthosepresenttobemovedatthesametime,indeed‘intoxicated’bythemultimedialcombinationofspectacle,music,acting,thememoryofthebook,andinthiscase,thephysicalpresenceofthewriter.‘National’wassomethingonecould‘pre-eminently’beofaMondayevening—inatheatre.In1784,FriedrichSchillerhadproposedthetheatrewasaplatformforcreatingnationalsolidaritythroughsharedexperience.98ThecaseofRobRoysuggeststhatthepopulartheatredidfulfilsucha


of 35


functioninthecaseofScotlandinthenineteenthcentury,albeitinamoredemoticandlessmoralizingformthanthatenvisagedbytheGermantheoristofthepublicsphere.Thetheatrewasaplacewherereadersandnon-readersalikecametogetherasapublicand‘conveyed’theirself-imageinthepresenceofeachother.

ItisnocoincidencethatthecelebrationofnationalityquotedaboveshouldhaveappearedintheScotsmansinceitwouldappearfromthehundredsofproductionslistedbyBoltonthattheepithet‘national’wasusedalmostexclusivelywithreferencetoproductionsinScotland(andtheseaccountforalargeproportionofthetotalnumberofRobRoys)whileitwasabsentatothervenues,wheretheterm‘Scotch’wasoftenused(p.73) insteadtodesignatethedistinctivenessoftheheritageondisplayinaforeignsetting.99ThisdifferenceindesignatingwhatwasessentiallythesameplayisstrikingespeciallysinceScott’sworksandtheirdramatizationswereincirculationthroughouttheBritishIsles.Butitisindicativeoftherelationalityofnationalidentitiesandoftheplay’scapacitytoarticulatedifferentpositionsonthetwoislandsbothfromwithina‘national’Scottishperspectiveandfromanoutsiderone.Acertainself-consciousmemorializationoftheplayitselfdevelopedinthecourseofalltheserepetitions,withfrequentreferencemadeintheplaybillstothe‘originalmusic’andtoitsstatusaspartofthenationalcanon.Thisstatuswasclinchedbyitsproductionforthebenefitofthevisitingmonarchin1822(afterwhichthesubtitle‘national’becamestandard)andfurtherreinforcedbyitsrevivalontheoccasionofthelavishcommemorationsofScott’scentenaryin1871,whichIwillbediscussingatgreaterlengthinChapter6.Ontheselateroccasions,theplayitselfwasnotjustperformedinallitsimmediacy,butapieceoftheatrico-nationalhistorywasalsoliterallyre-enacted.

Reflectingtheperformativeturninthehumanitiesreferredtoearlier,increasingattentionhasbeenpaidinrecentyearstoperformativepractices,alongsidenarratives,intheproductionofculturalmemory.Reflectingthisshiftinperspective,commemorativeceremonieshavecometobeseenasperformativeinthesensethattheyinvolvemusic,spectacle,andsoon,butalsoperformativeinthelinguisticsensethattheymakethingshappen:inthiscase,theycreatecommunalitythroughanembodiedandself-reflexiveactofremembrancethatissharedataparticulartimeandplace.100Thischangeofperspectivehashighlightedtheimportanceofcommemorationsincreatingcommunitiesinthenineteenthcenturythatwereembodied(theyinvolvedpeoplebeingtogetherinthesameplaceandtime)ratherthanjust‘imagined’inBenedictAnderson’ssense(thatis,connectedthroughmedia).101InChapter6IwilldiscussthecommemorationsofScotthimselfingreaterdetail.HeremyconcernisratherwithextendingtheideaofperformativeremembrancetothetheatreandtothepleasuresofreiteratingRobRoyaspartofaself-reflexivecultivationofacollectivetext.BarbaraBellhasdescribedtheimpactinScotlandofthe‘nationaldramas’basedonScott’sworkintermsoftheirofferinga‘publicarena’inwhichpeoplecould‘asserttheirsharedculturalidentity’bywitnessingoverandagaintheirnationalheroesandheroinesinnationalcostumeandwithScottishaccents.102Whetherornottheaudienceactuallysharedacommonpast,theydidsharethecommonexperienceof‘beingnational’thankstothetheatre,atleastforthedurationoftheperformance.


of 35


(p.74) ItwouldbepushingtheargumenttoofartosuggestthatthetheatricalversionsofRobRoyconstitutedsomesortofcommemorativeritualinanystrictsense—thoughRoyalpresencesondifferentoccasionsdidgivetheperformanceofRobRoyinEdinburghofficialweightasaformalrecognitionofScottishculturalidentitywithinthepoliticalunion.Evenonlessaugustoccasions,however,performancesofRobRoyinScotlandappeartohavehadbothacommemorativecharacter(recallingthememoryofScott,RobRoy,popularsongs,Highlands)andaritualisticone(basedonrecitingandrepeating).ThecomplaintvoicedinTheEdinburghDramaticReviewinMarch1825about‘nationaldramas’totheeffectthattheywereloosecompilationsdependentonthememoryofthepublicunwittinglyarticulatedtheunderlyingprincipleatwork:

Thesenationaldramas,however,arenottobejudgedbystrictrules;theconnectionbetweenthedifferentscenesisextremelyloose;andthememoryoftheaudienceisrequiredasanadhesiveplaistertobindthemtogether.103

Withinthepleasurableframeworkofanevening’stheatre,thememoryofoutlawsanddepopulatedHighlandswereinvokedforthebenefitofurbanaudiences,manyofthemrecentemigrantstotheburgeoningScottishcities.Thepublic’spleasureand,onoccasion,theirpossiblynostalgic‘intoxication’withScottishness,torecallthereviewintheScotsman,waslinkedtotheirbeingabletoparticipateinaneventthatwasabsolutelyfamiliarandcherished(theplay,thesongs)andyetabsolutelyunique(theimmediacyoftheparticularperformance).ErnestRenanfamouslywrotethatthememoryofsufferingcanconnectpeoplemorethanthememoryofjoy,andasimilarperspectivehasinformedmuchrecentreflectiononcollectivememoryandidentity,withtraumaandsufferingbeingseenasthebasisofsolidarity.104Writtenandperformedinadifferentage,thecaseofRobRoyservesasareminderthatpleasuretoocanbebindingandthatrepetitioninthesingularmodeofaliveperformancecanitselfbeasourceofpleasure,albeitonethatmaybestructurallytingedwithnostalgiaagainstthebackgroundofchange.

RobRoy,Forever?Recenttheoriesofremediationemphasizethedrivetowardsnewexperiencesandnewsensations,JohnEllissuggestingthatadaptationsaimto‘effacethememory’oftheoriginaltextonwhichtheyarebased.ThetheatricalproductionsofRobRoythatIhavebeendiscussinghereemergedagainstthebackgroundofanincipientconsumeristculture,butneverthelessworkednotbyeffacingthememoryoftheoriginal,butbyreiterating(p.75) itwithintheimmediacyofasingularperformance.Assuch,thetheatresupplementedother‘long-distance’formsofculture,byprovidingaforumalongsidenovelsandnewspapersinwhichexperiencewassharedinanembodiedwaymorecharacteristicoforalsocietiesthanofthemedia-saturatedworldofScott.

BeforeroundingupthisdiscussionofScottinthetheatre,itshouldbepointedoutthattheatricalproductionsofRobRoydriedupabruptlyinthefirstdecadesofthetwentiethcentury,havinggraduallydeclinedintheprecedingdecades.WiththeexceptionofincidentaltheatricalproductionsinEdinburghin1922,1931,and1962,theculturalafterlifeofRobRoyinthetwentiethcenturyhasbeenonthescreenratherthanonthe


of 35


stage.LikemanyofScott’sotherworks,thenovelwasadaptedataveryearlystagetothemovieswiththeappearanceoffilmscalledRobRoyin1911(dir.ArthurVivian),1913(dir.HenryJ.Vernot),1922(dir.W.P.Kellino),1953(dir.MichaelFrench),and1995(dir.MichaelCatonJones),alongwithtwoBBCseriesfortelevisionin1961and1971.Thisdevelopmentanswerstotheclassicmodelofremediationwherebyeachnewtechnologyleadstoatransformationofoldstoriesintonewinterfaces.105The(diminished)afterlifeofRobRoyinthetwentiethcentury,likethatofotherScottstories,wasasmuchboundupwiththescreenaswithprint.

ApartfromrevivalsofsomeoftheScott-basedoperas,thetheatredidnotfiguremuchinthismorerecentafterlife.Certainlythesong-filledandthelivecharacteroftheeveningsinthetheatresofthe1800swasnotcarriedover,couldnotbecarriedover,intothesilentcinema.Thecinemawasinternationalinitsreach,ratherthanembodiedlocally,andthismeantthattheshifttofilmwasnotmerelyachangeofmedium,butalsoofsocialfunction.Itistellinginthisregardthatnoneofthetwentieth-centuryscreenversionsofRobRoyhaveeitherAuldLangSyneor‘national’intheirsubtitles.Thenewscreentechnologiesofferednewpossibilitiesforbringingtheeighteenthcenturytolife,buttheyalsodiminishedtheabilitytomobilizeaudiencesaroundaliveperformance.Canonicityinthiscasehadashelf-life:dramatizationsofRobRoy(withthesymbolicweightofScottbehindthem)hadasymbolic,social,andaestheticvalueinthenineteenthcenturythattheylargelyceasedtohaveinthetwentieth.

Thereisanothertwist:whiletheshifttoanewmediumcouldhavebeentakenasanopportunitytogobacktoScott’soriginalasamodel,itisstrikingthatthemoviesmadeinthetwentiethcenturyseemtohaveturnedinsteadtothefolktraditionsconcerningthehistoricalRobRoy.Althoughthe1911and1913filmsareunfortunatelynolongeravailableforviewing,thelistofdramatispersonaeindicatesafidelitytotheScott/Pocockscriptatleastasfarasthebasicnarrativeisconcerned.(p.76) W.P.Kellino’s1922versionisquitedifferent:noBaillie,noOsbaldistone,noDianaVernon,butinsteadthestoryofRobRoy’sfightattheheadofhisclanagainstinjusticeandthetyrannyoftheMarquisofMontrose.Inaconvolutedway,thefirstintertitleofthefilm,whichhashappilybeenpreservedintheBritishFilmInstitute,bothacknowledgesanddismissesScott’slegacy:‘ToScotland,nottoScott,didwegoforthefactsonwhichourstoryof“RobRoy”isbuilt.There,amidthemountainlochsandglens,naturemadepeaceandmanmadewar.’Evenasitpiggy-backedonScott’sreputation,theintertitleindicatesareturntothefolkloricrepresentationsofRobRoycirculatingpriortoScott’snovel,andonwhichScotthimselfhaddrawn.

Scott’snoveltogetherwithitsdramatizationsandvariousotherspin-offshelpedensurethatthememoryofRobRoyremainedalivethroughoutthenineteenthcentury.Evenwhenitwasnolongerassociatedwiththenovel,thisfigureofmemorycirculatedaspartofacollectivetextthatbelongedtoeveryonewhowantedtoappropriateitratherthantoasingleauthor.ThustheblockbusterHollywoodversionofRobRoy(1995),starringLiamNeeson,wasbasedmoreonthe1922filmversionthanonScott’soriginal,andhenceindirectlyreconnectedwiththefolklorictraditionthatScotthadhelpedrevivify.106


of 35


The1995filmwasatravestyofthememoryofScott’swork,butalsoitslegitimateoffspring.Ontheonehand,Scott’snovelwasauniqueworkofliteraturethatofferedanimaginativeandcomplexreconstructionofScottishlifeintheeighteenthcentury,morecomplexthananydramaticorfilmicversioncouldeverbe.Ontheotherhand,itdrewonfolklorictraditionswhichitreworkedand,inthislight,thelaterpopularversionsofRobRoyrepresentafittingoutcomeofatranslatiothatbeganwiththenovelist’sownsamplingoffolklore.ScotthadchosenthenameWaverley,itwillberecalled,becauseitwas‘uncontaminated’byanyassociations.Forthesamereason,hehadhesitatedin1817beforeconcedingtohispublisher’sproposalthatheuse‘RobRoy’forhislatestnovelbecauseitwasthenameofa‘realhero’:‘Nay’,answeredScott,‘neverletmehavetowriteuptoaname.YouwellknowthatIhavegenerallyadoptedatitlethattoldnothing.’107Scott’sstrategicinstinctsprovedcorrectasfarasthebrandingofhisworkwasconcerned:inthecaseofpopularremembranceofRobRoy,hisownnovelresonatedsowellwithotherversionsthatitwasultimatelyoverwrittenbythem.

AparallelstorycouldbetoldaboutthepersistenceofRobRoyasatextandaboutthepainstakingreconstructionofthe‘original’editionintheEdinburghEditionoftheWaverleyNovels(2008).Butbylookingonlyatthetextatitsmomentofgenesis,onemissesoutonitsrichafterlifeasanobjectoftransformationinothermediaanditsappropriationbyvarious(p.77) groups.Ithasbynowbecomesomethingofacommonplacethatalltraditionsareconstructed;thattheyarebasedontherepresentationofimaginedgenealogies.Thiscasesuggeststhecontrary:thattheremediationsofScott’sworkoverthecourseofwhatisnowalmosttwocenturiesconstituteacontinuoustradition,onethatisrealandnotjustimaginedalthoughitismadeupofnewstartsandnewdeparturesalongsidereiterations.Itrepresentsatraditionofinventionsratherthananinventionoftradition.Fromtheperspectiveofourunderstandingofculturalremembranceintheageofnewmediaandfastturnovers,thistraditionofinventionssuggestsanunderlyingconnectednessbetweengenerationsthatneedstobeseriouslyconsideredaspartofthefabricofmodernculture,despiteourhabitualrelianceonadiscourseofimminentobsolescence.

Culturalmemory,torecallJanAssmann’swords,amountstoacollectionof‘reusabletexts,images,andritualsspecific…whose“cultivation”servestostabilizeandconveythatsociety’sself-image.’InthecaseofRobRoycollectiveidentitieswere‘cultivated’throughthereiterationofthesamescriptinnewperformances.ThenextchapterswilladdressthecaseofIvanhoe,whichfollowedadifferenttrajectory:thescriptitselfwascontinuouslyrewritteninanattempttostabilizeasociety’sinherentlycontestedself-image.

Notes:

(1)Detailstakenfromentry2426;H.PhilipBolton,ScottDramatized(London:Mansell,1992),263.ReferencesaretothepopularcomposerHenryBishop(1786–1855)andthelandscapepainterAlexanderNasmyth(1758–1840).OntheimportanceofNasmyth’spaintingstothesuccessofTheHeartofMid-Lothianasaplay,seeJamesC.Dibdin,TheAnnalsoftheEdinburghStage;WithanAccountoftheRiseandProgressofDramatic


of 35


WritinginScotland(Edinburgh:RichardCameron,1888),294.ArecentstudyhasshowntheinfluenceofNasmyth’sscenesbothonthedramatizationsofthenovelandonlaterillustratededitions;RichardHill,PicturingScotlandthroughtheWaverleyNovels:WalterScottandtheOriginsoftheVictorianIllustratedNovel(London:Ashgate,2010),133–62.

(2)Onmediaconvergenceinthedigitalage,seeHenryJenkins,ConvergenceCulture:WhereOldandNewMediaCollide(NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,2006).Forawide-rangingreflectiononmedialconvergenceinthenineteenthcentury,seeMartinMeisel,Realizations:Narrative,Pictorial,andTheatricalArtsinNineteenth-CenturyEngland(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1983).

(3)DavidBrewer,TheAfterlifeofCharacter,1726–1825(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2005),97,100.

(4)JohnEllis,‘TheLiteraryAdaptation:AnIntroduction’,Screen23(1982),4.

(5)ThescarceresearchonScott’sreadership,whileadmittedlydealingwithasomewhatlaterperiod,suggestsaserialconsumptionpattern;thuslibraryrecordsforRichmond,Virginia,inthe1840sshowborrowersdevouringthenovelsinintenseandrapidsuccession;seeEmilyB.Todd,‘WalterScottandtheNineteenth-CenturyAmericanLiteraryMarketplace:AntebellumRichmondReadersandtheCollectedEditionsoftheWaverleyNovels’,PapersoftheBibliographicalSocietyofAmerica93(1999).ThereisevidencethatotherwritersalsotriedtoprofitfromtheappetitefornewWaverleynovelsbypublishingtheirownwritingsaspurportedlybythe‘authorofWaverley’.WiththankstoPaulKoopman,InowowntwoDutchnovelsallegedlybySirWalterScott:[WalterScott],AyméVerd:ofDeopstandderHugenooteninde16eeeuw:OnuitgegevenromanvanSirWalterScottnaardederdeFranscheuitgave,2vols(Gorinchem:A.VanderMast,1843);[WalterScott],Moredun.Eenverhaalvanomstreeks1210doorSirWalterScott:Voorafgegaandooreeneinleidingbehelzendedegeschiedenisvanhethandschrift.UithetEngelschvertaalddoorJ.B.Rietstap,2vols(Rotterdam:H.Nigh,1855).

(6)TheRussianFormalists,whosehyper-modernisttheorieshavebeensoinfluentialinliterarystudies,didmakeroomintheirmodelsofculturaldynamicsforaregularlyrecurring‘secondary’phaseinwhichlesscreativewriters(thevaluejudgementwasimplicit)imitatedandgavewidespreadcurrencytothetechniquesandthemesbroughtintoplaybythegreatinnovators.Seeforexample,JuriTynjanov,‘OnLiteraryEvolution’,inLadislawMatejkaetal.(eds),ReadingsinRussianPoetics:FormalistandStructuralistViews(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1978[1927]).Ontheaestheticsofmodernism,withitspredilectionfordefamiliarizationanditsdiscomfortwithmassculture,seeAndreasHuyssen,AftertheGreatDivide:Modernism,MassCulture,Postmodernism(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,1986).Thevalueattachedtonoveltyincriticismhasbeensuchthat,asMateiCalinescuhasobserved,evenourtheoriesofreadingarepremisedontheideathatthefirstdefamiliarizingencounterwithabookisdefining,andthatre-readingissomethingabnormalratherthanapleasureinitsownright;MateiCalinescu,Rereading(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1993).


of 35


(7)JuriLotmandistinguishedbetweenthe‘aestheticsofidentity’(dominantinEuropeancultureuntilRomanticism)andthe‘aestheticsofopposition’,whichhasbeendominanteversince;JuriLotman,TheStructureoftheArtisticText,trans.RonaldVroon(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichigan,1977[1970]).TheclassiccritiqueoforiginalityisRolandBarthes,‘Lamortdel’auteur’[1968],inLebruissementdelalangue(Paris:Seuil,1984).

(8)OnScotttie-insasamarketingstrategy,seeEmilyB.Todd,‘EstablishingRoutesforFictionintheUnitedStates’,BookHistory12(2009),119.

(9)LindaHutcheon,ATheoryofAdaptation(London:Routledge,2006).ThisworkformsalogicalcontinuationofHutcheon’slong-standingfascinationwith‘derivative’formsofliteratureandtheiraestheticvalue:LindaHutcheon,ATheoryofParody:TheTeachingsofTwentieth-CenturyArtForms(NewYork:Methuen,1985);LindaHutcheonandMarioJ.Valdés,‘Irony,Nostalgia,andthePostmodern:ADialogue’,Poligrafias3(1998–2000).Anothersurveyofrecentdiscussions,whichfocusedonre-workingasacriticalandaesthetictool,isprovidedbyJulieSanders,AdaptationandAppropriation(London:Routledge,2006).Aseminaltextforallrecentdiscussions,despiteitsbeinghamperedbytheexcessiveemphasisontypologizingcharacteristicofstructuralism,isGerardGenette,Palimpsestes:Lalittératureauseconddegré(Paris:Seuil,1982).

(10)ForanaccountoftheWaverleytextilesandfurnishings(withthankstoSimonWaegemakersforhavingdrawnmyattentiontoit),seeLourdesM.Font,‘FiveScenesfromaRomance:TheIdentificationofaNineteenth-CenturyPrintedCotton’,MetropolitanMuseumJournal22(1987).TheScott-inspiredfashions,includingchildren’s‘Highland’outfits,weretobeseeninAckermann’sRepositoryofArts,Literature,Fashion(London,1809–28);examplesreproducedinFont,p.123.FrescoesatBuckinghamPalaceweredecoratedwithScottillustrations;seeRichardD.Altick,PaintingsfromBooks:ArtandLiteratureinBritain1760–1900(Columbus:OhioStateUniversityPress,1985),430.Formoreinformationonthetableauxvivants,seeChapter4below.

(11)Alongsidethepopularityofcostumeballs,Scott’sinfluencealsoextendedtoparlourgames;forsomefascinatingexamples,seeNicolaJ.Watson,‘Scott'sAfterlives’,inFionaRobertson(ed.),TheEdinburghCompaniontoSirWalterScott(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,forthcoming).

(12)Ivanhoetablewareandtiles,designedbyThomasAllenaround1881,continuedtobeproducedbyWedgwooduptotheearlyyearsofthetwentiethcentury;http://www.replacements.com/museum/images/ivanhoe.jpg;TheWedgwoodMuseumonlinealsoincludesanIvanhoevasefrom1913;http://www.wedgwoodmuseum.org.uk/collections/search/title/ivanhoe.WiththankstoLynnMiller.

(13)Inmakingthispoint,IamdrawingonWilliamUricchio’sargumentthatmediaformshavelongprehistoriesandthatcinema,forexample,hadfirsttobeimaginedinothermedia;see‘Television’sFirstSeventy-FiveYears:TheInterpretiveFlexibilityofa


of 35


MediuminTransition’,inRobertKolker(ed.),TheOxfordHandbookofFilmandMediaStudies(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2008),286–305.

(14)QuotedinBethS.Wright,‘ “SeeingwiththePainter'sEye”:SirWalterScott'sChallengetoNineteenth-CenturyArt’,inMurrayPittock(ed.),TheReceptionofSirWalterScottinEurope(London:Continuum,2006).

(15)Thefullquoteruns:‘LordByronetWalterScott…ontdessiné,voussavezavecquelbonheuretquelleexactitude,touteslesscènesprincipalesdeleursromansetdeleurspoèmes.Chacunedeleurspagesestuntableauqu’onn’aqu’àreproduire’,inBethWright,‘WalterScottetlagravurefrançaise:Aproposdelacollectiondesestampes“scottesques”conservéeauDépartementdesestampes,Paris’,Nouvellesdel’estampe93(1987),6.

(16)WalterScott,Waverley;or,’TisSixtyYearsSince,ed.ClaireLamont(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1981),175–6.

(17)Hill,PicturingScotlandthroughtheWaverleyNovels.

(18)GeraldFinley,LandscapesofMemory:TurnerasIllustratorofScott(London:ScolarPress,1980);Hill,PicturingScotlandthroughtheWaverleyNovels;RichardMaxwell,‘WalterScott,HistoricalFiction,andtheGenesisoftheVictorianIllustratedBook’,inRichardMaxwell(ed.),TheVictorianIllustratedBook(Charlottesville:UniversityPressofVirginia,2002).

(19)TheWaverleyGalleryofthePrincipalFemaleCharactersinSirWalterScott'sRomances.Fromoriginalpaintingsbyeminentartists.EngravedunderthesuperintendenceofC.Heath(London:TiltandBogue,1841);GeorgeNewenhamWrightetal.,Landscape-HistoricalIllustrationsofScotlandandtheWaverleyNovels;fromDrawingsbyJ.M.W.Turner,ProfessorR.A.etc.,2vols(London:Fisher,Sons,1836–8).Manysuchcollectionsofengravings,oftenbasedonearlierpaintings,appearedfromthe1820son:TheBookofWaverleyGems:InaSeriesofEngravedIllustrationsofIncidentsandSceneryinSirWalterScott'sNovels(London:HenryG.Bohn,1846);WilliamAllen,IllustrationsoftheNovelsandTalesoftheAuthorofWaverley:Aseriesofportraitsofeminenthistoricalcharactersintroducedinthoseworks.Accompaniedwithbiographicalnotices(London,1823);JamesSkene,ASeriesofSketchesoftheExistingLocalitiesAlludedtointheWaverleyNovels,EtchedfromOriginalDrawings(Edinburgh:Cadell,1829).

(20)OnScott’shugeinfluenceonFrenchpainters,seeBethS.Wright,PaintingandHistoryduringtheFrenchRestoration:AbandonedbythePast(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997);Wright,‘ “SeeingwiththePainter'sEye” ’.

(21)Altick,PaintingsfromBooks,69.ThistraditionoflandscapepaintingwasperpetuatedandtransformedinthephotographsillustratingTheLadyoftheLakemadebyGeorgeWashingtonWilsonin1866;HelenGroth,VictorianPhotographyandLiteraryNostalgia


of 35


(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2003).

(22)Altick,PaintingsfromBooks,424–36(p.430);CatherineGordon,BritishPaintingsofSubjectsfromtheEnglishNovel:1740–1870(NewYork:Garland,1988);Wright,‘ “SeeingwiththePainter'sEye” ’;BethS.WrightandPaulJoannides,‘LesromanshistoriquesdeSirWalterScottetlapeinturefrançaise,1822–63’,Bulletindelasociétédel’histoiredel’artfrançais(1983).

(23)Ontheaestheticsofhistoricalpaintingduringthisperiod,seeesp.StephenBann,TheClothingofClio:AStudyoftheRepresentationofHistoryinNineteenth-CenturyBritainandFrance(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984).

(24)Altick,PaintingsfromBooks,43.

(25)Examplesofimagesinspiredbytheatricalrepresentationsaregivenibid.428.

(26)Informationfromhttp://www.rijksmuseum.nl/aria/aria_assets/SK-A-1902?lang=en

(27)J.DavidBolterandRichardGrusin,Remediation:UnderstandingNewMedia(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2000),55.

(28)ExamplesofearlyScottphotographyandofmagiclanternshowsaregiveninChapter5andChapter6.

(29)AstridErll,Prämediation—Remediation:DerindischeAufstandinimperialenundpost-kolonialenMedienkulturen(1857biszurGegenwart)(Trier:WVT,2007).Grusintoohasusedtheterm‘premediation’inmorerecentpublications,butdoessowithreferencetothewayinwhichfutureeventsarebeing‘premediated’ratherthanwithreferencetothepresenceofpaststoriesinnewones;RichardGrusin,Premediation:AffectandMedialityafter9/11(London:PalgraveMacmillan,2010);RichardA.Grusin,‘Premediation’,Criticism46(2004).

(30)TracyC.DavisandPeterHolland(eds),ThePerformingCentury:Nineteenth-CenturyTheatre'sHistory(London:PalgraveMacmillan,2007).

(31)Intheearlyyearsofcinema,film-makerslookedtowriters,notjustforstories,butalsoforrespectability;WillliamUricchioandRobertaE.Pearson,ReframingCulture:TheCaseoftheVitagraphQualityFilms(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993).TheintenseinteractionbetweenthenovelandtheatregoesbackatleasttoRichardson;seeThomasKeymerandPeterSabor(eds),ThePamelaControversy:CriticismsandAdaptationsofSamuelRichardson'sPamela,1740–1750,6vols(London:PickeringandChatto,2001).

(32)BarbaraBell,‘TheNineteenthCentury’,inBillFindley(ed.),AHistoryoftheScottishTheatre(Edinburgh:Polygon,1998),157.

(33)Forexample,ElizaFlower,MusicalIllustrationsoftheWaverleynovels,etc.


of 35


(London:Jos.AlfredNovello,c.1831).

(34)Ellis,‘TheLiteraryAdaptation’,3.

(35)Onlytowardsthecloseofthecenturywerethelightsdimmedinthetheatresoastofocusattentiononthestageandquietentheaudience;AllardyceNicoll,AHistoryofEnglishDrama1660–1900,4vols(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1955),IV.

(36)DavidWorrall,TheatricRevolution:Drama,CensorshipandRomanticPeriodSubcultures1773–1832(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2006).

(37)ThebattleofWaterloowasdisplayedasapanoramafrom1815on:PhilipShaw,WaterlooandtheRomanticImagination(London:PalgraveMacmillan,2002).Amongthehistoricaleventsre-enactedonstagewereTheBattleoftheNile(1815),TheBattleofTrafalgar;or,TheDeathofNelson(1824),TheNavalVictoryandTriumphofLordNelson(1805);Nicoll,AHistoryofEnglishDrama1660–1900,IV:14.Accordingtoabillcirculatedon2April1804theSiegeofGibralteroffered‘agrandNavalSpectacle…withrealMenofWarandFloatingBatteries’;newbillsissuedon28Mayfurtheremphasizedtheaccuracyoftheshow,drawingattentionto‘realshipsof100,74,and60guns,&c,built,rigged,andmanoeuvredinthemostcorrectmanner,aseverynauticalcharacterwhohasseenthemimplicitlyallows…theconflagrationofthetowninvariousplaces,thedefenceofthegarrison,andattackbythefloatingbatteries,issofaithfullyandnaturallyrepresented,thatwhenthefloatingbatteriestakefire,someblowingupwithadreadfulexplosion,andothers,afterburningtothewater’sedge,sinktothebottom…theeffectissuchastoproduceanunprecedentedclimaxofastonishmentandapplause’(ibid.42).

(38)OntheVictoriancultureofspectacleandsensationalisminrelationtodrama,seeLynnM.Voskuil,‘FeelingPublic:SensationTheater,CommodityCulture,andtheVictorianPublicSphere’,VictorianStudies44,Winter(2002).Withreferencetotheearlierdecadesofthecentury,Worrallemphasizesinparticularthetheatricalizationofpoliticsandpublicliferatherthansensationalismassuch;DavidWorrall,ThePoliticsofRomanticTheatricality,1787–1832(London:Palgrave,2007).

(39)ReviewerinTheAtlas(15October1826);quotedinparagraph25ofChristinaFuhrman,‘ScottRepatriated?:LaDameblancheCrossestheChannel’,OperaandRomanticism,PraxisSeries,Specialissue,ed.GillenD’ArcyWood(2005),http://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/opera/index.html.

(40)J.C.Dibdin,AnnalsoftheEdinburghStage(1888);quotedinBarbaraBell,‘SirWalterScottandtheNationalDrama’,inJ.H.Alexanderetal.(eds),ScottinCarnival(Aberdeen:Ass.forScottishLit.Studies,1993),459.

(41)OnScott’ssupportforthetheatre:EdgarJohnson,SirWalterScott:TheGreatUnknown,2vols(London:Hamilton,1970),II:322–4;MichaelRagussis,TheatricalNation:JewsandOtherOutlandishEnglishmeninGeorgianBritain(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2010),140–1.Hisoneattemptata‘dramaticpoem’


of 35


wasafailure;Johnson,SirWalterScott,I:787.

(42)IanDuncan,Scott'sShadow:TheNovelinRomanticEdinburgh(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2007),7–8.Foraninterestingdiscussionoftheoccasionintermsof‘cross-dressing’,seeKennethMcNeil,Scotland,Britain,Empire:WritingtheHighlands,1760–1860(Columbus:OhioUniversityPress,2007),76–82.ManyrecentanalysesoftheoccasionareresponsestoHughTrevor-Roper,‘TheInventionofTradition:TheHighlandTraditionofScotland’,inEricHobsbawmetal.(eds),TheInventionofTradition(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1983).AnextensiveaccountofthevisitisalsogiveninJohnPrebble,TheKing'sJaunt:GeorgeIVinScotland,August1822;‘Oneandtwentydaftdays’(Edinburgh:Birlinn,1988).

(43)PhilipCox,ReadingAdaptations:NovelsandVerseNarrativesontheStage,1790–1840(Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2000),80;Johnson,SirWalterScott,I:514.

(44)Ontheadaptationofothernovelists,seefurtherCox,ReadingAdaptations,esp.121–62(onDickens);PatsyStoneman,BrontëTransformations:TheCulturalDisseminationofJaneEyreandWutheringHeights(London:PrenticeHall,1996).

(45)Bell,‘SirWalterScottandtheNationalDrama’.

(46)Ibid.464.

(47)JaneMoody,IllegitimateTheatreinLondon1770–1840(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2000);JaneMoodyandDanielO’Quinn(eds),TheCambridgeCompaniontoBritishTheatre,1730–1830(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007).

(48)SomecontemporaryanxietiesaboutthethreatstoliterarydramafrommelodramaaredescribedinCox,ReadingAdaptations,11–19.Worrallattributesapoliticallysubversiveroletosomeofthepopulartheatres(inhisterms:the‘plebeianpublicsphereofdrama’);Worrall,ThePoliticsofRomanticTheatricality,1787–1832,207.ItisdifficulttoidentifyasubversivestraininthemanyScottproductions,thoughtheydidhavepoliticaldimensionsaswillbecomeapparentbelowandinChapter3.

(49)JohnRussellStephens,TheCensorshipofEnglishDrama1824–1901(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1980),5–16.

(50)Bell,‘SirWalterScottandtheNationalDrama’,458–9.ThispointisalsomadeinCox,ReadingAdaptations,4.

(51)PeterBrooks,TheMelodramaticImagination:Balzac,HenryJames,Melodrama,andtheModeofExcess(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1985).

(52)Ondramatistsandthepiracyofnovels,seeJohnRussellStephens,TheProfessionofthePlaywright:BritishTheatre1800–1900(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,


of 35


1992),97–8.

(53)TheBernardC.LloydSirWalterScottCollectionatAberdeenUniversityLibraryincludesalargenumberofWaverley-relatedsongbooks.WiththankstoAlisonLumsden.

(54)Bolton,ScottDramatized.Thiscataloguebuildson,whilegoingfarbeyond,earliersurveys:RichardFord,DramatisationsofScott'sNovels:ACatalogue(Oxford:OxfordBibliographicalSociety,1979);JeromeMitchell,MoreScottOperas:FurtherAnalysisofOperasBasedontheWorksofSirWalterScott(Lanham:UniversityPressofAmerica,1996);JeromeMitchell,TheWalterScottOperas:AnAnalysisofOperasBasedontheWorksofSirWalterScott(Tuscaloosa:UniversityofAlabamaPress,1977);HenryAdelbertWhite,SirWalterScott'sNovelsontheStage(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1927).

(55)TheEuropeanreceptionofScott’soperasisdiscussedinJeremyTambling,‘Scott's“Heyday”inOpera’,inMurrayPittock(ed.),TheReceptionofSirWalterScottinEurope(London:Continuum,2006).ThereisnoevidenceinthesurveyeditedbyPittockthatnon‐operaticversionsofScott‘travelled’insignificantnumberstootherlanguageareas.

(56)Fuhrman,‘ScottRepatriated?’.

(57)Bolton,ScottDramatized,272,273.

(58)Ibid.289.Seealsoibid.183forotherexamplesofmultipleoccurrencesofScottplaysduringtheEdinburghseasonin1825.

(59)Incontrasttotheoperaticversions,whichhavereceivedsomeattentionwithintheframeworkofmusichistory,criticaldiscussionsofthemelodramaticversionshavesofarbeenrestrictedinscope;seeCox,ReadingAdaptations;AnastasiaNikolopoulou,‘HistoricalDisruptions:TheWalterScottMelodramas’,inMichaelHaysetal.(eds),Melodrama:TheCulturalEmergenceofaGenre(NewYork:St.Martin's,1996);White,SirWalterScott'sNovelsontheStage.TheemphasisofthestudybyNikolopoulouisonthepurportedlysubversivedimensionsofmelodrama,whichinthecaseofScottdramatizationsseemsoverstated.

(60)Cox,ReadingAdaptations,110–11.

(61)QuotedinBolton,ScottDramatized,222.

(62)PrefatoryremarkstoIsaacPocock,RobRoyMacGregor;or,AuldLangSyne(London:Oxberry,1820);quotedibid.165.Anotherplaybillfrom1821[entry1504]announcesadrama‘foundedonanovelofthesamename,writtenbyWalterScott,Esq.’Bolton,ScottDramatized,175.Comparablereferencescanbefoundinentries:3418,3345,3388,3342,2268,3336,3358.

(63)ThepressuretobefaithfultoScott’soriginalsdiminishedafterhisdeathin1832;Ford,DramatisationsofScott'sNovels,viii.


of 35


(64)QuotedinBolton,ScottDramatized,289.Despitesuchcriticalacclaim,theBoucicaultversionwasneverpublishedandonlyamanuscriptversionofthefirstactremainsextant(availablethroughtheHoughtonLibrary,HarvardUniversity).

(65)Quotedibid.290.ThisproductionisalsodiscussedinVoskuil,‘FeelingPublic’.

(66)Mitchell,TheWalterScottOperas,35.

(67)The2005movieWaverley(dir:PiersThompson)listedintheIMDBisapsychologicaldramaaboutageingandisnotanadaptationofScott’snovel:http://www.imdb.com.

(68)AlthoughithassincebeenovershadowedbyotherScottworksinacademiccriticism,GuyManneringwasimmenselysuccessfulonthenineteenth-centurystageandwasproducedmorethan800timesbetween1816and1912.TherewereatleastfiveGuyManneringoperas,includingLaDameBlanche(1825)bylibrettistEugèneScribeandcomposerAdrienBoieldieu,which,secondonlytoLuciadiLammermoorintermsofitsinternationalsuccess,hadbeenperformednofewerthan1,675timesby1914;seeMitchell,TheWalterScottOperas,36–7.AlsoFuhrman,‘ScottRepatriated?’GuyManneringdidnotsurviveintotheeraoffilmandtelevision,thoughBBCScotlanddidproducearadioversionin1948;Bolton,ScottDramatized,58.

(69)ibid.,177–78.

(70)Dibdin,AnnalsoftheEdinburghStage,301.

(71)Bolton,ScottDramatized,256.

(72)ThistallieswithBell’ssuggestionthatScottplaysweretreatedlaterinthecenturyaboveallasculturalmonumentsratherthan‘asalivingforceforchangeinthetheatre’;Bell,‘SirWalterScottandtheNationalDrama’,476.

(73)TherelativefrequencyofRobRoyproductionsintheScottishtheatresisbroughtoutibid.465–71.ForGreatBritainandNorthAmerica,seeBolton,ScottDramatized,162–258.

(74)ibid.,56.

(75)Ibid.168.Seealsoentries1516and1890;andfurthervariationsinentries1465,1501,1517,1519,1504,1533,1596,1604.Interestinglyaplaybillfrom1821announcesadrama‘foundedonanovelofthesamename,writtenbyWalterScott,Esq.’,therebyidentifyingthestillanonymous‘AuthorofWaverley’[entry1504].

(76)Entry2331,ibid.250.

(77)Eighteditionsarelistedibid.166.TheHoughtonlibraryhasidentifiedwithPocockanothereditionoftheplay,publishedbyTheCrystalPalaceCompany,Sydenham,in1875,whichisnotincludedinBolton’slist.


of 35


(78)WalterScott,RobRoy,ed.DavidHewitt(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2008[1817]),274.

(79)Bolton,ScottDramatized,162.

(80)StephenKnight,RobinHood:AMythicBiography(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,2003);StephenKnight(ed.),RobinHood:AnAnthologyofScholarshipandCriticism(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1999).

(81)Regardingballadsandotherspin-offs:Scott,RobRoy,274.

(82)GeorgeSoane,RobRoy,theGregarach;ARomanticDrama,inThreeActs;asPerformedattheTheatreRoyal,DruryLane(London:RichardWhite,1818).InhisHistoryoftheEnglishStage,1600–1830(1832),JohnGenestcomplainedofthisplaythatit‘isfoundedonthepopularnovel,butsomanychangesaremadethatoneisdisappointed,andconsequentlydisgusted’;inBolton,ScottDramatized,168.

(83)QuotedfromtheGlasgowTheatricalObserver(1824);inBolton,ScottDramatized,164.

(84)Seeentries1474,1497,1508,1512;Bolton,ScottDramatized,171,174,175,176.

(85)ibid.,163.

(86)FortheDublinproductionseeentry2151,ibid.235.Around1841aquerulouscriticinGlasgowcomplainedthattheMissSheriff,whohadplayedDianaVernon,shouldcomebetterequippedinfuturewhencomingtothe‘meridianofScotland’byhavinga‘morepopularselectionofsongsthanwhathaveyetappeared’(ibid.224;entry2007).Onoccasionforeignairswerealsoincluded,forexample,the‘celebratedBacchanalianSong’fromDerFreischutzinLiverpoolin1827;BoltonadducesthisexampletosuggestthatrevivalsofRobRoyweresometimesusedmerelyasdecorforthesingers(ibid.189;entrynumber1638).SupplementarysongsinothercasesincludedBurns’‘AMan’saManfora’That’[entry1877],Moore’s‘LastRoseofSummer’[entry1570],andMoore’s‘OftintheStillyNight’[entry1878];seeBolton,ScottDramatized,213,182,213.

(87)Entries1624,1844,1962;188,210,220.

(88)Bolton’scommentsrelatespecificallytoGuyMannering,butthereisnoreasontothinkthatitdoesnotalsoapplytothecaseofRobRoy;ibid.57.OnthehighrateofbothinternalmigrationandemigrationinScotland,seeMcNeil,Scotland,Britain,Empire,12.

(89)Forararediscussionofauralmemory,seeCarolineBithell,‘ThePastinMusic:Introduction’,EthnomusicologyForum15(2006).

(90)Onrecitationasamodeofremembrance,seealsoAnnRigney,ImperfectHistories:TheElusivePastandtheLegacyofRomanticHistoricism(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversity


of 35


Press,2001),121–30.

(91)Entry1460,Bolton,ScottDramatized,169.OnoneoccasionwhenMooreandScottturneduptogetheratthetheatre,thecrowdwentwildandthebandstruckupaseriesofIrishandScottishmelodies;Dibdin,AnnalsoftheEdinburghStage,317–18.

(92)Ragussis,TheatricalNation,14.

(93)Entry1499,Bolton,ScottDramatized,174.

(94)Forotherusesoftheterm‘national’todescribetheatricalworks,seeibid.,entries1483,1521,1542,1570,1620,1624,1617,1593,1574;1492,1820;1513,1553,1499,1542,1875,1885,1903,1906,2028,2057,2109,2111,2281,2309,2353,2373,2383,2390,2407;foranexceptionuseof‘national’outsideScotland,seealso1641,1844,1962.

(95)Entries2138,1624,1798,1475;Bolton,ScottDramatized.

(96)Bell,‘SirWalterScottandtheNationalDrama’,474–5.

(97)QuotedinBolton,ScottDramatized,171–2.

(98)FriedrichSchiller,‘DieSchaubühnealseinemoralischeAnstaltbetrachtet’(1784)(http://gutenberg.spiegel.de).

(99)BarbaraBelldiscussesthegeneralriseoftheterm‘national’intheScottishtheatreinthe1820s,whilenotingthereturnof‘Scotch’inthe1850sasawayofproclaimingdistinctivenesswithinthebroadercontextofBritishpoliticsandagainstthebackgroundofreneweddiscussionofScottishrights;Bell,‘SirWalterScottandtheNationalDrama’,475–6.

(100)PeterBurke,‘PerformingHistory:TheImportanceofOccasions’,RethinkingHistory9(1)(2005);DianaTaylor,TheArchiveandtheRepertoire:PerformingCulturalMemoryintheAmericas(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2003).Withspecificreferencetopoetryandperformance,seealsoAnnRigney,‘EmbodiedCommunities:CommemoratingRobertBurns,1859’,Representations,115(2011).

(101)BenedictAnderson,ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginsandSpreadofNationalism(London:Verso,1991[1983]).Thecontinuingimportanceofritualsincommunity-buildinghasalsobeendiscussedextensivelyinEviatarZerubavel,HiddenRhythms:SchedulesandCalendarsinSocialLife(Berkeley:CaliforniaUniversityPress,1985[1981]).

(102)Bell,‘TheNineteenthCentury’,143.

(103)TheEdinburghDramaticReview3(31March1825),449;quotedinBell,‘SirWalterScottandtheNationalDrama’,477.


of 35


(104)ErnestRenan,‘Qu’est-cequ’unenation?[1882]’,inOeuvrescomplètesd’ErnestRenan,ed.HenriëttePsichari(Paris:Calmann-Lévy,1947–61).

(105)Ontheremediationofliteraryclassicsinearlycinema,seeUricchioandPearson,ReframingCulture.

(106)Onthepoliticalbackgroundtothe1995filmversion,seeJanetSorensen,‘RobRoy:TheOtherEighteenthCentury?’,inRobertMayer(ed.),Eighteenth-CenturyFictiononScreen(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).

(107)InJ.G.Lockhart,TheLifeofSirWalterScott,Bart.(London:H&CBlack,1893[1837–8]),347.

university press scholarship online procreativity: remediation … · 2015. 1. 8. · london...

Documents