Moonfleet by J. Meade Falkner (1898)

Classic children’s adventure tropes

John Trenchard is 15 years old, the classic age for a hero of an adventure story – no longer a helpless child (‘a stout lad for my age’, p.76) but not yet an adult tied down with responsibilities of job, wife, or even a sweetheart. He is still attending the village school led by Parson Glennie in the dilapidated old village almshouse, who tells them many folk stories and legends of the surrounding area, not least about the notorious smuggler ‘Captain’ John Mohune otherwise known as Blackbeard.

Also classic is the fact that his parents are both long dead, which means he is free, unconstrained by parental supervision. He is in the care of his aunt, Miss Arnold who is, in the classic style, a church-going disapprover of all things to do with boys though with little legal or moral control over him, so she can be easily ignored when adventure comes along.

Also classic is the way the narrator drops broad hints throughout the story that it all happened a long time ago, when he was young, and that now he is older, tireder and wiser now, looking back.

I remember the place well though I have not seen it for so long… (p.191)

…yet in the overrulings of Providence it was ordered that this note in Mr. Aldobrand’s book should hereafter change the issue of my life. (p.193)

And it is set in a classic era: the adventure starts in October 1757. The 18th century was the classic setting for stories of pirates and smuggling and buccaneers – Treasure Island is set in the mid-1700s, Kidnapped in 1751. It was a period when Britain was still struggling against the navies of France and to some extent Spain, well before victory in the Napoleonic Wars and the rise of industrial capitalism set Britain on the path to global ascendancy. You could still have adventures in the British imperial era (see Rider Haggard) but they were somehow less innocent.

All in all, ‘Moonfleet’ is consciously a book for boys, with no pretence of seeking an adult readership as the semi-adult stories of Rider Haggard and Conan Doyle did, something emphasised by the sweet epigraph from Shakespeare:

We thought there was no more behind
But such a day tomorrow as today
And to be a boy eternal.
(The Winter’s Tale. Act 1, scene 2, line 80)

Moonfleet

So it’s 1757 and Moonfleet is the name of the Cornish village where 15-year-old John Trenchard lives. One day he accidentally discovers that the crypt of the local church is being used as a storage space for contraband booze being smuggled in from France.

The secret passage

After a particularly strong storm hits the village, he is curious about a hole which has opened up at the foot of an ancient tomb and wriggles down to go exploring. The crypt is the burial chamber of the Mohune family. It is widely thought to be haunted, in particular by the ghost of Colonel John ‘Blackbeard’ Mohune, a notorious pirate who is said to have stolen a diamond from King Charles I and hidden it somewhere, as detailed in Parson Glennie’s many stories on the subject. (Fuller account of Blackbeard on page 149.) Note that Glennie always emphasised that Blackbeard had a bad conscience from his evil deeds and was said to have wanted to use the diamond for charitable purposes, maybe building a poorhouse in Moonfleet etc.

Anyway, it was partly with thoughts of trying to find this legendary diamond that John follows a tunnel down into the crypt and is in the middle of exploring the place when he hears voices coming and quickly hides behind one of the ancient coffins arranged on shelves around the dank underground space.

The smugglers, the locket

From here he overhears a meeting of the smugglers and their plans. Only when they’ve long gone and disappeared back up the tunnel does he dare come out. In doing so he leans on the coffin which breaks and he realises his hand is touching the beard of the corpse and he whips it away but it has also caught hold of a silver locket, which snaps and comes off in his hand. For a moment he excitedly thinks it might contain the famous diamond, but all it has inside is a folded-up scrap of paper with excerpts from the Psalms written on it.

Trapped

Now, when he goes back up the passage he discovers the smugglers have leaned heavy slate slabs against the hole he came in by and he can’t get out. He tries digging with his fingers. He tries shouting for help. Hours pass and he begins to panic and shout more. Then falls asleep. At least a day and a half pass with him getting into more of a state, hungry and dehydrated. Desperate, he breaks open some of the casks in the crypt and drinks deeply from them, getting drunk, shouting helplessly, then passing out.

Elzevir Block

To his surprise, John wakes up nice and clean in a bed which turns out to be above the inn run by a man named Elzevir Block. This Block is landlord of the ‘Why Not?’ inn and one of the leaders of the smugglers. (The name of the village inn, ‘Why Not?’, is a pun on the Mohune coat of arms, which includes a cross-pall in the shape of the letter ‘Y’.)

To my great surprise Elzevir turns out to be not at all the baddie you’d expect but a thoughtful and kind man, despite being ‘a grim and grizzled giant’ (p.129) with a ‘jaw and deep chin…firm and powerful’ (p.152). A passerby heard muffled shouts in the churchyard and said he thought it was ghosts when he mentioned it to Elzevir. But the latter immediately realised the calls must have come from the tunnel and went late at night with colleagues to dig poor John, who had by this time passed out, out of the hole, brought him to his house etc.

Elzevir invites him to stay and John accepts. His aunt doesn’t mind him leaving, thinks he’s a trouble-maker, thinks he was gone for two days because he’s a gadabout and a drunk.

John becomes a contrabandier

And so without much effort, John is recruited into the gang of smugglers and starts helping them out. We learn the different roles and responsibilities involved in managing the illegal landing of contraband, a surprisingly complex business. He gets on well with Elzevir and many’s the evening they spend in front of the inn fire playing backgammon.

How Mr Maskew shot Davey Block

I haven’t mentioned a key bit of background which is that, before the narrative opens, Elzevir’s teenage son, David Block, had been shot by the local magistrate, Mr. Maskew, when the patrol boat Maskew was aboard closed with a smuggling vessel off the coast. There is, therefore, deep animosity between Maskew and Elzevir. John speculates that this may also be why Elzevir took him in, as a kind of replacement for his dead son.

The auction for the Why Not?

Which is why it is a tense scene when the lease of the Why Not? is renewed, a purely formal process whereby Elzevir is the only bidder for the lease, as overseen by a local bailiff. However, on this occasion it is interrupted when Maskew arrives at the inn and makes a counter-bid, way in excess of what Elzevir can afford (£200 compared to the £12 it previously cost) and wins the auction, with the result that Elzevir and young John have to move out. John notices that Maskew had a silver-hafted pistol tucked under his coat in case things turned nasty.

Word also gets around that Maskew is becoming very pally with Revenue officials in local towns, and is general becoming the Main Enemy of the smugglers. All of which makes it awkward that John is falling in love with his daughter, Grace Maskew, about his own age, who also attends the village school. He confides in her that he is one of the smugglers, knowing she will keep his secret (‘I told Grace all my secrets, not even excepting the doings of the contraband, and the Mohune vault and Blackbeard’s locket, knowing all was as safe with her as with me.’ page 92).

At Hoar Head

By now it is the spring of the following year, 1758. It is on 16 April (p.93) that John accompanies Elzevir to a location up the coast, Hoar Head, to a beach below steep cliffs, for the next smuggling date.

Here, in the middle of the night, they meet a crew of other contrabandiers. The rowboat comes ashore and the men unload it, loading some onto a carthorse, carrying the other kegs individually. In the middle of operations there’s a kerfuffle and a group of the smugglers keeping watch come down onto the beach pushing the cowed figure of Mr Maskew who they’ve caught spying on them. They’ve already torn his coat off and smacked him about a bit, and tied his hands. They’ve also discovered the silver-hafted pistol Maskew always carries.

Death of Mr Maskew

They’re all for lynching him there and then but Elzevir, with the authority of the gang leader, tells them Maskew is his. Reluctantly the rest of the crew load up with the final kegs and set off tramping the bridle path beside the cliffs, leaving the deserted midnight beach to Maskew, Elzevir and John.

So within ten minutes all were winding up the bridle-path, horses and men, all except three; for there were left upon the brambly greensward of the under-cliff Maskew and Elzevir and I, and the pistol lay at Elzevir’s feet. (p.100)

I thought Elzevir might have wanted the others to leave because he was going to display noble forbearance and let Maskew go, but not a bit of it, he squares up to Maskew and prepares to shoot him in the head. John does three things: he launches an impassioned plea to Elzevir to spare Maskew’s life; when this doesn’t work he at first covers his ears and closes his eyes so as not to see the murder. But then, on an impulse, he leaps at Elzevir as he’s preparing to shoot, they struggle and the gun fires harmlessly into the air.

The soldiers

They’re both still recovering from this fight when they notice activity on the clifftop. It is no longer the dead of night and dawn is approaching. Someone shouts down from the clifftop (‘Yield at the King’s command!’) and they realise it is soldiers! Then there’s a rattle of musket fire and the sound of bullets hitting the turf ‘fut, fut, fut’. In this first volley Maskew is himself shot in the head, drilled with a neat hole.

This is a super-common trope of the thriller genre, whereby the ‘good’ guys try to bring themselves to kill an obvious enemy, and while they are agonising about it, the enemy is conveniently killed by a third party.

John is stricken because he is in love with Maskew’s daughter and realises she has now lost her father and become an orphan.

Cliffside ascent

Also John is shot in the foot. As the soldiers reload Elzevir carried him over the cliff where they’re safe for the moment. But they can be sure the soldiers will now come running down the bridlepath off to the side of the cliff so Elzevir embarks on a desperate expedient. For up the cliff itself runs a very narrow ‘track’, in a zigzag pattern, sometimes just a foot wide, in fact the shepherds who use it call it The Zigzag (p.109).

The next few pages describe their nailbiting progress as Elzevir has to carry John up this incredibly dangerous ‘track, and how half way up John looks down at the dizzying height they are above the pebbly beach, gets vertigo (a ‘cursed giddy fit’) and nearly falls (p.113).

A plan

Anyway, they finally make it to the top of the cliff and rest on the turf. They’re in a pretty pickle but can see the soldiers have moved to some rocks on the beach so they have a breather before they come back up the bridlepath. Elzevir’s plan is to head north along the coast and rest up in a secret place, a hiding hole in Purbeck known as Jacob’s Pit.

The boy

It’s seven miles away and Elzevir sets off carrying John with the result that, by soon after noon he is exhausted and they rest behind an old stone wall. They both fall asleep but are awoken by a shot. it’s still daylight and it’s just a farm boy scaring rooks with a blunderbuss for his farmer master. But he climbs over the wall and thus discovers them. Elzevir very confidently tells the boy he and John have come hunting for rabbit but he’s lost his powder flask. In quick succession he buys the boy’s powder, then bullets, then gun, for a princely guinea. But John knows the boy has noticed his own bloody boot and bandaged leg and will run off to alert the authorities.

The sea-cave

Finally they arrive in the country of abandoned quarries (whose history Falkner explains) and Elzevir carefully goes down the slippery steps into one of these, then along pitch black corridors, arriving at a big cave lit by cracks in the rocks.

The trouble with injuring your hero is it immediately introduces delay and wait. When John was shot in the leg on the beach my heart sank. Aware of the problem he’s created for himself, Falkner has John sink into a hazy sickness so he can get a lot of days to pass quickly. John sinks into delirium as Elzevir cares for him, foraging at night, making a splint for his leg, stealing cooking utensils and a pot to boil water.

News

He gets word to the most loyal of his band of smugglers, Ratsey the sexton, who leaves food for them at an abandoned cottage, where Elzevir can collect it at night. They hear that the boy who sold them the gun grassed them up, that’s there’s debate about who shot Maskew, and there’s a reward of £50 on Elzevir’s head, £20 on John’s (p.126).

By mid-May John has recovered his strength and can limp. Elzevir carries him out into the sunshine on a sort of ledge beyond the cave, where men used to winch slabs of marble down to waiting boats. Elzevir has been extraordinarily kind and caring to John who has come to love him like the father he never had.

A scary scene

One dark and stormy night Elzevir has left on a journey to Poole leaving John alone in the cave as daylight fades to pitch black and he begins to remember the stories Elzevir sold him about these abandoned workings being haunted. Folk say that St Aldhelm drove the old pagan gods down into these black depths which they haunt to this day, in particular a violent demon named the Mandrive which jumps out to strangle the unwary. And Falkner describes John becoming more and more scared and then his heart stops when he hears a shuffling coming closer towards him in the darkness.

It is revealed to be Ratsey the sexton, but not before John has nearly died of fright and the reader along with him.

Two months have passed

Tatsey’s first words reveal that two months have passed since the fateful night of Maskew’s death on Hoar Head beach (p.134). Ratsey confirms the story of the price on their heads. The smuggling gang is all broken up. Elzevir and John will never be able to go back to Moonfleet. The Why Not? stands empty. Maskew’s daughter watched her father’s body brought back to Moonfleet, loudly jeered by the mob, some of them spitting on the coffin. But Ratsey testifies that Grace refused to sign papers condemning Elzevir or him for her father’s murder, saying she knows John ‘for a trusty lad, who would not do such things himself, nor yet stand by whilst others did them.’ He tells John how sad Maskew’s funeral was with only his thin wasted daughter following the coffin to the churchyard and then no man offering to carry it into the cemetery until Ratsey himself took pity and roused some of the others.

The secret message

But Ratsey’s visit is important because John had been rereading the parchment he found inside Blackbeard’s locket all those months ago. On it are written excerpts from the Psalms said to ward off evil spirits. When he heard Ratsey creeping into the cave John dropped it in his fear. Now Ratsey picks it up and reads it and immediately spots an anomaly. As a sexton who hears or himself reads bits of the Psalms, he immediately spots that the quotes are correct but the line attribution is wrong.

Thus ‘The days of our age are three-score years and ten…’ is certainly from Psalm 90 as the parchment says, but not line 21; it only has 20 lines and this is line 10.

Ratsey suggests other Bible verses John might want to learn then passes on to the general idea that he and Elzevir need to escape England altogether and suggests names of smuggling ships which might take them to France.

When Ratsey finally leaves, John rereads the verses and suddenly the penny drops. He realises it’s a code. The erroneous line number for each quote in fact stands for the number of the key word in each quote. In the quote from Psalm 21, he is to take the twenty-first word. Quickly he applies this to all five quotes and comes up with: ‘Fourscore—feet—deep—well—north’.

A few hours later Elzevir returns from his overnight trip to Poole and John can’t wait to share his discovery with him. He has interpreted it to mean Blackbeard’s diamond is buried in a well somewhere in Moonfleet but he’s been racking his brains in vain to think what well it could be.

Now Elzevir puts him straight; there isn’t a well in Moonfleet but there is one at Carisbrooke, the castle where Blackbeard served as head of the guard imprisoning King Charles I. (‘For just over a year from 13 November 1647, the king was held captive on the Isle of Wight, primarily at Carisbrooke Castle. From there, he took part in numerous negotiations with the English and Scottish parliaments, failed in several escape attempts, and only heard afterwards about the uprisings of the Second Civil War in the summer of 1648.’ English Heritage)

Elzevir knows there’s a well at Carisbrooke and moreover that it is of a legendary deepness. He interprets the code to mean that the treasure – presumably the diamond stole off the king – is buried 80 feet deep on the north side of the inside of the well.

He now announces that instead of taking ship to France he’ll organise transport to the Isle of Wight for them to find the buried treasure. He knows the owners of the ship who will take him wherever he wants, and he knows of a good smuggling inn at Newport which will hide them.

Moonfleet one last time

They have to wait 8 days till the ship arrives that will take them from their hiding place. A few days before the date John asks Elzevir for permission to go back to Moonfleet one last time. Elzevir rightly discerns that he wants to see someone and John tells him about his puppy love for Grace Maskew. Elzevir gives him his blessing. They have already had Ratsey supply them disguises, the kind of smocks worn by drovers, and John has rubbed walnut juice onto his face to make it appear darker.

After a long night’s walk he arrives above Moonfleet, then walks down to the Manor House, knocks and Grace herself opens the door. She doesn’t recognise him till he reveals his identity, then the clasp hands before she leads him to the garden at the back. Walking through the house John glimpses the old magistrate’s study untouched since Maskew died and his heart is tugged by the sorrow felt by Grace.

In the garden he reveals the secret of the treasure but Grace reminds him of the legend that Blackbeard meant to sell it and give the money to the poor i.e. the diamond is cursed if the money is spent on self.

In former days she had kept a candle in her bedroom which could be seen out at sea (the Manor house is on the hill sloping up out of Moonfleet) and now she says she will light one every night as a token of her love for him. The reader can only imagine this is noted because John will, indeed, return by sea. She gives him a little food, brings a pillow and he sleeps in the summer house, safe and loved. When he wakes she gives him food for the journey back and kisses him goodbye.

The Isle of Wight

So he arrives back at the cave, finding Elzevir safely there. The following day they see the smuggling ship the Bonaventure lying off the coast and come nightfall it sends a boat to carry them away from the cave they’ve been hiding in for over two months. They are greeted like old friends by fellow smugglers they have helped many a time. The wind conveys them up Channel and they put shore at Cowes, walking to Newport. Here the landlord of the Bugle recognises Elzevir, puts them up and treats him like a prince, because it turns out he is the mastermind of smuggling along the whole coast.

Elzevir works on a plan to gain access to the well at Carisbrooke Castle but, alas, it is being used as a prison for French prisoners in the ongoing Seven Years War. In the end he does a deal with the well keeper who is let in on the plan and agrees to provide cover for a third of the booty. So they set out from the inn one day dressed as plasterers with the story that they’ve come to plaster up the sides of the well.

The well-keeper is a shifty, untrustworthy man, who admits them to the castle, takes them across a courtyard, through the former banqueting hall which is now a prison, out into another court to the well-house which is an actual building around the well.

There is some quibbling about who will go down in the bucket at the end of a rope into the well, with the turnkey wanting Elzevir to go but John strongly wanting Elzevir to stay above so he can deal with the situation if the well-man turns treacherous.

The well

The descent deep into the dark narrow slimy well is vividly described. This is more a book about vivid descriptions or descriptions of tight spots than of action. For some reason the scene on the smuggling beach which leads up to the shoulders shooting down at them didn’t really stir me. The stirring scenes all happen underground being 1) John being trapped in the lightless tunnel and underground crypt, 2) the dark and stormy night when John hears someone shuffling in the darkness of the cave, and now this, 3) the tremendously atmospheric descent into the deep dank well.

Anyway, after some false starts, John sees a Y roughly carved into one of the small bricks lining the well and realises it is the cross-pall sign of the Mohunes. He chips away at the mortar surrounding it, extracts the brick, reveals a hole behind it in which sits a bag, tears open the bag and discovers a diamond as big as a walnut (p.177).

He calls and the others winch him but the Well-man stops it just before it gets to ground level, insisting that John hand over the gem. At which point the presence of the Arabian Nights, behind so many classic adventure stories, bursts into the open.

There was a look in his face that brought back to me the memory of an autumn evening, when I sat in my aunt’s parlour reading the book called the Arabian Nights; and how, in the story of the Wonderful Lamp, Aladdin’s wicked uncle stands at the top of the stairs when the boy is coming up out of the underground cavern, and will not let him out, unless he first gives up the treasure. But Aladdin refused to give up his lamp until he should stand safe on the ground again, because he guessed that if he did, his uncle would shut him up in the cavern and leave him to die there; and the look in the turnkey’s eyes made me refuse to hand him the jewel till I was safe out of the well, for a horrible fear seized me that, as soon as he had taken it from me, he meant to let me fall down and drown below. (p.179)

It turns into a standoff, then the turnkey shouts that he knows who they are, he knows there’s a price of £50 on Elzevir’s head and £20 on John’s, and demands the whole value of the diamond, and then whips out his pistol and fires at Elzevir. But the latter being on the other side of the wide well, and the hoisting machinery in between, the bullet hits the chain supporting the bucket and then the turnkey throws himself onto Elzevir in a life or death struggle.

John hastily shimmies up the last few feet of the chain and swings onto dry land but Elzevir, ‘wonderfully strong, and seasoned as a salted thong’ was winning the wrestling match. In fact it turns out (a bit late to tell us) that Elzevir was a famous wrestler in his youth and now flings his man to the floor in a move known, apparently, as ‘the Compton toss’. Except it isn’t a full fall and instead the turnkey staggers back a few paces and, with enjoyable predictability, teeters on the edge of the deep well.

Elzevir (in order to exonerate him, just as he was exonerated on the beach) grabs at the man’s belt and they are suspended as in a photo like that for a moment. But then the belt snaps and the man plunges backwards and they hear several sickening cracks as his head smashes against the brick lining before a crack and splash as his body hits the water at the very bottom. Oops.

Elzevir jumps in the bucket and is lowered and stays at the bottom but when he comes up he is alone. The turnkey’s body has sunk. John is now convinced the diamond carries an evil curse and is all for throwing it into the well, but Elzevir puts him off and asks to look after it. John hands it over (p.184).

Cursed

John is haunted by an illustration of Cain from his aunt’s edition of the Bible, a terrifying image of eternal loss. The narrative repeats the warnings about Blackbeard’s wicked behaviour which Parson Glennie told at the start of the story, which Grace Maskew repeated, which John himself has brooded over. In the well-house, while Elzevir was at the bottom, John had a powerful intuition of a tall bearded figure pacing impatiently, the ghost of the accursed Blackbeard.

Escape

The turnkey’s belt is there with all its keys. they find the one to the well-house itself to let themselves out but throw the rest down the well. The guards to the banquet hall and then the castle gates let them out, remembering them coming in, though grumbling at lazy Ephraim (name of the dead turnkey) for not accompanying them.

Back at the Bugle Inn, Elzevir consults with the landlord about fleeing, though he hasn’t told him anything about the diamond, instead saying he thinks the Revenue have got wind of them. They clean up and put on new disguises as sailors and set off for Cowes with a letter from the landlord to the skipper of a Dutch ship which brought smuggled gin over but is now returning to Holland with a legitimate cargo of wool (p.187).

Holland

So they arrive at Scheveningen, then move on to the Hague which, conveniently enough, Elzevir has learned is the premier diamond-trading town in Europe. It turns out, also with great convenience, that Elzevir speaks Dutch because ‘he comes of Dutch blood’ on his mother’s side, hence his unusual Christian name, which is Dutch (p.189).

After making enquiries they settle on dealing with a diamond merchant named Krispijn Aldobrand. This is a wizened old man, his expression one of craftiness and greed. The narrative tells us he is Jewish and if you wanted, you could take exception to his depiction as being an antisemitic stereotype. Or you could say he is just one among the many stereotypes which populate the entire narrative, with its heroic smugglers, its strong, silent, kindly father figure (Elzevir), its naive boy protagonist in love with a virtuous sweetheart (Grace), the treacherous turnkey, the over-officious magistrate (Maskew) and so on.

Women!

If you want to be offended by old literature there’s more scope for taking offence in the gender stereotyping of a nineteenth century author pretending to be an eighteenth century boy:

  • Thus a sick dread got hold of me, and had I been a woman or a girl I think I should have swooned; but being only a boy, and not knowing how to swoon, did the next best thing [which was to grab the locket]
  • It was ten days or more before youth and health had their way, and I was strong again; and all that time Elzevir Block sat by my bed, and nursed me tenderly as a woman…
  • It was not for want of money that Maskew let things remain thus, for men said that he was rich enough, only that his mood was miserly; and perhaps, also, it was the lack of woman’s company that made him think so little of neatness and order…
  • Then Elzevir spoke. “John,” he said, “there is no time to play the woman; another minute of this and we are lost. Pluck up thy courage…”
  • He put his hand upon my shoulder gently, and spoke with such an earnestness and pleading in his voice that one would have thought it was a woman rather than a great rough giant…
  • “I had rather drown on Moonfleet Beach than live in prison any more, and drown we must within an hour. Yet we will play the man, and make a fight for life.”

Associating femininity with fainting, nursing, a tendency to keep living paces clean and tidy, being weak and afraid, gentleness and pleading, masculinity with strength and fight and endurance? I wonder whether, on account of what culture warriors might take to be its antisemitism and its misogyny, Moonfleet might eventually be banned. Well, let’s enjoy it while we can.

Throwing away the diamond

Anyway, back in the story, the old merchant asks John his name and before he has the wit to make up a false one, John declares himself John Trenchard of Moonfleet village in the Country of Dorset, which the merchant showily writes in his ledger while Elzevir glares at him for this elementary error.

Then Aldobrand performs a handful of showy and sham tests on the stone before grandly declaring to them it is only ‘paste’ and not the great treasure they thought and he will offer them ten crowns for their trouble. Elzevir is so outraged he grabs the stone from the man and throws it out the open French windows into his garden below. The jeweller shrieks but Elzevir has already taken John by the arm and leads him out the room, down the stairs, out the front door, into the street and along to an inn where they order dinner and brood.

Here John has a eureka moment and realises the old merchant was lying. All his tests were blarney to conceal the fact the diamond is immensely valuable. Elzevir admits he had the same thought but threw it away chiefly because he also has come to believe it is cursed. He has been a smuggler all his life yet only when talk of the diamond entered it, has he become associated with two grim deaths, become outlawed a price on his head. (This isn’t strictly true; nobody knew the treasure might be findable till after Maskew’s death on the beach and they had hidden in the cavern, but to go along with the melodramatic mood you have to elide this inconvenient fact.)

Elzevir argues strongly that even if it is a real diamond, they’d be better off without it, but John has fallen in love with the shiny thing and persuades Elzevir, late that night, to accompany him back to the jeweller’s house and break into his back garden.

At Aldobrand’s

They climb over the wall. John thoroughly searches the flowerbed where he saw the diamond land. It isn’t there. By now in the grip of an obsession, John impulsively climbs a pear tree espaliered against the house to the first floor balcony of the room they were in earlier. Peering through the shutters he sees Aldobrand sat at his work table with the diamond on it, his diamond, his precious (p.205). Yet again Elzevir tries to restrain him, whispering that it is an evil accursed stone. Come away. Let’s leave.

But John bursts through the French windows and in a few steps is at the desk, wrestling the merchant for the diamond. But breaking through the glass set off alarm bells (in 1758?) all round the house and in seconds six toughs armed with cudgels burst through the door and knock John and Elzevir out.

Prison

They are thrown into a cold dank prison where they remain for months. Eventually they are hauled out to stand trial and Aldobrand testifies that they came touting a fake diamond merely in order to case his house then broke in and assaulted him with a view to stealing real diamonds. They are condemned to the chain gang for life, though not before John has had chance to curse Aldobrand to hell.

They are manacled with scores of other convicts and marched in the January rain and mud to a fortress which they are set to help building. Labouring on the fortress by day, sleeping on straw in a foul barracks alongside fifty other convicts by night. He is branded with a red hot iron like a sheep, with a Y on his cheek. This stands for Ymeguen, the place they’re at, but in his mind John of course associates it with the Y coat of arms of the Mohunes.

And it comes back to him that Parson Glennie used to tell his young pupils that the Y stood for the dividing place in the path of life, that the way of virtue and honesty was off to one side, narrow and difficult but rewarded by heaven, while the other one was broad and easy to descend and led to hell. As they brand him John realises which path he has taken.

Ten years later

Ten years later John is 26, hale and strong from outdoor labour. Finally the fortress is nearly complete and they are lined up and marched back to the Hague. Rumour gets round that they are to be shipped to Java to work as forced labour on the sugar plantations. He sees Elzevir for the first time in two years since he had worked out outworks and Elzevir inside the great tower. Even now it is only a brief sighting and a few words. How desperately ill his destiny has proved to be.

The prison ship

He and Elzevir are chained close together in the lowest decks of the slave ship. A week into the voyage they hit very heavy weather and the ship starts to founder. The hatch is removed and to their amazement their jailer throws down the key to their chains and tells them to make haste. In a flash Elzevir has undone the padlocks and freed all the convicts.

The shipwreck

Up on deck they discover all the sailors have abandoned ship, all the sails are ripped to shreds, and the ship is being propelled backwards towards a rocky shore. In a flash of lighting they both recognise a spur of rock descending into the sea. They are off the English coast not far from Moonfleet, they are in Moonfleet Bay!

In a very exciting scene Falkner describes their desperate struggle to turn the ship towards the rocks and deliberately wreck her. The other convicts launch the one remaining boat but Elzevil knows a wild sea like this will only overturn it, as indeed happens, with all drowned.

Falkner gives a completely convincing description of the two men waiting till the last moment to leap into the huge surf between the beached ship and the clear shore and moving up the pebbles as fast as they can before the next wave hits with its treacherous undertow. There are rescuers on the beach, stretching down in a chain with ropes thrown into the surf. Elzevir reaches the rope first but John is plucked backwards by the undertow and, seeing this, Elzevir lets go the rope, comes back to him and, as the next big wave hits, throws John forward with all his might and John grabs the rope and the next wave pummels Elzevir then drags him back into the sea.

Waking

John regains consciousness by a fire, wrapped in blankets. He is alive! And home! And free! He hears men talking by the fire and starts to talk, amazing them by revealing that his is none other than the John Trenchard they all knew from ten years ago, for the men are Ratsy and another Moonfleet man. But when he asks about Elzevir they say they saw a strong man throw him forwards to safety then be swept back into the pounding surf and that no other man escaped alive.

Elzevir gave his life to save him.

Stunned, John puts on the dry clothes they offer and emerges from what he now realises is the Why Not? inn where they had brought him and goes down to the still storm-ridden beach, still dark, hoping against hope. There’s a really brilliant passage where the narrator considers the many, many men who have died in storms at sea and in particular describes the terrible fate of those who jump ashore with hope in their faces, within sight of their potential rescuers, only to be swept backwards off the steep beach by the surf and drowned, ‘all come to the beach at last’ (p.235).

The power of these descriptions, along with the archetypal self sacrifice of Elzevir, life the novel to a whole new level of intensity and emotion. It is characteristic of Falkner’s strengths and weaknesses that this isn’t a piece of plotting or dialogue so much as a tremendous set-piece scene.

Elzevir’s body

Finally, amid all the other flotsam and jetsam, Elzevir’s corpse is brought up by the waves and John wades in to grab it and haul it ashore. The other men are surprised to see him handle it so tenderly, as John leans down to kiss Elzevir’s face but then word starts getting round that this is the giant who saved the young man’s life, and then that these are the long-lost Moonfleet native sons, Elzevir and Trenchard. And then the men come forward and shake his hand and touch Elzevir’s cold white hand out of respect and I’m afraid I burst into tears. God, the dead, the dead, the power and futility of human love.

They stood for a little while looking in silence at the old lander who had run his last cargo on Moonfleet beach, and then they laid his arms down by his side, and slung him in a sail, and carried him away. (p.237)

At the Why Not?

Falkner wrings the maximum from the heartstrings by having the men place Elzevir’s body on the same table in the Why Not? as they laid his dead son Davey all those years ago, then leave John by himself, to look at all the relics of his happy life there with Elzevir before Maskew took it away and his life began its downward spiral.

Grace

And really piles on the agony when Grace silently appears by his side, no longer a girl but a stately dignified woman. She asks why he didn’t come to see her? She has waited these long years. Then he breaks down and tells her his entire story and calls himself a broken wretch. But she amazes him with the power of a woman’s love and constancy and declares she still loves him and she is rich so his poverty doesn’t matter, and she will be waiting for him, and she silently departs, leaving John with a world of confused memories and emotions, a-wonder:

to find how constant is the love of woman, and how she could still find a place in her heart for so poor a thing as I. (p.241)

John makes a fire in the dusty abandoned inn. Ratsey comes and tells him that Grace refused to sign the order for his arrest, asserting that the death of her father was an accident. Then Parson Glennie comes, much aged. He reads the burial of the dead over Elzevir’s body, tells him a few things about deaths in the village.

But then comes the genuinely surprising climax of the book. Parson Glennie takes out and reads a letter he received eight years ago. It is a long letter from a Dutch attorney summarising the last will and testament of Krispijn Aldobrand. The merchant wished to make amends for the wrong he did John by stealing his diamond, which was a real diamond and vastly precious. In the event, as soon as he sold it, Aldobrand’s fortune and health went into a decline and in his last months he raved that John had laid a curse on it with his few whispered words as John was being dragged out of the court where Aldobrand secured his conviction.

So the story goes that the Dutch lawyer wrote to John, the letter was returned, being a lawyer he was advised to write to the village priest and that’s why Glennie ended up getting a letter from him. But this was all eight years ago, will the legacy still exist? Glennie says another prayer over Elzevir’s body and repeats the kind of sermon he delivered to him as a boy, that Blackbeard’s treasure must be used for good, all riches should be used for good, whereas ‘a good woman’s love is worth far more than all the gold and jewels of the world’, obviously referring to Grace.

Coda

What need to tell this tale at any more length, since you may know, by my telling it, that all went well? for what man would sit down to write a history that ended in his own discomfiture? All that great wealth came to my hands, and if I do not say how great it was, ’tis that I may not wake envy, for it was far more than ever I could have thought. And of that money I never touched penny piece, having learnt a bitter lesson in the past, but laid it out in good works, with Mr. Glennie and Grace to help me.

He rebuilds the almshouse to be a rest for weary sailors. He builds a lighthouse to guide sailors away from the rocks. He heavily restores the church. He marries Grace and has three beautiful little children. He becomes Lord of the Manor and Justice of the Peace. He becomes a pillar of Christian rectitude, morality and justice.

It is a moving monument. The last thirty pages of the book transfigure it into something deep and moving and the final paragraph, describing his eternal gratitude to the man who saved him from the power of the sea, made me cry all over again. Wow.

Falkner’s biography

Although he wrote two other novels, ‘The Lost Stradivarius’ (1895) and ‘The Nebuly Coat’ (1903), as well as guides to the counties of Oxfordshire and Berkshire, John Meade Falkner is mainly remembered for Moonfleet, a classic adventure story for boys – but he was never actually a writer by trade. Born in 1858, Falkner went to Marlborough public school and Oxford before getting a job at Armstrong Whitworth, one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world. Falkner worked his way up through the business to become the firm’s chairman in 1915. During a lifetime of travelling to sell arms he also collected antiquarian treasures. On his retirement in 1921 he became Honorary Librarian to the Dean and Chapter Library of Durham Cathedral, where he could indulge his interest in ecclesiastical and antiquarian history. Sounds like a charmed life.

Vocabulary

Falkner was an antiquarian. He certainly rams his text with 18th century vocabulary. A fair amount of this appears to be West Country dialect terms or ‘our round Dorset speech, such as they talk it out in the vale,’ (p.158). Since the Penguin Children’s edition I read had no notes, I had to look them up online.

  • an askew – (meaning unknown) ‘the way of making a marble quarry is to sink a tunnel, slanting very steeply down into the earth, like a well turned askew’
  • to bait – of horses, hay or feed: ‘ the horses being led away to bait’
  • a bedesman – a pensioner or almsman whose duty was to pray for his benefactor and, I think, to look after almshouses: ‘there were now no bedesmen, and the houses themselves were fallen to decay’
  • bit and sup – food, refreshment: ‘the shippers would give us bit and sup, and glad to, as long as we had need of them’
  • blue vinny – traditional blue cheese made near Sturminster Newton in Dorset, England, from cows’ milk; a hard, crumbly cheese: ‘with hot rabbit pie and cold round of brawn, and a piece of blue vinny’
  • brawn – meat from a pig’s or calf’s head that is cooked and pressed in a pot with jelly
  • to case – put a corpse in a coffin: ‘[I] had helped Ratsey to case some poor bodies that had died in their beds’
  • to chaffer – to buy and sell at a market: ‘he had been chaffering with the fishwives this very day’
  • a chin-band – strap for binding shut the jaw of a corpse: ‘The clutch which I had made to save myself in falling had torn away this chin-band and let the lower jaw drop on the breast’
  • contrabandiers – smugglers: Elzevir ‘was indeed a prince among the contrabandiers’
  • doited – having the faculties impaired, especially by age but here something more like rotted: ‘Cracky Jones, a poor doited body, was found there one summer morning, lying dead on the grass’
  • founds – foundations: ‘I was looking at the founds to see if they wanted underpinning from the floods’
  • a fugleman – a soldier who stands in front of a regiment or company to demonstrate and maintain time in drilling exercises; a leader, organiser or spokesman: ‘a minute later fugleman Ratsey spoke again’
  • gaugers – an exciseman who inspects dutiable bulk goods: ‘we should have the gaugers in, and our store ransacked twenty times.’
  • grizzle – mixed white and black hairs, from which ‘grizzled’: ‘seeing Elzevir’s white hair and bowed shoulders trudging in front of me, [I] remembered when that head had scarce a grizzle on it’
  • a horse-leech – vet: ‘”for the Duchy, whose servant I am,” and he raised his hat, “is no daughter of the horse-leech.”‘
  • a lander – man who organised ponies, horses and carts for transport, or in particularly difficult areas, tub carriers to carry the barrels of liquor and bales of tobacco quickly away from the beach where it’s been landed: ‘a strong posse was to be held in readiness to take the landers in the act the next time they should try to run a cargo’
  • a lipper – a small wave, the kind of low weak wave like a wash creeping over your feet: ‘I could catch the rustle of the water on the beach—not of any waves, for the bay was smooth as glass, but just a lipper at the fringe.’
  • a lugger – a sailing vessel defined by its rig, using the lug sail on all of its one or more masts: ‘more than one dark night I was in the landing-boats that unburdened the lugger’
  • a mort – an amount: ‘it takes a mort of knowledge to make it rattle kindly on the coffin-lid’
  • a messuage – a dwelling house with outbuildings and land assigned to its use: ‘the Mohune Arms, an excellent messuage or tenement now used as a tavern’
  • a plumb – clump: ‘I saw something moving behind one of the plumbs of bramble’
  • a postillion – a person who rides the leading nearside (left-hand side) horse of a team or pair drawing a coach or carriage, especially when there is no coachman: ‘I went up to the top end of the village to watch for the bailiff’s postchaise, and about eleven of the forenoon saw it coming down the hill with four horses and two postillions’
  • the Preventive men – I think this means officers of the Revenue: ‘the Preventive men mark all the footpaths on the cliff with whitewashed stones, so that one can pick up the way without risk on a dark night’
  • a quarantine – type of fruit; apple? ‘many a sunny afternoon have I sat on the terrace edge looking down over the village, and munching red quarantines from the ruined fruit gardens’
  • to roister – celebrate in a noisy or boisterous way: ‘”Are you Revenue-men that you dare shout and roister?”‘
  • to run a cargo – bring contraband ashore; ‘ ’twas thought little sin at Moonfleet to run a cargo’
  • a sennight – week; ‘they should lie underneath this ledge tomorrow sennight’
  • shagreen – a kind of untanned leather with a rough granulated surface
  • to sodden – to soak or soften in water or make damp; ‘the salt damps of the place had soddened it in the night’
  • shrammed – shriveled and benumbed with cold: ‘”I was shrammed with wet and cold, and half-dead with this baffling wind”‘
  • a spile – a small wooden peg or spigot for stopping a cask; ‘my hand struck on the spile of a keg’
  • a steep – cliff side
  • stackyard – a yard or field containing straw or grain in stacks: ‘and so came to a square building of stone with a high roof like the large dovecots that you may see in old stackyards’
  • a thumb-nick – indent in a locket to allow a fingernail to pry or click it open
  • touch – affair, ruckus: ‘”This is a well-licked whelp,” replied Elzevir, “who got a bullet in the leg two months ago in that touch under Hoar Head”‘
  • wide-bitten – large, ‘ It was a bleak wide-bitten place’

Observations on life

Novelists often make generalisations about life or situations or character types etc, it is one of the appeals of the genre, the ability to sound off without requiring any proof or authority apart from the story you’re telling. Falkner’s narrative makes several pleasant observations which I give in the original form:

I did not know then, but have learnt since, that where there is a loud noise, such as the roaring of a cascade, the churning of a mill, or, as here, the rage and bluster of a storm—if there arise some different sound, even though it be as slight as the whistle of a bird, ’twill strike the ear clear above the general din. And so it was this night, for I caught that stumbling tread even when the gale blew loudest, and sat motionless and breathless, in my eagerness of listening, and then the gale lulled an instant, and I heard the slow beat of footsteps as of one groping his way down the passage in the dark… (p.132)

Now, however lightly a man may glance through a book, yet if his own name, or even only one nice it, should be printed on the page, his eyes will instantly be stopped by it; so too, if his name be mentioned by others in their speech, though it should be whispered never so low, his ears will catch it. Thus it was with this mark, for though it was very slight, so that I think not one in a thousand would ever have noticed it at all, yet it stopped my eyes and brought up my thoughts suddenly, because I knew by instinct that it had something to do with me and what I sought… (p.174)

I have found then and at other times that in such moments, though the mind be occupied entirely by one overwhelming thought, yet the eyes take in, as it were unwittingly, all that lies before them, so that we can afterwards recall a face or landscape of which at the time we took no note. (p.194)

Thoughts

Slow moving

Moonstone is OK but for most of its length isn’t a patch on Robert Louis Stevenson. The narrative moves very slowly, there aren’t really any vivid characters (Elzevir Block isn’t in the same league as Long John Silver) and something about Falkner’s prose felt clogged and delaying. Falkner lacks the quality of celerity which makes Stevenson’s best narratives so breathlessly exciting.

Stodgy prose

I kept having to reread paragraphs only to find they didn’t really say much. For example, here’s just one sentence:

Then I resolved that come what might I would make my way once more to Moonfleet, before we fled from England, and see Grace; so that I might tell her all that happened about her father’s death, saving only that Elzevir had meant himself to put Maskew away; for it was no use to tell her this when she had said that he could never think to do such a thing, and besides, for all I knew, he never did mean to shoot, but only to frighten him.

Maybe you read that straightaway with no problems, but coming in the context of hundreds of other sentences of similar length and complexity, I kept realising my eyes had skimmed over entire passages without knowing what they said. Sometimes Falkner’s prose is lovely in the straightforward but evocative way of children’s books from a simpler age:

The day was still young, and far below us was stretched the moving floor of the Channel, with a silver-grey film of night-mists not yet lifted in the offing. A hummocky up-and-down line of cliffs, all projections, dents, bays, and hollows, trended southward till it ended in the great bluff of St. Alban’s Head, ten miles away. The cliff-face was gleaming white, the sea tawny inshore, but purest blue outside, with the straight sunpath across it, spangled and gleaming like a mackerel’s back. (p.115)

But more often it’s like this:

It was a bleak wide-bitten place enough, looking as if ‘twould never pay for turning, and instead of hedges there were dreary walls built of dry stone without mortar. Behind one of these walls, broken down in places, but held together with straggling ivy, and buttressed here and there with a bramble-bush, Elzevir put me down at length and said, ‘I am beat, and can carry thee no farther for this present, though there is not now much farther to go. We have passed Purbeck Gates, and these walls will screen us from prying eyes if any chance comer pass along the down. And as for the soldiers, they are not like to come this way so soon, and if they come I cannot help it; for weariness and the sun’s heat have made my feet like lead. A score of years ago I would have laughed at such a task, but now ’tis different, and I must take a little sleep and rest till the air is cooler. So sit thee here and lean thy shoulder up against the wall, and thus thou canst look through this broken place and watch both ways. Then, if thou see aught moving, wake me up.—I wish I had a thimbleful of powder to make this whistle sound’—and he took Maskew’s silver-butted pistol again from his bosom, and handled it lovingly,—’tis like my evil luck to carry fire-arms thirty years, and leave them at home at a pinch like this.’ With that he flung himself down where there was a narrow shadow close against the bottom of the wall, and in a minute I knew from his heavy breathing that he was asleep. (p.117)

There’s nothing wrong with any individual sentence, there’s just rather a lot of them and they go on a bit. Maybe all I’m saying is that Falkner’s style, both in his narrative and his dialogue, is long-winded. He’s just a bit too wordy to be really enjoyable, which is a deep flaw in an adventure story.

That said, sometimes his descriptions of nature, especially of the ever-changing sea, turn the wordiness which is a weakness in adventure writing to advantage.

The wind had blown fresh all the morning from south-west, and after Elzevir had left, strengthened to a gale. My leg was now so strong that I could walk across the cave with the help of a stout blackthorn that Elzevir had cut me: and so I went out that afternoon on to the ledge to watch the growing sea. There I sat down, with my back against a protecting rock, in such a place that I could see up-Channel and yet shelter from the rushing wind. The sky was overcast, and the long wall of rock showed grey with orange-brown patches and a darker line of sea-weed at the base like the under strake of a boat’s belly, for the tide was but beginning to make. There was a mist, half-fog, half-spray, scudding before the wind, and through it I could see the white-backed rollers lifting over Peveril Point; while all along the cliff-face the sea-birds thronged the ledges, and sat huddled in snowy lines, knowing the mischief that was brewing in the elements. (p.130)

Split subject matter

But the actual plot seemed to limp along as slowly as John with his broken leg. And it was during the ‘descent into the well’ passage that I realised something important. All the blurbs and summaries you read about this book describe it as a classic adventure about smuggling and yet it isn’t. It is about buried or concealed treasure. Sure, there’s smuggling in it, but the main interest from the plot doesn’t derive from the activity of smuggling; John and Elzevir could have been carpenters or masons fixing up the Mohune crypt and stumbling across the locket and its secret message.

There is nothing at all about smuggling in the main core interest of the narrative; for example, they don’t find the secret message in a cask of brandy or on board a ship or anything like that. It’s as if the treasure hunt trope has been grafted onto a smuggling setting. It’s as if two completely different genres have been glued together. And I found that a profound flaw with the structure of the entire book.

Magnificent climax

But, as I’ve made clear in my summary (above) all these faults are forgiven, swept away, by the tremendous power of the final scene of disastrous shipwreck, by the nobility of Elzevir’s self-sacrifice, and by John’s reconciliation with the sweetheart who has waited for him through all the long bitter years; by his complete transformation and by his charity.

But it is also an artistically brilliant move to end the narrative not with this goody two-shoes stuff but with a bittersweet memory of the cruel sea. As so often earlier in the book, it is in vivid description where Falkner triumphs and which the novel ends with.

But as for us, for Grace and me, we never leave this our happy Moonfleet, being well content to see the dawn tipping the long cliff-line with gold, and the night walking in dew across the meadows; to watch the spring clothe the beech boughs with green, or the figs ripen on the southern wall: while behind all, is spread as a curtain the eternal sea, ever the same and ever changing. Yet I love to see it best when it is lashed to madness in the autumn gale, and to hear the grinding roar and churn of the pebbles like a great organ playing all the night. ‘Tis then I turn in bed and thank God, more from the heart, perhaps, than, any other living man, that I am not fighting for my life on Moonfleet Beach. And more than once I have stood rope in hand in that same awful place, and tried to save a struggling wretch; but never saw one come through the surf alive, in such a night as he saved me.


Related link

Related reviews

Shakespeare and War @ the National Army Museum

A tale of two Henries

In 1944 Laurence Olivier produced, directed and starred in a movie version of Shakespeare’s play ‘Henry V’. Shot in bright primary colours it dealt in bright primary patriotic emotions and 30 years later my Dad and his best friend could remember seeing it in the cinema as 12-year-old kids and being stirred by its patriotic fervour, its stirring invocation of England’s valour and fortitude, at a time when German V rockets were falling on London and the south-east. (A V2 rocket fell on the house next door to my Dad’s, killing the occupants. The one time he mentioned it was the only time I ever saw him cry. Britain needed all the patriotism and determination it could muster.)

Installation view of ‘Shakespeare and War’ at the National Army Museum showing posters, cartoons, photos and programmes from the Second World War including a poster for Olivier’s Henry V

Those ardent schoolboys will have noticed that the film was ‘dedicated to the ‘Commandos and Airborne Troops of Great Britain the spirit of whose ancestors it has been humbly attempted to recapture’ because this appears as a caption at the start of the film, but won’t have known that the production was partly funded by the British government as a form of soft propaganda.

Forty five years later, in 1989, the actor widely seen as inheriting Olivier’s mantle, Kenneth Branagh, directed and starred in a new movie version of ‘Henry V’. Much was made of the fact that, instead of stylised sunny sets, the play went for a darker, grittier look, most notably in the battle of Agincourt scenes, filmed on a lovely sunny day in the Olivier version, but in a downpour of rain in the Branagh, which turns the battlefield into a quagmire, spattering all the characters with mud and also gore from the countless bodies which have been hacked and stabbed. Critics weren’t slow to point out that it was made in the aftermath of the Falklands War and so carried a strong message against war and warmongering.

Poster for the original 1984 Royal Shakespeare Company production of Henry V directed by Adrian Noble and starring Kenneth Branagh, as featured in ‘Shakespeare and War’ at the National Army Museum

The same play, the same author, the same plot, the same characters, the same stage directions and the same words – and yet supporting two very different productions, reflecting very different societies, mindsets and values.

These are just two examples of the way Shakespeare’s plays about war – the causes of war, the preparations for war, the experience of war, wartime emotions from terror to exhilaration – and the greatly varying opinions of his many different characters about war and warfare, have been quoted, adapted, distorted, illustrated and recycled, used both to support and attack Britain’s wars, in the 400 years since his death.

Shakespeare and War

The National Army Museum in Chelsea is currently holding a FREE exhibition titled ‘Shakespeare and War’ which sets out to review the huge history of the national playwright’s role in Britain’s many wars and conflicts and how his words, stories, characters and scenes have been used in widely different times and situations.

The exhibition sets out to document how the plays, characters and speeches have been excerpted and exploited propagandists, governments, commentators, satirists and anti-war activists, soldiers and civilians – during the turbulent 400 years since Shakespeare’s death, in 1616. As the curators put it:

The plays have been used to rally the nation at times of crisis and to reflect on the human cost of conflict. But they have also been used to critique war and to consider the more challenging aspects of the military experience. They have inspired soldiers and civilians alike, helping people face adversity on the battlefield and at home.

After Shakespeare

Thus the exhibition starts after Shakespeare’s death. There’s none of the usual fol-de-rol about his biography or the Globe Theatre or the parabola of his career, just the blunt facts that he was a very successful actor-dramatist-manager, who died in 1616, before the British Army even existed.

Instead we are thrown straight into the first major conflict which occurred after his lifetime, the civil war or wars of three kingdoms which broke out 23 years after his death, in 1639, and lasted until Cromwell’s pacification of Scotland in 1653.

The exhibition is divided into six broad historical sections, each of which is introduced by a wall label and then features all sorts of bric-a-brac from the period in question – broadsheets, posters, cartoons, pamphlets which cite or reference, quote or parody scenes, characters or speeches from the plays to suit the purpose of polemicists and propagandists of the moment, paintings or photos of Shakespearian actors or patrons, posters for productions through the ages, and then – in the modern era – recordings of radio and TV productions and so on. At the most basic level, it’s a curiosity shop of historical Shakespeariana.

1. Royal Shakespeare: The Civil War and Beyond

During the English Civil War Shakespeare was often associated with the monarchy. While in prison awaiting trial, King Charles I read Shakespeare’s (Second) Folio (the First and Second Folios were the first attempts to publish all Shakespeare’s works in one volume). The King made notes on its pages and the exhibition has his copy on show. This did not go unnoticed by the great poet and Puritan propagandist, John Milton, who is represented here by a first edition of his pamphlet, Eikonoklastes.

Installation view of the civil war part of ‘Shakespeare and War’, showing, on the left, engravings of Charles I (above) and Cromwell (below) along with Charles’s copy of the Second Folio beneath an English mortuary sword (photo by the author)

This little collocation of objects overflows with meanings. Eikonoklastes was written and published late in 1649 to justify the execution of King Charles which took place on 30 January 1649. It was a point-by-point rebuttal of a pamphlet titled Eikon Basilike, a Royalist propaganda work, which purported to be a spiritual autobiography of the saintly king. The Basilike set Charles up as the type of a perfect enlightened monarch who ruled by the Divine Right of Kings and through the ancient constitution. Milton refuted all these points and more, claiming that Charles’s rule had degenerated to a tyranny over a people who could only be free by executing him and abolishing the monarchy altogether.

Where does Shakespeare come in all this? Well, he was part of the culture wars between the two sides. Theatre was encouraged and sponsored by the King, the Court and aristocrats. Shakespeare’s younger contemporary, Ben Jonson, ended up writing masques – elaborate ritualistic performances, accompanied by music – for the King and Court, which reinforced the ideology of royalty and monarchical rule and in some of which the king himself took part.

In the eyes of radical Puritans all this was blasphemy. Representing people on stage came close to breaking the commandment about not worshipping images. Plays diverted people’s minds away from the only thing they should be contemplating, the glory of God. Playhouses were notorious sites of crime and prostitution. Shakespeare’s plays, even the sternest tragedies, are littered with outrageously rude puns and euphemisms, the kind of thing Parliamentary Puritans had in mind when they accused the theatre of staging ‘spectacles of pleasure, too commonly expressing lascivious mirth and levity.’

For all these reasons and more the Puritans protested against the theatre in the years leading up to the war, and this explains why, when Parliament took control of the capital in September 1642, they promptly shut down all the playhouses. Which explains why there’s an engraving of Cromwell in this exhibition showing him wearing a suit of armour above a pile of discarded theatrical bric-a-brac, such as masks and disguises. For 18 long years the theatres were dark. Shakespeare’s Globe was torn down in 1644 and turned into ‘tenements’.

The Restoration

In 1660 the monarchy was restored and Charles II assumed the Crown. His 25-year reign was troubled by political and religious issues along the old civil war schism, at its most fundamental the clash between devotees of the Protestant cause and Charles’s Court which became tainted with accusations of Catholic sympathy, especially after he married the Catholic princess Catherine of Braganza in 1662.

Like his father Charles was a great patron of the arts, including theatre, and his rule saw the flourishing of the movement referred to as Restoration Comedy. The theatre once again became associated with all the vices of Londoners at play, and this, like the theatre of his father, became the target of religious criticism. The ongoing schism between Catholic-leaning court and Protestant nobles came to a head during the three-year reign of Charles’s brother, James II, who with typical Stuart arrogance, not only took a Catholic wife but made it clear that the new infant son she bore him would be raised a Catholic. The Protestant aristocracy rebelled and overthrew him in what their propagandists named The Glorious Revolution, inviting the Protestant Prince of Orange (in modern Holland) to come and be our king.

The curators skimp a bit on this period, displaying just one work, a copy of a book by the playwright John Crowne adapting Henry VI parts 2 and 3 and titled ‘Misery of Civil War’.

Shakespeare’s history plays

The thing is, Shakespeare’s history plays amount to a sustained investigation of the nature of authority and ‘good’ rule. All of them are named after the English king they focus on and ask questions like, What makes a good king? What makes a bad king? Are nobles, or ‘the people’, ever justified in overthrowing a king? If two noble houses fight for the crown, what are ordinary people to do? Follow their conscience, try to avoid the conflict, or fight for their local lord and master? Is there such a thing as a ‘just’ war in which case, how do you define one?

Questions like these echo throughout the obvious plays i.e. the ones about English history, but are also central to the Roman plays and three of the four great tragedies.

The history plays are usually divided into three groups:

  • the series depicting the Wars of the Roses, being: Henry VI parts 1, 2 and 3, and Richard III (4 plays)
  • the second tetralogy – including Richard II, Henry IV parts 1 and 2, and Henry V
  • the standalone plays King John, Edward III and Henry VIII

The Roman plays which discuss the nature of authority and leadership focus on Julius Caesar and its sequel, Antony and Cleopatra. Both cover wars and include battle scenes.

The tragedies all feature war, in different ways. Macbeth is about a successful soldier and includes actual battle scenes. King Lear and Hamlet feature the invasion of their respective countries (England by the French and Denmark by the Swedes) but no actual fighting. And Othello is all about a highly successful mercenary general, which features no battles but is drenched in reminiscences of fighting and the rhetoric of battle.

What I’m trying to convey is that these 17 or so plays are rarely about war as such, but but are far more about the nature of power and authority and what happens when authority collapses.

The eight classic history plays are about the collapse of authority in one country and civil war among the English. The two Roman plays are the same: in both the Romans aren’t fighting any external enemy, but among themselves. Similarly, the three tragedies (excluding Othello) are about the collapse of royal authority in one country – the French only invade England in Lear and the Swedes invade Denmark in Hamlet once the native rulers have made a complete horlicks of trying to rule themselves.

And again, although the English come to the aid of the rightful heir to the throne at the end of Macbeth, they only have to do so because, yet again, the ruling class of the country in question (this time Scotland) have made a total mess of ruling themselves, as a result of all the murders Macbeth finds himself voodooed into committing.

Thus, the seventeen or so plays about history are almost entirely about the collapse of political authority in one country leading to civil war. The fifty years from the collapse of Charles I’s power in the 1630s through to the Glorious Revolution in 1688 are, therefore, the most relevant or applicable to Shakespeare’s concerns. It is, therefore, strange and intriguing that contemporaries, apparently, according to this exhibition, made so little application of the huge amount Shakespeare wrote on this subject to the one era in the past 400 years which most suited it.

This little survey of Shakespeare’s history plays also explains something else. Henry V is the only one in which is not about a civil war. Henry V is the only one in which we are not fighting among ourselves, but go abroad and fight somebody else. This explains why Henry V crops up in this exhibition as the spearhead for patriotic fervour more times than the ten other history plays put together – because once we’d sorted out our own political problems via the civil wars and rebellions of the seventeenth century, we turned our warlike energies against foreigners.

2. Revolutionary Shakespeare: Change and Political Debate

The late eighteenth century saw a major global war (against France) and two revolutions (in America and France) which changed the world. In each of these conflicts Shakespeare’s plays, characters and the Shakespeare brand were used to define, critique and support both a patriotic war and new political movements.

The Seven Years War

By the start of the eighteenth century Shakespeare had become established by numerous writers, critics and commentators as a national icon. The exhibition skips over the wars of the early 18th century, in Europe and India:

  • War of the Spanish Succession 1701 to 1714
  • Great Northern War 1717 to 1720
  • War of the Austrian Succession 1740
  • Carnatic Wars 1744 to 1763

Instead it jumps to the Seven Years’ War (1756 to 1763), the war against France which saw British victories on the Continent, in India, in the Caribbean and North America. The exhibition includes a number of interesting mementoes from the war.

David Garrick, the leading figure in London theatre by the mid-century, wrote a Dialogue to preface a 1756 production of The Tempest, in which two characters debate the rights and wrongs of the new war. It reminds us that for hundreds of years actors, managers and playwrights felt perfectly free to preface Shakespeare productions with prologues like this, tailoring the play to the issues of the day, or even cutting and rewriting bits of the plays to reflect current concerns.

In 1768 Edward Capell produced an edition of the plays in which he states what had, by then, become orthodoxy, that the 38 or so plays amount to ‘a part of the kingdom’s riches’. Not only this, but Britain’s standing ‘in the world’ depended on ‘the esteem within which these are held.’

The fact that Shakespeare’s one play which takes a foreign enemy is directed against the French did not escape numerous writers and commentators as Britain embarked on a global struggle against…the French. There’s a playbill for a production of Henry V staged in Covent Garden in 1761 which has two significant aspects. 1) For this occasion, the play was unsubtly subtitled ‘the Conquest of France’ and 2) each of the 23 productions were followed by a lavish recreation of the coronation of King George III which had just taken place (22 September 1761).

If Shakespeare’s association with kingship had been deeply problematic for Milton in the 1640s, long before a century had passed the name of Shakespeare, the Shakespeare brand, had become indissolubly linked to celebration of the solidly Protestant and anti-French monarchy.

The American War of Independence (1775 to 1783)

Following on from, and partly a result of, the Seven Years War, came the American War of Independence. Unsurprisingly, American patriots seeking to break from Britain drew on Shakespeare’s classical histories. Plays like ‘Julius Caesar’ and ‘Coriolanus’ helped support the idea of republican government and liberation from imperial rule.

The two sides (British and American) both staged plays and the curators display playbills from both sides, which use Shakespeare texts to propagandise for their cause. So there’s a playbill for an American production of Julius Caesar which applauds the ‘noble struggles for Liberty by that renowned patriot Marcus Brutus.’

There are rather more relics from the British side and the curators display pictures focusing on New York. This is because early on in the war, the British Army under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Clinton occupied New York City and turned it into a garrison town. Members of the Army staged regular productions of Shakespeare at the newly-renamed Theatre Royal, confirming the by-now well-established link between drama and royalty. the performances were staged ‘with permission’ of Clinton, who was also a patron of the performances. Plays were staged to raise funds for wounded soldiers. The British tended to favour Shakespeare’s monarchical plays, whilst American Patriots used plays with a republican ethos (such as Julius Caesar and Coriolanus) in their satirical prints and posters.

Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Clinton, 1st Regiment of Foot Guards, 1758 (National Army Museum)

The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars (1789 to 1802, 1805 to 1815)

As explained above, Shakespeare’s plays can be used to provide examples of resistance to oppression and corrupt politics and so justify insurrection against corrupt rulers. The French Revolution amounted to a massive ideological upheaval in the thinking of all Europe. In the three years after the initial overthrow of the monarchy in 1789, politicians and intellectuals all across Europe took the sides of either the revolutionary liberators or the rule of monarchy, hierarchy and order. But in 1792 revolutionary France declared war on Austria and Prussia and the conflict became military in nature. Many former sympathisers retracted their support, especially after the situation in Paris descended into The Terror of 1793 to 1794.

The French Revolutionary War lasted from 1792 to 1802, when it was terminated by the Treaty of Amiens. Fighting broke out a year later in what came to be called the Napoleonic Wars which were to last from 1803 to 1815.

During this long period of ideological and military conflict, Shakespeare plays, characters and lines were mobilised to justify both sides of the ideological and military divide. In Britain, politicians, public figures, actors, and the Army drew on the playwright’s characters and speeches to justify their reasons for going to war, and to criticize rebellions against royalty.

This 25-year period also happened to be a golden age of political satire, featuring two of the greatest British caricaturists and cartoonists, James Gillray (1756 to 1815) and Isaac Cruikshank (1764 to 1811). Amid the many visual jokes and references they and many cartoonists and commentators like them used to pillory the politics of the day, Shakespearian references loomed large.

So the exhibition has some excellent cartoons by both men, which invoke Shakespearian references for the purposes of mockery and exaggeration. This print by Cruikshank uses The Tempest to praise the patriotic Tory Prime Minister William Pitt and ridicule his chief political opponent, Charles James Fox, an opponent of the British monarchy who was an initial supporter of the French Revolution.

Prospero and Caliban in the Enchanted Island by Isaac Cruikshank (1798)

Smoothly dressed Pitt is depicted as the wonder-working magician Prospero, telling his creature:

Hence! – fetch us fewel and be quick
Thou wert best – shrugst thou malice?
If thou dost unwillingly what I command
I’ll rack thee with old cramps –

While Fox, portrayed as big ugly Caliban, and wearing a tricolour scarf (symbol of the revolution) shrugs with savage disgust, saying:

I must obey! his art is of such power
It would control a Setebos,
And make a vassal of him.

There’s a brilliantly vivid print by Gillray titled ‘A phantasmagoria – conjuring up an armed skeleton’ which depicts contemporary politicians as the three witches from Macbeth. The print criticises the Treaty of Amiens which was widely seen as a capitulation to France. In the picture the witches are replaced by three leading supporters of the treaty, Henry Addington, Lord Hawkesbury and William Wilberforce and their magic spells for peace have, it is implied, reduced Britannia to a skeleton. Note the sack of gold at bottom left implying that these ‘traitors’ were bribed to betray their country and the French cockerel at bottom right, mockingly standing astride a skinned British lion.

‘A Phantasmagoria; — Scene – Conjuring-Up an Armed-Skeleton’ by James Gillray (1803)

The exhibition includes probably Gillray’s most famous image, ‘The Plumb-pudding in danger; – or – State Epicures taking un Petit Souper’. The image depicts British Prime Minister William Pitt and French Emperor Napoleon carving up the world between them. I’ve seen it many times but didn’t realise that the epigraph directly under the title, at top right, is an adapted quote from The Tempest, namely ‘”The great globe itself and all that it inherits” is too small to satisfy such insatiable appetites’.

The Plumb-pudding in danger; – or – State Epicures taking un Petit Souper by James Gillray (1805)

In these cartoons you see something interesting happening. Many of the previous objects (from the Seven Years or American Revolutionary Wars) indicated that Shakespeare was best promulgated via productions of entire plays. Here, in these cartoons, you can see the way that Shakespearian tags and clichés now lend themselves to much more pithy and succinct visual media.

Satirical prints had been around all through the 18th century, in fact they go back to Shakespeare’s day and even earlier. But somehow the Gillray and Cruikshank feel new. They demonstrate how Shakespeare, as well as representing the ‘the kingdom’s riches, according to high-minded editors such as Edward Capell, could also be the source of popular jokes and gags.

From now on, alongside all the stirring patriotic stuff, the exhibition features a strand of often very funny works using Shakespeare for comic purposes.

3. Imperial Shakespeare: The Victorian Army

After Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815, the British Army’s role began to change. Rather than fighting major campaigns on the Continent, it was regularly used to protect and expand Britain’s imperial possessions, to fight Queen Victoria’s ‘small wars‘. But further to what I just mentioned about comedy, my favourite bits from what amounts to the Victorian section of the exhibition, were comic.

It must be said that some of the exhibits in the show seem to bear a pretty slender relationship with its supposed subject, Shakespeare and War. For example, the eighteenth century section has a set of images around the death of General James Wolfe at the 1759 Battle of Quebec which have no direct relation to Shakespeare, don’t quote or cite Shakespeare, seem to have no relationship except that Wolfe’s death was made the subject of ‘patriotic plays’.

Less utterly irrelevant is this entertaining print. In 1823 British aristocrats still carried out duels and this print mocks the practice by having the duellers and their seconds portrayed as monkeys. Apparently the title derives from a quote from ‘The Merchant of Venice’ but it’s a pretty flimsy pretext for including it in an exhibition about Shakespeare and War.

Awful Moments or Monkeys of Honour, colour print by John Lewis Marks after an unknown artist (1823)

More directly relevant if irreverent are the excellent prints taken from a later book, the Military Misreadings of Shakespere by Major Thomas Seccombe. It contains 31 beautifully delineated cartoons of military cockups, clumsiness and pratfalls, each offset by an ironically serious Shakespeare quotation. In this one a beautifully dressed member of the Life Guards has just been thrown by his horse to the accompaniment of a grand quote from Titus Andronicus: ‘That what you cannot, as you would, achieve, you must perforce accomplish as you may’ which thus acquires a completely comic meaning.

‘That what you cannot, as you would, achieve, you must perforce accomplish as you may’ from Military Misreadings of Shakespere (1880)

The Crimean War (1853 to 1856)

It wasn’t all lolz. The great exception to the century of generally small colonial wars which the British Army fought was the Crimean War, the one major conflict we were involved in in the century between the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815) and the start of the Great War (1914). This famously highlighted significant problems with the Army’s organization, notably in the famous and futile Charge of the Light Brigade. Newspapers reported on the poor conditions in which soldiers found themselves, leading to demands for improvements and reforms to the Army’s culture and structure.

Only one exhibit relates to this badly managed and bitter war, a watercolour done by the Swedish artist Egron Sellif Lungren which depicts a kind of cinematic reimagining of a production of Henry V (what else?) staged by Charles Kean at the Princess’s Theatre in 1859 i.e. a few years after the war ended. Queen Victoria attended the play and commissioned Lundgren to do a watercolour version of it for her Theatre Album. Of all the scenes in the play Lundgren chose to depict the siege of Honfleur which is not only the setting for Henry’s famous speech ‘Once more unto the breach dear friends’, but will have reminded many people of the long and gruelling British siege of Sebastapol.

Installation view of ‘Shakespeare and War’ at the National Army Museum showing Egron Sellif Lungren’s watercolour plastered across one wall, with Gillray and Cruikshank cartoons on the left

Imperial Shakespeare

Obviously the nineteenth century was the one in which Britain cemented its grasp over the largest land empire the world has ever known, as well as almost total control of the world’s oceans. This is a very big subject indeed and it is not really properly explored. Take just India. Were there no British theatres in India, Shakespeare productions in India? Did the growing Indian middle class every stage Shakespeare productions with Indian casts? Was Shakespeare’s name, plays or quotes never invoked to justify British rule in India? Were there comic or satirical pamphlets or prints using Shakespeare quotes to mock British rule in India? Not in this exhibition, nor anything about the British Army’s involvement in Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East or Far East.

Instead, as I’ve already pointed out, some of the exhibits have only a tenuous or oblique connection to the exhibition topic. For example, a picture caption tells us that amateur theatricals were often staged by regiments and soldiers as peacetime entertainments, which we might well have guessed. And that’s the fairly flimsy pretext for sharing a photo of members of the East Yorkshire regiment staging a production of Hamlet at their barracks in Cheltenham in 1895.

The Cast of Hamlet, Winter Gardens, Cheltenham, 1895 (National Army Museum)

Meanwhile, there’s nothing about the second war of the period which shook British confidence, the Boer War of 1899 to 1902. Were there no Shakespeare productions mounted here in England to raise funds or stir patriotic fervour? Did the besieged populations of Ladysmith, Mafeking or Kimberley put on productions to keep their spirits up? Didn’t domestic commentators or cartoonists use Shakespeare quotes or characters as material? If so, none of it is displayed here.

4. Patriotic Shakespeare: The First World War (1914 to 1918)

During the First World War great service and sacrifice were required of both the Army and the civilian population. As in the last great campaign in Europe a century before, Shakespeare was used in Britain to rally the troops and the country behind a sense of national duty.

As mentioned above, some exhibits are included on pretty flimsy grounds: for example, there’s no real reason to include some of Lord Kitchener’s recruitment posters (Your country needs You) except for the fact that, after Kitchener drowned when the ship he was sailing in hit a German mine (HMS Hampshire, 5 June 1916) the League of the Empire started publishing and presenting special editions of the ‘Complete Works of Shakespeare’ to wounded and disabled soldiers in his name, an edition which quickly became known as ‘the Kitchener Shakespeare’ – but there’s nothing at all about Shakespeare in the famous posters.

‘Lord Kitchener’s Appeal’, recruiting poster, 1914 (National Army Museum)

More tenuous examples include: a sketchbook by a John Henry Jenkins, a front line soldier, which depicted not only trench life but the watercolours of amateur theatricals which the soldiers put on, although Shakespeare is nowhere mentioned; or a 1915 recruitment poster which includes the image of St George and the dragon and so, the curators suggest, might have reminded some viewers of Henry V’s famous call, ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’ Pretty tenuous.

Much more relevant is a book of Shakespeare quotations arranged under themes or headings relevant to the war and distributed to soldiers, ‘Shakespeare in Time of War: Excerpts from the Plays arranged with Topical Allusions’, edited by the artist Francis Colmer and published in 1916.

Another apparently random object is this photo of Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps personnel packing boxes in a factory in 1918. Spot the Shakespeare connection? No, because there isn’t one…

Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps personnel packing boxes in factory, 1918

…until you look at the photo beneath it, which is a photo of Maggie Smale’s all-women production of Henry V, staged in a munitions factory in Leeds which had been operated by the ‘Barnbow Lasses’ during the Great War. Is this to do with feminism? Or pacifism? Or a celebrating of provincial grit? I wasn’t sure.

Still from Maggie Smale’s all-female production of Henry V as featured in ‘Shakespeare and War’ at the National Army Museum. Photo by Mike Oakes

Amateur productions of Shakespeare were mounted across the country, sometimes to raise morale, to entertain wounded soldiers, for the benefit of the public. Three hundred years after his death Shakespeare was not only a well-known brand but possibly the only literary writer a lot of working class people had heard of. As in his own time, he catered for an audience of elite intellectuals, the educated middle classes, and illiterate workers. You can see why Shakespeare productions abounded because he was 1) possibly the only playwright everyone had heard of and 2) safe –unlike more recent troubling playwrights of the previous generation (Shaw, Ibsen etc).

There’s a clip from an official film showing wounded soldiers watching open air production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Scenes like this 1) the British heritage which the soldiers were fighting for 2) to a wider audience demonstrated the care the government was taking of its fighting men. This clip appeared alongside footage of scenes of artillery and war preparation, thus dovetailing Britain’s cultural heritage into the war effort.

in my own life I’ve met plenty of people who don’t give a toss about official culture, art or theatre. You’ve got to wonder how many of the sock and maimed soldiers forced to watch this kind of thing actually enjoyed it or even understood it. Because that’s a thing about Shakespeare – unless you’re pretty familiar with the play beforehand, it’s impossible to get the most out of a theatrical production, in fact it’s often impossible to understand what’s going on and especially difficult to get any of the comedy in his plays.

It’s fascinating to learn about the Shakespeare Hut. In February 1916, to commemorate 300 years since his death, this mock-Tudor retreat was opened on a plot of land in Bloomsbury. The hut was built on a site cleared for a planned Shakespeare Memorial Theatre, which was abandoned because of the war.

The aim was to provide shelter for wounded Australian or New Zealand troops. Over the next two years it would welcome in more than 100,000 soldiers far from their New Zealand homes. Queen Mary visited in 1917, took up her post behind the tea counter, and poured cups for all the men.

The troops were subjected to regular Shakespeare productions, including an all-female Henry V starring Ellen Terry, one of the most famous actors of her day. Hah! So the Maggie Smale production was following in venerable footsteps.

The exhibition features photographs and playlists from the Hut and you can read more and see photos in an interesting Guardian article about it. Interesting to learn that it the site is now occupied by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

One of the most interesting learnings from the exhibition is about the role of theatricals among British prisoners of war held in Germany. The exhibition focuses on the Ruhleben Camp in Germany which housed some 5,000 POWs. Prisoners were allowed to construct a theatre and, for the same tercentenary which prompted the Shakespeare Hut, staged a series of productions, including Twelfth Night and Othello. The exhibition features photos and a programme from a 1915 production of As You Like It.

In a similar spirit, the British Red Cross mounted a Shakespeare Exhibition at the Grafton Galleries in 1917. Quite clearly, if you go looking for Shakespeariana during the First World War, you’ll find it.

Installation view of ‘Shakespeare and War’ at the National Army Museum, showing a poster for the Red Cross Shakespeare Exhibition of 1917 (photo by the author)

5. Democratizing Shakespeare: The Second World War

Same goes for the Second war. Once again Shakespeare was trotted out as the exemplar of the culture and values that were under attack from Nazi Germany, that we were fighting to preserve. The motives and means were very similar to the first war – am dram productions across the country to entertain wounded troops or raise money, leading actors of the day giving patriotic productions in London to stir patriotic fervour, footage of productions shot to be show in cinemas and raise morale.

With the new angle of radio. For the first time productions could be broadcast, to a large radio audience which steadily grew throughout the six war years. As part of the government’s attempt to mobilize society to support the war effort, British theatre was sponsored by the state for the first time in its history.

The Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts (CEMA) was created to promote and maintain the fine arts and British cultural life. It later became the Arts Council of Great Britain. The Entertainment National Services Association (ENSA) provided for the forces, organising shows and performances by well-known actors, singers, and comedians.

Photo of an ENSA production staged in a London underground station in 1942 (National Army Museum)

Despite the challenges of wartime, both theatre and Shakespeare thrived. Once again, his words helped to frame the experience of conflict both in Britain and across the world. The exhibition features a recording of a radio programme originally broadcast by the BBC Overseas Services on Shakespeare’s birthday on 23 April 1942. It included extracts from ‘As You Like it’, Henry IV part 1 and, of course, Henry V. It was introduced and performed by leading Shakespearean actors Peggy Ashcroft, Robert Donat, Edith Evans and Ralph Richardson. You can listen to it on headphones and marvel at their phenomenally posh plummy English voices.

There’s a section devoted to the Laurence Olivier production of Henry V described at the start of this review.

And once again there’s a section devoted to British prisoners of war staging Shakespeare productions in camps in Germany. The exhibition includes a list of plays staged at Stalag 383 in Hohenfels, which included ‘The Merchant of Venice’.

6. Just Shakespeare: Adapting After 1945

After the Second World War the patriotic tone of Laurence Olivier’s Henry V lingered throughout the 1950s. But the second half of the 1960s saw radical changes in all aspects of art and culture, with a variety of new approaches to all the arts including theatre. This included the anti-war movements triggered by Vietnam, as well as new attitudes to sex and nudity, which now began to appear in Shakespeare productions.

For 200 years the name and plays of Shakespeare had acted as a kind of recruiting sergeant for the British Army and rallying point for the nation in times of real threat (particularly during the Napoleonic, First and Second World Wars). From the late 60s onwards, Shakespeare’s relationship with the state, the Establishment and the Army came under increasing critical scrutiny. Not in every production, but in an increasing number.

Hence Kenneth Branagh’s 1984 RSC production. Unlike earlier productions it shows the execution of French prisoners onstage and then left the bodies and corpses from the Battle of Agincourt at the back of the stage, behind a gauze curtain, for the later, supposedly reconciling scenes between the English king and his French bride-to-be.

The last section of the exhibition, in the central booth of the (fairly small) exhibition space, takes the Branagh production as setting the tone for productions which followed the Falklands War (1982), the Gulf War (1990 to 1991), and the Iraq War (2003 to 2011).

It includes video clips of stage productions including:

  • a 2013 production of ‘Othello’ which depicts the characters in the modern-day Army uniform used during the Iraq War
  • a 2015 production of ‘Othello’ which features graphic scenes of waterboarding Iraqi suspects
  • ‘Days of Significance’, a play by Roy Williams based on ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ which looks at the impact of British troops who fought in the Iraq War

The strong anti-war flavour of these productions and the pretty intense criticism of the British Army and its techniques, could hardly be more unlike the innocent patriotism of the Shakespeare Hut or the brightly colours optimism of Olivier’s Henry V. If we go to war with Russia I wonder if Shakespeare will be trotted out to inspire patriotic spirit as it was 100 and 70 years ago. I doubt it. Shakespeare hasn’t changed, that’s to say the texts remain pretty much what they were 400 years ago. But our understanding of war, gained in the brutal conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, has made any thoughts about the glamour or heroism of war impossible to modern Brits.

Availability bias

This is a fascinating premise for an exhibition and I thoroughly enjoyed working my way through the wealth of objects and their captions. It proves that Shakespeare is like the Bible, so compendious and diverse that you can find words to justify more or less any opinion on any subject (as demonstrated by the opposing sides in the American War of Independence using Shakespeare to bolster their arguments).

However, it throws up an obvious issue which is to do with the availability of objects to display. The exhibition was curated by – and is based on the scholarly books by – two Shakespeare scholars, Amy Lidster and Sonia Massai, namely Wartime Shakespeare: Performing Narratives of Conflict. Just from the synopsis on Amazon you can see how a book-length work like this is free to range over all and any productions it likes because words are easy. On the other hand, an exhibition in a museum is severely limited by the objects it can get its hands on.

In fact, like every exhibition at every gallery or museum, this one is an exercise in the art of the possible. Objects which denote important productions or topics may not be available (or may not even exist) while other topics throw up a glut of barely relevant artefacts.

In addition, it’s difficult and expensive to get objects on loan from other collections whereas it’s cheap and easy to get them from your own storeroom, so all exhibitions in all galleries are biased towards the host institution and its collection.

Plus there’s the common problem with any historical overview which is that objects from three or four hundred years ago are rare whereas, as you get closer to the present day, the number of objects rapidly increases, until you are drowning in a surfeit of stuff.

These imbalances in the real world threaten to unbalance or distort the picture painted by any exhibition, an imbalance which is easily managed in books and articles where issues and ideas can be easily conveyed by text alone.

So, at various points, I couldn’t help feeling that the curators had included some objects more because they were just related to one of the conflicts during the period in question than for their Shakespearian relevance. As mentioned above I couldn’t see any Shakespeare connection to the three or four pictures of General Wolfe and the capture of Quebec except that the event was turned into patriotic plays and prints. To put it another way, some of the links between specific conflicts and Shakespeare were pretty tenuous. I still don’t understand why there was an English mortuary sword in the Civil War section except that maybe the curators felt they just needed a physical object, any object, to go alongside the half dozen books and pamphlets.

All the objects (photos, pamphlets, diaries and whatnot) are interesting, it’s just that I was left scratching my head why some of them were included.

Shakespeare and conflict

There’s another, more scholarly, issue. This, as I touched on earlier, is that taken together, Shakespeare’s dozen or so history plays, plus the relevant Roman plays and the tragedies, build up into a subtle, sophisticated, multifaceted meditation on the themes of power, authority, legitimacy, insurrection, rebellion, revolt and overthrow.

Arguably, to really address the topic which this exhibition sets out to explore, you would need a really sound grasp of how all these issues are dramatised and explored in the 20 or so relevant plays, before you even started your review of how they’ve been applied to Britain’s wars and Britain’s Army.

But this, of course, is a massive task – after a lifetime reading Shakespeare I still haven’t read all the history plays and have nothing like a complete grasp of the issues of legitimacy and political power which they raise.

And an exhibition like this has to be practical, finite and manageable. This one achieves what it sets out to do, in a relatively small space, as well as it probably could do. But, in my opinion, the ghost of the larger political, social and cultural issues raised by the plays hover over it, unmentioned and undiscussed.

To take just one aspect of what I’m driving at, many of the characters in the history plays (the ones I’m familiar with) describe and discuss the horror of war, the fear experienced by soldiers, the terror of innocent civilians, the horrific injuries, killing and massacres involved, the fields strewn with bodies, the devastated landscapes and ruined economies. Descriptions of these kinds of things are commonplace in the plays and yet, somehow, hardly occur anywhere in this exhibition.

At some point I realised that this is not an exhibition about Shakespeare and War as about Shakespeare and the British Army. This explains why it’s divided into chronological periods based entirely around conflicts the British Army engaged in right up to the present day, rather than the themes of war encountered in the plays which I have just listed. And this is why, although it’s a very enjoyable trot through British military history, with an emphasis on how Shakespeare’s name, characters and words have been exploited in times of war – it feels, ultimately, despite being packed with shiny objects, intellectually thin.

You can see how an exhibition about Shakespeare and war would actually be something quite different: instead of taking a chronological approach it would take the topics I’ve mentioned several times now – the collapse of authority, civil war, rebellion, interstate war – and then the aspects of war – recruitment, training, fighting, sieges, inspirational rhetoric, the exhilaration of fighting, the horror of wounding, the devastation of the countryside, the mourning of widows – and explore how all of these are described and critiqued in Shakespeare’s multifaceted dramas. It would be something completely different from this exhibition. But then again, maybe what I’ve got in mind would be so wordy and text-heavy that it couldn’t be staged as an exhibition at all.

What this exhibition does, it does very well. It is small but beautifully staged and is FREE.


Related link

Related books

Shakespeare reviews

National Army Museum reviews

Seventeenth century reviews

Seventeenth century British history

The Thirty Years War

Cavalier poetry

John Milton

John Dryden

Restoration comedies

Art

Charles I: King and Collector @ the Royal Academy

King Charles I is most famous for getting his head chopped off in 1649, at the climax of the civil war he had triggered against his Puritan, ’roundhead’ opponents in Parliament.

(I am aware that there’s controversy about all aspects of the wars, from their very name [should it be called the Great Rebellion, the British Civil Wars, the Wars of Three Kingdoms, etc] through to the dates, because the civil wars across all four of his realms actually started with the rebellion of the Scots at having an English prayer book imposed on them in 1637 – which triggered Charles’s hapless manoeuvrings with his Parliament to get them to fund an army to repel the Scots invasion of 1638 – although it wasn’t until rebellion broke out in Ireland in 1641 that the final breach between Charles and his Puritan opponents in Parliament became irreconcilable. It’s a much more complicated story than usually depicted.)

Anyway, before he mismanaged his kingdoms so badly that he triggered war in all three of them (Wales was not a kingdom but a principality) Charles had been one of the most sophisticated royal patrons and collectors of art anywhere in Europe. This big exhibition at the Royal Academy brings together an impressive number of the sculptures, paintings, tapestries and so on that Charles either directly commissioned or purchased through his roving agents from the leading artists of the day. it is a magnificent display of some 150 works of art, ranging from classical sculptures to Baroque paintings, and from exquisite miniatures to monumental tapestries.

Equestrian painting of Charles I with M. de St Antoine by Anthony van Dyck (1633)

Scattered and reunited

A simple but important point about the exhibition – and a demonstration of the vanity of human wishes – is that, having spent a lifetime collecting all these riches, soon after Charles’s execution the new Puritan regime sold them off to pay their soldiers and all these masterpieces were scattered across Europe.

Some were tracked down and rebought by his son, Charles II after his restoration to the throne in 1660, especially the ones which had gone to British purchasers who were no keen to ingratiate themselves with the new king. Most remained abroad and, indeed, made very nice additions to the royal collections of the Louvre and the Prado. But what was returned, along with the works which Charles’s queen, Henrietta Maria, had taken to France and brought back in 1660, went on to form the core of the future Royal Collection.

Charles the collector

In 1623, two years before he became king, Prince Charles visited Madrid. The purpose of the visit was to sound out the possibility of marriage to Maria Anna of Spain, daughter of King Philip III of Spain. Negotiations broke down when the new king, Philip IV, demanded that Charles convert to the Catholic Church and live in Spain for a year as pre-conditions.

But although the diplomatic aim of the visit failed, one thing made a deep impact on the future king of England, namely the huge and dazzling art collection of the Philip IV. This, thought Charles, was the magnificence and grandeur befitting a divinely appointed monarch! Charles went shopping and returned to England with a number of works, including paintings by Titian and Veronese, while agents were sent to France and Italy to snap up anything which came on the market. Thus Charles was able to snap up the famous Gonzaga collection which had been accumulated by successive dukes of Mantua, through the work of Nicolas Lanier, his Master of Music and agent.

It was this collection which included Andrea Mantegna’s monumental series, The Triumph of Caesar, (1484 to 1492) which is given a whole room to itself in the exhibition.

Triumph of Caesar: The Vase Bearers by Andrea Mantegna (1484 to 1492)

But it wasn’t just a matter of liking fine art. A king’s collection bespoke his power, both to the few subjects who saw it, but, more importantly, to visiting ambassadors and princes. According to historian Jenny Uglow, ‘ceremonies were delayed and dinners cooled as he showed visiting dignitaries proudly round’ his collection, including the so-called Bear Gallery containing works like Titian’s portrait of Charles V with a Dog (1533) and Rubens’s Daniel in the Lions’ Den (1616), to the Privy Lodging Rooms which housed works by Titian, Correggio, Giorgione and others; and then, the core of the collection, the Cabinet Room, which held 80 paintings, 36 statues and statuettes, as well as bas-reliefs, miniatures, books, engravings, drawings, medals and precious objects.

Charles V with a Dog by Titian (1533) Museo Nacional del Prado

Moreover portraits, such as those by van Dyck, then had multiple copies made of them which could be sent to foreign monarchs as testaments to Charles’s majesty and glory.

By 1649, Charles’s collection comprised around 1,500 paintings and 500 sculptures. An inventory compiled by Abraham van der Doort (c.1580 to 1640), first Surveyor of The King’s Pictures, recorded the contents of the collection, providing a detailed account of the artistic tastes and high level of connoisseurship within the king’s circle.

Changing British taste

One of the aims of the exhibition is to demonstrate how Charles was the first British monarch to really grasp the artistic culture of the Continent. The Protestant Tudor monarchs (Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth I), with the brief exception of the Catholic Queen Mary (1553 to 1558), had been wary of Catholic Europe and its culture.

But Charles’s father, James I, changed this policy. During the long reign of Queen Elizabeth Catholic Spain had been the enemy, justifiably so since its king, Philip II, had launched an armed invasion of England, which, if it had succeeded, would have resulted in the forced conversion of the church and people back to strict Roman Catholicism, with untold numbers of arrests, tortures and public burners of recusants.

James came from a different family and tradition and so was able to break with Elizabeth’s policy and seek a rapprochement with Catholic Spain. During his reign the treaties with Spain were moderate but still sparked murmurs of dissent from the Protestant aristocracy. (Anti-Spanish murmurings became louder when the Protestant hero, Sir Walter Raleigh, was beheaded in 1618, largely at the behest of the Spanish ambassador, and as a result of a last, ill-fated expedition to South America in 1617.)

The apotheosis of James I, commissioned by Charles I from Peter Paul Rubens to form the centrepiece of the newly refurbished Banqueting House, completed in 1636

James’s eldest son, Henry, surrounded himself with scholars, artists and musicians and acquired ‘Catholic’ paintings from Holland and from Florence. On Henry’s death in 1612 his collection passed to his mother, Anne of Denmark, who herself became a keen patron of painters, dramatists and architects as well as court masques, and filled her rooms at Somerset House and Oatlands Palace with religious pictures, still-lifes, landscapes and allegorical scenes.

So this was the family atmosphere Charles grew up in, far more relaxed about Catholic culture than his Protestant forebears of the previous century. The Puritans in Parliament disliked this cultural shift, as they had disliked Charles’s trip to Spain (still Europe’s most Catholic power) and then really disliked Charles’s marriage to the Catholic Henrietta Maria, youngest daughter of Henry IV of France, who – to the Puritans’ outrage – was allowed to attend Catholic masses in the Royal Palaces.

But Charles wasn’t alone in his taste for Continental art. Other super-rich aristocrats vied with him to create superb collections, including Thomas Howard (1586 to 1646), Earl of Arundel, and George Villiers (1592 to 1628), Duke of Buckingham. At the height of his success, Buckingham’s palace in the Strand contained over 300 paintings by artists including Rubens, Titian, Tintoretto and Bassano. It became a fashion and a competition.

Titian was the main man. Titian (1490 to 1576) had loyally served Habsburg monarchs, sending them paintings on a wide range of subject from his base in Venice. Titian’s portraits, especially those of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, proved him the supreme painter of kingly, military and diplomatic power, and Charles wanted some.

The Allocution of Alfonso d’Avalos to His Troops by Titian (1540 to 1541) Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid

Charles and Van Dyck

The artist most associated with Charles is Sir Anthony van Dyck (1599 to 1641). Charles persuaded the great Flemish painter to come to London in 1632, where he was appointed ‘principalle Paynter in Ordenarie to their Majesties’.

Triple Portrait of Charles I by Sir Anthony van Dyck (1636)

Van Dyck’s achievement was immense. His fluency and sense of composition, his extraordinary ability to capture not just the likeness but the mood and character of his sitters, was unparalleled. The exhibition includes some of his most spectacular works, including:

  • Charles I and Henrietta Maria with Prince Charles and Princess Mary (1632)
  • his two magnificent equestrian portraits, Charles I on Horseback with M. de St. Antoine (1633) and Charles I on Horseback (1638)
  • ‘Le Roi à la chasse’ (1635)

Many portraits were done in several versions, to be sent as diplomatic gifts or given to supporters of the increasingly embattled king. Altogether van Dyck has been estimated to have painted forty portraits of Charles himself, as well as about thirty of the Queen.

Such was the impact and range of his works that van Dyck became the dominant influence on English portrait-painting for the next 150 years. Charles awarded him a knighthood and a £200 annual pension. When van Dyck died young, in 1641, he was buried in (the old) St Paul’s Cathedral.

The Mortlake tapestries

But it wasn’t just van Dyck. Charles I commissioned some of the most important artists of his day. Beside the ceiling of the Banqueting House (above) Charles commissioned from Peter Paul Rubens paintings such as ‘Minerva Protects Pax from Mars’ (1630) and his ‘Landscape with Saint George and the Dragon’ (1630 to 1635).

Another major highlight of the exhibition is the Mortlake tapestries of Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles. These have a complicated history. In 1513 Pope Leo X commissioned Raphael to design a set of tapestries of the Acts of the Apostles to be hung in the Sistine Chapel. Detailed versions of the works were painted in gouache on sheets of paper which were glued together to achieve the scale required, and these preparatory studies are referred to as ‘cartoons’. These cartoons were the send to Brussels, at that time the premiere centre of tapestry making in Europe. The final tapestries took some time to create but were complete and delivered to Rome by the time of the Pope Leo’s death in 1521.

The cartoons were kept on at the workshops in Brussels for some years, and more versions of the tapestries created from them. But a hundred years later many had found their way back to Italy, to the city of Genoa to be precise. And it was here that one of Charles’s agents ascertained that they were available for sale and so young Prince Charles hurriedly bought them.

His aim was to bring the cartoons to England, where they could be used as models for the tapestry factory established in 1619 by his father, James I, at Mortlake in south-west London, and several partial sets of the Acts of the Apostles were indeed woven here over the next two decades. After passing through the hands of various monarchs, the reassembled cartoons were eventually gifted to the Victoria and Albert Museum. And it’s these huge and awesome works that the visitor can see in a room devoted to them.

The Miraculous Draft of Fishes by Raphael (1515 to 1516)

Summary

To visit the exhibition is to bask, for a while, in the reflected glory and magnificence of royalty, strolling past the masterpieces mentioned above as well as stunning works by other Renaissance artists such as Correggio, Agnolo Bronzino, Jacopo Bassano, Tintoretto and Paolo Veronese as well as Albrecht Dürer, Jan Gossaert, Hans Holbein the Younger and Pieter Bruegel the Elder. What a banquet of Baroque art, a visual feast fit for a king.

The promotional video


Related links

More seventeenth century reviews

More Royal Academy reviews

The Trial of Charles I by Dame Veronica Wedgwood (1964)

I own about 50 books on the Civil Wars and am a member of the Cromwell Association, have attended lectures and visited battlefields and key Civil War sites. If you asked me what to read on the subject I would unhesitatingly recommend the ageing but brilliant trilogy of books by Dame Veronica Wedgwood (1910 to 1997):

  • The King’s Peace (1955)
  • The King’s War (1958)
  • The Trial of Charles I (1964)

The reason is simple. All the other books I’m aware of are either high-level overviews of the entire period (from the 1630s or earlier, to the Restoration in 1660) or specialist books by professional historians arguing a particular thesis or interpretation. Wedgwood’s books are the only ones I know of which give a straightforward, chronological account of what happened on an almost daily basis. This level of detail about the helter-skelter of day-to-day events, the rush and pressure of unpredictable crises and alarm, is crucial to understanding the decisions the key players made as they struggled to understand and control events.

Ten fateful weeks

Wedgwood concentrates on the 10 weeks between Cromwell’s Army, on 20th November 1648, laying before a reluctant Parliament their demands that the king be brought to trial – and the execution of the king January 30 1649. First she sketches in the background and the key political groups which had emerged during the Civil War:

The Royalists

Mostly in exile or hiding after the failed rising or ‘second civil war’ in the Spring and Summer of 1648 which had been convincingly crushed by the New Model Army. Royalists throughout the land were being repressed and, if they’d helped in the uprising, often had their land and money confiscated.

The Army

Under its brilliant commander Sir Thomas Fairfax the army had emerged victorious in the second civil war, defeating all Royalist forces. This battle-hardened army was to go on to occupy Scotland and then storm through Ireland. But the Army was divided into two faction:

  1. The Levellers During the war there emerged from the common troops, formerly uneducated men who had found a voice and confidence through their success and solidarity, a group nicknamed the Levellers, who demanded a comprehensive overhaul of the English State, starting with free elections on the basis of universal male suffrage to form a new House of Commons with a mandate to review Common Law, abolish the Church of England, abolish tithes and so on. Their most effective leader was the young, impassioned John Lilburne, once whipped through the streets of London at Charles’s order for slandering the Court.
  2. ‘The Grandees’ This was the Levellers’ nickname for the landed gentry and aristocrats who led the Army, who opposed the king on legal or religious principle but had not the slightest interest in reordering society, who were convinced that would lead to anarchy. They formed a small Council of the Army, dominated by the ruthless workaholic Henry Ireton, who happened to be son-in-law to Cromwell.

Parliament

The House of Lords

Heavily biased towards the king, most of the Royalists were abroad in exile, in hiding or dead. In the leadup to the trial sometimes as few as six Lords attended some sessions.

The House of Commons

Claiming to represent the people of England, the Commons was already diminished by up to 200 of the original members of the 1642 House. Even so it was still dominated by the Presbyterians, so-called moderate Puritans who desperately wanted to reach agreement with the king. It was these moderates that Charles had been stringing along since 1647 while he hoped against hope for further uprisings or help from a foreign government to free him.

The Army MPs

Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton and some 20 others combined leadership positions in the Army with membership of the House of Commons and used their position repeatedly to get the Army’s way.

Pride’s Purge

When the Presbyterian majority in the Commons delayed debating the Army’s demand for a trial, events took a dramatic turn. On December 5th Colonel Thomas Pride stood with a small troop of soldiers outside Westminster Hall and, as each MP arrived, he only let through the ones favourable to the Army, taking into custody all those opposed. Only 45 MPs were let in. It became known as ‘Pride’s Purge’. It was in effect a military coup, ensuring that the Parliament whose rights and prerogatives Cromwell and the others took up arms to defend in 1642, now consisted of few if any Lords, and only a hard core of MPs favourable to the Army’s wishes. A rubber stamp.

The Commission

This reduced ‘Rump’ was persuaded to set up a Commission with 135 members to administer the trial and decide the king’s guilt. Of this hand-picked group rarely more than 60 attended any of the sessions. Wedgwood gives a brilliant, day by day of the trial and the central clash – between the obscure lawyer John Bradshaw chosen to run the court, who repeatedly tried to get Charles to enter a plea – and the dignified king who knew the law inside out and refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the court.

The conflict

Charles I was convinced he had a God-given duty to preserve not only the laws and traditions of England, but the rights and prerogatives of the Crown, as handed to him by his father, in order to hand them on to his son. The religious zealots in the Army were convinced that Charles’s defeat in the first and second civil wars showed beyond doubt that God had decided against him, that he was guilty of starting the war in the first place, and therefore was the ‘Man of Blood’ as they called him, and deserved to die. More practical Roundheads like Henry Ireton probably Cromwell just simply realised there was no dealing with this king. One way or another they had been trying to negotiate with him since 1640 and it had led to nothing but bloodshed, political collapse, economic depression, while the king endlessly prevaricated and endlessly schemed, trying to get the Scots to invade, to raise an Irish army, to persuade the French king to aid him.

Wedgwood’s account brilliantly conveys why both sides were convinced God was on their side, and how the different interpretations of what that meant led to complete stalemate. The only way to break the stalemate was to remove one of the players.

Reactions to the execution

The execution of the king was very unpopular. Even within the Army there were protests. The Presbyterian interest in London and beyond opposed it. It prompted the Presbyterian Scots to declare war on England. Royalists sincerely considered it the most heinous act since the Crucifixion of Christ, to which it was immediately compared.

Cromwell

War in Scotland and Ireland took up Cromwell’s time over the next few years while the Rump Parliament gained a damning reputation for corruption until, in April 1653, Cromwell ejected it by force. Leaders of the Army offered Cromwell the crown. He refused but accepted the title Lord Protector in December 1653 and set about instituting the godly, fair and just government he had hoped for. But the various experiments in democracy, nominated Parliaments, and rule by military Governor-General all failed. Cromwell died in September 1658, almost ten years after he’d led the men who executed Charles I.

The Restoration

Within a year his regime had unravelled, the Protectorate collapsed, and the strongest surviving military figure, General Monk, bowing to popular demand and political realism, invited Charles II to return to Britain and take the throne.

The disappearance of Christian belief

As Wedgwood concludes, the strongest element in these events, the devout and sometimes fanatical Christian belief of all the players involved, is the one that has most faded from contemporary view, becoming almost inaccessible from our modern perspective. We fill the gap with Marxist or mercantilist or psychoanalytical, with political or biographical interpretations. But it was upon the rock of a shared Christian faith, reflected through vastly different interpretations, that all four nations in the British Isles came to bloody grief for 20 long years.

‘Cromwell before the Coffin of Charles I’ (1849) by Hippolyte Delaroche. Hamburger Kunsthalle


More seventeenth century reviews