The Royal Shakespeare Company as ‘Cultural Chemist’

Summary

As other articles in this volume suggest, the extent to which Shakespeare is a true catalyst, a substance that is chemically unaltered by the reaction that it initiates or speeds up, is a concept that deserves critiquing. Jonathan Bate, for instance, argues that Shakespeare is a ‘catalytic converter’. This article seeks to expand the critique, problematizing the possibility that Shakespeare is a cultural catalyst. Narratives of Shakespeare as a cultural catalyst involve him unilaterally conferring kudos onto individuals, corporations and other organizations that associate themselves with his person, life and works, or acting as a spur to further creativity and greatness. However, I will demonstrate that Shakespeare is altered by the interaction between his works, institutions and audiences. Furthermore, this article examines the way in which the phrase, ‘Shakespeare as cultural catalyst’, fails to acknowledge that not all reactions are naturally occurring, unaided by human intervention. It contends that the phrase attributes Shakespeare – a body of literary works or a long-dead playwright, poet and person (to name but a few of the labels ascribed to him) – with agency while obscuring the power of those who act on him. These agents include editors, directors, conservators, teachers and the institutions to which they belong, as well as independent scholars, Shakespeare enthusiasts and bloggers. I argue that these organizations and individuals, like chemists, facilitate reactions, or processes, around Shakespeare by bringing together the necessary ingredients. These might include Shakespeare and readers, Shakespeare and students, as well as Shakespeare and tourists, among others. Furthermore, the phrase neglects the different subjectivities, contexts, objectives and assumptions of those contributing to the catalytic process.

In Cultural Selection, Gary Taylor argues that an author such as Shakespeare cannot survive, let alone continue to dominate vast areas such as English education, without the help of what he terms a ‘survivor’: ‘Culture is not what was done but what is passed on. Culture therefore depends not only upon the maker who stimulates but upon the survivor who remembers, preserves, and transmits the stimulus.’ If it is envisioned at all in Taylor's conception, the catalytic role is shared between the work's author and a survivor or survivors. Like many successful ‘makers’, Shakespeare has had multiple survivors or carriers who have promulgated his value – early examples include Heminges and Condell, editors of the Folio, as well as contributors to the volume, such as Jonson. In turn, they recruited new guardians of Shakespeare's value through their readers, through inspiring other editors, other eulogizers, and so the cycle continues. This is necessary, explains Taylor, ‘Because the dying of human carriers never ceases, the need to pass on memories to new carriers never ends.’