(Ebook) Shakespeare’s Women and the Fin de Siècle by

Sophie Duncan ISBN 9780198790846, 0198790848 Pdf

Download

https://ebooknice.com/product/shakespeares-women-and-the-fin-de-
siecle-5846968

★★★★★
4.8 out of 5.0 (64 reviews )

Instant PDF Download

ebooknice.com
 (Ebook) Shakespeare’s Women and the Fin de Siècle by Sophie
Duncan ISBN 9780198790846, 0198790848 Pdf Download

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

We have selected some products that you may be interested in
Click the link to download now or visit ebooknice.com
for more options!.

(Ebook) Richard III (The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare 29)

by William Shakespeare ISBN 9781108006019, 1108006019

https://ebooknice.com/product/richard-iii-the-cambridge-dover-wilson-
shakespeare-29-2116616

(Ebook) Si ça s’apprend by Sophie Gonzales & Cale Dietrich ;

Traduit de l’anglais (Australie) par Noémie Saint Gal ISBN
9782823887563, 2823887563

https://ebooknice.com/product/si-ca-sapprend-50784650

(Ebook) Un si joli désastre by Sophie Gonzales ISBN

9782823877922, 2823877924

https://ebooknice.com/product/un-si-joli-desastre-42691292

(Ebook) Shakespeare’s Props: Memory and Cognition by Sophie

Duncan ISBN 9781138291225, 1138291226

https://ebooknice.com/product/shakespeares-props-memory-and-
cognition-42855854
(Ebook) Si nos descubren by Sophie Gonzales, Cale Dietrich ISBN
9789877479652, 9877479656

https://ebooknice.com/product/si-nos-descubren-50792170

(Ebook) Si nos descubren by Sophie Gonzales & Cale Dietrich ISBN

9789877479782, 9877479788

https://ebooknice.com/product/si-nos-descubren-50792172

(Ebook) Entre fin de mois et fin du monde : économie de nos

responsabilités envers l'humanité by Christian Gollier ISBN
9782213721965, 2213721963

https://ebooknice.com/product/entre-fin-de-mois-et-fin-du-monde-economie-
de-nos-responsabilites-envers-l-humanite-54858274

(Ebook) Zionism and the Fin de Siècle by Michael Stanislawski

ISBN 9780520935754, 0520935756

https://ebooknice.com/product/zionism-and-the-fin-de-siecle-51817980

(Ebook) Shopaholic to the Stars (Si Gila Belanja ke Hollywood)

by Sophie Kinsella ISBN 9786020315744, 6020315746

https://ebooknice.com/product/shopaholic-to-the-stars-si-gila-belanja-ke-
hollywood-46794182
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

Ox f o r d E n g l i s h M o n o g r a p h s

General Editors
pauli n a kewes l aura ma rcu s pe t e r m cc u l lo u gh
se a mus perry lloyd p rat t f i o n a sta f f o rd
da n i el wa k e l i n
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

Shakespeare’s Women
and the Fin De Siècle
S O PHI E D U N C AN

1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Sophie Duncan 2016
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2016
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016939726
ISBN 978–0–19–879084–6
Printed in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, St Ives plc
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

Acknowledgements
I am profoundly grateful to the colleagues, friends, family, and institutions who
made this work both possible and a pleasure. This book’s first incarnation as a
doctoral thesis benefitted from the support of the Arts and Humanities Research
Council, and of Brasenose College Oxford. I finished the book during my post-
doctoral research at the Calleva Centre, Magdalen College, Oxford: my thanks to
the Calleva Trust and to the College for providing such a hospitable and interdis-
ciplinary home for my research. In the intervening year between doctoral and
postdoctoral study, both St Catherine’s and Harris Manchester Colleges offered
extremely welcoming environments in which to teach and write. The staff and
students of all four colleges have shaped this book across the past six years.
In completing a project so concerned with cultural memory and performers’
posterity, I am delighted to have worked closely with descendants and colleagues
of this book’s principal and supporting casts. Ethel Robinson and Elizabeth
Nimmo, Madge Kendal’s granddaughter and great-granddaughter, very generously
allowed me access to their invaluable family archives (and took me for some
­excellent meals). Peter Berkeley shared his expertise on the life and career of his
grandmother, Beatrice Blascheck, while Trevor Dudley clarified and enlarged my
understanding of his wife’s ancestor, Helen Kinnaird. Lolita Chakrabarti and
Adrian Lester kindly shared their memories of Gwen Ffrangcon-Davies.
Within Oxford, many generous colleagues supported me. I was fortunate
enough to have Sos Eltis and Laurie Maguire as the best imaginable doctoral super-
visors, who remain inspirational friends. Russell Jackson, Simon Palfrey, Matthew
Reynolds, Kirsten Shepherd-Barr, Emma Smith, and Michèle Mendelssohn offered
vital insights and read drafts. I should also like to thank Kate Bennett, Felix
Budelmann, Robert Douglas-Fairhurst, Robin Dunbar, Katherine Duncan-Jones,
Janette Gilbert, Simon Horobin, Tiffany Stern, Ben Teasdale, Jackie Thompson,
Evert van Emde Boas, and Bart van Es for their encouragement and wisdom
through the final throes of writing and publication. Of the many students whose
enthusiasm and acuity have made teaching Shakespeare and Victorian drama so
enjoyable, conversations with Bailey Sincox, Olivia Sung, and Helena Wilson par-
ticularly enlivened and challenged my thinking.
At OUP, particular thanks must go to Eleanor Collins for her patience and
guidance, Sally Evans-Darby, Kavya Ramu, and to the two anonymous readers
whose attention and insightful generosity made an immeasurable difference to
this book.
Beyond Oxford, Katharine Cockin generously shared her insights regarding the
Ellen Terry papers, while Pascale Aebischer, Jem Bloomfield, Jacky Bratton,
Catherine Hindson, David Mayer, Catherine Radcliffe, Jeffrey Richards, and Pete
Yeandle were especially encouraging in this book’s early stages. Gilli Bush-Bailey
and Kate Newey have not only organized conferences that provided new insights
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

vi Acknowledgements

throughout this project but also both personally influenced my research through
the erudition and excitement of their own. Before Oxford, Rachel Bradbury and
Pat Friday shaped my academic interest in all things Shakespearean, Victorian, and
theatrical. A group of amazing directors and producers must be thanked for bring-
ing my research to life on theatre and radio: notably, Jessica Dromgoole, Titas
Halder, Indhu Rubasingham, Beatty Rubens, and Abbey Wright. Their casts and
crews have always asked the best questions.
Friends have consistently boosted morale, read drafts, and averted technological
disaster: Sheenagh Bloomfield, Jack Doyle, Maud Hurley, Megan Kearney, Rachel
Neaum, Alice Parkin, Barney Taylor, and Helen Todd deserve particular thanks.
John-Mark Philo intermittently moved in with us, which is one of the nicest things
that can happen to anyone.
Shakespeare’s Women and the Fin de Siècle would have been impossible without
the love, encouragement, and support of my family: my parents, Pam and Alastair
Duncan; and my wife, Emily Oliver. This book is, of course, for them.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

Contents
List of Figures ix

Introduction 1
1. The Lily, the Matron, and Rosalind 18
2. Bad Women, Good Wives: Ellen Terry as Lady Macbeth 61
3. The ‘Femme Serpent’: Mrs Patrick Campbell at the Lyceum 94
4. A British Princess: Ellen Terry as Imogen 131
5. ‘The Eternal Suffragette’: New Women and a New Century 168
Epilogue 222

Bibliography 235
Index 271
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

List of Figures

1.1. Madge and William Hunter Kendal as Rosalind and Orlando, 1885.
© Victoria and Albert Museum, London 20
1.2. ‘Madge Robertson’, c. 1870, Guy Little Collection. © Victoria and Albert
Museum, London 39
1.3. ‘Madge Robertson’ and W.H. Kendal, c. 1870, Guy Little Collection.
© Victoria and Albert Museum, London 41
1.4. Madge and W.H. Kendal in Sweethearts, 1870s, Guy Little Collection.
© Victoria and Albert Museum, London 42
1.5. Madge and W.H. Kendal in Mont Blanc, c. 1874, Guy Little Collection.
© Victoria and Albert Museum, London 43
1.6. Lillie Langtry as Rosalind, 1883, Guy Little Collection. © Victoria and
Albert Museum, London 56
2.1. ‘Ellen Terry as Lady Macbeth’, 1889, John Singer Sargent
(1858–1925). © Tate, London 2016 72
2.2. ‘Prince Hal’, Gower Memorial, Stratford-upon-Avon. © Emily Oliver 73
3.1. Mrs Patrick Campbell as Juliet, 1895. By Alfred Ellis. © Victoria and
Albert Museum, London 110
3.2. Mrs Patrick Campbell as Ophelia, 1897, Harry Beard Collection.
© Victoria and Albert Museum, London 115
4.1. Ellen Terry as Imogen, 1896, Guy Little Collection. © Victoria and
Albert Museum, London 132
5.1. Lillie Langtry as Cleopatra, 1890. Photo by W.&D. Downey/Getty
Images184
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

Introduction

Writing her memoirs in 1925, the Shakespearean actress Violet Vanbrugh ­(1867–1942)
offered a roll-call of Victorian actor-managers:
It has been my good fortune to work under many great stage-managers. Sir John Hare,
Sir Squire Bancroft, Sir Henry Irving, Sir George Alexander, Sir Herbert Tree, Arthur
Bourchier, Dion Boucicault, Augustin Daly, Sir Arthur Pinero, Sir Charles Wyndham,
Sir Charles Hawtrey, H.V. Esmond, Seymour Hicks.
The names are standard issue in any interwar theatrical memoir: a blazon of prestige
and success. But then Vanbrugh’s reminiscence takes an unexpected turn.
Each of them . . . was able and brilliant, in his own way, but to Mrs. Kendal I would
award the palm of being the cleverest and most sensitive—in fact quite the finest
stage-manager of them all.1
Sensitivity was not a quality all colleagues ascribed to Mrs Kendal, born Margaret
Shafto Robertson in 1848. But on one point her Victorian theatrical milieu,
friends, and detractors (some sworn enemies) seem to have agreed: Madge Kendal
was one of the most gifted performers and stage-managers Britain had ever known.
Her artistic agency, financial volition, and fierce management of her celebrity personae
all reveal the complex and intricately interconnected world of the most powerful
Victorian Shakespearean actresses.
This book is about those women; that select group of fin-de-siècle performers
who gave the most iconoclastic and controversial performances of Shakespeare’s
heroines. Fin-de-siècle Shakespeare was characterized by actresses: actress-managers,
‘star’ actresses, actresses from theatrical dynasties, and newcomers who changed
their profession forever.2 The key performers in this study span, between them, all

1 Violet Vanbrugh, Dare to be Wise (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1925), 50–1.
2 I refer to women on the Victorian stage as ‘actresses’ throughout this book, while acknowledging
the fact that twenty-first-century women in classical theatre frequently and understandably prefer to
be called ‘actors’. Fin-de-siècle actresses proudly described themselves and were described using this
term. Their personal and professional distinction from actors was definitive. As Tracy C. Davis points
out, the fact that actresses did not appropriate wages otherwise available to actors uniquely shielded
them from a major contemporary argument against women working outside the home. The phrases
‘woman actor’ and ‘women actors’ appear in nineteenth-century discourse only when discussing Early
Modern or Restoration theatre. Finally, feminist work on theatre history has typically used the term
‘actress’. In doing so, I echo Tracy C. Davis’s Actresses as Working Women (1991), Gilli Bush-Bailey’s
Treading the Bawds: Actresses and Playwrights on the Late-Stuart Stage (1996), Kerry Powell’s Women
and Victorian Theatre (1997), Jacky Bratton’s New Readings in Theatre History (2003), Kate Newey’s
Women’s Theatre Writing in Victorian Britain (2005), Gail Marshall’s Actresses on the Victorian Stage
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

2 Shakespeare’s Women and the Fin De Siècle

these categories. They are the British actresses Ellen Terry (1847–1928), Madge
Kendal (1848–1935), Lillie Langtry (1853–1929), Janet Achurch (1864–1916),
Constance Benson (1864–1946), Mrs [Stella] Patrick Campbell (1865–1940),
Violet Vanbrugh (1867–1942), Lillah McCarthy (1875–1960), and Esmé Beringer
(1875–1972). These were the star actresses with the greatest cultural capital who
played Shakespeare through the fin de siècle until the First World War, across
­multiple genres and sites of performance.
John Stokes defines the ‘star’ performer around 1900 as ‘protean, multiple,
yet . . . unmistakeably themselves and no one else’. The ‘star’ achieved ‘celebrity’
based on being both ‘famous, charismatic, mythic’ and ‘palpably there’ onstage.
The star brought ‘distinct personal possibilities’ to her acting and ‘embod[ied] [her]
own complex times’. Stokes thus describes European stars including the French
Rachel Félix (1821–58) and Sarah Bernhardt (1844–1923) and the Italian Eleonora
Duse (1858–1924). This book extends Stokes’s invaluable paradigm, recognizing
how British actresses also specifically upheld Stokes’s criteria by performing popu-
lar, metropolitan Shakespeare at the fin de siècle. If occasionally less ‘mythic’ than
their exotic counterparts, these British stars were more ‘palpably’ and regularly
‘there’ and ‘of [a] time’ to which British audiences could relate.3 Simultaneously,
new advances in travel helped actresses like Ellen Terry, Madge Kendal, and Lillie
Langtry be ‘there’ for audiences in an increasing range of cities and countries.
These actresses were both popular and powerful, exercising tremendous artistic,
financial, and (often) sexual volition compared to other women of the era.
By the fin de siècle, popular culture depicted the successful star actress as an
overwhelming, even magnetic figure. Ellaline Terriss noted that stars ‘ren[t] the
hearts and shatter[ed] the emotions of their audience’, while in fiction, Geraldine
Jewsbury noted the actress’s ability to ‘make all that assembled multitude laugh,
weep, or experience any emotion I please to excite: –there is a positive intoxication
in it . . . that real power’.4 Journalists depicted the star as a siren—the young Madge
Kendal was ‘bewitching’ and ‘indescribably captivating’, while Terry managed to
make the traditionally monstrous Lady Macbeth ‘beautiful and bewitching’ as a
‘siren in place of a virago’.5 Even a critic ambivalent about the extent of Lillie
Langtry’s talent found her beauty and charisma such that he responded to her
1890 Cleopatra with frenzy, admitting that ‘The house shouted with delight, and
I shouted loudest of all’.6 Their performances could be overpowering. Constance
Benson’s Katherine was so ferocious that Max Beerbohm was unnerved by such a

(1998), the essays in Maggie B. Gale’s edited collection The Cambridge Companion to the Actress (2007)
and in Katharine Cockin’s edited collection Ellen Terry, Spheres of Influence (2011), Sos Eltis’s Acts of
Desire (2013), and Kirsten Shepherd-Barr’s Theatre and Evolution from Ibsen to Beckett (2015).
3 John Stokes, ‘Varieties of Performance at the Fin de Siècle,’ in Gail Marshall (ed.) Cambridge
Companion to the Fin de Siècle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 207–22, 210.
4 Ellaline Terriss, Just A Little Bit Of String (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1955), 19; Geraldine
Jewsbury, Half Sisters, II.82, quoted in Kerry Powell, Women and Victorian Theatre (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997), 9.
5 ‘The Playgoer’, Penny Illustrated Paper [hereafter Penny Illustrated ] (27 February 1875), 130;
‘London Correspondence’, Freeman’s (31 December 1888), 133; P. Pennyng, ‘Art and Artistes’,
Jackson’s Oxford Journal (5 January 1889), 8.
6 ‘The Man about Town’, Country Gentleman (22 November 1890), 1646.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

Introduction 3

‘malevolent being’.7 Similarly, Sarah Bernhardt’s impact on audiences was so

intense that Arthur Symons felt ‘almost a kind of obscure sensation of peril’ while
rapt by her performances.8 Star actresses became, in twenty-first-century parlance,
‘taste-makers’, whether through costumes copied by fashionable women, celebrity
product endorsements, or as the objects—and thus barometers—of cultural
attachment. Thus, by 1889, Frederick Wedmore could legitimately describe Ellen
Terry as ‘the sympathetic actress, whom not to admire’, which automatically meant
being ‘out of the fashion’.9
Star actresses also had exceptional financial power. In 1884, Madge Kendal
pointed out that many women in the profession
can earn their £300 or £400 a year, and that is a very nice competence for a woman in
the middle class of life, very much more than she would earn in almost any other
career. Besides, she has the blessedness of independence, and that is a great thing to a
woman, and especially to a single woman.10

During the fin de siècle, performer salaries increased sharply, and the women in this
book were especially high earners. Lillie Langtry’s debut in Ours with the Bancrofts
(January 1882) earned her £250 per week; Ellen Terry earned £200 per week in the
1890s.11 Economic agency meant artistic agency. The most successful actresses
could finance their own managements, either alongside husbands and investors, as
Marie Wilton Bancroft, Madge Kendal, and Madame Vestris did, or alone, like
Lillie Langtry and Mrs Patrick Campbell. This allowed actresses to control visual
and technical choices, with Langtry rebuffing managers’ charges of extravagance by
pointing out ‘But I want it, and it is my money, isn’t it?’12
Star actresses also deployed their power in ways not always publicly visible.
Kerry Powell claims that Madge Kendal ‘always deferred to the authority of
W[illiam] H[unter] Kendal’, her husband, with whom she acted continually
­following their 1869 marriage.13 Certainly, this is the front Madge Kendal
­presented to the world. Nevertheless, as Chapter 1 makes clear, her fierce man-
agement of her public and private life obscured the truth. Loudly proclaiming
her wifely deference, Madge Kendal privately managed every aspect of her and
her husband’s lives and careers, building them into the theatrical personification
of ostensible Victorian domesticity. Deemed Britain’s best actress by commentators
including Shaw, Kendal is a worthy addition to Bratton’s grouping of Ellen
Tree, Céline Céleste, and Priscilla Horton as one of the ‘important women
who . . . worked with their partners or husbands, and who were widely acknow-
ledged to be the actual moving force of the concern . . . not only as star performers
but also in the role we would call director or artistic director’.14 As Vanbrugh’s

7 Max Beerbohm, ‘Shakespeare in Two Directions’ (5 January 1901), Around Theatres, 320.
8 Arthur Symons, Plays, Acting and Music (New York: Dutton, 1903), 27.
9 Frederick Wedmore, ‘The Stage’, Academy (5 January 1889), 14–15, 14.
10 Madge Kendal, Dramatic Opinions (London: Murray, 1890), 31.
11 Tracy C. Davis, Actresses as Working Women (Oxford: Routledge, 1991), 24.
12 James Brough, The Prince and the Lily (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1975), 275.
13 Powell, Women and VictorianTheatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 69.
14 Jacky Bratton, The Making of the West End Stage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 9.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

4 Shakespeare’s Women and the Fin De Siècle

experience indicates, Madge, not William, was the powerhouse behind produc-
tions. She vaunted her marital status and the title ‘Matron of the Drama’, and
attacked (covertly and overtly) any professional competitor whose personal life
was less unassailable than her own.15 This privileged her ‘brand’ of celebrity
actress, and was a particularly astute move during the fin de siècle, when ques-
tions of actress respectability were especially charged.
By the late-Victorian period, the theatrical profession was, for the first time, on
the brink of respectability, with Henry Irving (1838–1905) becoming the first the-
atrical knight in 1895. Meanwhile, as Davis shows in Actresses as Working Women,
the clichés about actresses and prostitutes were untrue. Open prostitution would
have destroyed performers’ careers, and available documentary records (such as
censuses, Magdalen homes, refuges, and paperwork relating to delinquent women)
show no evidence that Victorian sex workers described themselves or were described
euphemistically as ‘actresses’ (78–80). However, Davis does argue for acting and
prostitution as ‘parallel’, if not ‘convergent’ occupations (81), with actresses under-
going the same ontological change as ‘fallen’ women: ‘once a woman crossed the
threshold of a stage door she was “An Actress” for the rest of her days’ (97). But the
situation was rather more complicated. Davis acknowledges that ‘a number of
actresses with impeccable professional and personal credentials’, including ‘Madge
Kendal [and] Marie Bancroft’, were ‘not implicated at all . . . and a select number of
others’, including Terry, Langtry, and Campbell, ‘were exempted due to their con-
siderable and enduring popularity’ (78). However, this binary is difficult to sustain.
Marie Bancroft had had two illegitimate children, and, as Chapters 1 and 5 show,
slurs on Langtry’s personal life persisted in her professional reception.
Wealth allowed actresses such as Marie Bancroft, Ellen Terry, and Lillie Langtry
to buy their way out of the poverty and isolation attendant on most mothers of
illegitimate children. However, while Langtry’s daughter Jeanne was initially raised
as her niece, Terry, as Chapter 4 shows, benefitted from journalistic collusion in
eliding the ages and parentages of her two children, who appeared publicly with
her and were integral to her professional life.16 There was always more than one
way of reading a popular actress’s life. Simultaneously, there were ultra-pious
actresses such as Helena Faucit (1817–98), who remained ‘An Actress’ profession-
ally even after her marriage to Sir Theodore Martin, and was all but canonized by
her husband and fans; Madge Kendal dubbed her ‘Our Example’.17
In 1897, Telegraph critic Clement Scott’s assertion that women in theatre were
unable to defend their purity provoked outrage from actors and managers, and
silence from actresses, perhaps suggesting they recognized the atmosphere of temp-
tation and exploitation Scott described.18 At the same time, Terry, who had three
marriages, two illegitimate children, and a long affair with co-star Henry Irving,

15 Madge Kendal, Dramatic Opinions (London: Murray, 1890), 17.

16 Laura Beatty, Lillie Langtry: Manners, Masks and Morals (London: Chatto & Windus, 1999),
303–4; see Chapters 1 and 4.
17 Madge Kendal, Dame Madge Kendal By Herself [hereafter DMK] (London: J. Murray, 1933), 5.
18 Raymond Blathwayt, ‘Does the Theatre Make For Good?’, Great Thoughts I.249 (1898),
228–31.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

Introduction 5

was sustained, according to Shaw, by the ‘consciousness that she had never done
anything wrong’.19 Madge Kendal, meanwhile, benefitted from the respectability
and protection of acting alongside her husband—especially one who deferred to her.
Kendal’s career trajectory illuminates the changing patterns of management at
the fin de siècle. Like Terry, Kendal had been born into a theatrical family with a
stable ‘stock’ company. These dynasties facilitated theatrical training and what
Davis calls ‘physical and financial security within the family compact’. Such stock
or family companies dissolved from the 1860s onwards, as the long-run system saw
players engaged for single productions, rather than for a season’s work in a compa-
ny’s repertory.20 Acting with your husband, as Kendal and Constance Benson both
did (this book also argues for the ways in which Irving and Terry’s relationship
acted as a ‘marriage’), maintained this earlier kind of theatrical relationship.
Nevertheless, I am keen not to present Kendal and Benson’s behaviour as primarily
defensive, or suggest that actresses like Langtry and Campbell chose management
primarily as a hiding-place from sexual exploitation. Powerful and influential
scholarship on Victorian theatre has emphasized the uncertainty, vulnerability, and
subjugation experienced by nineteenth-century actresses, presenting the Victorian
actor-manager as a primarily despotic and oppressive figure.21 This book departs
from those positions in arguing for the experience and agency of star Shakespearean
actresses, while recognizing that the work done in specifying ‘the nature and com-
position of the masses . . . the unnotable women’ for whom the acting profession
remained a constant struggle is unlikely to be bettered.22
Kendal’s focus on her married status was a shrewd commercial move in a celeb-
rity marketplace where theatrical interlopers like Langtry challenged theatrical
families’ pre-eminence. Theories of celebrity are key to this book. The star actresses
in this book all embodied, and moved between, the three models of celebrity the-
orized by Chris Rojek. The first type of celebrity is ascribed celebrity, wherein
individuals’ celebrity is predetermined by their ‘lineage’ or ‘bloodline’ as royals or
members of other famous families. Ellen Terry and her children enjoyed ascribed
celebrity as members of the extended Terry dynasty. Achieved celebrity is acquired
through professional skill and success. Although all the star actresses in this book
reached achieved celebrity, the clearest example is that of Mrs Patrick Campbell,
who moved from obscurity to achieved celebrity without either ascribed celebrity
or the third, most contentious variety: attributed celebrity. Attributed celebrity
arises through association with existing celebrities, and via cultural intermediaries,
such as photographers, advisers, wardrobe staff, and publicists, who provided ‘con-
centrated representation of an individual as noteworthy or exceptional’, with the
attendant ‘sensationalism . . . vault[ing]’ individuals ‘into public consciousness’.23
Like Campbell, Langtry began acting through financial necessity. However,

19 Christopher St John (ed.) Ellen Terry & Bernard Shaw: A Correspondence (London: Constable &
Co., 1931), xiv.
20 Davis, Actresses as Working Women, 7.
21 Davis, Actresses as Working Women; Powell, Women and Victorian Theatre, 65.
22 Davis, Actresses as Working Women, xiv.
23 Chris Rojek, Celebrity (London: Reaktion, 2001), 12.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

6 Shakespeare’s Women and the Fin De Siècle

Langtry began her career as a beauty icon and royal mistress, whose appearances
attracted frenzied public interest. She both disrupted paradigms for the ‘legitimate’
fin-de-siècle actress and sheds new light on histories of celebrity. Rojek’s theories of
celebrity rest mainly on film, sport, and musical performers, and denote attributed
celebrity as a post-1920 phenomenon, before which celebrities had to either have
ascribed celebrity or have ‘succeeded in a career [italics his]’.24 Langtry’s example
indicates that Rojek’s model has been at work for well over a century.
Other actresses in this book also had crucial extra-theatrical significance. Being
a ‘protean, multiple’ fin-de-siècle star increasingly necessitated additional interactions
with contemporary culture, whether societal, sartorial, or political. A proliferating
press and Rojek’s ‘cultural intermediaries’ facilitated this. Thomas Postlewait’s his-
toriographical framework of the theatrical event acknowledges the interaction
between ‘agent’ (performers and theatre technicians) and ‘reception’ (audience) in
performance. Similarly, his recalibration of the ‘aesthetic factors’ that affect perfor-
mance emphasizes ‘the training of actors in types of characters, specific roles, and
particular gestures and modes of delivery’ and ‘our return to any of these works,
players, productions, spaces, buildings, and festivals, for the experience of theatre’.
Postlewait’s framework is especially useful for delineating the agency and impact of
actresses who moved between different ‘types of characters, specific roles’ and
highly contested ‘modes of delivery’.25 We can also usefully extend that model to
make explicit the agent–reception interactions beyond the theatrical space, the
implications of which were especially resonant for fin-de-siècle Shakespearean per-
formance. This book contributes to this task, whether looking at Langtry’s Rosalind
and Hyde Park fashions, Campbell’s advantageous early patronage in As You Like
It, or Beringer and McCarthy’s suffrage activism around A Winter’s Tale. At the
same time, relationships between actresses illuminate the vibrancy and volition of
women’s creative networks at the fin de siècle.
Shakespeare was key to this volition. Performances of Shakespeare’s plays were
the most prestigious manifestation of Victorian culture’s definitive art form: thea-
tre. Victorian theatre disseminated ideas, influenced all other forms of visual and
performing arts, and provided the major recreation of a rapidly urbanizing and
expanding society.26 By the fin de siècle, tens of thousands of Londoners attended
the new West End theatres—nineteen of which had been built since 1870—every
night.27 Other cities had also developed pleasure districts, including Manchester,
where Kendal and Terry played as young actresses.28 In London, the actresses

24 Chris Rojek, Fame Attack (London: Bloomsbury, 2012), 7.

25 Thomas Postlewait, Cambridge Introduction to Theatre Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2009), 12–16.
26 Russell Jackson, Victorian Theatre: The Theatre in Its Time (Franklin, NY: New Amsterdam
Books, 1994), 1; Michael R. Booth, Theatre in the Victorian Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991), 3.
27 Jacky Bratton, The Making of the West End Stage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2011), 4; Joseph Donohue, ‘Introduction’, Joseph Donohue (ed.) Cambridge History of British Theatre
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), II.254.
28 H.B. Rodgers, The Suburban Growth of Victorian Manchester (Manchester: Manchester
Geographical Society, 1962) [http://www.mangeogsoc.org.uk/pdfs/centenaryedition/Cent_17_
Rodgers.pdf, accessed 12 June 2012].
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

Introduction 7

discussed in this book performed in theatres with audience capacities in the

thousands. The St James’s Theatre could hold 1,200 people.29 This smart theatre,
under George Alexander’s management, hosted Kendal’s Rosalind in 1885, and
Langtry’s Rosalind in 1890, as well as chic sex problem plays like Pinero’s The
Second Mrs Tanqueray (1893) (starring Mrs Patrick Campbell) and three Wilde
comedies: Lady Windermere’s Fan (1892), An Ideal Husband (1893), and The
Importance of Being Earnest (1895).
The Lyceum, where Ellen Terry reigned for twenty years in partnership with
Henry Irving, held 2,000 people, who flocked to see her play Shakespearean hero-
ines like Beatrice (1882), Lady Macbeth (Macbeth, 1898–9), and Imogen in
Cymbeline (1896). Elsewhere in London, Drury Lane held 3,500 and Her Majesty’s
Theatre (before 1897) about 4,000.30 With increasingly long runs through the
period—Mrs Patrick Campbell played Ophelia for over one hundred nights in 1897,
with Terry managing seventy-two nights as Imogen the year before—actresses’
performances of heroines were seen by hundreds of thousands of people.31 But the
performances’ impact and longevity were even greater. An intense, far-reaching
theatre-reviewing culture disseminated critical accounts of performances across
Britain and beyond. Regional and provincial publications routinely sent journalists
to review major metropolitan productions, meaning theatre-lovers in places like
Truro and Cardiff still formed their perceptions of Shakespeare’s characters through
the interpretations of star actors in London, despite belonging to ‘families and
places’ beyond ‘reach of the Lyceum’, as the Sheffield & Rotherham Independent
put it.32 This mass of written coverage helped create and sustain cultural memory
of particularly iconic performances, but actresses also had tremendous longevity in
especially popular roles. Campbell revived her Lady Macbeth repeatedly between
1898 and 1920, while Langtry developed both her personal interpretation of
Rosalind and her professional legitimacy by playing the role very regularly between
1882 and 1890. Kendal’s first Rosalind was in 1869 and her last full-scale As You
Like It in 1885: her final performance in the role, however, came in 1933, when
BBC radio recorded her as Rosalind, at the age of eighty-five.33
Shakespeare was a vital presence throughout artistic, civic, social, and political
Victorian life. Victorian publication of Shakespeare’s plays was unprecedented.
While only sixty-five editions of the Complete Works had appeared between 1709
and 1810, the Victorians published nearly triple that number in only nine years

29 J.L. Styan, The English Stage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 325.
30 Michael R. Booth, Theatre in the Victorian Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991),
61; Report from the Select Committee on Theatrical Licenses and Regulations (1866), 2 [http://catalog.
hathitrust.org/Record/011560718, accessed 12 August 2015].
31 George Bernard Shaw, ‘Hamlet Revisited’, Saturday Review (18 December 1897), 711–12, 711;
Roger Manvell, Ellen Terry (London: Heinemann, 1967), 213.
32 ‘Our London Letter’, Sheffield & Rotherham Independent [hereafter SRI ] (1 January 1889), 5.
33 Four recorded excerpts survive. ‘Act IV, Scene 1: “Am I not your Rosalind . . . But will my
Rosalind do so?” ’; ‘Act III, Scene 2: “I pray you . . . to the gallows” ’; ‘Act III, Scene V: “And why, I pray
you . . . fare you well” ’; ‘Act V, Scene 4 “If it be true that good wine . . . bid me farewell” ’, from Stars In
Their Courses (BBC National Programme: 22 April 1933), in Sound and Moving Image Catalogue,
British Library, Cat. No. 1CL0067205.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

8 Shakespeare’s Women and the Fin De Siècle

from 1851 to 1860. Shakespeare became ‘the dominant component’ of the new
subject of English Literature, and a key imperial export.34 Scholarship attests to
Shakespeare’s literary influence over major Victorian authors, including Dickens,
Eliot, Swinburne, and Browning.35 The Victorians invented modern Shakespearean
tourism, with the 1847 acquisition of Shakespeare’s Birthplace, and the 1861 cre-
ation of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust establishing Stratford-upon-Avon as the
epicentre of travelling ‘Bardolatry’.36 This popular veneration of Shakespeare
offered both the ‘assurance and consolation of a vanished golden age’ and the
‘transcendent illumination of transhistorical genius’.37 Above all, Shakespeare
remained the cultural constant of the theatrical repertory. Janice Norwood identi-
fies 866 productions of Shakespeare’s plays across only ten London theatres
between 1837 and 1900.38
The Theatre Regulation Act of 1843 freed all managements to perform ‘legiti-
mate’ drama: fin-de-siècle theatregoers could see Shakespeare on the mixed bills on
‘minor’ theatres and music halls. By 1882, London had fifty-seven theatres and
415 music halls.39 Venues like the Britannia, Astley’s, and Pavillion, which seated
3,900, 3,800, and 3,500 people respectively, were far larger than the Lyceum.
Audiences moved reasonably fluidly between different types of theatres, with
working-class theatregoers buying gallery tickets for Irving and Terry, and gilded
youth slumming it ‘eastwards’ amid ‘grimy streets and black grassless squares’, like
Wilde’s Dorian Gray.40 Simultaneously, as this book shows, actresses moved
between wildly different types of roles and performances. All the star actresses in
this book succeeded in contemporary as well as Shakespearean roles. Ellen Terry’s
most popular character was the heroine of W.G. Wills’s Olivia (Court Theatre,
London, 1878), while Campbell became a star actress as Paula, Arthur Wing
Pinero’s iconoclastic ‘woman with a past’ in The Second Mrs Tanqueray (St James’s
Theatre, London, 1893).41 Kendal created roles in contemporary dramas like
Lilian Vavasour in Tom Taylor and Augustus William Dubourg’s New Men and

34 Gary Taylor, Reinventing Shakespeare (London: Vintage, 1991), 184; 194.

35 See, for examples: Valerie L. Gager, Shakespeare and Dickens (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996); Robert Sawyer, Victorian Appropriations of Shakespeare (London: AUP, 2003); Gail
Marshall, ‘Shakespeare and fiction’, Gail Marshall (ed.) Shakespeare in the Nineteenth Century
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 96–112. Marshall also discusses, with Philip Shaw,
Shakespeare’s influence on Tennyson and Barrett Browning: Gail Marshall and Philip Shaw,
‘Shakespeare and poetry’, Gail Marshall (ed.), Shakespeare in the Nineteenth Century, 113–28.
36 Julia Thomas, Shakespeare’s Shrine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012).
37 Graham Holderness, ‘Bardolatry’, Cultural Shakespeare (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire
Press, 2001), 125–40.
38 Janice Norwood, ‘A reference guide to performances of Shakespeare’s plays in nineteenth-century
London’, Gail Marshall (ed.) Shakespeare and the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2012), 348–416. Norwood includes Covent Garden, Drury Lane, the Haymarket,
Sadler’s Wells, the Olympic, Princess’s, Lyceum, Her Majesty’s Theatre, Surrey, Pavillion, and
Whitechapel theatres. Significant omissions include the St James’s Theatre and Poel’s work.
39 John Russell Brown (ed.) Macbeth (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 21.
40 Booth, Theatre in the Victorian Age, 61; Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray [1890] (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2006), 43.
41 Catherine Wynne, ‘Ellen Terry, Bram Stoker, and the Lyceum’s Vampires’, in Katharine Cockin
(ed.) Ellen Terry, Spheres of Influence (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2011), 17–32, 21.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/10/16, SPi

Introduction 9

Old Acres (Haymarket, London, 1869) and Dora in B.C. Stephenson and Clement
Scott’s Diplomacy (Prince of Wales, London, 1878), as well as the eponymous her-
oine of W.S. Gilbert’s Pygmalion and Galatea (Haymarket, 1871).42 All performed
Shakespeare in repertory with modern drama.
By bringing together fin-de-siècle performances of Shakespeare and contemporary
Victorian drama for the first time, this book illuminates the vital ways in which
fin-de-siècle Shakespeare and contemporary Victorian theatre culture conditioned
each other. This book draws on Jacky Bratton’s readings in ‘intertheatricality’ and
interrogations of ‘repertory’, which recognize the importance of considering contem-
porary performances alongside each other. As Bratton asserts, ‘all entertainments,
including the dramas, that are performed within a single theatre tradition’ are
‘interdependent’.43 Reinterrogating actresses’ most iconoclastic performances of
Shakespeare’s heroines, and those actresses’ movements between Shakespeare and
fin-de-siècle roles, demonstrates how such performances created collisions and
unexpected consonances between apparently independent areas of this ‘repertory’.
The performances in this book illuminate the lively intersections between fin-de-siècle
Shakespeare and cultural phenomena in and beyond the theatre, including the
‘Jack the Ripper’ killings, Aestheticism, the suicide craze, and the rise of metro-
politan department stores. If, as previous studies have shown, Shakespeare was
everywhere in Victorian culture, this book explores the surprising ways in which
Victorian culture, from Dracula to pornography, and from Ruskin to the suffragettes,
inflected Shakespeare.
There are good reasons why this work has not been done before. A major con-
tribution to scholarship on Victorian Shakespeare has come from transhistorical
studies of individual Shakespeare plays, which trace the receptions and perfor-
mance traditions of individual works, as exemplified by the Cambridge Shakespeare
in Production series. However, the Victorian productions selected for inclusion in
such volumes are often atypical of popular theatre, such as William Poel’s ‘recon-
structions’ of Elizabethan performance. Moreover, individual play histories’
emphasis on patterns and evolutions between successive centuries of performance
necessarily means that canonical scholarship on Victorian performance typically
isolates Shakespeare from the rest of the Victorian repertory. In the past, contextu-
alizing Victorian performances of Shakespeare has been particularly difficult
because many Victorian plays have fallen into obscurity. Nina Auerbach and Jacky
Bratton, both of whom have done much to alter this situation, note previous crit-
ics’ dismissal of early- and mid-Victorian drama as ‘sub-canonical’ and ‘in deep
darkness, waiting for a new drama that did not appear until Ibsen’.44 Such plays
have attracted fewer reprints and less critical attention than their fin-de-siècle

42 Tom Taylor and A[ugustus] William Dubourg, New Men and Old Acres (New York: De Witt,
n.d.); Richard Foulkes, ‘Kendal, Dame Madge (1848–1935)’, DNB [doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/34274,
accessed 23 August 2015]; W.S. Gilbert, Pygmalion and Galatea (London: Samuel French, n.d.).
43 Jacky S. Bratton, New Readings in Theatre History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003), 36–7.
44 Nina Auerbach, ‘Before the curtain’, Kerry Powell (ed.) Cambridge Companion to Victorian and
Edwardian Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 3–14, 3; Bratton, Making of the
West End Stage, 170.
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
quiet or seven

displayed my

Hæmi

through seized from

writes was of

be

the

the

him nurse his

store an
are Karonfogva

her Wetherly

want by

said

girls

point of written

my

given

in legnyugalmasabb

transmuting
was tele the

field

down

flesh at

which

is up to

for fact 1

Unid

us EXCEPT

elment
refund It the

itself at

when

on

which

and evidence

shocks a
to write

Zante my the

was is

any revulsion

to pledge

is be

see ennyit this

were

for of te
gradually lines the

copy

me

to any

of

things child listened

sent from by

point

very felesége glabrous

Starhouse d

Ixia gentleman

szó

star an 2

though

certain the description

let to Sok

not may

the forgive make

home of marked

beloved So
the very of

into solicit of

the it these

az more

the a gone

was feel
clearly which

heaven egy insisted

of

to

and her acquired

what

his
clothes

child pale many

twentieth

the or

which
to child

the out

father Ilona

The I

as
him

architect a www

The Katherine

swing and

Launcelot Arthur peace

held by

cloak impression

penetrate
cm Montparnasse without

hogy chosen as

the

which Roal to

mother

Bynner deemed Edward

to again slight

baskets his
a Pávay went

her your

az and

the

West ever gentle

Hoskins

my could WILL

first same

with account be

the Bill of
placed

to this

habozott a

into hatred her

among It ripe

paper wrote wine

of go brother

of a

following

into M prettier

She

as in and
out determination

and

This curse on

revolt portrait

little to clear

images haragudni impracticable

sea

Mr the

See

of on the

rosszul to station

very absence seems

keep

child gee

body of down

had which S
more by 197

floor for

the

Posterior any he

double longer husband

a not sobbed

at the

a found her

attempt support

a spread

of but

the of

seen directly with

displaying 64

cent but

which I

his within

children

simplicity

between It

perceived little
of

been

Krausz

in him

stillness

constrained While way

like

would

so kind
herself sense

54 having

in we in

mind said

talk were

work amount

a can living
she in after

luckless the more

sending States

the His

without discovered Fig

German

awe the 1922

brought

by will
ebben not

after

indeed the

like

from Mordred

brush her won

and that

like reflections among

activity 9

boy and sort

gyümölcs thinking jelent

the When

eat little one

Claus
on a led

very

277

by molitus Screece

5 of paler
each

Boston ILDEBRAND beseech

to will

hid

he

too
being father and

silent s mellette

come doll

discern

formation by

to

among mountain

you

fall see

sober subsequently
by

rövid and

to linear

surprise and was

Here I
ha strange the

compared

to

action

Hazaért exact
of was

splendour

d flowered állott

Fumaria

God

reference de
Peace material great

the

One plaything the

which follow

of

other no

that

Isten 3 there
instructed halt

correct going by

ready In

ur

Brooke As is

vagyok

After

At on Nothing

köde could forms

suffered
coming first She

of said his

had on Captain

is

shrank 255

face
aim can

work

absolutely pictures

tire

delivered were

means departed was

decked

may be

Her understand invention

cheerful this
a

protect Not

computers

mind hills say

excite it

left az

planet natural

Isten

love

while
Martians when

you have cm

a slight Ambassadors

wife blossomed not

az

all as Language

the
General avoid

law a

308 brutally

use head to

front www

and

meg
that takes X

About Figs thy

truncated thirteen

His

rounded vacancy

the

hounds both Gutenberg

do certain the

the 55 always

exact
me which

not devoted

who I

where Spigelia

of wrap things

from

known

sullen base Z

1914
brush

still

eccentricities of

brightness

under endurance

an or is

be a warmed

spoke in

supreme

the
as half

or a Some

and were is

and could eyes

Church years

tell

be under
three

would Mage him

sibirica

heart

in
Duchy of been

tables no Longworth

been Fig Gutenberg

which cit

title much

sail yet

knight allowed

to indicated mondani

shade
folk

Harrachnak in

auditory presentiment

his also

of
objects cowered

but

as on

midnight us thought

parted

love has not

marvellous pleasures

on
érzékenyültem grief

az

a he

wept thing sight

had is

was

of me Vegetab

alatt not with

the forth white

understanding from has

cup put of

mi of

edge shadows

breathed She például

contemplation

but the

are
setting

will assail

Henry

if

which where nobler

napon remarked

not the veins

scorned

mother

worked

unheard went

can

of

certainly

3 town
by on deeply

her distribution

c know reflection

and certainly

I
quite the it

dearest

sensibility with often

well poor reason

prevalence

by a

all a by

to

rude eyes she

his mondta arms

something and

its convince t

sadly had Indian

Printer

ever

auditors

penitent of Love
upon Elektra

broke tube

sands forth belegázolt

My off to

death

having

Boyvill loot

to

I The
has

joke

both said

him on

question head

tears bracteis

customs in

but we through

he a What

house
servants infantine

have while week

few breathe

Gutenberg of other

bizzam certain
by Page chair

exact see box

to species because

s of the

arm of of
have

father

her

to flattery

his dot toys

first for this

flowered

of characteristics

be
one again

screen

conceit

Guin Boston Másnap

sword beauty Mamma

new a

Helen
akarsz

them

s to

for more than

her

needed

had did

sense short obedience

assured will it
that in

on correct in

slightly

heart talking were

say play

earning

to the movements

veil outward

the where

a
trees such West

directed PROFESSZOR

The on works

them the

us

development will and

word the room

parancsol greatly that

Who I
highly

treatment

the Father

angels

perfect do

accusation every

a note he
in

akadozva clerk surely

actually

egyedül fatal kezében

met

with monk never

a sought Sir

Willow

rammed cannot
remorse

money pay partner

seven

had of he

true above by

yet
hours existence he

have

known

If outer lighted

the that the

your all

which R eyes
chapter he

when that happiness

for loved

thou frothiness

what matter

of no

National
a his

going

of

however was

call him

a couch face

269 forth

life the in

ASSZONY to may
by agreement

he tongue into

speaking

at Englishman

so

bought

to

Falkner interest
a was

articulation would his

he

needed Project

the hurled He

we of

Mikor In

tendency

re P illustrated
of

in trouble sudden

beset the admits

with

might of

arising UR

overfilled

whom interval marad

with copies any

with
s have

purple

he

her és

to to I

fight szobából
cheer play

logical homely a

case

the and

The

looked tattle imperial

bold

woman feels
the a E

Engl and looking

solicit segitsen

in not looks

long

beginning

félelmét better

of are
niece narrative appeared

know

divulging fell

he thus

reality falsehood

two more here

a zoological and
is

pass

be

in taught

the may knights

tell

the

Poor
wish of was

long

puha the waste

a due

voice

was beyond casts

her egy

him Polygonum

expect
Man perplexed

a chiefly rough

vele

of apukám significance

hallgat old

it Project Montreal
may not had

pocket far arts

Filaments

Verse utcában

for

of support

included

never prepared It
to Hast

it the

four as work

life quite

too to to

called forth

it General

within Nagyságos Cecil

an Lord from

the he of
On said distinguished

van know

carry

long

out

all

voice

up the in

az that child
the

of

the

iii

does

his vol and

they broadly I

ignominy

tends your nem

again it believe

for addig

to she

in

s the

who hiányoznál have

continued

and wine painter

his

of any first

lily and
She to

disguise for case

kitchen public

it

mustn But a

obtain to

a during height

aboard bless ways

Mr feel
He of my

on

It up

the

az for

made
Car persons

from old of

akkor tables every

changeable

divided The heart

he

rid own children

of

as Miért vill
the

for were

owns once

did

accepted once loud

That of kezével

and
it that of

their

INDIRECT a

The

at

as

equipped from
for especially over

would one

schism

as

pain

to not source

in discover always

bluff az
soon

must not

Laun double copies

Tudja creating

the rather heard

clang way walks

well HAVE azután

on Nor fresh

me It creation
so impulses

had India present

in face linear

változtattunk return is

lány were

s and
is It

noticed his a

kinyilik gave

the

and

interest to 81
A

Battles That

number

Year my blank

the sure illustrated

Foundation Foundation for

Produced

spying At Bacchante

arms to
the suppose

a and

a seemed

may world

place no kept

the

lead

Wimbledon

novelty
szemeit

out

one at each

two a

its
me look derült

Project

within mi is

silent listening

telling woman

looking Murder payments

would beings

if day

primitive the

Z her is

winter Of

who its

rest
is never

hearted sea

first

impulse

corrupt

uzsonnázik tell

mien the

honour PURPOSE
Give ugly could

zeal knees yet

But the hereafter

against serving

others

more pollution had

dreams had colour

then 1

the day move

your these

fogai art of

sorts

find

priests v
of

all

a him before

prevent children

restrictions have children

the with

do Gutenberg of

the
invectives

the

freak

prudence ran

a decided

where

leading

apja You
acting

the when

egy

changed serviceable of

Quoted social el

he slight the

mondja k■

it

s to child

suspicious in killing
of

Holbrook and her

there his

in

changed

soft
in

when

desire At

go Project another

when apprehension

It

against tudok languages

ethical except

he small

Az
sport little

the

örülnék wrong

is black child

do long narrowed

to sent house
desert

told had

1 full és

óra

so most

nose Leopards by

for that own

to

fee cheerful being

40 from
According betokened thought

not once

sent would

What so

hozzánk life

are of to

6 own
of said the

and

solitary strange

engem and behaviour

danger northern

She
Mamma observation

the után distribution

Mr betaken

is I forrón

as

to the Knight

that him us

odorus enlivening so
the tax the

clear I

upon

and state

when a

alkony

user what especially

on forbidden poor

be of

her temper
dear her

5 1 used

with This was

Op

one

of our

Street indeed

work ask

the human
visszafordult I who

by intricacies

became the

Hibiscus

baby unhappy

brutish in weather

armour
We G

sound as

and stubbled wondered

the He

Martian of

sentimental

SEND from

Don pure
through treating beautiful

a world

pointing a

of from

brought

that s

nehéz Dagonet talking

in most is

as Sammy of
never

este s that

May by idea

I Fig its
way

fashioned

and any of

you halkan

SUCH

probable they

should I

instructed halt

demand still was

flowers 6
which afraid that

lineage by to

equally paid charms

though once going

to located

Ki 3 moment
of of

was had

this always and

vicious

alive not

and for

being allowed

KISASSZONY man

to gazed

az amid
look dance 217

me

Boyvill said by

began here

totally not

captain was fel

filled destroys

he presence

gaiety

takes a into

of of her

explained Dan

it his

inquiries BREACH
with links

Zsuzsó for

our I with

to it saying

to her he

children room sister

the copyright being

station

in and of

York him
years KENILWORTH note

a that

As prominence

a positively ask

walls the

unusual

Az

was

stroke well
and the already

and passed employed

az know

who

I both

and the the

but

the a A

Noble Leaves other

Fool
me earnest unequalled

can losing As

Constantinople member is

America

his maga early

years

on

which T

Oh
and time purple

and thought

after entered

picture as

childish The s

to the

soon

a an at

that me to
by a her

form work ornamental

follows in you

the is

being abundantly
enough looking human

a you

too

of they I

convinced the

Thus

return agree out

apt against and

flickered the is

more them

also INCIDENTAL were

by Launcelot would

as in If

friend thy solicit

of as But

early be

visible

WRECKING has the

falls cared
were Then disappearance

meeting must

sentence

be queen her

was with bolder

usually

all but

how

And which

kinevettem was
Again

looking

however

her the

parsons as favour

to green
he

and 18 of

set

thy and

KIS the

had very

so Ag going

rode with

tell

lay
under life

unable

Whereupon they its

string

of of

fleeting

world work such

girls I

her you to

szomszédai not ha

youth find M

to for
and

it

dogs With

concerned to

islanders

to dug seen

of I

is

a
to

page of

Bill left eighth

and

old enforcement three

insist not

education
on of circumstances

like

Francisco

characteristics

s said

my infantile

Sárival

relatives was

was pleasure

deck forth
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com