Bard! Final Draft

080576
DRA3062
Bard!
“An essay read best with a glass of your best red”
“An exploration into the representation of alcohol through Shakespearian characters, performative
interpretations of the drunkard and the effect of modern drinking culture upon contemporary
Shakespearian performance.”
1

080576
DRA3062
Acknowledgements
For Dad.
2

080576
DRA3062
Contents
Chapter One, Pages: 4-5
Introduction: Pre-Drinks
Chapter Two, Pages: 6-7
Shakespeare On Tap
Chapter Three, Pages: 8-11
The Porter: Knock Knocking them back
Chapter Four, Pages: 12-16
Caliban: Worshiper of the Celestial Liquor
Chapter Five, Pages: 17-20
Falstaff: Sack Addict
Chapter Six, Pages 21 -22
Booze: A modern performative tool
Chapter Seven, Pages: 23-25
Shakespeare in a Bottle
Chapter Eight, Pages: 26-27
Conclusion: Time at the Bard
Bibliography, Pages: 28-30
Works Cited, Pages: 31
3

080576
DRA3062
Introduction: Pre-Drinks
While considering Shakespeare’s influence upon the world we know, it is forgivable that one may
overlook the way in which he interpreted and represented what can be considered as one man’s
pleasurable pastime, and another’s crippling addiction, alcohol. I’d like to begin by situating myself
within the performative landscape I am exploring. As a creative, working in the theatrical field both as a
creative performer and trained actor, my research and delivery will be accented by my own creative and
performative hypothesis upon this subject. My investigation into Shakespeare’s work will not only be
formed of what has been scripted upon the page, but how that has integrated over time through the
phenomenon that has kept it alive for centuries, interpretation. Therefore, I will be considering how a
contemporary performer can interpret Shakespeare’s influences, his characters, and the concept of
alcohol as a both performative method and tool. I will be doing so through a performative
methodological framework, taken primarily from John Russell Brown’s performative analysis from
Shakespeare’s plays in Performance and Jim Drobnick’s article Inebriaitionism: Alcohol, performance and
paradox (2017) from the journal Performance Research (Under the Influence) which, as he explains
“surveys the prominence of drinking in recent decades, especially how it manifests in artists’ works as a
methodology to produce events and experiences, as a performative substance in its own right, and as a
relational medium in which to create encounters and participatory installations” (Drobnick 2017: 2)
I will be arguing not only the importance of these characters, but the importance of drunkenness within
classical and contemporary Shakespearian performance, and demonstrating how his detailed depictions
have moulded our modern-day view of The Bard. I will be presenting this argument through case studies
on three of Shakespeare’s drunken characters, focusing on how a performer could interpret and
represent a character’s relationship with alcohol.
4

080576
DRA3062
In his book Shakespeare and Alcohol, Buckner B. Trawick comments on the danger of speculation when
it comes to unpacking Shakespeare’s own opinions upon alcohol. “Perhaps only the strictest moralist
would think of asking whether Shakespeare approved of drinking, and, of course, they can be no
unqualified “yes” or “no”. ” (Trawick 1978: 52)
Although Trawick disposes it, I would argue that nature in which our concept of moralism has changed
throughout history would have an extremely large part to play when considering our contemporary
understanding of alcoholism and the performance of Shakespeare’s drunkards. It’s a heavily debated
topic in our current climate, due our modern knowledge of its medical and emotional affects, and how it
works domestically within social and more personal dynamics. The reason I have chosen to explore
Shakespeare’s drunkards is twofold: firstly I believe that the essentialness of these characters is
something often overlooked, but by examining them through a theatrical performative lens we discover
hidden complexities, and secondly, I believe that Shakespeare’s representation of alcoholic consumption
has bled not only into our modern drinking culture, but into the way in which current Shakespearian
productions are executed as a whole, taking inspiration from the care-free attitude of these characters,
and emulating that as a creative, performative spirit and transforming alcohol into a theatrical tool.
5

080576
DRA3062
Shakespeare On Tap
Within the book The Boozy Bard: Shakespeare on Drinking (by Chartwell Books) The Elizabethan Tavern
is described as being “much like its modern-day counterpart”- “A great refuge for the weary and those
in need of cheering up.” (The Boozy Bard, Chartwell Books Inc 2005: 6). In Shakespeare Studies; Part IV.
Drunkenness in Shakespeare, Albert Tolman supports this theory with historical evidence of both English
tavern-life and drinking culture within Shakespeare’s era. “In Shakespeare’s day the drinking of alcoholic
liquors was universal. Everybody drank, and at some point in his life, even the most abstemious man
was likely to be won over by his potations.” (Tolman 1919: 28) These potations where many, as proven
in detail by Christine Tinling’s article Sidelights from Shakespeare on the alcohol problem “amongst the
English beverages, besides the immemorial ale and beer, were made from honey, strawberry drink,
cider and cherry wine. Some of them were concocted with exceeding care; for instance, a drink named
White Meath contained no less than 23 different herbs.” (Tinling 1917: 15) In this era there are other
important factors that contributed to the excessive alcohol consumption. It was easy to preserve and
was a more attractive solution when considering the filthy unsanitary water that was often taken from a
public fountain. The Black Plague was also rife in this era, especially in and on top of that Shakespeare’s
home town of Stratford upon Avon was constantly being flooded. It has been said that due to the lack
of clean water resulted in certain people drinking up to a gallon of beer and wine a day.
http://elizabethanfoodanddrink.weebly.com/drinks.html. Within this era drinking was clearly not just
for the common man. As Tinling describes, the upper class were said to have supped on wines
“imported from Spain, Italy and France, 56 varieties from the last named country alone.” (Tinling 1917:
15) This upper-class drinking also extends to Royalty, as Ian Gately explains in Drink, A cultural history
of alcohol, Queen Elizabeth herself “breakfasted on ale, took wine at her banquets, and permitted spirits
to be kept in her palaces.” (Gately 2009: 130) Even more surprisingly while discussing the Merry Wives
of Windsor, as Gately unpacks “A rumour written down a century afterward claimed that it was
6

080576
DRA3062
composed in obedience to the wishes of Queen Elizabeth, implying that England high and low loved Sir
John Falstaff. It is interesting that a character so defined by tippling could be so popular” (Gately 2009:
130) This provides an interesting incite that the admiration for these characters surpassed the confines
of class and aided the creation of what Gately calls “a clear identity, and with it an archetypal
Englishman” (Gately 2009: 130)
Tolman speaks of story told by Mr Kipling to The Spectator in 1898. Shakespeare is drinking in a pub with
a survivor of a recent shipwreck of English Vessel known as Sea Venture, which was hit by a huge storm
while sailing towards Virginia on July 24, 1609. It is thought that the story of the shipwreck not only
inspired the creation of his final play The Tempest, but that the individual telling the story influenced the
creation of one of the characters. Kipling says-
“To him (Shakespeare) Stephano told his tale all in one piece, a two hours discourse of most glorious
absurdities. His profligate abundance of detail at the beginning, when he was more or less sober,
supplied and surely established the earth- basis of the play, in accordance with the great law that the
story to be truly miraculous must be ballasted with facts. His maunderings of magic and
incomprehensible ambushes, when he was without reservation drunk” (Kipling 1898 via Tolman 1919:
84-85)
This demonstrates how not only current events at the time could have inspired Shakespeare, but how a
real-life person, under the influence of alcohol, may have embellished a story so absurdly it could have
inspired, not just the plot of The Tempest but the fantastical events that are imbedded within it. So, if
Shakespeare is to depict drunken characters, or as he refers to them on many occasions as “rogues”,
one may sense his level of irony, or maybe even traces of real life experiences, possibly had within his
vast social status due to his popularity. It is possible that he related to a drinking culture community on
social level which would have aided in his depictions within his plays.
7

080576
DRA3062
The Porter: Knock Knocking them back
Shakespeare’s Porter is often considered a strange aversion from the horrifically bloody plot of
Macbeth. His beginning speech causes a halt the to the action and drama of the play and makes a sharp
gearshift into levity, hence it often being removed from many modern interpretations, for example,
Justin Kurzel's recent film adaptation of Macbeth from 2015. The Porter is represented degenerate low
life, who has somehow fallen into view of the audience. Many performers of this role play on this
strange shift in tone, getting the most out of the small ray of comic relief that Shakespeare has allowed.
It seems as though The Porter has found a gap in the play to fill with his own little routine, and on first
viewing can be interpreted as a moment of comedy to entertain the groundlings, or a small pause for
the audience to compose themselves after having viewed a murder. Nevertheless, so much of what this
character is actually alluding to is hidden under the surface. He speaks metaphorically through
innuendo, symbolism and suggestion, always hinting at a larger knowledge of the plot, but never
exclusively saying. The recognition that Shakespeare not only created this part to externalise his themes
of murder and hell, but in fact to allude to what action is to come, is crucial to the performance of this
part. The key tasks of any actor forming an interpretation is to question how much he really knows, and
how much is simply drunken ramblings, and to be able to differentiate the between the characters he
represents during his speech. John Russell Brown supports this with his performative methodological
framework. “The Porter in Macbeth was probably meant to imitate the walk and talk of the farmer, the
equivocator and tailor whom he imagined at the castle gate; so played the scene is still continuously
funny today.” (Brown 1996: 108)
This scene, (Act 2, Scene 3) comes directly after Duncan’s murder and is used to shift the audiences
mind from the atrocities they have just witnessed. The appearance of a fool transforms an audience’s
view of circumstances. Tolman describes it as “a startling dramatic contrast to the scene of horror that
we have just lived through.” (Tolman 1919: 84) In regard to the performance of this, it is imperative for
8

080576
DRA3062
the actor to remember that even though both the character and speech are comical, the actor must also
be building tension throughout the scene, so the audience do not disengage completely from the plot.
Stumbling on the stage completely intoxicated from the night before, The Porter initially seems utterly
oblivious to the drama that surrounds him. There is loud knocking upon the doors of Inverness Castle,
where Macbeth resides, which is coming from Macduff and Lennox who are calling upon the
(unbeknownst to them) murdered King Duncan to arrange his departure. It’s clear that boredom has
driven the porter to the bottle as his thoughts fixates on how his job is similar to, and as taxing as, being
porter of Hell-gate. He decides to play this part throughout his scene, and proceeds to tell the audience
a series of twisted “knock knock” jokes, wherein he speaks to imaginary visions of a “farmer that hanged
himself” due to his lack of produce, an equivocator who has lied under oath and committed treason, and
an English tailor who stole material from “a pair of French hose”. Within the characterisation of the part
it is important for the performer that The Porter is not simply a base drunkard, but he is a drunkard who
is appointing himself in the role of condemner, who is sending sinners to the “everlasting bonfire”.
Within his drunken imaginings he changes his status from servant to condemner of fate, which,
unbeknownst to him is the part he is in fact playing within the plot of the whole play. The job of the
porter of Inverness Castle has more connotations of death than he knows as Macbeth is currently
washing blood off his hands in another room.
While the Porter is a comprehensive drunkard, he is not the only character in this play who understands
nature of the bite of the bottle. Lady Macbeth seems to be aware that drunkenness can, for some, be a
dangerous affliction which tarnishes the mind and blurs the senses. She uses that to her advantage and
is fully in control over her own alcohol consumption, only drinking enough to make her feel what some
call “Dutch courage”- a sense of enhanced liberated bravery. She boasts; “That which hath made them
drunk hath made me bold; What hath quench'd them hath given me fire”(Act 2, Scene 2) after drugging
the drinks of the king’s guards. This control over drinking is something that the porter lacks, as he admits
9

080576
DRA3062
to Macduff, which he does through personifying drink as a lying man “I requited him for his lie; and, I
think, being too strong for him, though he took up my legs sometime, yet I made a shift to cast him”(Act
2, Scene 3) Additionally, when she asks her husband “Was the hope drunk Wherein you dress'd
yourself? Hath it slept since? And wakes it now, to look so green and pale” (Act 1, Scene 7) Lady
Macbeth is wanting to understand where her husband’s weakness has stemmed from and uses her
knowledge of the nature of alcohol consumption to explain this. Frederic B Tromly supports this notion
in his Shakespeare Quarterly, article Macbeth and His Porter.- “Significantly just as Lady Macbeth’s mind
turns from Macbeth’s drunken hope to disparity between his “act and valour” and his “desire”, so The
Porter proceeds to lament and drink “provoked the desire, but takes away performance” (Tromly 1975:
153-154).
In the second part of the scene, The Porter delivers his articulate view of the many differing effects of
substance he is under the influence of. He is clearly an advocate for liquor and a prolific drinker- and
because of this, he knows both sides of the coin. He continues discussing proving nature of drink and the
effects of lechery.
“Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep, and urine. Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes; it
provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance: therefore, much drink may be said to
be an equivocator with lechery: it makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on, and it takes him
off; it persuades him, and disheartens him; makes him stand to, and not stand to; in conclusion,
equivocates him in a sleep, and, giving him the lie, leaves him” (Act 2, Scene 3)
Reading this from a performative standpoint, it becomes clear to the actor that this is the testimony of a
man who is very experienced within his field, he understands the volatile nature of his equivocator and
how alcohol not only effects each person differently but how it arouses an array of feelings and
emotions within oneself. The provocation for desire is something that relates to Lady Macbeth’s account
10

080576
DRA3062
of how liquor has spurred her to bravery. This provoking of desire reflects Macbeth’s own desire to
become king. Tromly, supports this argument -
“Some critics have discovered in these lines the contrast between the venial warmth of The
Porter’s failings and the inhumanity of Macbeth. But, since the function of the first part of the
scene is to stress how Macbeth’s crime is not foreign to ordinary humanity, we may question
the cogency of this interpretation. Clearly enough, lechery and drunkenness are not Macbeth
suffices. Nevertheless, the porter’s remarks on the effect of drink and lechery stand in a
metaphorical relationship to Macbeth himself” (Tromly 1975: 153).
One of the key things I am intending to articulate in this essay is importance of the role of the drunkard
within the context and plot of their respective plays. I have discovered that in fact, this character isn’t
actually that integral to Macbeth’s plot at all, and neither is the fact he is drunk, the only functional
purpose he serves is the opening of the doors. Instead, he seems to have a reframing power that lets us
step out of the play, and examine it though the refreshing lens of comedy. He represents the plot in
what he says, by referencing the key themes and demonstrating how they can be seen in a new context.
11

080576
DRA3062
Caliban: Worshiper of the Celestial Liquor
Caliban is one of Shakespeare’s most complex characters, and, as I unpack in this study, his experience
with alcohol only adds to his complexity. He walks the line between victim and villain, and, apart from
Arial the sprit he is, at the time of the plays setting, the only known native of the island. A creature
forced to learn the ways of man by a ruthless coloniser with manipulation and magical powers on his
side. Stripped of his own mother and forced in to slavery, Caliban is articulate creature who is full of
emotion and passion. Within the performative context of this role, solidifying what kind of monster this
character is physically is crucial and requires both an investigative and interpretive exploration into the
text, and even more vitally, a creative decision into his biological, zoological or mythological definition.
James Garnon who played the part at the Globe Theatre in 2015 expresses his own venture in to
defining Caliban’s breeding-
“Caliban is a very interesting part in that he's described by all the other characters in the play in
so many different ways. He's a monster. He's a demi-devil. He's a fish. He's a mooncalf. He's
deformed.”-“ A lot of these things are contradictory. I think for an Elizabethan mind, Caliban
would have struck them as being a devil.” (Garnon 0.58, 2018)
Yet I would argue Caliban is a more than just a devil, for it implies that he lacks emotion and empathy.
Caliban is clearly capable of love and gentility, but once he is under the influence of alcohol his feelings
are amplified and warped, leading him to rage against his oppressor who prevents him from achieving
both physical and emotional freedom.
Caliban adores his island and knows all its secrets of it. Of course, sharing these secrets is something he
chastises himself for as Prospero uses them for his own bidding. “I am subject to a tyrant, a sorcerer,
that by his cunning hath cheated me of the island.” (Act 3, Scene 2) There was a time where Prospero
appreciated Caliban, but this changed after the creature tried to rape his daughter. This matter is cause
12

080576
DRA3062
for controversy, as it is often interpreted as a misunderstanding, born from his lack of contact with the
outside world, and his intimate friendship that he formed with Miranda. Garnon explains his
interpretation of this connection, “He clearly is in love with Miranda-- desperately in love-- but has been
rejected by her and by Prospero. So his fury is coming from a place of love, too.” (Garnon 2018) In his
article Caliban. Savage Clown, John C McCloskey extends the discussion upon Caliban’s unfamiliarity
with the world beyond his island further:
“Throughout the play Caliban is a savage, and untutored, not unintelligent, child of nature, and
it is his environmental ignorance of the commonplaces familiar to even the lowest groundlings
which forms the dramaturgical basis of his pathetic clown edge. What, indeed, could be funnier
than a drunken savage exhibited before civilised and sophisticated men?” (McCloskey 1940:
355)
Caliban’s thoughts are plagued by the sprits of the island, and how they affect his mentality.
“Sometime like apes that mow and chatter at me, And after bite me, then like hedgehogs which
Lie tumbling in my barefoot way and mount Their pricks at my footfall; sometime am I All wound
with adders who with cloven tongues Do hiss me into madness.” (Act 2, Scene 2)
His only companion, the voices and spirits of the island which Prospero callously had stripped from him.
This concept of defiling and pilfering is extremely potent within the relationship between Caliban and his
master, Prospero see’s Caliban’s attempted rape as a sign savagery after education, and Caliban see’s
Prospero’s colonisation of his island in the same way. This hypocrisy is what drives our articulate and
poignant beast to form a plot for revenge, his discovery of alcohol fuels Caliban’s urge to take action
against his master. After a large section of physical comedy, Caliban is given his first sips of alcohol. This
comes curtesy of Stephano, a drunken shipwrecked butler who, with his jester friend Trinculo, conceive
a plan with Caliban to murder Prospero and steal his magical books.
13

080576
DRA3062
Caliban’s discovery of alcohol spurs him in a way that is totally unique to any other Shakespearian
character. His adoration for liquor is immediate, he appears to become inebriated instantly. Caliban has
never experienced alcohol before and the moment the liquid touches Caliban’s lips, his character goes
through a transformation. He hails Stephano as a god, (to the annoyance of Trinculo) and kneels to him
and his bottle without question, “These be fine things, an if they be not sprites. That's a brave god and
bears celestial liquor. I will kneel to him.” (Act 2, Scene 2) McCloskey extends notion:
“He kneels not so much to Stephano as to the magic of the “celestial liquor” which is for him the
real God that will set him free - the God whose magic will defeat the magic of Prospero”
Stephano being a seasoned drunk and great manipulator takes this opportunity and follows the
monster across the island. (McCloskey 1940: 354)
While Caliban’s motives and aspirations remain the same, his execution of them becomes marred by his
drunkenness. McCloskey extends this “Caliban’s serious character-motive, love freedom, leads him into
a situation that becomes increasingly ridiculous.” (McCloskey 1940: 355) He later comments that
Caliban’s “thoughts are serious, for his unifying character motive makes them so.” (McCloskey 1940:
357) The bottle transforms Caliban from a savage intellectual into a tragic clown, falling over his own
feet while attempting to generate a strategy that could change his fate forever. While characterising
Caliban performatively one must be able to take into account all of these things. The way his drive
changes in this critical moment. Not only does alcohol transform Caliban’s mind but also his role
dramaturgically Brown claims “Caliban himself as a strange “monster” is partly a clown’s role; even his
attempted rape of Miranda and attack on Prospero, together with his care for the islands beauties, are
in the comic tradition” (Brown 1996: 122).
As proven earlier, through his deep emotional character traits, and his state of being during his first
scenes, one cannot label Caliban as a clown. It is the addition of alcohol into his system that makes him
14

080576
DRA3062
so, he does so willingly to his new god. Yet, an argument can be made for the comedy of the intoxicated
beast being mainly influenced by Stephano, Trinculo and the bottle. He is the butt of all these gags and
becomes so due to his intoxication. If he were sober, we feel he would not be hoodwinked so easily as
he would be wary after his being betrayed by Prospero. Brown does continue to say that “To give
Caliban to a clown does not mean underplaying the obvious pathos and power of feeling the role”
(Brown 1996: 123)- which I believe is a more fitting description.
Tinling is not at all surprised that Caliban sees the drink in this light, as the concept of alcohol being a
heavenly benefaction has been around ever since its creation “It mystified the alchemists in the middle
ages, who at first thought they had discovered the elixir that would give perpetual youth” (Tinling 1917:
7). Although this was not the case, the impact it has on the mind and body caught the imagination of
the users. “Surely it was a strange substance! Gave particular sensations ,too , a feeling of exuberance
that was very pleasing. So, like Caliban, they considered it a celestial liquor, the beverage fit for gods”
(Tinling 1917: 7). This spiritual connection also holds many connotations to the Roman- Catholic
Church’s concept of transubstantiation, where, during then Mass, wine is considered the blood of Christ.
Caliban is isolated not only from the world beyond his island, as Prospero has ensured that his slave’s
incarceration keeps him from exploring his own land. “here you sty me In this hard rock, whiles you do
keep from me The rest o' the island.”(Act 1, Scene 2) Due this, one would think that he would never
want to be controlled in such a way, but strangely he becomes a devotee to a false god, which in turn
puts him back into the position of a slave. When deciphering through the subtexts of Caliban, especially
in his first encounter with the two clowns, we find out that he decides drink before he concocts the plan
to kill Prospero. Due to him being drunk he in fact misses an opportunity to be free. He could have
waited with Stephano and Trinculo and escaped the island with them. On the other hand, if he had done
so he probably would have ended up being sold by Stephano to a traveling show. Alas, Caliban doesn’t
know that he is falling back into a trap, not only by becoming a believer of a liar but a devoted
15

080576
DRA3062
worshipper of a false god, and most of all a slave to alcohol, or as Tinling renders him “Caliban the
deserter of wisdom, the Willing slave of Appetite.” (Tinling 1917: 9)
The importance of role of both the drunkard and alcohol has been the key notion I have endeavouring
to uncover so far. In the case of Caliban, it is undeniable that his adoration for the bottle not only is
crucial to his character development but keeps afloat the whole of the comedic subplot of the play, -
Trawick supports this argument, saying that not only does “the use of alcohol contribute(s) to the action,
the characterisation, and humour” (Trawick 1978: 25)- but that in fact- “the subplot owes its existence
to wine: Stephano’s oft refilled bottle of Sack inspires Trinculo , Caliban and its owner enough courage –
or foolhardiness to plan to murder Prospero take over the rule of the island” (Trawick 1978: 25) As the
play comes to a close, Caliban is left with the worst hangover imaginable. Finding himself in a worse
position than he was at the start, embarrassed, ashamed and caught red handed. No longer a clown, but
a broken beast “I'll be wise hereafter And seek for grace. What a thrice-double ass Was I, to take this
drunkard for a god And worship this dull fool!” He has taken the audience on a unique journey through
the worst affects of alcohol, for it has turned his desire of freedom into desire for revenge or as
McColskey marks him, “He is a serious figure made pathetically clownish by the distortion of his
environment and the novelty of his experience of drunkenness.” (McCloskey 1940: 357)
16

080576
DRA3062
Falstaff: Sack Addict
Sir John Falstaff is hailed by most admirers of the Bard as his most famous drunkard. Gregarious, loud,
red-cheeked and humorous, Falstaff is a fan favourite. His character’s basis is a marginalising topic as the
inspiration for his creation is said to have spawned from many opposing origins. John “Jockey” Oldcastle,
a English Lollard leader (many believe Oldcastle was the original name Falstaff, but was chanced after a
complaint from Lord Cobham), the writer Robert Greene and the medieval knight Sir John Fastolf.
Falstaff’s roots may also date back to Ancient Greece as Gately marks- “Sir John has echoes of Silenus,
the fat old drunken demigod” -“suggesting that both the Romans and the Elizabethans had a similar
ideal drinker in their heads—a figure both comic and endearing.” (Gately, 2009, 128) Tinling
characterises Falstaff in the same light, crowning him as “the wine god of merry England” (Tinling 1917:
16 )
Anthony Sher adopted the role in Gregory Doran's 2014 RSC productions of both parts of Henry IV. In
the chapter A Fat Knight? from his book Year of the Fat Knight: The Falstaff Diaries, Sher discusses his
initial thoughts upon components of character that surprised him. Sher is an incredibly seasoned
classical actor, so in regard to a performative essay, his instincts are vital to understanding how a
performer may interpret text and bring a character to life upon the stage. On the surface Falstaff is
buoyant and brazen and Sher explains how the character surprised him with his imagination, his
heartlessness and his charm. More interestingly, Sher marks how he discovered that Falstaff shares
many characteristics with that of an addict.
“On three occasions in Part I, Falstaff resolves to clean up his act (‘I must give over this life’, ‘I’ll
repent suddenly’, ‘I’ll leave sack’), and yet in Part II his biggest, most celebratory speech is a
hymn to alcohol (‘If I had a thousand sons, the first principle I would teach them should be to
addict themselves to sack!’). I sense the circular rhythms of serious dependency here. Rather
17

080576
DRA3062
than just a jolly old bloke who likes his drink. Could one play him with serious dependency?”
(Sher 2016: 10).
This notion of dependency runs deep within Falstaff. As Tinling marks in his chapter Falstaff in Praise of
Sack “Falstaff is never happy unless he is drinking sack.” (a white fortified wine)“He’s always calling for a
cup of sack or a quart sack or a bottle of sack.” (Tinling 1917: 16) So from this, I believe that a
performative reader would naturally try to investigate where this addiction and dependency steam
from. A discovery into what lies beneath the wit and jokes of this giant of comedy. Falstaff is aware of
the concept of alcohol addiction – (chiefly the addiction of sack), though whether he considers himself
dependant on the drug is in the hands of the performer. Although it is clear that he considers this
addiction an important part of life as he marks in Henry IV Part 2 -“If I had a thousand sons, the first
humane principle I would teach them should be, to forswear thin potations and to addict themselves to
sack.”(Act 4 , Scene 2) Sher touches on Falstaff’s cynicism of militarism, which is undeniable present in
the text, especially in Part 1 “ Tut, tut; good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder; they'll fill
a pit as well as better: tush, man, mortal men, mortal men.” (Act 4 , Scene 2) Here Falstaff is calling his
own soldiers cannon fodder, and separating himself emotionally from his own rascally soldiers, proving
though he may be old he knows the mentality required for battle. Sher extends this;
“When Hal gives him a regiment to command, Falstaff’s behaviour is totally in keeping with
someone who knows the reality of war and is thoroughly cynical about it: your soldiers are just
cannon fodder. These are dark things. I like them. It’s more like the kind of stuff I play. I suppose
it’s the usual problem of doing Shakespeare’s great roles: you have to see past what I call the
Stratford-souvenir-shop image – in this case, a merry old buffer with tankard of ale – and look at
what Shakespeare actually wrote.” (Sher 2016: 23).
18

080576
DRA3062
In his book Falstaff; Give me Life, Harold Bloom, who Sher calls “the Big Daddy of American Shakespeare
Scholarship”(Sher 2016: 23) and played the part in 2000, describes Falstaff as an old warrior. A veteran
soldier, turned drunk and highwayman.
“On the battlefield he scorns carnage, sensibly wishes he was back at the Boar’s Head Tavern,
carries a bottle of sack in his holster, and regards death and dying as bad jests. Who can resist a
veteran warrior who has seen through the absurdity of violence and urges us to play instead?”
(Bloom 2017: 17)
Although outwardly Falstaff throws away the seriousness of the situation, this lack of emotional
connection appears cold-hearted, which seems to juxtapose how fun-loving attitude. His past of military
disconnection is something that has clearly remained in Falstaff’s mind, as is the horrors of war. He is
also clearly rather cowardly, for example in his article Falstaff and the Problems of Comedy, David Ellis
examines how in Henry VI Part 1, Falstaff fleas a highway robbery on Gads Hill and then lies about it
later.
“Spectators brace themselves at that moment to witness the public humiliation of the character
they like, but with Falstaff’s witty and ingenious response to Hal the energy in the feelings they
have prepared is free (in the Freudian view) to discharge itself in laughter. This is what is known
as the relief theory of comedy, or more specifically what Freud calls “economy or affect” (Ellis
2005: 102)
Mirth and jolliness seems to flow out of Falstaff when in the presence of his mates. He encourages
others around him to drink and be merry and is always the life and soul of the party. However, Falstaff is
the King of drowning his problems, and no amount of sack can rid him from his insecurities. Falstaff
suffers with both inertia and gout, as Tinling addresses in his chapter Falstaff and the Price of Sack “one
of the penalties that the good liver so often has to pay. It pays the rogue with his great toe, and the pain
19

080576
DRA3062
doubtless neutralises the delight of many a bottle of that excellent sherries sack” (Tinling 1917: 22) On
top of these ailments Falstaff is depicted as being morbidly obese, claiming his waste is two yards round,
something which he often feels discomfort about. He also complains about his age, and although
stubbornly refuses to change his ways, yet continues to overeat and drink. Ellis enters a deeper layer of
this by addressing Freud’s interpretation upon Falstaff
“At the time he writes his note, Freud has stopped talking about jokes and is discussing instead
what he calls “humour”. One of the familiar problems investigating comedy is that there is no
fixed terminology. The way Freud defines humour is “a means of obtaining pleasure in spite of
the distressing affects that interfere with it”. (Ellis 2005: 101)
Russell Brown brings to light the Shakespeare’s ability to conceive a layered, nuanced character and how
throughout the length of a play hidden depths can be detected.
“Often Shakespeare’s strategy is to start impressing the hidden nature of a character by its
merest hints in the text, or other outward activity, and to reveal only one part of the subtextual
basis at a time until a complex interplay of conscious and unconscious motivation has been built
up through a continuous series of impressions.” (Brown 1996: 71)
Performatively, there is so much to play with within this character. With hidden depths and a larger than
life persona, Falstaff embraces a lifestyle of social opulence spending his days in The Boar’s Head
entertaining his rouges with his drunken antics. Falstaff is a performer, he wants to entertain his friends.
He has a public persona, and a private persona but as his personal-life and tavern-life merge into one,
we begin to see the cracks in the mask he wears in front of his acquaintances. Falstaff makes the tavern
his stage, and this spirit has been indoctrinated into our drinking culture, allowing our pubs and bars to
lend itself to performance, and freeing alcohol from the confines of characterisation and plot and
transforming it into dramaturgical theatrical tool.
20

080576
DRA3062
Booze: A modern performative tool
As I discussed in the opening of this essay, interpretation is what keeps the heart of Shakespeare’s work
pumping. Reinvigorating these classics with new settings both in time and geographically, tonally, and
with different dramaturgical methods have consistently drawn in audiences for generations. Through
theatrical modern festivals there has been a new wave in the way Shakespeare is performed, mixing
drinking culture with performance. Lewis Ironside and Chris Nelson of Magnificent Bastard Production’s
formed the now globally renowned theatre company Shitfaced Shakespeare in 2010 for the Secret
Garden Party’s theatre tent. For their hour-long adaptations of the Bard’s plays, they elect one member
of the company to get visibly drunk four hours before the show. While the rest of the cast remain sober
and try to hold the play together, the drunken performer stumbles through the performance adlibbing,
playing fast and loose with the text, and appears free any inhibition.
I met up with the company and their director Stacy Norris in The Leicester Square Theatre, London as
they prepared for that night’s Shitfaced performance of The Merchant of Venice. Here we discussed all
things related to drunken performance and I was able to experience their process first hand. Louise Lee
who plays Portia explained to me how the company experiments and plays with the classical
Shakespearean form. “It’s a beautiful fixed skeleton to be destroyed, the comedy is in that destruction.
People love live chaos, its not planned, it’s a conceit and people recognise this is as a form.” (Lee, 2018)
This self-inflicted chaos is something the usually also intoxicated audience revel in. Being both on the
side of the drunkard, cheering when they get through a particularly tricky monologue, and against them,
hoping that they fail, waiting eagerly for the breaking of theatrical norms, and erupting in laughter as
they are. Actor Saul Marron explains the complex performer/audience relationship, this while sipping on
his gin and tonic, preparing for his drunk performance as Bassanio “I think the audience want to see the
straight (sober) actors fail, especially as the drunk is the first person to point out “Ah! You can’t
remember where we are, can you?” (Marron 2018)
21

080576
DRA3062
Marron, his take on the performative nature of alcohol, and how it works differently with each actor,
“Every actor has their own way of getting drunk and their own response to alcohol. For example,
Louise loves to play, and the more we play with her the more we get out of her, others, like Rob
are more relaxed, more chilled and he doesn’t need excitement,” (Marron 2018)
Drunken Shakespearian performance is something that seems to have bled into American culture too,
Denver based company The Wit have adopted a very similar method to Shitfaced. ShakesBEER performs
an abridged version of the play usually in a local a bar or a brewery, during which, the actors and the
audience drink simultaneously. I conduced and interview managing director Kristin Honiotes who shared
with me a detailed insight into how they use alcohol as a performative tool.
“Alcohol performs as a way to reduce standard performance anxieties. It also provides an
obstacle to overcome which you don’t often see and, in turn, produces results you wouldn’t
often see. With our model, we have drinks in hand every time you are on stage. As the play goes
on people tend to get more drunk and it adds a bit of excitement to the work itself.”-
“Shakespeare is rife with drink related textual references. Also, as best as we can tell, these
plays were written for drunk people. The style and plot catered to a room full of drunks.”
(Honiotes 2018)
This is echoed by Dennis Kezar, who discusses how the original Shakespearian performances, many of
which took place close to pubs and taverns, would have brought in a crowd of drunken spectators. In his
article for Critical Inquiry, Shakespeare’s Addictions he states: “Good wine” might very well strike flock
of Jacobean theatregoers as a “good familiar creature”. (Kezar 2003: 57)
22

080576
DRA3062
Shakespeare in a bottle
The beauty of Shakespeare is that his personal opinions can only been seen through the mask of a
character, said character’s relation to the plot and of course the text. Therefore, assumptions made
upon is on his own approval are not unnecessary, as Shakespeare’s own reputation as a drinker has
impacted the way in which he is represented within our modern drinking culture and the way in which
his work is represented.
During exploration into this topic I have often been surprised at the assumption that Shakespeare
condemned and made an example of the drunkards and insinuations that he created them as cautionary
examples. Tolman emulates this “In various plays the drunkenness of some character is an essential
feature of the plot and in most of these cases one feels a distinct note of disapproval.” (Tolman 1919:
84) While I agree that the Bard uncovered an aspect of social judgement upon his drunkards, the
creation of these characters alone proves that this was a side of life which deserved to be depicted.
Trawick argues that “Shakespeare was greatly ahead of his time on such questions as the relation of
temperate living to health, and his dislike of overeating and drunkenness.”(Trawick 1978: 55) Yet, while
Shakespeare may had promoted a healthy lifestyle in some of his characters, his “dislike” of
drunkenness is something, which he may have not emulated in his own lifestyle. Therefore, his
characters are not the only thing to consider while examining Shakespeare’s attitudes towards the
“celestial liquor.” The way in which he is represented in our modern culture may also stem from his own
first-hand knowledge of tavern life and reputation as a drinker. An article by Dr Theodore Dalrymple,
Shakespeare on Alcohol, published in The British Medical Journal states that “Indeed, we are told that he
died after a drinking session in Stratford with Ben Jonson, though whether from alcohol poisoning, an
epidemic brought on by the recent flooding in Stratford, or as a matter of coincidence, we do not
know.”(Dalrymple 2011: 713) Stories such as these have influenced writers such as Edward Bond in
23

080576
DRA3062
forming his depiction of both Shakespeare and Jonson. In his play Bingo: Scenes of Money and Death,
Bond depicts the two characters getting slowly intoxicated while discussing the news that The Globe
Theatre has burned down. Bond depicts Jonson’s rivalry with Shakespeare within this scene, as he states
bitter play-writes intentions with Shakespeare “I’m going to make you drunk and watch you spew”(Bond
1974: Part 2 Scene 4) On his way home from the tavern Bond’s Shakespeare admits to the audience,
thoughts in which most people have experienced after a long session in the pub “I drank too much. I
must be calm. Don’t fall in front of them. Why did I drink all that?” (Bond 1974: Part 2 Scene 5)
Although no first-hand evidence exists to solidify the validity of these tales, it is undeniable that his
reputation as drinker has been adopted into more than just our British culture. Shakespeare’s name now
appears on alcoholic beverages, beer mats and pub signs the world over, as Graham Holderness
recounts in his book Cultural Shakespeare: Essays in the Shakespeare Myth -
“Shakespeare (who according to beers mats supplied by Flowers’ brewery, “extremely fond of
drinking hearty draughts of English ale) was reputed to have lapsed into unconsciousness during
a pub-crawl. John Ward’s anecdote, describing Shakespeare’s death from the consequences of a
piss-up with Drayton and Jonson, neglects to mention what was being drunk at the time: and
there seems to be no other evidence of Shakespeare’s bibulous preferences.” (Holderness,
2000: 128)
Tales such as this that depict Shakespeare as a legendary drinker has in fact, been a commercial
gimmick which has aiding English alehouses, especially in Stratford upon Avon and Bidford, for years.
Legend also has it that Old Bill Shakespeare was part of The Friday Street Club. Formed by Sir Walter
Raleigh, the group congregated every Friday, on Friday Street, in the Mermaid Tavern.
This is accounted within The Boozy Bard (by Chartwell Books)
24

080576
DRA3062
“Here poets, playwrights and actors including Raleigh, Shakespeare, John Donne, Sir Francis
Bacon and Ben Jonson gathered together for convivial evenings, where sack and ale surely
flowed. Shakespeare and Johnson are said to have provided much of the entertainment with the
ongoing verbal locking of horns. While Jonson’s intellect was unquestionable, it is said that
Shakespeare’s quick wit proclaimed him victor over and over again.” (The Boozy Bard, Chartwell
Books Inc 2005: 46)
Additionally to these accounts, South African research scientists from the Transvaal Museum in Pretoria
believe that Shakespeare may have also used cannabis and cocaine, as traces of both were found in
eight pipes he is thought to have owned. This disapproving advocate for temperance, that Trawick
describes, has much to answer for.
The recognition of these stories has also bled into the way Shakespearian Theatre is now performed.
This mixed with his diversity of relationships to alcohol, as a substance, culturally and socially. In the
book Drunkenness in Shakespeare Tolman hails Shakespeare’s depiction of tavern-life as “minutely and
intensely realistic,” (Tolman 1919: 82) he acknowledges that the Bard must have been well integrated
within tavern culture “it is plain that Shakespeare knew this life well, and he portrays it with great
fullness and in pungent detail. Perhaps no other portion of his work equals the scenes in vividness and
reality” (Tolman 1919: 82) this I agree with wholeheartedly. His depictions give us the most solid
evidence of his connection with this lifestyle, which has led to many diverse, individual depictions of
alcohol.
25

080576
DRA3062
Conclusion: Time at the Bard.
Shakespeare’s work is considered by most of his viewers, whether they be scholars or theatre-goers, to
have survived in our worldwide collective memory due the phenomenal plots, language he created, and
his undeniable understanding and portrayal of the human condition - both emotionally and
psychologically. Due to the longevity of Shakespeare’s legacy and global recognition for this intricate
portrayal, no other writers work is performed more than that of Shakespeare. The unifying bond formed
by this reception into our culture has led to insurmountable interpretations over the 1616 years since
the Bard’s death. This relationship that has formed between the public and Shakespeare’s work also
stems from the diversity of Shakespeare’s literary and theatrical platforms. The craft of character
making alone does not singlehandedly construct Shakespeare’s portrayal of what it means to be human,
for his placing of these characters within engaging plots exposes another layer in which he thrives, the
depiction of human responses. Within my forming of this essay have uncovered so much diversity,
especially while considering the unpredictable and versatile nature of man’s relationship with what
some consider the world’s most dangerous drug.
What I have discovered during my research is that Shakespeare’s drunkards are never limited to a
particular class. His lowbrow fools like the Stephano and Trinculo in The Tempest, Macbeth’s Porter,
may often lack in social influence but they make up for this with their wit and cunning, whilst titled
drunkards such as Sir Toby Belch and Sir John Falstaff serve as satirical versions of the more upper-class
reprobates and are testimony to the universalism of alcohol consumption in this period. Tinling reflects
this in his chapter Falstaff in praise of Sack where he exposes the diversity of classes within the tavern.
“The Elizabethan age was characterised by a spirit of sociability and the taverns were the general
rendezvous of all the classes” (Tinling 1917: 13) Although he doesn’t pigeonhole his drunkards into a
hierarchical classes, each of these character’s gentility and personality can in fact be represented by
their beverage of choice as Gately remarks “His heroes quaff, or praise, ale, and criticize beer, which is
26

080576
DRA3062
the beverage of choice of his villains and weaklings” (Gately 2009: 128) Trawick ,quotes Shakespeare's
Europe by Fynes Moryson “clowns and vulgar men only use large drinking of beer or ale. Gentlemen
carouse only in wine,” (Moryson, 1903: 387 via Trawick, 1978: 28) This notion of the universal drinker is
correlates with Drobnick’s article, as he discusses modern drunken performance “It almost does not
matter what personality type the artist enacts – bon vivant, bohemian, social outsider, jet-setter –
alcohol plays a role” (Drobnick 2017: 27)
The drunkard is usually not considered integral as a key player within the unfolding of narrative, and
mainly reside comfortably within the sub-plot. Tolman expresses this- “One feels a certain implicit
condemnation of drunkenness even in a few situations in which humour is the prominent feature”
(Tolman 1919: 83) While this exists, within the parasitical nature of Sir Toby Belch Shakespeare gave his
drunken characters an incredible amount of depth, while allowing enough ambiguity to allow the actor
to flex their creative muscles and fill in these gaps. This can be found in shown the diversity of drunken
behaviour represented, in lifestyle choices, and both geographical and plot-based circumstances.
Trawick echoes my point “Shakespeare felt that this was an interesting and integral part of the life which
she was reflecting on stage.” (Trawick 1978: 43) Just as Shakespeare’ adapted the performativity of the
tavern for the stage, companies like Shitfaced and ShakesBEER emulate this taking a typically Falstaffesque
attitude. They are adopting an anti-bourgeois approach against Shakespeare purists, taking a
classical form and creating new avenues of accessibility by representing it through another cultural
phenomenon. Shakespeare, through his extensive works and cultural mythology has left an imprint on
our global theatrical community, the reflection of which can be seen within the modern performativity
of both the actor and alcohol itself.
27

080576
DRA3062
Bibliography
Author not disclosed, Printed with no author (2005). The Boozy Bard; Shakespeare on Drinking.
Chichester: Summersdale.
Bloom, H. (2017). FALSTAFF: Give Me Life (Shakespeare's Personalities) Playing Falstaff New York:
Scribner.
Bond, E. (1992). Plays Bingo Scenes of Money and Death 1974. London: Methuen Drama.
British Council, James Garnon interview, (2018). Playing Caliban - Exploring English: Shakespeare - British
Council. Time code - 0.58 [online] FutureLearn. Available at:
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/explore-english-shakespeare/0/steps/10146 [Accessed 14 May
2018].
Brown, J Performance Analysis (1996). Shakespeare's plays in performance. New York: Applause Books.
Playing for laughs: The last plays, Subtext
Bucker B Tarwick (1978). Shakespeare and alcohol. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Online Book. Chapter 1, The
Subtle Blood o th Grape
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Shakespeare_and_Alcohol.html?id=3j7kqbFAsaMC&redir_esc=
y
Chartwell Books Inc (2005). The Boozy Bard; Shakespeare on Drinking. Chichester: Summersdale.
Holderness, G. (2001) Cultural Shakespeare, Essays in the Shakespeare myth, University of Hertfordshire
Press.
Dalrymple, T. (2011). Shakespeare on alcohol. BMJ, [online] 342(mar23 4), pp.d1789-
d1789.https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1789
28

080576
DRA3062
Ellis, D. (2005). Falstaff and the Problems of Comedy. The Cambridge Quarterly, 34(2), pp.95-108.
https://academic.oup.com/camqtly/article-abstract/34/2/95/361977
Ellis, D. (2005). Falstaff and the Problems of Comedy. The Cambridge Quarterly, 34(2),
Gately, I. (2009). Drink, A cultural history of alcohol. New York: Gotham Books.
http://file.zums.ac.ir/ebook/101-Drink%20-%20A%20Cultural%20History%20of%20Alcohol-
Iain%20Gately-1592404642-Gotham-2009-560-$18.pdf
Holderness, G. (2000). Cultural Shakespeare, Essays in the Shakespeare myth New York: St. Martin's
Press.
Jim Drobnick (2017) Inebriationism, Performance Research Under the Influence , 22:6, 26-42, DOI:
10.1080/13528165.2017.1412644 https://doi.org/10.1080/13528165.2017.1412644
Jim Drobnick (2017) Introduction, Performance Research, Under the Influence 22:6, 1-2, DOI:
10.1080/13528165.2017.1412618 To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13528165.2017.1412618
Kezar, D Shakespeare’s Addictions. Critical Inquiry, [online] 30(1), pp.31-62.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/380806?mobileUi=0
McCloskey, J. (1940). Caliban, Savage Clown. College English Vol 1 No 4, 1(4),
p.354.https://www.jstor.org/stable/370659?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=caliban&sea
rchText=savage&searchText=clown&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcaliban%2Bs
avage%2Bclown%26amp%3Bfilter%3D&refreqid=search%3A81f393525647b1c42795159149e503b9&se
q=1#page_scan_tab_contents
McCloskey, John C. “Caliban, Savage Clown.” College English, vol. 1, no. 4, 1940, pp. 354–357. JSTOR,
JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/370659.
29

080576
DRA3062
Shakespeare, W. (1994). Complete works of William Shakespeare. China: HarperCollins.
Shakespeare, W. (1994). The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. New York: Harper Collins.
Shakespeare's Europe; unpublished chapters of Fynes Moryson's Itinerary, being a survey of the
condition of Europe at the end of the 16th century; with an introd. and an account of Fynes Moryson's
career by Charles Hughe, Moryson, Fynes, 1566-1630; Hughes, Charles, B.A., London
https://archive.org/details/shakespeareseuro00moryuoft
Sher, A. (2016). Year of the Fat Knight: The Falstaff Diaries. A Fat Knight? London: Nick Hern Books.
The Spectator, July 2, 1898. Reprinted by the Dramatic Museum of Columbia University, 1916; also in A
Book of Homage to Shakcespea're, Oxford, 1916, pp. 200-03.
Tinling, C. (1917). Sidelights from Shakespeare on the alcohol problem. 1st ed. Evanston, Illiones:
National Women's Christian Temperance Union. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012503973
Tolman, A. (1919). Shakespeare Studies; Part IV. Drunkenness in Shakespeare. Modern Language Notes,
[online] 34(2), pp.82-88. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2915672?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Tolman, Albert H. “Shakespeare Studies: Part IV. Drunkenness in Shakespeare.” Modern Language
Notes, vol. 34, no. 2, 1919, pp. 82–88. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2915672.
Tromly, F. (1975). Macbeth and His Porter. Shakespeare Quarterly, 26(2), p.151.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2869244?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
30

080576
DRA3062
Works Cited
Thackeray, F. (2018). Shakespeare, plants, and chemical analysis of early 17th century clay ‘tobacco’
pipes from Europe. https://journals.co.za/content/sajsci/111/7-8/EJC173841J.F.
Thackeray, N.J. Van der Merwe and T.A. Van der Merwe, South African Journal of Science, Volume 97,
Issue 1-2, Jan 2001, p. 19 – 21 http://journals.co.za/docserver/fulltext/sajsci/97/1-
2/sajsci_v97_n1_a8.pdf?expires=1525224393&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=F8104C952BC210B67
A4A6E2B966CD178
Honiotes, K. (2018) ShakesBEER Interview conducted through email correspondence on 7/05/2018
Lee, L. Marron, S. (2018) Shitfaced Shakespeare Interview conducted by author on 11/05/2018. A
All interviews in this essay have been conducted by the author and are available for the reader upon
request.
31