For reasons that may or may not become obvious at some point, I have been doing a lot of reading about various historical figures and events, and am trying very hard not to get lost down rabbit holes.

But to be honest, it would be really helpful if history wasn’t so interesting, because it is hard to concentrate on the important work things, when there’s all these… details that are shiny and interesting and very VERY hard to ignore.

You need an example. Ok. So: there was a moment in history when America was filled with tension about whether there were people who had too much, and whether they were living life at the expense of others, and at the same time, people were also worried about the increase of immigration, and concerned that there wasn’t enough to go around, and this drove people into the arms of nativist parties who promised that America was for Americans and didn’t have to worry about non-Americans taking their jobs or telling them what to do.
This was the mid-1840s, for reference. And it all kept building up and there were violent skirmishes, in this case some riots, and people died and that’s always bad.

And also some sheep. Apparently some sheep also died. Which is the point I keep getting stuck on when I should be getting more into the class warfare and the cultural contrast of the anti-British sentiment with the pro-Shakespeare nativists.

HERE’S the thing:

There was a feud in the 1840s between two actors, Edwin Forrest, one of the most famous American actors of his time, and William C Macready, his British equivalent. At first they had a friendly rivalry, but it built up over time to the point where they were crossing the Atlantic to piss each other off.

Like, one would go on a tour and the other would follow them from city to city and… you know what, I’ve just had another read of the wikipedia page about it and…

Macready and Forrest each toured the other’s country twice before the riot broke out. On Macready’s second visit to America, Forrest had taken to pursuing him around the country and appearing in the same plays to challenge him. Given the tenor of the time, most newspapers supported the “home-grown” star Forrest. On Forrest’s second visit to London, he was less popular than on his first trip, and he could only explain it to himself by deciding that Macready had maneuvered against him. He went to a performance of Macready playing Hamlet and loudly hissed him. For his part, Macready had announced that Forrest was without “taste.”. The ensuing scandal followed Macready on his third and last trip to America, where half the carcass of a dead sheep was
thrown at him on the stage. The climate worsened when Forrest instigated divorce proceedings against his English wife for immoral conduct, and the verdict came down against Forrest on the day that Macready arrived in New York for his farewell tour.

…Honestly, I’m not just being British about this, but I’m pretty sure that one person in this situation was in more of a feud than the other person. It seems like possibly a 60/40 feud divide. Maybe 80/20. I mean, one person declared the other lacked taste… and the other declared all-out war? Who knows, maybe it was more fair and just being reported weirdly. Maybe this was wiki page was edited by the ghost of William Macready, that definitely seems like it could happen.

LOOK. The whole point is:

T sheep is mentioned in multiple places, and my questions are these:

• How do you sneak half a dead sheep carcass into the theatre in the first place?
• Do you say it is a snack?
• Do you dress it up in an overcoat and say it is your weird-looking son?
• Do you buy it a ticket?
• Or wait: was the sheep dead when it came into the theatre? Or was that something that happened part of the way through. In which case presumably yes, it must have had its own ticket. And overcoat.
• Well then how did it die?
• And at which point of the play? A dramatic point? I mean, it was certainly dramatic for the sheep?
• And at which point was it thrown?
• Did it stop the play?
• Or did they work it into the action somehow (please god yes let this be the case?)
• What was the sheep’s name?

Long story short: this is why I am quitting useful work and becoming a historian, A very specific one, at the precise meeting point of sheep and theatre.

Of course, the main question, the one we all need to know. Did it receive a standing ovision.

 

Did that work?

Whatever. I’m a sheep theatre historian, I don’t care about writing anymore.