✭✭✭✩✩

by Charlotte Corbeil-Coleman, directed by Nina Lee Aquino

Stratford Festival, Studio Theatre, Stratford

August 21–September 26;

National Arts Centre, Ottawa

November 11-21, 2026

“Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light” (Preface to the King James Bible, 1611)

In The King James Bible Play, now receiving its world premiere at the Stratford Festival, Charlotte Corbeil-Coleman takes on the subject of the translation of Bible into English commissioned by James I in 1604. This translation led to the creation of the King James Bible (known as KJV), the translation that has had the greatest influence on English language and literature. The play has an effective Act 1, set in the 17th century among the translators themselves., but a far less effective Act 2, set in the present among an all-female theatre troupe attempting to write a play about the translation of the KJV. Despite the disparity between the two acts, the quality of the acting remains on a consistently high level in both.

Act 1 begins in 1609 when a group of translators led by Sir Henry Savile, an historian and mathematician, gather to carry on with their task. The other members of Savile’s group include the clerics John Bois, an expert in Hebrew as well as Greek and Latin; the bishop George Abbot; and the Puritan John Perrin, an expert in Greek. In order to translate a massive text like the Bible, its 80 books, including the Apocrypha, were parcelled out to six groups called “companies”. The men in the play were part of Second Oxford Company which had responsibility for the Four Gospels, The Acts of the Apostles and the book of Revelation, which many would regard as the central texts of Christianity.

Savile had a son, name unknown, whom Corbeil-Coleman calls Willie, whom Savile has asked to join the group as a scribe, though only 16, since the previous scribe is unavailable. In reality Savile’s “company” had at least eight members with a new adult member available should any member have to leave.

Translating the Bible might not seem to be a productive subject for play, but Corbeil-Coleman makes it so by concentrating on debates within the group about word choice, discussions about threats from outside and glimpses into the translators’ personal lives. Debates about word choice prove to be the most fascinating of these three because which word the group choose for their translation has both spiritual and political implications. The most contentious word within the  group is φαρμακεύτρια, which in previous English translations had been rendered as “witch”. Literally, the word means one who makes medicine or poisons, thus having both positive and negative connotations depending on the context. “Herbalist” would be neutral way to translate the word, but the group is under political pressure to translate it as “witch” because King James had already used previous translations of the Bible to justify his persecution of witches.

One factor which led the KJV to have so much influence is the sheer beauty of its prose. Corbeil-Coleman demonstrates how the group tries out various possible English words to find the one that sounds best. When she has the characters speak out the lines with the new words, she shows us how powerful the spoken text can be.

Threats from outside include anger about the use of the word “witch” and frequent demands from James I to hurry up. Corbeil-Coleman uses references to the group members’ personal lives in an effort to humanize these clerics and scholars. The most important of these is the relation between Henry Savile and his son Willie. (The real Savile did have a son, but he died in 1604, five years before the beginning of the action of the play.) The difficulty is that Savile completely takes Willie for granted even though Willie’s few remarks show he is bright and sensitive.

Corbeil-Coleman’s depiction of the Second Oxford Company seems to be realistic except for one sequence. Challenged for never having gone to the theatre, Bishop George Abbot does attend a play (Hamlet apparently) and is disturbed by it. Given that both Puritans and Anglicans called the theatre sinful and railed against actors as whores, it is impossible to believe that Abbot would dare to be seen in public at a play, an act which could lead censure. (A Church of England cleric could be seen at a private performance, but that’s not the case here.) What It is even less believable that Abbot would later encourage Willie to act out the part of Mary, Mother of Jesus, to learn how she would feel after becoming so mysteriously pregnant. Henry VIII had forbidden the acting of religious plays, so how could Abbot even think of such an idea. And the notion that acting as a character gives insight into that character is as dubious as it is modern.

Nevertheless, by the end of Act 1, Corbeil-Coleman has so intrigued us with the challenges the Company faced, we would like to know what happens. After all, they did somehow succeed and the KJV was published in 1611. It’s rather a shock, then, that Act 2 finds us in the present in a rehearsal hall. Corbeil-Coleman now gives us an all-female theatre troupe led by playwright/director Martie, known for creating modern takes on classic works, in this case the creation of the KJV. One of the actors, the star, has become indisposed, so Martie calls in her daughter, an academic named Han, to help out. The two have a fraught relationship and fight through the act so that one can’t help but wonder why Martie asked for her “help” in the first place, especially if she is going to disregard everything Han says.

The Martie-Han relationship is clearly a more explicit version of the Savile-Willie relationship in Act 1. In fact, Corbeil-Coleman strives to make as many incidents and images in Act 2 as possible reflect those in Act 1. There are threats from outside from the Board to hurry up, which is quite believable since Martie hasn’t even decided on key aspects of the script on opening night. Pineapples, plums, ink stains, a birthday which appeared in Act 1 recur in Act 2. Martie realizes that what is missing in her tale of the KJV is women, and we have several scene where Martie tries to introduce women into the play, like the spouses of the translators, but in the end decides that the translators should merely refer to their wives (which is exactly what we have seen them do in Act 1).

Corbeil-Coleman gives the troupe various personal crises – one involving a breakup, one involving her acting ability – but these feel unimportant and contrived. As in Act 1, there is a major argument between parent and child, where the parent comes off worse. Unlike the inarticulate cry she gives Savile in Act 1, Corbeil-Coleman gives Martie a long speech ruminating over the necessary paradox of feeling two opposing emotions at the same time. This, the longest single speech in the play, has the feel of the “in case you didn’t get it” speeches that are all too common in Canadian drama.

The speech is so strong we might very well think this was the end of the play. Unfortunately, the play continues with what feel like two more concluding scenes. By the end of Act 2 it is clear that, contrary to what we thought, Act 2 does not echo the events in Act 1. Rather, Act 2 is about the creation of the text we see enacted in Act 1. The main problem with this is that the “play” we saw in Act 1 was acted entirely by men, whereas the troupe in Act 2 was entirely made of women. So, are we to think the women’s acting was so realistic that we actually supposed they were men? Or is this just a very muddled variation on the ancient theme of reality and illusion?

The question of whether the theatre can embody anything that could be called “real” has already, of course, been fully examined in Pirandello’s Six Characters in Search of an Author (1921). The technique of presenting a scene which we suppose to be “real” and then exposing it to be a play, was explored best in The Real Thing (1982) by Tom Stoppard. Corbeil-Coleman is trying to make us see a parallel between translating a text form one language to another and translating a text from the page into performance. This parallel would work better if the characters in Act 2 had some text they were working from. But they don’t. Material is being added and discarded until the last minute.

What is most riveting about The King James Bible Play are the uniforming excellent performances that Nina Lee Aquino has drawn from the entire cast. Unrecognizable in a full beard and moustache, Cyrus Lane is truly outstanding. Savile is the only non-cleric of his group and is the only one who sees the various ironies that inform the translation project. The conscientiousness, the sense of humour, the rage that Lane brings out in Savile make him the most sympathetic of the group.

It is fascinating to watch Steven Hao 郝邦宇 as Willie grow out of the intimidation he feels being surrounded by adult scholars to realizing he has ideas that are worth hearing. As Bishop George Abbot, Rylan Wilie has fun playing a holy man who is fully unaware of his pomposity.

In Act 2, Deborha Hay as Martie dominates her group. Though the threat of having your play cancelled by a Board is not quite the same as the threat of execution by a displeased tyrant, Hay brings out all the complexities of a woman who is all too aware of her weaknesses and strengths and knows all too well that preaching to the converted accomplishes nothing. Hay delivers the fine speech Corbeil-Coleman gives Martie with such passion, I wish we had had more time to contemplate its meaning.

Vivien Endicott-Douglas plays Han as wary and ready to fight right from the start. Though Corbeil-Coleman does not explore the history between Martie and Han thoroughly enough, Endicott-Douglas emanates an array of conflicting emotions that we feel could explode at any moment. We are so used to seeing Sara Topham play highly articulate and intelligent characters, it’s quite a surprise to see her play such an uncontrolled and unaware figure as Cath. It’s rather too bad her comic scene about being seen as too emotional never feeds into anything else in the act.

Act 2 of The King James Bible Play repeats so much of Act 1 and adds so little that it feels more like an appendix to Act 1 rather than its fulfilment. What is really lacking in Act 2 is a discussion of faith in a secular sense to parallel the discussion of faith in a religious sense in Act 1. Act 2 also misses the irony clear to Savile in Act 1 of a “divine” text being created by a group of contentious human beings.

As a side note, I must mention the strange fact that the seats in the Studio Theatre have suddenly risen in price. This year seats at the Studio range from $151.67 to $254.64. Last year the top price was $185. So, what happened to boost the price of the centre section and adjacent side seats by 37%? The Studio Theatre was intended for rarities and new works. How, exactly, does increasing prices encourage attendance? At the National Arts Centre, where the same production with the same actors moves in November, the top price is $69.25. Why are the Stratford tickets nearly $200 more?

Christopher Hoile

Photos: Michael Spencer-Davis as John Perrin, Gray Powell as John Bois, Cyrus Lane as Sir Henry Savile and Steven Hao as Willie; Steven Hao as Willie and Cyrus Lane as Sir Henry Savile; Vivien Endicott-Douglas as Han, Liz Der as Roni, Angel Lo as Anna, Sara Topham as Catherine and Deborah Hay as Martie; Deborah Hay as Martie and Vivien Endicott-Douglas as Han. © 2026 David Hou.

For tickets visit: www.stratfordfestival.ca or nac-cna.ca.