Comments on: Medieval and early modern English theatre http://earmarks.org/archives/2006/05/10/103 A weblog on early modern culture, teaching English literature, and what else comes to mind Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:07:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: truewit http://earmarks.org/archives/2006/05/10/103#comment-1380 truewit Fri, 12 May 2006 03:19:24 +0000 http://earmarks.org/archives/2006/05/10/103#comment-1380 Hi Kristine. I'm teaching an entire class next spring on early English theater (arbitrary limit dates: 1300-1700), so I'll be interested to hear how you end up structuring the lecture. I'll just stretch your two hours out over fifteen weeks! My own sense of the line you're rightly going to smudge all over the place is that if it exists at all for theater, it exists as a primarily economic shift with the opening of purpose-built theaters. Paying to enter a space specifically designed to determine who can or cannot view a particular entertainment? That draws a definite line: spatial, cultural, practical. I'm not sure whether that line directly corresponds with the broader resonance of the Med/Ren split, but if you're looking for something, anything, solid for the students to hang onto, this might be it. It's not that drama was completely divorced from profit and exchange before 1567/76 (guilds, guilds, guilds), but the moment people began being admitted to or excluded from performances based solely on their ability to pay, something deep and lasting happened to theater. It's something most of the students will probably take for granted about drama as an institutional art form now... seems good to let them know the history of that shift. And if it's not already obvious, I do love Jean-Cristophe Agnew's <i>Worlds Apart</i> on this topic. It's one of those books that gets nearly every local fact wrong, and in the process adds up to something wonderfully correct. Hi Kristine. I’m teaching an entire class next spring on early English theater (arbitrary limit dates: 1300-1700), so I’ll be interested to hear how you end up structuring the lecture. I’ll just stretch your two hours out over fifteen weeks!

My own sense of the line you’re rightly going to smudge all over the place is that if it exists at all for theater, it exists as a primarily economic shift with the opening of purpose-built theaters. Paying to enter a space specifically designed to determine who can or cannot view a particular entertainment? That draws a definite line: spatial, cultural, practical. I’m not sure whether that line directly corresponds with the broader resonance of the Med/Ren split, but if you’re looking for something, anything, solid for the students to hang onto, this might be it. It’s not that drama was completely divorced from profit and exchange before 1567/76 (guilds, guilds, guilds), but the moment people began being admitted to or excluded from performances based solely on their ability to pay, something deep and lasting happened to theater. It’s something most of the students will probably take for granted about drama as an institutional art form now… seems good to let them know the history of that shift.

And if it’s not already obvious, I do love Jean-Cristophe Agnew’s Worlds Apart on this topic. It’s one of those books that gets nearly every local fact wrong, and in the process adds up to something wonderfully correct.

]]> By: Kristine http://earmarks.org/archives/2006/05/10/103#comment-1341 Kristine Thu, 11 May 2006 05:52:37 +0000 http://earmarks.org/archives/2006/05/10/103#comment-1341 Brett and Roy, thanks for your helpful suggestions! I should have thought of Emrys Jones, of course, thanks Roy! I think it is a great idea, Brett, to talk about contact with other cultures in the early modern period - I could do that using <i>Faustus</i> again, and its broadening of horizons, its travels, even its processes of globalization when Faustus imports grapes in winter. Since Roy also agrees that <i>Faustus</i>'s the thing, perhaps I should really make <i>Faustus</i> the touchstone in my lecture, returning to it throughout, to discuss what is early modern or medieval about it. So it's back to the library for Nicholas Brooke's reading of <i>Faustus</i>. Together with David Bevington's <i>From Mankind to Marlowe</i> I should have plenty of material on the play and its relations to medieval drama. It's a great idea to contrast Theophilus with Faustus, Helen of Troy with the Virgin Mary. I do hope that the students will be more open to the destabilizing of categories that you predict. I was more worried that perhaps they might have tired of doing so, since I am not the first lecturer in the course -- they will have been questioning differences between medieval and renaissance traditions in other disciplines for a couple of weeks when I get to do my lecture. Perhaps they will long for facts and stable distinctions in three weeks time.... I'll let you know how it goes! Brett and Roy, thanks for your helpful suggestions! I should have thought of Emrys Jones, of course, thanks Roy! I think it is a great idea, Brett, to talk about contact with other cultures in the early modern period - I could do that using Faustus again, and its broadening of horizons, its travels, even its processes of globalization when Faustus imports grapes in winter. Since Roy also agrees that Faustus’s the thing, perhaps I should really make Faustus the touchstone in my lecture, returning to it throughout, to discuss what is early modern or medieval about it.

So it’s back to the library for Nicholas Brooke’s reading of Faustus. Together with David Bevington’s From Mankind to Marlowe I should have plenty of material on the play and its relations to medieval drama. It’s a great idea to contrast Theophilus with Faustus, Helen of Troy with the Virgin Mary. I do hope that the students will be more open to the destabilizing of categories that you predict. I was more worried that perhaps they might have tired of doing so, since I am not the first lecturer in the course — they will have been questioning differences between medieval and renaissance traditions in other disciplines for a couple of weeks when I get to do my lecture. Perhaps they will long for facts and stable distinctions in three weeks time…. I’ll let you know how it goes!

]]> By: Roy Booth http://earmarks.org/archives/2006/05/10/103#comment-1331 Roy Booth Wed, 10 May 2006 16:53:30 +0000 http://earmarks.org/archives/2006/05/10/103#comment-1331 A very interesting subject to lecture on - and I'd guess that whatever you say, however brilliant, the students will not like it, for you will inevitably be blurring the precious categories they have pre-established. But as scholarship, Emrys Jones, 'The Origins of Shakespeare' (it's the origins of that piece of Greenblatt too, I'd guess) seems to me worth your attention. Faustus is indeed the text: I reckon that you get a prime Medieval-Renaissance shift if you sub-read the legend of Theophilus at the moment when Faustus trysts with Helen of Troy. Why does it take Faustus so long to get round to her? A man who said he was 'Wanton and lascivious'? She crops up just at a point equivalent to that when the BVM appears to Theophilus, and pops the pact he made back in his nightshirt. There's a switch for you, Helen of Troy for the Virgin Mary. Nicholas Brooke's old reading of Faustus as inverted morality play comes to mind as well. A very interesting subject to lecture on - and I’d guess that whatever you say, however brilliant, the students will not like it, for you will inevitably be blurring the precious categories they have pre-established. But as scholarship, Emrys Jones, ‘The Origins of Shakespeare’ (it’s the origins of that piece of Greenblatt too, I’d guess) seems to me worth your attention. Faustus is indeed the text: I reckon that you get a prime Medieval-Renaissance shift if you sub-read the legend of Theophilus at the moment when Faustus trysts with Helen of Troy. Why does it take Faustus so long to get round to her? A man who said he was ‘Wanton and lascivious’? She crops up just at a point equivalent to that when the BVM appears to Theophilus, and pops the pact he made back in his nightshirt. There’s a switch for you, Helen of Troy for the Virgin Mary.
Nicholas Brooke’s old reading of Faustus as inverted morality play comes to mind as well.

]]> By: Brett http://earmarks.org/archives/2006/05/10/103#comment-1327 Brett Wed, 10 May 2006 13:35:04 +0000 http://earmarks.org/archives/2006/05/10/103#comment-1327 I'm glad you've made this post, since it's given me an excuse to get away from marking. First off, your distinction between community and private theatre ignores the earlier tradition of the morality play or interlude often performed privately before large households. You'd then obviously include these with the mystery plays/cycles that you mention when discussing how their religious themes and didactic function became unpopular after the Reformation and how they were actively suppressed during the early decades of Elizabeth's reign. <i>Faustus</i> is a great choice for illustrating points of continuity with earlier traditions, since the good and bad angel are informed by the psychomachia of the morality plays. Aside from looking at Richard III as a Vice figure, you could look at Shylock as Avarice. If you get a chance to look at it, Sandra Pyle's <i>Mirth and morality of Shakespeare's holy fools</i> (Mellen P, 1998) offers some examples for consideration. As far as "watershed" moments for Renaissance drama are concerned, maybe consider: (a) the accession of James and his promotion of a unified 'Britain'; (b) the powder plot; (c) indoor theatres and the re-emergence of the children's companies which played there, along with the new plays written for them that sacrifice story and character development in favour of stylistic excesses and meta-theatrical effects; (d) closet drama; and (e) the masque. On (a), see Christopher Wortham's "Shakespeare, James I and the Matter of Britain," <i>English</i> 45.182 (1996): 97-122; and on (b) perhaps Garry Wills, <i>Witches and Jesuits: Shakespeare's Macbeth</i> (Oxford UP, 1995). Another aspect you might consider looking at is the increased contact with and knowledge of other cultures resulting from increased travel and international trade during the Renaissance. This has varied implications and the choice of texts to look at are endless... For the 'set text', I'd recommend the chapter on "The Stage" in Andrew Hadfield's <i>The English Renaissance, 1500-1620</i> (Blackwell, 2001). Otherwise, another option is Andrew McRae's short introductory text, <i>Renaissance Drama</i> (Arnold, 2003). Finally (SORRY for blabbering – I'm just really, really tired of marking at the moment, so this is a great excuse not to return to 'the marking chair') you can't be expected to suggest a "line" between medieval and Renaissance traditions in drama, since the one clearly builds on the other. What <i>did</i> change was 'the place of the stage' (nod to Montrose) and the different genres that emerged to meet popular taste and demand. Sounds like a great lecture. Can I suggest using LEGO models to act out any passages you refer to – my students loved my LEGO <i>Duchess of Malfi</i> interlude as part of my lecture of Renaissance attitudes to widows and marriage! : ) I’m glad you’ve made this post, since it’s given me an excuse to get away from marking. First off, your distinction between community and private theatre ignores the earlier tradition of the morality play or interlude often performed privately before large households. You’d then obviously include these with the mystery plays/cycles that you mention when discussing how their religious themes and didactic function became unpopular after the Reformation and how they were actively suppressed during the early decades of Elizabeth’s reign.

Faustus is a great choice for illustrating points of continuity with earlier traditions, since the good and bad angel are informed by the psychomachia of the morality plays. Aside from looking at Richard III as a Vice figure, you could look at Shylock as Avarice. If you get a chance to look at it, Sandra Pyle’s Mirth and morality of Shakespeare’s holy fools (Mellen P, 1998) offers some examples for consideration.

As far as “watershed” moments for Renaissance drama are concerned, maybe consider: (a) the accession of James and his promotion of a unified ‘Britain’; (b) the powder plot; (c) indoor theatres and the re-emergence of the children’s companies which played there, along with the new plays written for them that sacrifice story and character development in favour of stylistic excesses and meta-theatrical effects; (d) closet drama; and (e) the masque. On (a), see Christopher Wortham’s “Shakespeare, James I and the Matter of Britain,” English 45.182 (1996): 97-122; and on (b) perhaps Garry Wills, Witches and Jesuits: Shakespeare’s Macbeth (Oxford UP, 1995).

Another aspect you might consider looking at is the increased contact with and knowledge of other cultures resulting from increased travel and international trade during the Renaissance. This has varied implications and the choice of texts to look at are endless…

For the ’set text’, I’d recommend the chapter on “The Stage” in Andrew Hadfield’s The English Renaissance, 1500-1620 (Blackwell, 2001). Otherwise, another option is Andrew McRae’s short introductory text, Renaissance Drama (Arnold, 2003).

Finally (SORRY for blabbering – I’m just really, really tired of marking at the moment, so this is a great excuse not to return to ‘the marking chair’) you can’t be expected to suggest a “line” between medieval and Renaissance traditions in drama, since the one clearly builds on the other. What did change was ‘the place of the stage’ (nod to Montrose) and the different genres that emerged to meet popular taste and demand.

Sounds like a great lecture. Can I suggest using LEGO models to act out any passages you refer to – my students loved my LEGO Duchess of Malfi interlude as part of my lecture of Renaissance attitudes to widows and marriage! : )

]]>