ENGLISH DRAMA 1586-1642
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
G. K. HUNTER
CLARENDON PRESS OXFORD
1997
-iii-
Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Dares Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan
Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press
Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
Oxford University Press 1997
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. Within the UK, exceptions are allowed in respect of any fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms of the licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms and in other countries should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available ISBN 0-19-812213-6 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Typeset by Graphicraft Typesetters Ltd., Hong Kong Printed in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd., Midsomer Norton, Somerset
-iv-
TO SHELAGH
-v-
LEWIS. I'm working on 'English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, Excluding Drama', for OHEL. JOY. Oh hell? LEWIS. The Oxford History of English Literature. JOY. Sixteenth century. You got the easy one. LEWIS. You think so? William Nicholson, Shadowlands ( 1989) Act I, pp. -3
Of the difficulties that lie in the way of an editor [of Elizabethan dramatic records] -- at least if he regards his work as historical rather than romantic -- not the least is to avoid writing a general history of the Elizabethan stage. There is no such thing as a clearly defined historical field; facts are linked to other facts in all directions, and investigation merely leads to further and further questions. Every custom and every institution at once rises the problem of its own origin; every corporation and every social fact is influenced by other corporations or reacts on other social facts. Thus to treat intelligibly any of the several dramatic companies at the end of the [sixteenth] century, or any series of events in the dramatic history of the time demands a knowledge of the constitution of other companies and of the sequence of other events such as at present can hardly be said to exist. W. W. Greg, Preface to Henslowe's Diary, Part II ( 1908)
-vi-
Preface
THIS present volume completes the Oxford History of English Literature Series, the earliest volumes of which were published in 1945. The space of time between the first volume and the last has seen a revolution (or even a series of revolutions) in the notion of what literary history is or should be about (if it is allowed that it should exist at all), so that it may be in order (without engaging in a retrospective survey) to give some explanation how the present volume relates to a context that could not have been envisaged by the originators.
The first author designated for this volume was Professor F. P. Wilson . When Wilsondied in 1963, I was asked if I would see through the press the interconnected chapters he had written (which I did) and then if I would consider carrying on the project from 1586 to 1642. The latter I declined to do. Some twenty years later the Press asked me to reconsider my decision, and this led me to wonder if the contradictions between history and literature (as I had seen it) could be understood as a challenge rather than an impasse. I believed that, sheltering under the aegis of Tolstoy rather than Ranke, I could use a plurality of historical perspectives to fit together the plays I had to consider, without glossing over their particular and diverse functions as art and entertainment.
Wishing to give proper space to these functions, I have used terms that allow for continuity in aesthetic interest between that time and this. I have allowed anachronistic words like 'theatre' and 'author' to intermingle with the more accurate 'playhouse' and (poet'. I have used the word 'Elizabethan' to refer to the whole period from 1584 to 1642. Dates are regularized from 'Old Style' to 'New Style'. Quotations are everywhere modernized. The presence of Shakespeare in the company I have to deal with has, of course, threatened to unbalance the whole enterprise. I have therefore assumed a general knowledge of his wuvre and used his plays as a means of delineating what he shared with the whole movement to which he belonged rather than as philosophical or political statements to be elucidated out of the historical context.
G. K. H.
-vii-
Acknowledgements
In the long history of this book I have incurred many debts. It could not have existed without continual access to the resources of the Sterling and Beineke Libraries of Yale and the Bodleian Library in Oxford. In 1978 the Guggenheim Foundation financed a year without teaching, in which I was to think about Elizabethan dramaturgy. I did so, in ways that were not immediately productive but eventually basic to the present enterprise. In 1984-5, the ideal conditions at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioural Sciences in Palo Alto allowed me space to consider the proposal of the Oxford University Pressthat I write this book. There I constructed a first version of Chapter 3 and a general outline of the whole project. I am indebted to many persons who have read portions of work-in-progress and brought light to dark places -- Jonas Barish, David Bevington, Mary Bly, Julia Boss Knapp, Paul Leopold, Jenny Morrison, Leo Salingar, Hilary Walford-- and especially to three colleagues, Eugene Waith, Lawrence Manley, and Murray Biggs, who have over the years uncomplainingly given their attention to the recurrent avalanches of confused typescript. At a personal as well as an academic level I am indebted to the support of Mary Hunter, Andrew Hunter, and Ruth Hunter.
In this book, as in everything else, I owe most to the dedicatee, who has incessantly read, commented, argued, improved, and so allowed me to know the pains of authorship only as one of the pleasures of a shared life.
I thank the Cambridge University Press for permission to reprint some material first used in an article published in Shakespeare Survey 42( 1990).
G. K. H.
-viii-
Contents |
|
|
|
2. PRECONDITIONS OF ELIZABETHAN DRAMA |
|
3. THE EMERGENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY WITS: EARLY TRAGEDY |
|
|
|
|
7. THE BOY ACTORS AND THE NEW DRAMATURGY |
|