This, dissertation has been 65-5683 microfilmed exactly as received THORNBERRY, Richard Thayer, 1925- SHAKESPEARE AND THE BLACKFRIARS TRADITION. The Ohio State University, Ph. D ., 1964 Language and Literature, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan SHAKESPEARE AND THE BLACKFRIARS TRADITION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Richard Thayer Thornberry, B.N.S., Ph.B,, A.M. ********** The Ohio State University 1964 . Approved by 'T f " A ) ^ Adviser Department of Englis ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to Professors G. B. Harrison and John Arthos for stimulating my interest in Elizabethan drama and in Renaissance studies, to Professors Robert Estrich, Claude Simpson, and Richard Altick for their continued encouragement, and to the members of my ever helpful Ph.D. committee (Professors John Harold Wilson, Edwin Robbins, Francis Lee Utley, and John McDowell). In addition, I especi­ ally wish to thank the two persons who contributed the most to the. successful completion of this project, ray mother, Mrs. William Anderson, whose understanding and faith sustained me, and my adviser. Professor Harold Walley, who, among countless other things, established an intellectual climate that was ideal for the study. ii VTl'A October 8, 1925 Born - Cleveland, Ohio 1943-1947 . Ü. S. Navy 1945 . B.N.S., Marquette University,. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1948 . Ph.B., Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1951 . M.A., University of .Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1952-1953 U. S. Navy 1955-1961 Teaching A ssista n t, Department of E nglish, The Ohio S tate U niversity, Columbus, Ohio 1961-1964 Assistant Professor, Western Illinois University, Macomb, m i n o i s FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: English Studies in Shakespeare. Professor Harold R. Walley Studies in Elizabethan Drama. Professor G. B. Harrison Studies in the Non-dramatic Literature of the Renaissance. Professors Austin Warren and John Arthos Studies in M ilton. P rofessor Edwin W. Robbins Studies in Linguistics and English. Professor Francis L. Utley Studies in American Literature. Professor William Charvat i i i CONTENT'S Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................... Ü VITA . .................................................................................. i i i Chapter I . INTRODUCTION..........................................• .......................... 1 I I . THE DIFFERENCES IN THE CURRENT TRADITIONS AT HEACKFRIARS AND THE GLOBE ..................................... 46 Broad Types of P lays ......................... 52 Point of View . .................................................. 66 C h a ra c te rs......................................... 77 The Unities ........ .................................................... 91 Sexual M atters ..................................... 104 Witty Dialogue . ......................................... 114 S p e c t a c l e ......................................... 117 Conclusions .................................. 131 I I I . THE INFLUENCE OF THE TWO TRADITIONS ON SHAKESPEARE• S LAST PLAYS .......... ............................................... 134 Cvmbeline . ........................................ 138 The W in ter's Tala ................................... 170 The Tempest ............ ....................... 192 Henry VIII ..................................................., 217 The Two Noble Kinsmen ............................. 245 . IV. CONCLUSION.................................................................................... 276 APPENDIX A ...................................... 298 APPENDIX B .......................................................... 320 bibliography ................. ...................................... 327 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In 1608, after having presented their plays in public theatres from the time they began to function in 159^, Shakespearecompany acquired a private theatre called Elackfriars, a playhouse -with a clientele that differed in composition and taste from the audience at the ŒLobe, the company's current public theatre; moreover, after approximately 1608 Shakespeare wrote five dramas that, although they deviate consider­ ably from one another, form a group that many scholars consider to be significantly different from his earlier plays. To help explain the differences, commentators have assigned various causes which range from Shakespeare's physical and mental state at the time to changes within the realm of theatrical affairs. Authorities on theatrical matters, however, disagree as to whether the differences in the plays are causally related to the acquisition of the Elackfriars theatre. In this study I will investigate whether Shakespeare's last five plays, Cvmbeline. The Winter's Tale. The Tempest. Henry VIII. and The Two Noble Kinsmen do, in fact, exhibit features that we can attribute to the tastes of the Elackfriars audience, and, ultimately, whether the total available evidence can tell us if Shakespeare wrote these dramas for the Globe, for Elackfriars, or for both theatres. At present there is a remarkable amount of disagreement among scholars as to the answer to the latter question. Centering primarily 1 on Shakespeare's first three late romances ( Cvmbeline. The W inter's T ale. and The Tempest). Gerald Bentley, Alfred Harbage, and J, M. Nosworthy have each championed one of three possible positions. After a detailed analysis of the change in theatrical conditions brought about when the King's Men acquired Elackfriars, Bentley, in 1948, concluded; My basic contention is that Shakespeare was, before all else, a man of the theatre and a devoted member of the Bang's company. One of the most important events in the history of th a t company was i t s a c q u isitio n of the E lac k friars Playhouse in 1608 and its subsequent brilliantly successful exploitation of its stage and audience. The company was experienced and theatre-wise; the most elementary theatrical foresight demanded th a t in I6O8 they prepare new and different plays for a new and different theatre and audience, Shakespeare was their loved and trusted fellow. How could they fail to ask him for new Elackfriars plays, and how could he fail them? All the facts at our command seem to me to demonstrate that he did not fail them. He turned from his old and tested methods and produced a new kind of play for the new theatre and audience, Sometdiat unsurely at first he wrote Cvmbeline for them, then, w ith g re a te r d e x te rity in h is new medium. The V Enter's T ^ e . and finally, triumphant in his old mastery. The Tempest.' In an impressive and valuable study of the traditions at the public and private theatres, Shakespeare and the. Rival Traditions (1952), a work that qualifies him to speak as an authority on the subject, Alfred Harbage stated the opposite position: the plays of Shakespeare in this period [between I 609 and 1613]» contrary to a common critical assumption, are popular in ty p e ,2 I Gerald E, Bentley, "Shakespeare and the Elackfriars Theatre," Shakespeare Survey. I (1948), 49, ^Alfred Harbage, Shakespeare and the Rival Traditions (New York, 1952), p , 8 6 ,, 3 In 1955 Nosworthy expressed, without argument, the third major point of view on the issues I would concede, however, th at the acquisition of the Elack­ friars may have induced Shakespeare to pen dual-purpose plays, for such, most emphatically and triumphantly, the Romances are.3 The disagreement among these three commentators, however, is merely symptomatic of the current, widespread confusion about the matter. Directly or by inference, with or without qualification, Shakespearian scholars have offered each of the three answers for virtually every one of Shakespeare*s last plays,^ None of these writers has examined the 3 Cvmbeline. ed, J , M, Nosworthy (London, 1955)» P. xvi, ^Some have placed all of Shakespeare*s later work at Elackfriars: Wilhelm M, A. Creizenach, The English Drama in the Age of Shakespeare (Philadelphia, I916), p, 4l8; Louis B, Wright, Middle-dass Culture in Elizabethan England (Ithaca, 1958; 1935 ed, revised slightly), p, 18; surely David Daiches, C ritical Annroachss to L iterature (Englewood Cliffs, N, J,, 1956), p, 387; and, by implication, J, Isaacs, "Production and Stage Management at the Elackfriars Theatre," Shakespeare Association Pamphlet, 1933» pp. 3-5. Besides Bentley, some have placed only the romances there; %omas Marc P arrott, Shakespearean Comedy (New York, 1949), pp. 367 , 375, 381, and 394; Thomas W, Baldwin, The Organization and Personnel of the Shakespearean Company (Princeton, 1927), pp. 317-318; and, with the qualification "primarily, " A, M, Nagler, Shakespeare»s Stage, trans, Ralph Hanheim, Yale Ikiiversity Shakespeare Supplements, 1958, p. 102, Others have allocated only individual plays to Elackfriars, Cvmbeline; Ashley H. Thorndike, Shakespeare*s Theatre (New York, 1925), p. 121; Martin Holmes, Shakespeare*s Public (London, I 96O), pp. xiii, 206-212; and J, Dover Wilson in Cvmbeline. ed, J , C, Maxwell (Cambridge, 1960k p. ix, Jg.mpge.t: 0, W, Wallace, The Children_of the Chanel at E lackfriars 1597-1603 (Lincoln, Nebraska, 19O8 ), p, 10, n, 3; Thorndike ( Shakespeare * s Theatre). p, 197; John Cranford Adams, The Globe Playhouse (Cambridge, 1942), p, 308; and Holmes (Public), pp, x iii, 214-223, ügnrzJCÜI: Frederick G, Fleay in A_Chronicle History of the Life and Work of VH-lliam Shakespeare (New York, 1886), p, 251 argues that "the extant play was performed