The Paradoxes of Intimacy in Early Modern Drama
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects CUNY Graduate Center 2007 The Paradoxes of Intimacy in Early Modern Drama Brenda Marina Henry-Offor The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/4254 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] The Paradoxes of Intimacy in Early Modern Drama By Brenda Marina Henry -Offor A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in English in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Th e City University of New York 2007 UMI Number: 3284421 Copyright 2007 by Henry-Offor, Brenda Marina All rights reserved. UMI Microform 3284421 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 ii © 2007 Brenda Marina Henry -Offor All Rights Reserved iii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in English satisfaction of the dissertation requir ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date Mario DiGangi Chair of Examin ing Committee Date Steven Kruger Executive Officer Mario DiGangi Thomas Hayes Joseph Wittreich Superv ision Committee The City University of New York iv Abstract The Paradoxes of Intimacy in Early Modern Drama By Brenda Marina Henry -Offor Advisor: Professor Mario DiGangi During the early modern period intimacy was neither well -defined nor discuss ed in the drama in the way that we do today. My dissertation is an examination of the paradoxical nature of intimacy in Renaissance drama and the impact of space on this intimacy. I am looking at the behavior of married couples and same -sex couples withi n the home during the early modern period. To elucidate my theory of intimacy I have chosen the plays: Christopher Marlowe’s Edward II, Thomas Heywood’s A Woman Killed With Kindness , William Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, and John Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi. Intimacy in my dissertation is different from two people being alone or the idea of privacy. Intimacy is based as well as promises knowledge of self, loved ones (wife/friend), of social hierarchy (status relations). In all of the chosen plays women are victims within their homes. In almost all of the plays the heroine dies and the husband or male kin is directly or indirectly responsible for her death. Space, too, plays an important part in my dissertation. Public an d private spaces impact the development of intimacy in the plays. The open household is a problematic space at this historical moment. The plays are centered around the openness of the female body and openness of the early modern household. I will show t hat there is a relationship between the open household and the penetrability of women’s bodies usually by men who are outsiders. Palaces in v the plays are viewed as public spaces but are also private spaces for those who dwell within. Defining public and p rivate spaces becomes problematic in the plays because early moderns are now creating private spaces for themselves and are utilizing these new spaces for personal, intimate purposes. Moreover, there is a blurring of private and public spaces within the p lays. I will also demonstrate that the household is not a safe space for women who are often denied the use of private spaces. Cultural differences, too, impacts the development of intimate relationships between characters in the plays. Also, the theme of male guests violating their hostess is a recurring one in the plays suggesting a cry for cultural changes. Women should be better protected in their homes and the open household should be better fortified against preying male guests. I will also elucid ate how notions of public and private affect the development and outcomes of the plays. Additionally, I analyze the issues that historically and culturally contribute to the paradox of public -private intimacy, as well as the kinds of spaces that promote or disrupt intimacy in the plays. vi Acknowledgements This dissertation began as an assigned essay in Professor Robert Reid -Pharr’s Afro - American Literature course during my second semester at The Graduate Center. I owe him much g ratitude for continually questioning my theory of intimacy that took me back to the English Renaissance period in order to understand its paradoxical nature. I am deeply grateful to my friends in the Off ice of Educational Opportunity and Diversity Program s who constantly reminded me of my dissertation focus and gave me time and space to concentrate on each chapter as it evolved. I am fortunate to have friends like Dr. Gerald Galgan, Wendy Galgan, Linda Neiberg, Dr. Carol Oliver and Dr. Gail Smith who lis tened to my early drafts of the dissertation and gave generous feedback and encouragement. I am grateful to Dr. Nelson Tiburcio, Dr. Christa Baiada and Marisol Jiminez, colleagues who read my drafts and provided generous comments when I needed fresh eyes. Thank you to all of my friends in the English Department with whom I worked in groups at various times during the writing of my dissertation. I am also indebted to The Graduate Center of the City University of New York for its continuous financial suppo rt during my tenure: CUNY Diamond Pipeline Fellowship, Dean K. Harrison tuition awards, CUNY Graduate Center Presidential Fellowships, Two -year CUNY Writing Fellowship, MAGNET Dissertation Year Fellowship, and three CUNY Pipeline summer Fellowships. Membe rs of my dissertation committee Mario DiGangi, Thomas Hayes and Joseph Wittreich have been generous with their time, attentive to my academic needs guiding me throughout the writing process. My advisor, Mario DiGangi made it possible for me to receive sev eral grants and fellowships throughout my years at the Graduate Center. Mario’s willingness and readiness to model “right way” for me is immeasurable. He devoted countless hours of vii guidance, always willing to hear my new ideas, read and reread the chapte rs giving generous comments and suggestions, as well as provide numerous sources that helped to enrich my writing. Thank you, Mario, for being such a great mentor. Special thanks to my husband Dominic Offor who patiently listened to my ideas and sooth ed my anxiety with words of wisdom. I am fortunate to have my three sons B. Randy, M. Jason and N. Timothy; Elaine and Elijah as allies in my search for knowledge, and always willing to help and show consideration and understanding when I need it. Thank yo u to my mom Ada Henry and all of my brothers and sisters whose encouragement buoyed me so often during my darkest hours. Finally, I am grateful to the memory of my dad Nathaniel Ailiou Henry, whose inspirational spirit lifted me up so many times when I w as down and needed a reason to continue. viii Table of Contents 1. Introduction: The Paradoxes of Intimacy 1 2. Indistinguished Spaces: The Violation of Intimacy in the Open Household 22 3 Intimacy and Cultural Difference 79 4 Intimacy and the Pub lic Realm 124 5 Works Cited 169 Chapter One Introduction: The Paradoxes of Intimacy My dissertation examines the development and demise of intimacy in plays by Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Providing a novel way o f conceptualizing the drama of this period, my study posits that intimate relationships in early modern drama are deeply affected by the imagined household spaces in which they play out. To get at this relationship between space and intimacy, I analyze th e issues that historically and culturally contribute to the paradox of a public -private intimacy, as well as the kinds of spaces that promote or disrupt intimacy in those plays. Such issues include anxieties concerning male and female sexuality, the vexed place of sexuality at court, and confusing and conflicting rules of gendered comportment, among others. Sometimes these issues work in conjunction with each other, sometimes alone, in complicating the development of same -sex and male -female intimacy. Th roughout, I emphasize interpersonal relationships, but also define intimacy as more than the private interaction of two people. According to Sigmund Freud , selfhood d efines a person’s psychological state and influences his performance of intimacy .1 I pos it that intimacy is based on, as well as promises knowledge of, the self, loved ones, and the social structure. Intimacy creates boundaries in human relationships and is publi c and private at the same time. Intimate moments are always transactional and d ynamic ones, but the performance of intimacy can also take place within the self. 1 Freud argues that the “contents of the mind, most foreign to the ego —on symptoms. Symptoms are derived from the repressed, they ar e, as it were its representatives before the ego; but the repressed is foreign territory to the ego —internal foreign territory —just as reality… is external foreign territory” (71). In the plays in this study, characters show a similar lack of awareness of the self. 2 The examination of intimacy in this study furthers the work of Patricia Fumerton, Celia Daileader, Catherine Belsey, and Anne Ferry . One of the first critics to address the dynamics of inwardness in early modern writing, Anne Ferry describes the “inward language” of soliloquy as well as personal reflection, but she does not identify inwardness with intimacy (14 -28) .