Shakespeare’s Openings in Action: A Study of Four Plays from the Period 1591- c.1602 by Joel M. Benabu A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Centre for Study of Drama University of Toronto © Copyright Joel Meir Benabu 2011 Abstract Shakespeare’s Openings in Action: A Study of Four Plays from the Period 1591- c.1602 Ph.D., 2011 Joel M. Benabu Graduate Centre for Study of Drama University of Toronto Regardless of genre, Shakespeare’s plays open in many different ways on the stage. Some openings come in the form of a prologue and extend from it; others in the form of a framing dialogue; some may begin in medias res ; and there is also a single case of an induction in The Taming of the Shrew . My dissertation, “Shakespeare’s Openings in Action: A Study of Four Plays from the Period 1591- c.1602,” subsequently referred to as “Shakespeare’s Openings in Action,” attempts to define the construction of openings in the context of Shakespeare’s dramaturgy and to understand texts which were written in the first place to be performed on a platform stage by actors experienced in theatrical practice. By analysing the playwright’s organization of the dramatic material, as reflected in the play-texts, I attempt to gauge how an opening set out to engage original audiences in the play, an essential function of theatrical composition, and to determine to what ii extent the play-text may be considered as an extended stage direction for early modern actors. 1 What is the present state of scholarship in the subject? Although sparse, critical interest in the openings of Shakespeare’s plays can be found as early as 1935 in the work of A. C. Sprague, Shakespeare and the Audience . In more recent years, other studies have appeared, for instance, Robert F. Willson, Jr., Shakespeare’s Opening Scenes (1977), and a number of articles included in Entering the Maze : Shakespeare’s Art of Beginning , edited by F. Willson Jr. (1995). Existing scholarship provides a good general framework for further research into the openings of Shakespeare’s plays. In addition to the studies presented above, I shall draw on analytical approaches to play-text analysis which involve theatre practice, for example in the work of André Helbo, Approaching Theatre (1991), Anne Ubersfeld, Reading Theatre (1996), and John Russell Brown, Shakespeare’s Plays in Performance (1993); John Barton, Playing Shakespeare (1984), and Cicely Berry, Text in Action . London (2001). These works provide revealing insights into the theatrical possibilities of dramatic language and actor technique. 1The analytical method presented in this dissertation supplements studies made of the complex textual histories of Shakespeare’s plays by considering the staging and characterisation information they contain. In the case of multiple-text plays, it takes account of editorial scholarship and explains the reasons for choosing to analyse the material contained in one version over the other(s). iii To the Dark Gentleman ... “Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim ” (Ovid) iv Acknowledgments Writing a dissertation in the humanities can be an arduous and, sometimes, lonely task. It requires an inordinate amount of willing, dedication, and support from an academic institution and the people it employs . First and foremost, I wish to record my deep gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Jill L. Levenson for her steadfast commitment, continued encouragement, and invaluable suggestions. Approaching her at the end of 2005, at the recommendation of Professor Enoch Brater (to whom I extend my gratitude), was the best academic decision I have made since landing in Canada. Her rigorous scholarship, firm dedication to excellence, and meticulousness as an editor are truly remarkable and nothing short of inspirational. Our meetings often generated stimulating debates, and I count myself fortunate in having benefited from her expertise and exacting standards of scholarship. I should also like to thank my Ph.D. Committee members, Professor John H. Astington and Dr. Jeremy Lopez, who have reviewed this document in the course of its development, and have offered insightful remarks and suggestions. I am indebted to them for their ongoing support. I am deeply grateful to the Graduate Centre for Study of Drama at the University of Toronto for offering me a five-year scholarship, and a conducive environment for conducting this piece of research. I have also benefited from a Ph.D. v Completion Grant, awarded in 2007/08, and two University of Toronto Ph.D. Bursaries, awarded in 2008/09 and 2009/10. On a personal note, I owe my partner, Karen Gilodo, a huge debt of gratitude for her fortitude in having to listen to the subject of this dissertation over a long period with an attentive ear. Her encouragement and willingness to sacrifice her time to me was unwavering throughout the laborious period of gestation and eventually in the writing phase. Her grace and generosity of spirit are praiseworthy. Finally, a special thought is dedicated to my father, Isaac, mother, Alisa, and siblings, Daniel and Talia, for their love and patience over the elephantine labour pain, which bears fruit on these pages. vi Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................. v Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. vii General Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter One: Openings in Theory ................................................................................................ 29 Openings in Rhetorical Theory .................................................................................................. 32 Openings in Poetic Theory........................................................................................................... 47 Chapter Two: Openings in Shakespearean Dramaturgy and Stage-Practice ............... 77 Survey of Modern Scholarship ................................................................................................... 78 Approaching the Concept of Openings.................................................................................... 87 Chapter Three: Analysing the Openings of Four Plays: From Page to Stage.............. 124 Romeo and Juliet ............................................................................................................................ 126 The Merry Wives of Windsor ...................................................................................................... 176 Twelfth Night ................................................................................................................................... 203 Hamlet ............................................................................................................................................... 231 General Conclusion: Shakespeare’s Technique of Openings ............................................. 276 Works Cited .......................................................................................................................................... 286 vii General Introduction In England, the sixteenth century is a famously dynamic period of theatrical activity, marked by a gradual transition from an itinerant enterprise presented on makeshift stages in inns, alehouses, private halls at court and at the estates of noble families to a commercial form of entertainment housed in purpose-built theatres and involving a play-text, a troupe of professional actors, and a paying audience. 1 This evolution, which represents the birth of English commercial theatre, gave rise to new modes of dramatic expression rooted in several performance traditions. The many artistic forms and styles it boasts are at once versatile and complex. They are a testament to a period of intensive theatrical experimentation. The hallmark of theatrical ingenuity may be located in the practice of Renaissance playwrights, English as well as European, of transgressing the generic boundaries of comedy and tragedy (and often banishing the unities) in search of new and exciting theatrical entertainments. In an article entitled “Comedy,” Jill L. Levenson has studied the versatility with which early modern playwrights handled the genre of comedy: During its heyday in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, [comedy] took in whole genres, from romance and satire to sonnet and epigram; it borrowed sub- genres or modes; it incorporated theatrical conventions like the court masque; and it continued to admit the culture of carnival or popular culture. (256) 1 Peter Hyland has made a similar point with reference to Shakespearean comedy, which shares many of the features of tragedy: “One way of looking at Measure for Measure, for example, is to see it as an attempt by Shakespeare to fit tragic subject-matter into a comic structure” (133). The relentless quest for theatrical ingenuity, evident in genre development, was no less relevant when it came to constructing the opening of a play. The opening launched stage action, introduced main characters, presented the principal themes and motifs