Censorship, Collaboration, and the Construction of Authorship in Early
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Censorship, Collaboration, and the Construction of Authorship in Early Modern Theatre Gabriella Edelstein A thesis submitted to fulfil requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences The University of Sydney 2019 I certify that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work and that all the assistance received in preparing this thesis and its sources have been acknowledged. This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or other purposes. Gabriella Edelstein Abstract This thesis argues that censorship is central to early modern authorial self-construction and that the regulation of drama should be part of an understanding of dramatic collaboration. Over the last twenty years, literary scholarship has paid increasing attention to the collaborative processes involved in early modern theatrical production. Despite this interest, there has yet to be an account of how dramatic censorship operates as part of the collaborative model, or how censorship affected authorship. This thesis explores the relationship between authorship and political authority, so as to reconsider who is an author and why. By engaging with textual and literary analysis, this thesis reveals how plays were shaped by a culture of collaborative censorship. I have chosen four collaboratively written and censored plays so as to consider the relationship between writing and regulation. From this starting point, I examine the ways that authorship is constructed both within plays and outside of them in early modern as well as our own contemporary culture. I begin with a survey of censorship and collaboration criticism in my Introduction and offer a way of reading early modern drama through collaborative censorship. In Chapter One, I consider the role of credit in Ben Jonson, George Chapman, and John Marston’s Eastward Ho! and how this system of social and financial exchange produced the playwrights’ collaborative and singular modes of authorship. In Chapter Two, I examine the role of scribes and censors as collaborative agents, if not authorial figures, in John Fletcher and Philip Massinger’s The Tragedy of Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt. In Chapter Three, I suggest that service relations are central to dramatic collaboration, and are what prompted the censorial revision of Fletcher, Massinger, and Nathan Field’s The Honest Man’s Fortune. Finally, in Chapter Four, I consider how several models of collaborative authorship have constructed different editions of Sir Thomas More. Each chapter demonstrates how reading a i collaborative play through censorship, or a censored play through collaboration, can reveal the workings of dramatic production, the relationships between playwrights, and the construction of the authorial self. By being attentive to the relationship between censorship and collaboration, I argue that the regulation of drama was fundamental to dramatic production and the authorship of dramatic texts. ii Acknowledgements First, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Dr Huw Griffiths, who has been a source of guidance throughout my academic career. Learning from Huw has been one of the greatest joys of writing this thesis. I will be forever grateful for his generosity, availability, wisdom, and especially for introducing me to the plays of John Fletcher. I also wish to thank my auxiliary supervisor, Professor Liam Semler, for his interest in my project. His insightful comments and kind words were a source of comfort. I am also indebted to Professor Lucy Munro from King’s College London for her inspirational teachings during my Master’s and for her offerings of encouragement and support. I am also grateful for the Australian Government Research Training Program scholarship that funded my research. In addition, I extend my sincere thanks to the members of the Early Modern Literature and Culture group at the University of Sydney who helped me develop my arguments. I could not have completed this thesis without the care and support of my family and friends. To Claudette Palomares and Sophie Frazer, without their equally erudite and heartfelt conversations I would be left bereft. To Yana Smagarinsky, Sarah Segal, Tal Chodos, Ben Strum, Emma Rapaport, Emily Hilton, and Danni Maryasin, for the comfort, love and joy they bring to friendship. And finally, to Lauren Weber, Shima Shahbazi, and Lauren Cantos for their intellectual and emotional encouragement. Thank you to my family who have been a source of strength and unconditional love. To my father, David, and mother, Karyn, who have shown an enduring and sincere interest in my work. A special thank you goes to Karyn for proof reading this thesis. Any remaining mistakes are my own. Thank you to my siblings Michaella and Jonathan, for their ebullience. And thank you to my grandparents, Sheila, Pauline and Victor, for their presence and love. Finally, thank you to Francesco, for his love that moves the sun and the other stars. iii Contents Abstract i Acknowledgements iii Introduction: Reading for Collaborative Censorship 1 Interpreting the censored playwright 1 Understanding early modern dramatic censorship 8 Approaches to early modern collaborative authorship 16 Reading for collaborative censorship 28 1 Collaborating on Credit: Eastward Ho! And the Death of the Co-Author 35 The censorship of Eastward Ho! 39 Eastward Ho! and the culture of credit 48 Collaboration and the language of deflected authorship 69 2 Collaboration, Interrupted: Authority and the Manuscript of The Tragedy of Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt 79 The personal and political contexts of Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt 86 Scribal work and dramatic purpose 97 Collaborative revision in the Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt manuscript 104 3 Sharing Pages: Censorial Service in The Honest Man’s Fortune 119 The texts of The Honest Man’s Fortune 123 Cultures of service in early modern England 131 “Oh what a scoffe might men of woemen make, / yf they did knowe this boye” 143 Censorial service in The Honest Man’s Fortune manuscript 155 4 The Rest is Scilens: Editorial Approaches to Collaboration and Censorship in Sir Thomas More 166 Collaborative censorship in The Booke of Sir Thomas Moore 171 Editorial approaches to Hand C in Sir Thomas More 180 Sir Thomas More at Shakespeare’s quatercentenary 192 Conclusion 204 Bibliography 211 Introduction: Reading for Collaborative Censorship Let the interpreter beware: for none euer h[e]ard me make Allegories of an idle text. - Thomas Nashe, Pierce Penilesse his supplication to the diuell1 Interpreting the censored playwright Over the last twenty years, literary scholarship has paid increasing attention to the collaborative processes involved in early modern dramatic production.2 This work created new models of authorship by questioning the totalising influence of the playwright, which has revealed the dispersed authority of scribes, compositors, actors, and others in the production of both performed and printed plays. The dramatic output of the most famed playwrights of the period has come under intense scrutiny in the hopes of uncovering these agents.3 Once these agents have been found, however, questions still remain about the extent to which they hold authorial influence over a text. Whilst literary critics have worked to make sense of collaboration in print 1 Thomas Nashe, Pierce Penilesse his supplication to the diuell (London: Printed by Abell Ieffes, for I. B[usby], 1592), sig. ¶2. 2 The recent critical interest in collaboration has resulted in three sometimes overlapping avenues: theoretical, practical, and attribution focused. Jeffrey Masten’s controversial Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997) instigated a new debate over the place of collaboration in early modern drama. Criticism is still coming to terms with this important book, and other scholars have since tried to find new ways to conceptualise collaboration. Gary Taylor, for example, has read collaborative writing as a type of artisanal creation in “Artiginality: Authorship after Postmodernism,” in The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion, ed. Taylor and Gabriel Egan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) (NOS hereafter). Collaboration has, more broadly, been accepted as the playmaking practice within the companies, such as in Heather Anne Hirschfeld in Joint Enterprises: Collaborative Drama and the Institutionalization of the English Renaissance Theatre (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004), and David Nicol in Middleton and Rowley: Forms of Collaboration in the Jacobean Playhouse (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012). Other critics have considered collaboration in relation to Shakespeare’s authorial style, such as Jeffrey Knapp in Shakespeare Only (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009). The major interest in collaboration, however, is in relation to Shakespearean attribution, see Brian Vickers in Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) as a starting point. 3 The most recent example of this phenomenon is the NOS: Authorship Companion. 1 and performance, one significant area has yet to receive due attention: censorship.4 The regulation of early modern drama allowed for a greater dispersal of authority than has previously been assumed. Similarly to scribes, compositors, and actors, the Master of the Revels had the literary authority to alter a play’s shape and language.