SHAKESPEARE’S PARAGONES Deanna Malvesti Danforth A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the department of English in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Boston College Morrissey College of Arts and Sciences Graduate School July 2021 © Copyright 2021 Deanna Malvesti Danforth SHAKESPEARE’S PARAGONES Deanna Malvesti Danforth Advisor: Mary Thomas Crane, Ph.D. This project examines Shakespeare’s engagement with and refashioning of one of the primary aesthetic debates of his time known as the paragone, most often invoked in the English context by the Horatian maxim ut pictura poesis (“as painting, so poetry”). Sometimes a neutral comparison of the arts, at other times a rivalry, Shakespeare’s own paragones measure the representational capacities and constraints of narrative and lyric poetry against embodied drama, and simultaneously with regard to painting and sculpture. The primary way in which Shakespeare conducts these explorations, I argue, is by turning to rhetorical figures and tropes that can be translated across mediums, experimenting with how they function differently or the diverse ends to which they can be put. Thus, in each chapter, I pair one of Shakespeare’s freestanding works of poetry with one of his plays and examine the figure or trope that they have in common. Chapter 1 focuses on Venus and Adonis, Henry V, and deixis; Chapter 2 concentrates on Lucrece, Titus Andronicus, and ekphrasis; and Chapter 3 centers on the Sonnets, The Winter’s Tale, and the trope of poetry as monument. Reading Shakespeare’s maJor works of poetry alongside his plays in this way, I contend, challenges the long-held critical opinion that for Shakespeare, drama is the triumphant medium of representation. Rather, such an investigation reveals Shakespeare’s awareness of the inherent paradoxes that each medium holds as well as his desire to exploit their potentials to the fullest degree. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... ii List of figures ..................................................................................................................... v Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Deixis, Narration, and Control in Venus and Adonis & Henry V ............ 17 Chapter 2: Ekphrasis, Motion, and Emotion in Lucrece & Titus Andronicus .......... 76 Chapter 3: Preservation, Performance, and The Trope of Poetry as Monument in the Sonnets & The Winter's Tale ........................................................................ 110 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 152 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 154 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Shakespeare’s Paragones has come to fruition through the steadfast mentorship of a true paragon herself, Mary Thomas Crane. As my advisor over the course of my doctoral studies and as chair of my dissertation committee, her attentiveness to my work and confidence in my abilities have never wavered, even when I found myself going back to the drawing board in the early stages of this project. In every way, she has guided my development as a scholar with the utmost generosity. I am also indebted to Diana E. Henderson, who has been an insightful reader of this dissertation in all of its iterations. I have always been impressed by the tough questions that I have heard her pose to other scholars, and I am appreciative that she has treated me no differently. Andy Crow, who Joined my committee in the later phases of this work, has generously provided their feedback as if they had been there from the beginning. Their discerning eye has made my writing better, and their mutual interest in early modern recipes and food culture has given me a colleague with whom to collaborate in other endeavors. The Boston College English Department has provided me with a rich intellectual home as I have completed my doctoral work. Caroline Bicks, Amy Boesky, and Andrew Sofer, who served on my oral exam committees, have fostered my thoughts about early modern poetry and drama in indispensable ways. Throughout the years, my scholarly endeavors have been buoyed by my engagement with my students, and those that have passed through my classrooms at Boston College have provided me with tremendous joy. So have the collaborative conversations that I have had about teaching with my colleagues, most especially Dayton Haskin, Paula Mathieu, and Lynne Anderson. The ii opportunities afforded to me by Carlo Rotella, Adam Lewis, Tina Klein, and Angela Ards to advise students in the American Studies and Journalism minors have likewise enriched my experiences at the university. I am also thankful for the robust academic community of the greater Boston area. I extend my gratitude to Bill Carroll and Coppélia Kahn, whose invitation to share my work at the Shakespearean Studies Seminar at the Mahindra Center at Harvard University, and the discussions that later developed with its attendees, have proven integral to the development of the argument that I have set forth in the second chapter of this project. Through early coursework and extended conversations over the years, Mary Baine Campbell and Tom King have also graciously mentored me. My decision to embark upon this journey – both in the realm of early modern literature and on the opposite coast – came from the inspiration and encouragement of Laura Lehua Yim, Gitanjali Shahani, and Loretta Stec when I was pursuing my Master’s degree at San Francisco State University. I can say undoubtedly that they led me in the right direction. This experience has resulted not only in intellectual growth but also in valued friendships. For cheering me at every turn, I offer my heartfelt thanks to Emma Atwood, Alex Puente, Kristin Imre, Trista Doyle, Rachel Ernst, Kelsey Norwood, Laura Sterrett, Margaret Summerfield, and Josie Schoel. No acknowledgements would be complete without recognizing my village – the many members of my family as well as my friends beyond academia whose support has allowed me to thrive. To all those who have taken over my outside responsibilities in order to give me time to write, and at other times insisted that I take a break – chief among them, my husband Lee Danforth – please know that none of this would have been iii possible without you. And to my dear daughter Cate, your sweet disposition and superior napping ability from infancy through toddlerhood are what, in the end, pushed this project through to completion. In all things, Ruby and Lolly, my loyal companions, have remained at my side. Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to the memory of my grandmother, Dina Cuneo Giovannetti (1917-2002), a truly extraordinary human being who accomplished anything she put her mind to – and then some. A photograph of her as a young woman sits on my desk, her coy grin and steady eyes always looking back as if to say, “Dai che ce la fai.” iv LIST OF FIGURES 1 Venus and Adonis (London: Richard Field, 1593), title page. Bodleian Library, Arch. G. e.31(2). Used by permission of the Bodleain Libraries, Oxford University under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license.……………………………………………………..………24 2 Venus and Adonis (London: Richard Field, 1593), sig. B1r. Early English Books Online. Image from Bodleian Library.……………………………...……...……26 v INTRODUCTION Bill Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, and Frankie Beaumont walk into the Mermaid Tavern. The beginning of a joke, right? In part, yes, as the line serves as the premise for “pete the parrot and shakespeare,” a 1927 comedic poem by American writer Don Marquis. Yet what unfolds in the humorous scenario also raises the question of how Shakespeare regarded the relationship between his freestanding poetry and his plays – an inquiry at the forefront of this project. As pete, the erstwhile proprietor of the famous London watering hole recounts, one particular evening, when the three “were sopping it up,” bill, crying in his beer, lamented the path that his life had taken. Despite ben’s efforts to console him, pointing out how lucrative his theatrical endeavors had been, bill took no comfort. Instead, pete tells us, bill was absolutely downtrodden: money money says bill what the hell is money what I want is to be a poet not a business man these damned cheap shows i turn out to keep the theatre running break my heart 1 slap stick comedies and blood and thunder tragedies and melodramas . the only compensation is that I get a chance now and then to stick in a little poetry when nobody is looking but hells bells that isn t what i want to do i want to write sonnets and songs and Spenserian stanzas and i might have done it too if i hadn t got into this frightful show game business business business grind grind grind what a life for a man that might have been a poet1 Rather than championing drama and the theater, pete’s Shakespeare finds that work and that world second-rate. Although acknowledging that there are elements of poetry in his plays (he did write dramatic verse, after all), the two are characterized in opposition to 1 Don Marquis, “pete the parrot and shakespeare,” Archy and Mehitabel (New York: Doubleday, 1930), 160-165. 2 one another. Penning plays is a business, composing poetry is an art; the theater