Risk in Early Modern Maritime Drama, 1592–1625
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Columbia University Academic Commons Doubtful Gains: Risk in Early Modern Maritime Drama, 1592–1625 Benjamin D. VanWagoner Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2018 © 2018 Benjamin D. VanWagoner All rights reserved ABSTRACT Doubtful Gains: Risk in Early Modern Maritime Drama Benjamin D. VanWagoner “Doubtful Gains” argues that the concept of economic risk emerged in the early modern theater through performances of maritime peril staged at a moment of unprecedented growth for English venturing. Even as the hazards of global commerce became increasingly apparent, there existed no expression in English for risk, nor the inchoate logic by which early modern merchants attempted to manage their voyages’ losses. Yet my study shows that oceanic hazards are repeatedly worked over in “maritime drama,” an under-recognized cross-section of plays concerned with the sea, staged between the founding of the Levant Company in 1592 and the end of the Jacobean era in 1625. While the prevailing scholarly narrative has limited early modern uncertainty to inscrutable forms of “chance,” “accident,” and religious “providence,” my study shows how otherwise fragmentary knowledge was ordered in performance, implicating theater audiences in the management of new forms of uncertainty. Recovering the emergence of risk on the early modern stage has demanded not only the analysis of a new corpus of maritime drama, but a sophisticated account of economic history constructed from the archives of English joint-stock companies and attentive to the anachronism of modern risk theory. Shakespeare’s plays, at the center of my study, are complemented by the work of Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, John Fletcher, Phillip Massinger, William Haughton, and Robert Daborne, as well as a diverse collection of prose texts. I draw on pamphlets of mercantile policy, voyage journals, and charters, and a specialized archive of financial and navigational records. Constructing an archive of plays and prose that engage with an increasingly commercial global ocean, I argue that theatrical representations of maritime hazard precipitated a new discourse of risk in early modern England. Each of my four chapters shows how the theater helped shape one of those forms, which I term “maritime risks.” Scenes of shipwreck, piracy, enslavement, and news connected English venturing to economic vulnerability in increasingly systematic ways, helping to develop the logic of uncertainty which would come to be codified as economic risk. Shipwreck scenes in The Comedy of Errors, Eastward Ho, and The Tempest exemplify the period’s most typical hazard, demonstrating how spectators of shipwreck are central to reproducing the risk of disaster at sea. Encounters with pirates in 2 Henry VI, Hamlet, and Daborne’s A Christian Turn’d Turke establish risk within the many forms of negotiation demanded by early modern ventures, and the enslavement of Ithamore in Marlowe’s Jew of Malta launches my analysis of the risk to human agency posed by the sex trade in Shakespeare’s Pericles, Prince of Tyre. Finally, I address news of financial loss in Merchant of Venice and Haughton’s Englishmen for My Money, showing how risk manifests through the unreliability of staged merchant correspondence. The notion of maritime risk that emerges from these plays builds on contemporary oceanic studies while also recovering the inter-determination of oceanic space and economic reasoning everywhere evident on the early modern stage. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: Risking Oares 1 Chapter One: Shipwreck 31 1.1 Shipwreck: Risk in the Management of Theatrical Perspectives 1.2 Comedy of Errors’ Indeterminate Sea 1.3 Watching the Thames in Eastward Ho 1.4 “No more amazement” Chapter Two: Pirates 82 2.1 Pirates: Negotiation and the Risk of Coming to Terms 2.2 Commerce and Violence 2.3 Poor Diplomacy in 2 Henry VI 2.4 Pirate Logic in A Christian Turn’d Turke Coda: Terms of Desertion Chapter Three: Enslavement 138 3.1 Enslavement: Risk in the Market for Perishable Bodies 3.2 Maltese Policy in The Jew of Malta’s Slave Market 3.3 Barabas’ Devices, Ithamore’s Tricks 3.4 Turning Tricks in Pericles, Prince of Tyre Coda: “Until they perished” Chapter Four: Perilous News 191 4.1 Perilous News: Risk in Merchant Correspondence 4.2 Financial Community in Haughton’s Englishmen for My Money 4.3 Assessing Uncertain News in The Merchant of Venice Coda: Commodifying Risk in The Staple of News Bibliography 249 !i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project took shape when I was forced to admit to myself that I had no idea what “risk” was. What does it mean to take a risk, or to bear one, to desire or fear this thing called risk? How, I wondered, was it even possible for early modern Londoners to think about chance and uncertainty when they lacked a science of probability? My friends and mentors know that this question was bothering me long before I understood it was about risk, or knew that it would depend on the sea. During February of 2008, near the peak of the global financial crisis, I was studying economics and writing a paper for Bill Worthen on the strangeness of flipping coins in Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. I could not understand how probability was wedged into a revision of Hamlet. Bill put up with this sort of thing a lot; he still does, and I thank him for it. Although I have not known Alan Stewart as long, Alan has been equally tolerant of the strange paths of this project, from chorographies to voyages, and his calm support has been crucial in moments of turmoil. Of Jean Howard’s guidance, what more can be said? Every page of this project owes something to her critical acuity and tireless encouragement. I have been lucky indeed in my mentors. Likewise, there is no fascination in this study that has not been informed by conversations shared with the wonderful community of early modernists at Columbia. In particular, I would like to thank Seth Williams, Rachel Dunn, Alexander K.P. Lash, Gabriel Bloomfield, and Bernadette Myers for reading and thinking about this work with me for several years. Outside the early modernists, many other graduate students have contributed ideas through discussions spanning disciplines and periods. I would especially like to thank Sarah Arkebauer !ii and Zachary Roberts for crucial, bracing conversations about literary history and the humanities, as well as for continuing to challenge me with the damning refrain that “everything is fifty-fifty.” Given the interdisciplinary nature of this project, I have also been fortunate to work with several other communities of scholars, such as those at the Folger Shakespeare Library and the Interdisciplinary Center for Innovative Theory and Empirics. To these groups for their support, a collective thanks. One queer effect of studying of risk is its tendency to seep into nearly every other part of one’s life. My friends and family have done their best to endure it in mine; sometimes they have even been enablers. To Karen Shen, who has suffered altitude sickness, hiking through the night, and my tenuous grip on manual transmission: thank you. Thanks also to William Patterson and Meredith Blank for their enduring companionship, for being voices of reason in unreasonable times, and to Peter Yeung for dragging me out of the library into New York every now and again as if to remind me we live on an island. During the long, difficult process of this dissertation, Marcela Johnson was often my first reader. She bore more of the burden than she deserved; her love and support made this project possible. My parents, too, have withstood many emails, many drafts, and they know well how vital our conversations were to keeping me afloat during the isolating experience of writing. !iii For Marcela: amber, archers, cinnamon, horses, and birds. !iv The foming Seas did bullor vp, The risking Oares did rashe, The Soldats peeces for to clenge Did shoures of shotts delashe. James I, His Maiesties poeticall exercises at vacant houres (1591)1 So what is this thing called risk? …[T]he term designates neither [a unique] event nor a general kind of event occurring in reality (the unfortunate kind) but a specific mode of treatment of certain events. François Ewald, “Insurance and Risk” (1991)2 Introduction: Risking Oares Early modern English ventures were faced constantly with risk. Ships ran aground or were battered by storms; merchants were beset by pirates who threatened to kill or ransom them; mariners were enslaved and enslaved others; the irregular news that could be gathered about voyages was often wrong to disastrous effect. Despite these hazards, long-distance maritime trade exploded around the turn of the seventeenth century just as London’s other joint-stock companies, the public theaters, were also experiencing paradigm-altering growth. This twinned expansion had serious implications, not just for the burgeoning institution of the joint-stock company, but also for how English culture came to terms with globalization and the economic concepts that enabled it. For both theaters and merchants, the emergence of the joint-stock company as a new form of corporate organization was a way of addressing risk: a concern with 1 James I, His Maiesties poeticall exercises at vacant houres (Edinburgh: Robert Waldegraue, 1591), I2r. 2 François Ewald, “Insurance and risk,” Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon & Peter Miller, eds., The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991): 201. !1 mitigating loss and maximizing gain, with transforming the inherent uncertainty of theatrical and maritime ventures into something manageable, even profitable.