Strange Devices on the Jacobean Stage: Image, Spectacle, and The
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Strange Devices on the Jacobean Stage: Image, Spectacle, and the Materialisation of Morality Submitted by Callan John Davies, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, September 2015. This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from this thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. 1 Abstract. Concentrating on six plays in the 1610s, this thesis explores the ways theatrical visual effects described as “strange” channel the period’s moral anxieties about rhetoric, technology, and scepticism. It contributes to debates in repertory studies, textual and material culture, intellectual history, theatre history, and to recent revisionist considerations of spectacle. I argue that “strange” spectacle has its roots in the materialisation of morality: the presentation of moral ideas not as abstract concepts but in physical things. The first part of my PhD is a detailed study of early modern moral philosophy, scepticism, and material and textual culture. The second part of my thesis concentrates on Shakespeare’s Cymbeline (1609-10) and The Tempest (1611), John Webster’s The White Devil (1612), and Thomas Heywood’s first three Age plays (1611-13). These spectacular plays are all written and performed within the years 1610-13, a period in which the changes, challenges, and developments in both stage technology and moral philosophy are at their peak. I set these plays in the context of the wider historical moment, showing that the idiosyncrasy of their “strange” stagecraft reflects the period’s interest in materialisation and its attendant moral anxieties. This thesis implicitly challenges some of the conclusions of repertory studies, which sometimes threatens to hierarchise early modern theatre companies by seeing repertories as indications of audience taste and making too strong a divide between, say, “elite” indoor and “citizen” outdoor playhouses. It is also aligned with recent revisionist considerations of spectacle, and I elide divisions in criticism between interest in original performance conditions, close textual analysis, or historical-contextual readings. I present “strangeness” as a model for appreciating the distinct aesthetic of these plays, by reading them as part of their cultural milieu and the material conditions of their original performance. 2 Table of Contents. List of Illustrations: ………………………………………………………………... 4 A Note On Citations: ……………………………………………………………… 6 Introduction: ……………………………………………………………………….. 7 Part One. Chapter 1. Practical Morality: Philosophy, Visual Culture, and Theatre: .......15 Chapter 2. Materialising Morality from Image to Stage: .…………………….. 61 Part Two. Chapter 3. Spectacular “Strangeness” in Heywood’s Age Plays and Shakespeare’s The Tempest: ………………………………………………….. 122 Chapter 4. Strange Engineering: Stagecraft and Prospero’s Moral Technology: ………………………………………………………………………. 162 Chapter 5. Making Rhetoric Matter: Rhetorical Strangeness in Cymbeline and The White Devil: ………………………………………………………………….. 207 Conclusion: ……………………………………………………………………...... 262 Bibliography: ……………………………………………………………………… 266 3 List of Illustrations. Fig. 1. Sobriè viuendum:& non temerè credendum from Andrea Alciato’s Emblemata (Lyons, 1550; B3v). Fig. 2. Detail from An excellent song wherein you shall finde great consolation for a troubled minde (London, 1628). STC 22918.7. Fig. 3. Humfrey Baker’s bill poster. Such as are desirous . (N.p., 1590). STC 1209.3. Fig. 4. [Some f]yne gloues deuised for Newyeres gyftes to teche yonge peop[le to] knowe good from euyll (London, 1560). STC 23628.5. Fig. 5. A new invention; or, A paire of cristall spectacles . (London, 1644; titlepage). Wing N650. Fig. 6. The Second Part of the Spectacles . (London, 1644; titlepage). Wing S2316. Fig. 7. The Eye Clear’d; or A preservative for the sight (London, 1644; titlepage). Wing E3935. Fig. 8. Emblem 43 in George Wither’s Emblemes (London, 1635; G2r). STC 25900a. Fig. 9. William Fulwood’s A Spectacle fo[] Pe[]iu[]e[]s (London, 1589). Reproduced with permission from the Library of the Society of Antiquaries, London. Lemon 90; STC 11485.5. Fig. 10. “Veritas” in Peacham’s Minerva Britanna (London, 1612; V1r). STC 19511. Fig. 11. Cowper, William. The anatomy of a Christian man . (London, 1613; B5*). STC 5913. Fig. 12. Come ye blessed, &c., Goe ye Cursed . (London, 1635). STC 6798.7. Fig. 13. Detail of Fig. 12; “Chastitie.” Fig. 14. Detail of Fig. 12; “Lechery.” Fig. 15. Image of artificial decapitation from Scot’s The discouerie of witchcraft . Discourse concerning the nature and substance of devils and spirits (London, 1584; Dd8r). STC 21864. Fig. 16. Strange Newes out of Kent (London, 1609; titlepage). STC 14934. 4 Fig. 17. A most strange and true report of a monsterous fish . (London, 1604; *1r). STC 11501.5. Fig. 18. “Nec igne” from Peacham’s Minerva Britanna (London, 1612; Z1r). STC 19511. Fig. 19. Plate 7 of Book 7 in De Humani corporis fabrica . (Basle, 1543; Q5v [190]). Fig. 20. Wheelbarrow from Theatre des Instrumens Mathematiques & Mechaniques . (Lyon, 1579; plate 15). Fig. 21. “Hic . .” from Peacham’s Minerua Britanna (London 1612; C4r). STC 19511. Fig. 22. “Quae plantui irrigabo” from Peacham’s Minerva Britanna (London, 1612; D2r). STC 19511. Fig. 23. Plate 186 from Ramelli’s Le diverse et artificiose machine . (N.p., 1588; Cc3r). Fig. 24. Diagram from Puttenham’s Arte (London, 1589; M1v). STC 20519.5. 5 A Note On Citations. Throughout, I use original Quarto and Folio spellings and editions of early modern texts, except where I also wish to address editorial issues resulting from those texts. In terms of theatre history, alongside archaeological evidence, visual sources, reconstruction, and so forth, the original playtexts themselves are crucial in providing evidence for original meaning and staging; this matter is discussed in the Introduction, but it explains my preference for the early printed editions of the plays. Furthermore, being mindful of the quirks of language, spelling, and punctuation that attend these early printed texts avoids losing any ambiguity or added meaning; it also helps to “perform the vital work of ‘estranging the Renaissance’” (Hackel, “Practicing” 6)—a necessary task if one is to recapture the unique historical moment that gives rise to Jacobean “strangeness.” 6 Introduction. Jacobean drama’s complex moral spectacles offer an array of tableaux, engines, and devices that run the gamut from violent to bizarre. A concentration of “strange” stage directions and descriptions—i.e. “Enter seuerall strange shapes,” “they vanish’d strangely,” “in the strange habite” (Shakespeare, The Tempest B1r; Heywood, The Brazen Age G2v)—and references to “strangeness” in the late 1600s and early 1610s prompts a reconsideration of theatrical spectacle in those years. The first decades of the seventeenth century mark a move away from tragedy as the modish genre. Shakespearean romance, Fletcherian tragicomedy, and genre-defying plays like Thomas Heywood’s Age plays introduce a popular drama that is characterised by self-awareness and spectacle. This drama is also infused with “strangeness.” The term appears with astonishing frequency in William Shakespeare’s “late plays” (a description discussed below) and more often in The Tempest (1610-11) than in any other play in his corpus (26 times). It also appears frequently at the Red Bull in these years. The word is often linked to scenes that showcase sensational stagecraft. In 1600, for example, Thomas Dekker’s Fortunatus describes his ability to teleport across the globe as a device with a specific desired effect: “I would have it seeme straunge to you” (E1r). In the following decade, Heywood’s Age plays (1611-13), John Webster’s The White Devil (1612), and Shakespeare’s Cymbeline (1609-10) and Tempest (1611) adopt Fortunatus’s soundbite as a governing conceit. In these plays, “strangeness” features in stage directions and in characters’ attempts to process on-stage action, suggesting that the word is of crucial importance to the description of and response to visual spectacle. “Strangeness” in these plays prompts a reconsideration of theatrical spectacle in the early 1610s. What exactly does the concept mean for visual display? Why does it become a popular term for the description of and reaction to early modern “special effects”? What challenges does it present to the rational and verbal comprehension of visual phenomena? This thesis argues that strange spectacle has its roots in a materialisation of morality: the presentation of moral ideas not as abstract concepts but in physical things. The materialisation of morality occurs from the mid-sixteenth century, when “popular” print incarnations of moral philosophy are increasingly buffeted 7 by philosophical scepticism, protoscientific thought, technological developments, and global exploration. Material objects offer a tangible means of assuaging the growing moral and visual aporia that attend the late Elizabethan and early Jacobean eras. In practice, however—especially literary practice—the investment of morality in “things” reveals its essential uncertainties and ultimately amplifies doubt: physical matter is ephemeral, subject to mutability, and eventually melts into air. Webster expresses the temporality of all that