INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the t»ct directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter 6ce, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infonnation Company 300 North Zed) Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 NEGOTIATING WITH SHAKESPEARE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Taekyeong Kang, M.A. The Ohio State University 1997 Dissertation Committee Approved by Professor Thomas Postlewait, Adviser Professor Alan Woods Adviser Professor Esther Beth Sullivan Department o f Theater UMI Number; 9801718 UMI Microform 9801718 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTEIACT Èi the early 1980s, Shakespearean studies took a distinct turn away from new criticism and psychological analysis toward a decidedly political and historical analysis. This “new historicism” has been predominantly concerned with the ideological and political functions of the stage and the drama of the early modem London theatres. Accordingly, competing critical models have been advanced to explain the social and cultural processes in which these theatres participated. The subsequent development o f this new critical trend has in turn revealed that a fundamental binarism underlies its theoretical and methodological paradigms. Known better as “subversion-containment” debate, the contention over the ideological effectivity o f Shakespearean drama is only one o f the many instances in which the practitioners of New ffistoricism. Cultural Materialism, and Feminism take side with one or the other proposition. My study describes and analyzes the definitive critical methods and assumptions of these new historical criticisms in order to ground a more flexible reading position from which an access to the historical period and its drama is to be made. Distinct sets of binary terms deployed in recent criticism are investigated: the ruling class vs. the ruled, patriarchal oppression vs. women’s liberation, and powerful theatre vs. powerless theatre. Since these binaries derive from limited and fundamentally dichotomous historical perspectives as well as theoretical inadequacies, an attempt is in tum made to locate the critical construct of ‘negotiated reading position’ in the historical subjects, who were the playgoers in the early modem London. Among the ‘middling sort of people,’ who were the staple constituency of the theatre audience, distinct components are identified: citizens, women, and apprentices. Queen Elizabeth’s coronation entry and Shakespeare’s English chronicle plays are analyzed from the London citizens’ viewpoint, which might have entertained the interstices between the ruling power and the subordinate position of its subjects. The binary of patriarchy and female autonomy is explored in the light of both social differences and solidarity among Shakespeare’s heroines and among their counterparts in the audience. Julius Caesar is read from the perspectives possibly taken up by the London apprentices, whose precarious situation within the urban culture best encapsulates the social complexity and the ideological differences within the formation of the middling sort of people in early modem London. In this cultural exchange and negotiation between the central institution of apprenticeship and the marginal institution of the professional theatres, the binary of powerfril theatre vs. powerless theatre is finally seen to dissolve. The conclusion toward which these readings urge is not a specific cultural theory or a definitive critical position whereby an ideological critique of the competing versions of historical criticism is maintained. Since one of the major problems with the new historicist enterprise lies in its insufficient contact with the professional historical scholarship, a consistent effort is made throughout the study to envision a different mode of historicization based upon a critical engagement with the historical scholarship. Thus, the study as a whole explores a preliminary methodology of “negotiation” for a better understanding of the relationship between past and present, between history and criticism, or between us and Shakespeare. As such, it further points toward the necessity of developing a more rigorous discipline of interdisciplinary work among literary, theatre, and historical scholarship. Ill Dedicated to My Parents And Lord Jesus IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS All the Athenians and the foreigner who were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing. Then Paul stood in the midst of Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: To the Unknown God. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing. Him I proclaim to you. Acts 17:21-23 In Jesus of Nazareth I have found the unknown god that I was searching for in ancient Athens, in Shakespeare’s England, and in late twentieth-century world. Him I praise with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my mind, and with all my strength. With Shakespeare I learned to negotiate and live with the limits of humanity. In Lord Jesus I have learned to die toward such limits. During the journey from early modem England back to ancient Palestine, I met three great teachers, to whom I wish to acknowledge my deepest gratitude on this page. I wish to thank my adviser. Dr. Thomas Postlewait, whose sage advice and warm encouragement sustained me throughout my research and writing process. I am especially indebted to his balanced approach as a scholar, which I have tried to adapt in my dissertation. I am also grateful to Dr. Oak Song, my former adviser at Korea University, who not only introduced me to Shakespearean scholarship, but who also took pains to enlighten me with the discipline for both a scholar and a human being. Finally, I humbly give thanks to Pastor Keun-Sang Lee, minister of Korean Church of Columbus, who has been a ghostly father — to use a Shakespearean term — to me. He nourished me with the Words of God and showed me where the footprints of Jesus are to be found. VITA January 8,1962 Bom in Busan, Korea 1989.............................. M.A. English, Korea University 1993-95 ....................... Graduate Research Associate Jerome E. Lawrence & Robert E. Lee Theatre Research Institute The Ohio State University 1995-96 ..................... Graduate Teaching Associate Department of Theater The Ohio State University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Theatre VI TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................ ü Dedication ........................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... Vita ...................................................................................................................................vi Chapters; 1. Introduction: Historicized Renaissance and Critical Models................................... I 2. Resurrecting the London Playgoers 1567-1642........................................................ 38 1. Reconstruction of Shakespeare’s Audience............................................................ 38 H. Social History in Audience Studies......................................................................... 49 m. Revisions and the “Middling Sort o f People”........................................................ 60 3. Retrieving the Civic Voice: Citizen in History and in Shakespeare'sHistories ......... 78 Introduction. Citizen Spectators.................................................................................... 78 I. Who Speaks ?: Royal Entries and Civic Dramaturgy............................................... 83 n. Enter Above': The Place of Citizens in Shakespeare'sHistories ..........................105 4. Shakespeare’s Women, Women’s Shakespeare