Notes and References 1. Introduction I. 'How One Ought to Goveme His Will', Montaigne's Essays, trans. John Florio (1603), introd. L. C. Harmer (London, 1965) vol. III, ch. x, p. 262. All subsequent references to Florio's Montaigne are to this edition. 'Totus mundus agit histrionem' (a variation of Montaigne's 'Mundus universus exercet histrioniam') is thought to have been the sign of the first Globe Theatre (1599); see Richard Dutton, 'Hamlet, An Apology for Actors, and the Sign of the Globe', ShS, XLI (1989) pp. 35-43. 2. Some of the critics who have explored the metaphor, its origins and implications, are Ernst Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R. Trask (New York, 1953; 1963) pp. 138-44; Ann Righter, Shakespeare and the Idea of the Play (London, 1962) pp. 59-62; Herbert Weisinger, 'Theatrum Mundi: Illusion as Reality', in The Agony and the Triumph (East Lansing, Mich., 1964) pp. 58-70; Thomas B. Stroup, 'The World as Stage', in Microcosmos: The Shape of the Elizabethan Play (Lexington, Ky., 1965) pp. 7- 36; Jackson I. Cope, The Theater and the Dream (Baltimore, 1973) pp. 1-13; and Kent T. van den Berg, Playhouse and Cosmos: Shakespearean Theater as Metaphor (Newark, London, and Toronto, 1985). Curtius argues that the 'Totus mundus agit histrionem' idea was revived in the twelfth century by John of Salisbury (p. 139). 3. Richard Flecknoe, A Short Discourse of the English Stage (1664), quoted in E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage, vol. IV (Oxford, 1923) p. 370. 4. The Protean Self (New York, 1974) p. 22. Writing as a sociologist, Elizabeth Burns, in Theatricality (London, 1972), comments that 'It is only gradually that we come to realise the extent to which the role can impose itself upon the "self" which plays it' (p. 126). 5. Richard Hornby, 'Role Playing within the Role', in Drama, Metadrama, and Perception (London and Toronto, 1986), discerns a similar process: 'When a playwright depicts a character who is himself playing a role, there is often the suggestion that, ironically, the role is closer to the character's true self than his everyday, "real" personality' (p. 67). 6. The terms are from Maynard Mack's illuminating 'Engagement and Detachment in Shakespeare's Plays', in Richard Hosley (ed.), Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama (Columbia, Mo., 1962) pp. 275-96. 7. James L. Calderwood, whose Shakespearean Metadrama (Minneapolis, Minn., 1971) has been seminal in pointing out metadramatic concerns, defines the dominant Shakespearean theme as 'dramatic art itself- its materials, its media of language and theater, its generic forms and conventions, its relationship to truth and the social order' (p. 5). Other significant studies in this area are Robert Egan, Drama within Drama (New York, 1975); Alvin Kernan, The 198 Notes and References 199 Playwright as Magician (New Haven and London, 1979); Louis Adrian Montrose, 'The Purpose of Playing: Reflections on a Shakespearean Anthropology', Helios, n.s. VII (1980) pp. 51-74; Eileen Jorge Allman, Player­ King and Adversary: Two Faces of Play in Shakespeare (Baton Rouge and London, 1980); Sidney Homan, When the Theater Turns to Itself (London and Toronto, 1981); Michael Shapiro, 'Role-Playing, Reflexivity, and Metadrama in Recent Shakespearean Criticism', RenD, n.s. XII (1981) pp. 145-61; and Richard Hornby, op. cit. 8. Eugene Paul Nassar, 'Shakespeare's Games with His Audience', in The Rape of Cinderella (Bloomington and London, 1966) pp. 101-19, discusses how the actors in Shakespeare's plays can 'deliver lines that modulate between involvement in the core illusion and detached meditation on it' (p. 101). Robert Weimann, Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition (Baltimore and London, 1978), also shows the importance of 'Figurenposition': whether the character gives a mimetic presentation on the locus or stays forward on the platea, in a more frankly theatrical mode 'modifying' and 'criticizing' the dramatic illusion (p. 278). 9. John Webster, The White Devil, John Russell Brown (ed.) (London, 1960). 10. John Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, John Russell Brown, (ed.) (London, 1964). 11. Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition (London, 1944) p. 81. 12. John Greenwood, Shifting Perspectives and the Stylish Style: Mannerism in Shakespeare and His Jacobean Contemporaries (Toronto, Buffalo, and London, 1988), offers helpful analysis of these techniques. 13. David Farley-Hills, Jacobean Drama: A Critical Study of the Professional Drama, 160D-25 (New York. 1988), notes that 'the boys' theatres favour a detached relationship between the audience and the character' whereas 'the adult companies tend to affective theatre, in which the audience is encouraged to share in the feelings of the characters' (p. 6 ). For more analysis of how the boys' style of acting might favour burlesque and alienation, see R. A. Foakes, 'John Marston's Fantastical Plays: Antonio and Mel/ida and Antonio's Revenge', PQ, XLI (1962) pp. 222-39, countered by Michael Shapiro, Children of the Revels: The Boy Companies of Shakespeare's Time and Their Plays (New York, 1977), who argues that the boys' troupes favoured a broad combination of natural. declamatory and parodic styles (pp. 103-38). 14. The Selected Plays of John Marston, Macdonald P. Jackson and Michael Neill (eds) (Cambridge, 1986). Apart from The Malcontent, all subsequent references to Marston's plays are to this edition. 15. See Ronald Huebert. John Ford: Baroque English Dramatist (Montreal and London, 1977). 16. Jacobean Private Theatre (London and New York. 1987) p. 60. 17. Selected Essays (New York, 1950) p. 97. 18. This is the conclusion of Daniel Seltzer, 'The Actors and the Acting', in Kenneth Muir and S. Schoenbaum (eds), A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies (Cambridge, 1971) pp. 35-54, p. 37. 19. Andrew Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage, 1574-1642 (Cambridge, 1970), points to the term 'personation', first recorded in 1599-1600, and argues that 'By 1600 characterisation was the chief requisite of the successful actor' (p. 74). 200 Notes and References 20. In A New Mimesis: Shakespeare and the Representation of Reality (London and New York. 1983), A D. Nuttall tackles the proposition, taken from the structuralist critic T odorov, that 'Verisimilitude is the mask in which the laws of the text are dressed up' and goes on to defend 'the new mimesis' as 'the reconciliation of form with veridical or probable representation' (p. 181). 21. Shakespeare: Seven Tragedies: The Dramatist's Manipulation of Response (New York, 1976) p. 4. Madeleine Doran, Endeavors of Art: A Study of Form in Elizabethan Drama (Madison, Wis., 1964), also comments that 'Although theories of character, the doctrine of decorum, rhetorical training, and classical models tended to stress the typical in character, Elizabethan dramatists, for whatever reasons of creatiye vitality, were not inhibited by these influences' (p. 256). 22. Drama, Stage and Audience (Cambridge, 1975) p. 147. 23. Radical Tragedy: Religion, Ideology and Power in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries (Sussex, 1984) p. 176, p. 179. This is also the approach of Catherine Belsey, The Subject of Tragedy: Identity and Difference in Renaissance Drama (New York and London, 1985). 24. Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, trans. Hazel E. Barnes (New York, 1965) p. 417. 25. Michael Goldman, The Actor's Freedom (New York. 1985) p. 157. Goldman finds intrinsic to the theatre the quest to 'possess genuine identity, to achieve a free and unbewildered clarity of being, to define oneself through action' (pp. 156-7), and of course the living actor is a vehicle for transmitting the energies of this dramatic quest. (Peter Holland, The Resources of Character­ ization in Othello', ShS, XLI [1989]. pp. 119-32, also stresses that 'coherence of character is marked by the ... unity of the physical existence of the actor', p. 122). Like Goldman, Montrose finds that Shakespeare's theatre explores 'the complex, adaptive, or inquiring self, created and discovered in performance' (op. cit., p. 66), while van den Berg explores the theatre metaphor as a model of 'the process of individuation' (op. cit., p. 12). Similarly, James P. Driscoll (a Jungian critic) stresses the importance of self-discovery through conscious role-playing, for which theatre provides a paradigm: 'Truly, we become real persons, that is, attain fully individuated human consciousness, only when our imaginations are educated to grasp consciously the roles we play and the stage upon which we perform' (Identity in Shakespearean Drama (Lewisburg and London, 1983) p. 183). 26. 'Deciphering 'Tis Pity She's a Whore', in Michael Neill (ed.), John Ford: Critical Re-visions (Cambridge, 1988) p. 166. See also Thomas C. Heller, Morton Sosna, and David E. Wellberg (eds), Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought (Stanford, Ca., 1986). 27. M. C. Bradbrook, 'Shakespeare and the Use of Drama in Elizabethan Drama', EIC. II (1952) pp. 159-68, offers the insight that a character 'could be really changed by the assumption of a disguise' (p. 166). 28. See, for example, M. Hollis, The Man and the Mask: A Discussion of Role Theory', in J. A Jackson (ed.), Role (London, 1972). 29. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York. 1959; Harmondsworth, 1971) p. 245. Notes and References 201 30. George H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society, Charles W. Morris (ed.) (Chicago, 1934), was one of the first sociologists to discuss the formation of the self in relation to the generalised 'other' (p. xxi). More recently, Terry Eagleton, William Shakespeare (Oxford, 1986), observes that 'Social relations are not simply the medium within which an individual may choose to express his already well-formed identity, but the very discourse which constitutes that self (p. 61). 31. Encounters (Indianapolis, Ind., 1961) pp. 85-152, p. 152. 32. Theatricality, p. 137. 33. Role-Playing in Shakespeare (Toronto, 1978) pp.