The dramaturgy of Thomas Heywood 1594-1613 Carson, R. Neil The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author For additional information about this publication click this link. http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/1390 Information about this research object was correct at the time of download; we occasionally make corrections to records, please therefore check the published record when citing. For more information contact [email protected] THE DRAMATURGYOF THOMAS HEYWOOD 1594-1613 THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR JANUARY, 1974 OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE R. NEIL CARSON UNIVERSITY OF LONDON WESTFIELD COLLEGE I)IN 1 ABSTRACT This dissertation is an attempt to describe the characteristics of Thomas Heywood's dramatic style. The study is divided into three parts. The first deals with the playwright's theatrical career and discusses how his practical experience as actor and sharer might have affected his technique as a dramatic writer. The second part defines the scope of the investigation and contains the bulk of the analysis of Heywood's plays. My approach to the mechanics of playwriting is both practical and theoretical. I have attempted to come to an understanding of the technicalities of Heywood's craftsmanship by studying the changes he made in Sir Thomas Moore and in the sources he used for his plays. At the same time, I have tried to comprehend the aesthetic framework within which he worked by referring to the critical ideas of the period and especially to opinions expressed by Heywood him- self in An Apology for Actors and elsewhere. The third part of the thesis is an application of the findings of Part Two to the problems of authorship in Fortune by Land and Sea. The thesis shows Heywood's emphasis on essentially theatrical qualities such as visual effects and effects which can be obtained by controlling the relationship of the actor to the audience. It also illustrates his rejection of "Aristotelian" 2- A. 3 principles of dramatic construction in favour of "rules" derived from the native morality and romance traditions'., and shaped by contemporary theatrical conditions. It concludes that Heywood is essentially a didactic artist but one interested in technical experimentation and audience response. I Our Play is new, but whether shaped well In Act or Seane, Iudge you. (Epilogue, A Mayden- head Well lost. ) 4 PREFACE There are several practical difficulties confronting the student of Thomas Heywood. To begin with, the very length of his career (more than forty years), and the great variety of his writings make it awkward to confine any study to manageable proportions. Furthermore, there is still considerable disagree- ment about the canon of the playwright's work. Consequently it is impossible to establish a firm chronology for the plays. Only one of the dramas written between 1594 and 1613--A Woman Killed with Kindness--can be dated with absolute authority. About virtually every other play ascribed to Heywood during this period there is some uncertainty. Any comparison of the plays on the basis of a conjectural sequence of composition, therefore, rests on a shaky foundation. Closely related to the problem of date is the question of authorship. It is frequently difficult or impossible to know if a work is a collaboration or a revision involving another writer. I have included two plays (Edward IV, and How a Man May Chuse a Good Wife from a Bad) in my discussion of dramaturgy although there is a real possibility that Heywood may have had no hand at all in the second and only "a main finger" in the first. Furthermore, If You Know Not Me and 1 Fair Maid of the West have not survived in their original form and it is now almost impossible to reconstruct the author's intentions. Here again, 5 6 generalizations based on evidence including these plays are bound to be less reliable than one could wish. I have taken several decisions in an attempt to minimize the difficulties just described. To begin with, I have limited the study to the years 1594-1613 during which time Heywood was most closely connected with an acting company. Secondly I have confined the rather detailed and technical discussion of chronology and authorship to a bulky: appendix. This has enabled me to adopt a hypothetical sequence of composition without overcrowding the main discussion of dramaturgy with extended supporting arguments. Finally, I have chosen to use the 1874 Pearson edition of Heywood's plays to which edition I have referred consistently throughout. Since the plays are often not divided into acts and scenes, I have adopted a convention of citing the volume number in Roman and the page number in Arabic numerals (e. g. 2 Edward IV, I, 162). Finally, I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness to my supervisor, Professor W. A. Armstrong, who has been unfailingly helpful and encouraging. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 2 PREFACE 5 PART ONE: THEATRICAL CONDITIONS I. COVENANTE SEARVANTE (1594-1599) 10 II. DRAMATIST (1599-1613) 32 (a) Derby's Men (1599-1601) 33 (b) Worcester's Men (1602-1603) 50 (c) Queen Anne's Men (1603-1613) 69 PART TWO: DRAMATURGY III. SIR THOMAS MOORE 84 IV. NARRATIVE 117 (a) Theory and Practice 119 (b) Dynamic Form 128 (i) Point of Attack 128 (ii) Exposition 129 (iii) Foreshadowing 135 (iv) Causality 137 (c) Static Form 142 (i) Beginnings 146 (ii) Middles 152 (iii) Endings 166 (d) Conclusion 175 V. DRAMATIS PERSONAE 177 (a) Techniques of Characterization 178 (b) Appearance 185 (c) Gesture 198 (d) Speech 209 (i) Direct Address 213 (ii) Spoken Thought and Feeling 215 (iii) Conversation 224 (e) Grouping 227 (f) Development 233 (g) Conclusion 239 7 VI. SPECTACLE 241 (a) Stage Practice 243 (b) Realism 251 (i) Pranerties 252 (ii) Furniture 255 (c) Semi-Realism 263 (i) Scenic Units 263 (ii) Tiring House Facade 265 (d) Symbolism 273 (e) Conclusion 279 PART THREE: PAGEANTS TO INSTRUCT VII. FORTUNE BY LAND AND SEA 283 VIII. CONCLUSION 310 IX. APPENDICES 314 (1) A Conjectural Chronology 314 (2) Heywood's Stage Directions 378 X. BIBLIOGRAPHY 384 8 PART ONE THEATRICALC0NDIT10N S_ The forthright telling of the play's story, the freedom with time and place which lets the dramatist rivet each consecutive link in it, the confidences of the soliloquy, the spell-binding rhetoric, the quick alternation of one interest and one group of figures with another--all this is adaptation to environment and the solving of practical problems. (H. Granville-Barker, On Dramatic Method, p. 17) 9 I COVENANTE SEARVANTE (1594-1599) Two references to Thomas Heywood in the year 1598 illustrate the multi-faceted nature of his talent. On March 25, the theatrical financier, Philip Henslowe, made the following entry in his record of business transactions with the Admiral's men: Thomas hawoode came & hiered hime seallfe wth me as a covenante searvante for ij yeares by the Receuenge of ij syngell pence acgordinge to the statute of winshester & to beginne at the daye aboue written & not to playe any wher publicke a bowt london not whille thes ij yeareS be exspired but in my howsse yf he do then he dothe forfett vnto me the, Receuinge of thes ijd fortie powndes & wittnes to this Antony wm Borne gabrell spencer monday 1 Thomas dowton Robart shawe Richard Jonnes Richard alleyn. 1Henslowe's Diary, ed. R. A. Foakes and R. T. Rickert (Cambridge, 1961), p. 241. The term "diary" is not quite accurate to describe Henslowe's account book but it has been so universally employed that I follow the customary usage. Subsequent references will be to the Foakes-Rickert edition but will cite the folio pages. Sometime after September of that year there appeared a commonplace book by Francis Meres entitled Palladis Tamia. In it the author makes a comparison between the English poets and playwrights and those of the ancient world in which he lists Heywood as one of the best contemporary 2 dramatists writing comedy. Together these references establish Heywood 2Palladis Tamia (1598), sig. 283v. 10 11 as one of those rare playwrights, who combine with literary ability an intimate knowledge of the technical aspects of acting and stage pro- duction. Just how Heywood managed to follow careers as both writer and performer is not clear. He probably arrived in London as early as 3 1593 after having left Cambridge without taking a degree. He may have 3A. M. Clark, Thomas Heywood (Oxford, 1931), p. 4. 5 been no more than twenty4 and undoubtedly had no great expectations. 4C. J. Sisson ("The Red Bull Company and the Importunate Widow", Shakespeare Survey, 7 (1954), 58-59) cites the depositions Baskervile. There Hey- taken in 1623 in the Chancery suit of Worth v.. 49 thereabouts" and "aged wood is described as being "of the age of or too faith in the 50 yeares, or neare vpon. " Putting, perhaps, much that Heywood born "soon accuracy of these documents, Sisson reckons was after October 3,1573. " 5A. M. Clark (Thomas Heywood, p. 4) speculates that it was the death of the young scholar's father, Robert Heywood, in February, 1593, that caused him to give up his studies. There is some evidence that the young man immediately sought to attract a patron. In his Funeral Elegy on James I (1625), Heywood alludes to a time when he was a servant to the Earl of Southampton. Clark con- jectures that the reference is to Heywood's first years in London when 6 he was an actor in a company under the Earl's patronage.