‘Labouring for invention’: a ‘Shakespearean’ play called Bennelong, with a rhetorical analysis of Shakespeare’s inventio Kirk Dodd A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of the Arts & Media The University of New South Wales December 2017 THE:' UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Ttt:�fS.IS,IO_ISSe,rtaU01,1._.She�t -surname.or_f'amHy·,:lame,.oooo- . Fir$Jname:. _KIF$,: -�b�etti9nf0:r · .,�gr� oas)iYen-1nJhifUbiyerslty: �e:riaar, . PhJ:I;Cl'fl:Vi>;R1273: SCh!)91: SchQoi_qftheAt(s.�, Me�i11 i Title: 'Labouring for invention': a 'Shakespearean' play called Bennelong, with a rhetorical analysis ! of Shakespeare's inventio ,\�trac;:�S?iwo.rC,$·_m_a�Jm_lfm: (PLEAS_f: lYPE) This creative ,writing ilwsis presents ii bl�nk vers,1 'Shake.wenre,u,' dram� called The 'f,-al{Jtall lliftorie pf ,Wqo//arawwre i .. Beimelang; itJl�_,c6t)d:uct'1>·a -��e��!i�d _amll>'.�1$- oJ:_Sb:al$es��r $, wrl_i.li}gs -t� �et�tnline fl:L:W (lndfogs·:a"f?q�- :�ha.�esp_�rC'·�---�e -of rhctori9al lnverlfon,.P,artly 'inspired yyT, '$, E/fots iatlle�tth,at the' traQitio� 9fwrllin,g b,l,yjk ve,rse,dr,µna,l}ke,ilJ, 'Eli�elll��s b,•d ',die\!',,$ls ,,vof!, e!'Pl�r�s, .the p(l>;peet fur restoringihat �ditfo� �Y ��,µniniilll ari� J111it�tirtgS�akespj!��;, m,th�ds to ptoducejafuf!;lengtb '8ll;dtespearean''dra111a·a1?outa·¢ru�ial,epis9d'e·ofAusti'Ulia.'scolo�ial:Rast. /Jenne(qng <lrd!llatiz¢�'the relaii�ll!lhip. b<:twee1)Australials first gc:,vomor'Arthur Phillip arid'the ;\;bofiginal mari he · kid� .to become his soccalled 'alilblissador', Woollaiaw.arre Benrielong. My approach lo iliis c!iritentious episdde of Austrlllian history. is guided by the prQ!ocolsfor working with lndill,enouscultural themes;, iit\din niJUtyways challenges the !limiceotric view 'ofhisWy· Which piecvails in coriii:\inpordl)' ltllUnstr!iam Awifralian.society, The play aims to encoufoi;e AuStralhJns· tO iciCrinSider and·rCCOnCt!iVC ' dieir own past by·_pTesenHng:. if.iri ·ihC· ror·m of.a-d�gnifi�d $hakeSpciireantra_ &!!�Y- the Pia)/Is · written'. fo_ be-.j:,eifotrited but- on_lr i_n :tlcCO�da�ce �ith pro,ces_s�� 9f :Cllli:urt!J:consutt_�fioo. ,�bi,�_h_ hav_� b1for�_ed:igJS ··prtij�Ct from : its early�!ages, My d!ssert¥)jon seeks t<j un�er�aadpr�tieal '!SPCCl$ ofSh��esP<'!lr<i'scre�tiye pr�CC.S by cons.idering .hii;worksin light oft!1e rhet<>rlc�lprecepl$ (or "inyentii>n; 'taught· in RenaissJlllce,gran1m,<lf sc�o11,I\; .Ai\efw��tingac,ount an. of the.Precept}. die �issena1ion �oncfucl$ a SYSle/!l'lliC aaalys,is qf$hlikespeore'f �ts Jo dcrnoll!ltrate.1i1.alhe was usingthese mtiih9{ls and that h• 'l'.as trn.ined iii Cic�ro,'s 'topit,s of iilwo!ion\ frAAucn\ly drawi!>l\,im th�m t� ;he[p,in�en/Ifie niate/iij[,ofll.is poenis !lJlcf play$. tfies� llndings have tfien been reapplied 10 my plar BeJineioh.g,ta assist with Hs 'Shakespearean' liesll1etic, The disserUtiioli . t�crefote· ptp)''ides- in_Slghrs i.Ofo'·_Shal;:�peare:� .i'ici-eaiiVe piO��-t�-;;�9.now. thes'e."c.'iari. _:irifonri the dCYe'l�i>merit'Of ne�v drarriBi- ]l . , . .· ' ' ·,: .improves: ,our undcr.standln,g of'how Shakespeare,ap pUM Reniiii�nce rhoiorical theory; iind it develop$ new methods for examinin�'(race,n,r rhe. arts rifinv<nifoin atext De<:l,tationr:elitt lO,$ t<fdlspositrOn.of prOJact (!!P:l�di5serta�Jo11 l :h!:!re�y.grantl�t he tJrii_Vej:sitfcftfew�.oi,lt.t, W�te:�'�:i:," lt,s·.-i:t1�ntifltie'i.i0fiftp·�!'Ch�;�pc1-t<f�Efa�a.il�!;)leroy _µ,es�;_6i,di�e�ti(?n (n �tlO'�.Of irl pa,J)n'the_l/niiil!u;lty !illtari�s in alt f0fl11si�a, of now,of herea�iirklif'\\11, ,su� �ltilhe ptcvisi'cirn,,pf.thi!Copyrlgl)l,Ai:b1�paA retain a)I ... prop<!rty n,�hts,such.as .!"'lent,rlgh!!t I also l'i>tain,1ha:rl!l)1t.tous<>ln:lulure works(sueh aslirticleS,or b<>oks);alli:>f . part ofthl• lhesisord ls.. rta1lon, l,aiso -!Juitii:nise,�.inlverSlty., M!cl'Oftims·.use to · the, 350word ·abstract of mt'the_sis ih·D!Ssertat(onAbstracts l!'item.aUonaJ(ihls ls appncabfo:,to __d'pctoral . , - . .. ._t11�_$e50,ri(Y�;---._.. -__ ..... , ,.-.....·- . .- .,---- · · "-··-·· ·-· '-· :, · -·- .- ..-·. .. -.-. ., ... , . .....-·- · ... .. _,.. · ..- -. "DJ�. µp_iV�rsitr.-�rn�es,th:�r�eremaY:tie . �ce�uona1_ cil"Cutnstart� f�Ulrin�fe:s�fk:ti�s · CO :.®ii1i_rJQ,,0£conditrorys_ -OrfU$e.. R�UeS� ·tor �$trictior.f-foJ:..aAeriod .bf f.ip·to'.·2:years.tntiSt"be_·made :ih wriUng_. R�liests-fdra· .tongetperiod ·oheslliclion mat.be ·conSfd8red ·1n.e'Xcept1onat clrcumstanteS:· "arid'.-r8nulre.the a..,-""'oval:of the Dean of Graduate.Research. FOR OFFICEJJSEONLY :Date Of coinJ)letion:Of:�Ulreni8rits."fOfAwtli'd: Table of Contents Page Abstract i Acknowledgments ii Abbreviations of Shakespeare’s works iii List of Tables iii Chapter 1. Bennelong 1.1 Preface: the concept of this project 1 1.2 The Tragicall Hiftorie of Woollarawarre Bennelong 7 1.3 Postscript: cultural consultation and future development 147 Chapter 2. Shakespeare’s inventio 2.1 Introduction: what is rhetorical invention? 149 2.2 Quentin Skinner, Lorna Hutson and Cicero’s early topics 157 2.3 The relative neglect of inventio in Shakespeare studies 161 2.4 The schism: why Cicero’s topics and not Agricola’s? 164 Cicero’s topics and Quintilian 165 Renaissance developments and Agricola 167 Textbook editions in the Renaissance 169 Cicero’s topics in Erasmus 173 Grammar school syllabi 175 2.5 Literature review: previous studies of Shakespeare’s inventio 177 ‘Demonstrare artem’ and ‘celare artem’ 188 Chapter 3. Methodology 191 Chapter 4. ‘Labouring for Invention’ 4.1 Shakespeare’s inventio 192 4.2 Topic 1: definition 197 Summary findings 204 4.3 Topic 2: partition / division 206 Summary findings 214 4.4 Topic 3: notatio / denotation 215 Summary findings 224 4.5 Topic 4: conjugates 226 Summary findings 233 4.6 Topics 5 and 6: genus and species, whole and parts 234 Summary findings 250 4.7 Topic 7: similitudes 252 Summary findings 259 4.8 Topic 8: differences 260 Summary findings 268 4.9 Topic 9: contraries 269 Summary findings 276 4.10 Topic 10: adjuncts 278 Summary findings 284 4.11 Topics 11, 12 and 13: consequents, antecedents, repugnants 285 Summary findings 297 4.12 Topics 14 and 15: causes and effects 298 Summary findings 309 4.13 Topic 16: comparisons to things greater, lesser, or equal 311 Summary findings 319 Chapter 5. Conclusion 5.1 Conclusion 321 5.2 Qualitative assessment 325 5.3 New readings 327 5.4 Authorship attributions 329 5.5 Future research 330 Works cited 332 Appendix A: Key sources used to develop ‘Bennelong’ 340 Abstract This creative writing thesis presents a blank verse ‘Shakespearean’ drama called The Tragicall Hiftorie of Woollarawarre Bennelong and conducts a detailed analysis of Shakespeare’s writings to determine new findings about Shakespeare’s use of rhetorical invention. Partly inspired by T. S. Eliot’s lament that the tradition of writing blank verse drama like the Elizabethans had ‘died’, this work explores the prospect for restoring that tradition by examining and imitating Shakespeare’s methods to produce a full-length ‘Shakespearean’ drama about a crucial episode of Australia’s colonial past. Bennelong dramatizes the relationship between Australia’s first governor Arthur Phillip and the Aboriginal man he kidnapped to become his so-called ‘ambassador’, Woollarawarre Bennelong. My approach to this contentious episode of Australian history is guided by the protocols for working with Indigenous cultural themes, and in many ways challenges the Eurocentric view of history which prevails in contemporary mainstream Australian society. The play aims to encourage Australians to reconsider and reconceive their own past by presenting it in the form of a dignified Shakespearean tragedy. The play is written to be performed but only in accordance with processes of cultural consultation which have informed this project from its early stages. My dissertation seeks to understand practical aspects of Shakespeare’s creative process by considering his works in light of the rhetorical precepts for ‘invention’ taught in Renaissance grammar schools. After presenting an account of the precepts, the dissertation conducts a systematic analysis of Shakespeare’s texts to demonstrate that he was using these methods and that he was trained in Cicero’s ‘topics of invention’, frequently drawing on them to help invent the material of his poems and plays. These findings have then been reapplied to my play Bennelong to assist with its ‘Shakespearean’ aesthetic. The dissertation therefore provides insights into Shakespeare’s creative process and how these can inform the development of new drama; it improves our understanding of how Shakespeare applied Renaissance rhetorical theory; and it develops new methods for examining traces of the arts of inventio in a text. i Acknowledgements I would like very much to thank my supervisors, William Walker and Stephen Muecke, for their tremendous support for this research from its inception, and particularly for their ability to guide a creative work that draws on a number of different disciplines. I especially wish to thank Bill Walker for his commitment and support to my personal development as a researcher, a playwright, and as a teacher over the past several years—especially his time spent reviewing scenes and chapters at primitive stages of development. Thank you for your keen eye, your caring frankness, your generosity and your friendship. I would also like to thank those in the department who have supported the progress of this thesis, including John Attridge for allowing me to discuss my early ideas as an undergraduate, Dorottya Fabian for your encouragement and support for my scholarship application, Chris Danta and Jonathan Bollen for making my last several reviews a constructive experience, and Anne Brewster for discussing cultural consultations with me.