renaissance ambiguity

with regards to renaissance drama, would one say that it counts everything up until the 1642 closure of the playhouses? do people like middleton, or even ford, fall into this category?

the plays, from what i've been reading, seem to develop into "boureois domestic drama" around the time of middleton; which, although quite probably a sub-genre of any general movement/genre of the time, does seem to be distinctly different from the plays beforehand, i.e. shakey, kyd, marlowe and jonson to some extent.

in short - if i'm going to write an essay on renaissance drama (with that term being part of the title), is it fine to talk about middleton plays? if not, i'll be sticking to the plays, but just searching for a better word, although i am about 85% sure that there isn't a problem anyway.

Reply 1

etherised

Welll, 'renaissance' is one of those terms which have gone out of fashion at the moment in favour of the ubiquitous 'early modern' (which, frankly, is just as problematic).

I reckon if the definition given is 'renaissance' drama, then it's fine to talk about Middleton (and indeed all those up to the closure of the theatres). For use within essays, I generally find 'Elizabethan', 'Jacobean' and 'Caroline' are more useful general terms to describe lit from that general period. Those terms are (a bit) less loaded than renaissance/early modern, and have the useful effect of taking into account that the drama does change a great deal over that period.

Reply 2

symun

I've just written an essay about how rubbish 'renaissance' is when trying to periodize poetry - personally I think perioization isn't that helpfull.

I can't really help re: drama, though I agree with zigguratted that more specific terms are slightly more useful.

Perhaps part of your essay could be about the problems with Middleton and this definition...

Reply 3

silence

i just find that categorising one drama as elizabethan, say hamlet, and another jacobean, macbeth for example, is technically correct but a bit silly. it's not like the periodic terms signify any difference in the dramas themselves. so i try to avoid using them. well, i'd use them if talking about kyd and marlowe and then ford for example, but when such extremities aren't in place, i prefer renaissance, but was just checking that the term's valid.

Reply 4

etherised

Oh, I take issue with that! Can you really say that drama doesn't change when James comes to the throne? Look at, for example, the massive number of disguised ruler plays which emerge in 1603-04 (Measure for Measure is the most famous, but there are five or six more). Consider the fact that James places both officially sanctioned theatre companies under royal patronage when he takes the English throne. Consider the rise of city comedy - itself a dubious distinction, I admit, but the general shift away from the previous pastoral model is pretty clear, I think - and while the drama is going that way at the end of the 1590s, it takes a much more decided turn in James' reign. Look at the difference between Shakespeare and Fletcher's Henry VIII (1613) and the rest of Shakespeare's history plays from the 1590s. (Yes, sure, there are bound to be changes in fashion over a 20-year period, but these are plays directly about monarchy, and I think it's reasonable to argue that they're affected by a change in monarch.)

OK, sure, there are many other factors which affect how drama changes in that period. But the monarchs do play a big part, and there are decisive shifts at the times when the monarchs change.

Reply 5

silence

hmm, maybe (most probably) so. tis odd though; well, perhaps in relation to my proposed essay title, which is where all of this fuss is coming from. the title is something like "why and how does renaissance drama relfect the life of the average londoner from the period, with regards to realism, fantasy and morality?". so with that in mind, i'm sort of assuming that it's not so much the drama which doesn't change, rather the audience. but that is actually now an interesting point to consider, as in the new allusion to royal situation in the jacobean plays. mind you, i have a feeling that even the (supposedly) very first political tragedy gorbuduc had some distinctive royal allusion. it's something interesting to consider nonetheless. but as i'm talking about "the average londoner", i was going to focus more on domestic plays anyway, and/or perhaps city comedies. but is the development of the city comedy greatly linked with the new king james?

Reply 6

Da Bachtopus

silence

but as i'm talking about "the average londoner", i was going to focus more on domestic plays anyway, and/or perhaps city comedies.

Isn't that quite a dangerous generalisation to make?

Also, you say that it's correct but silly to suggest that 'Macbeth' is Jacobean. I recognise that your argument is about periodisation, but 'Macbeth' is a bit of a bad example since it's full of (critical) references to James.

Reply 7

silence

yeh, bad example come to think of it. and also the generalisation is quite a dangerous one too. this essay just has to have something to do with literature and the city, and as drama (from that period at least) had very strong ties with the city (london) in terms of where it was staged (and perhaps other cities within the setting of the play), it does seem a possible theme. i'm just trying to work out a way of talking about allusion/metaphor/symbolism; it would seem that the further these symbols are from reality can only be measured relative to the lives of the audience, perhaps. i am going to change that title by the end of the day hopefully.

Reply 8

Da Bachtopus

silence

drama (from that period at least) had very strong ties with the city (london) in terms of where it was staged (and perhaps other cities within the setting of the play), it does seem a possible theme.

Is it significant that it would actually have been staged outside the city walls in Southwark?

Sounds like a good essay topic, but also that you're trying to write about absolutely everything in the period and could end up being far too general. How many words do you have?

Reply 9

silence

3000 which, although being the most i'll have had all year, i feel will be limiting if the title's not right. i could make the title more author specific, rather than period specific; something like "middleton's and heywood's allusions to the social and domestic dynamics of london". or not. i've got a meeting with a tutor tomorrow to talk about it, so some good should at least come of that.

Reply 10

Da Bachtopus

Do something pretentious with a pre-colon quotation then some post-colon abstractions. "[Decent quotation]: London life in Middleton and Heywood". 3,000 words really isn't much - and I've seen the huge reading list you've given yourself :wink:

Reply 11

silence

ha it's getting bigger by the day. there is a lot of stuff out there to do with those two; eliot's essays seemed to start off a whole new interest in these renaissance playwrights (or at least they appeared coincidentally when the interest kicked off).

Reply 12

etherised

If you're writing about city, theatre and space you really ought to read Steven Mullaney's The Place of the Stage. The second chapter. He's a bit of a die-hard new historicist, but he writes some rather excellent stuff about the effect on the drama of the playhouses being located in the suburbs.

I don't think it would be fair to say that the rise of city comedy is directly related to James. You can see the beginnings of it in plays like Dekker's The Shoemaker's Holiday, which is 1598. But, certainly it's very much at its height 1605-15, I'd say - so perhaps there's a more subtle link in terms of, say, increasing cynicism amongst Londoners. Perhaps increasing sophistication of theatre-going audiences? I wonder, though, if it does in fact proceed from theatres becoming permanent institutions *outside* the city limits - a sense of observing from the outside?

It does sound an interesting essay topic - though, as you say, huge... Which Heywood plays are you looking at?

Da Bachtopus

Do something pretentious with a pre-colon quotation then some post-colon abstractions. "[Decent quotation]: London life in Middleton and Heywood".

ha. absolutely.

Reply 13

silence

i've only so far read a woman killed with kindness, but as that's set in yorkshire (i think), it's a bit of an odd one with regards to london. middleton plays would be women beware women, the changeling maybe.. revenger's tragedy(?)... a chaste maid in cheapside.. not sure entirely. i've found a lot of great material to do with realism and morality on some of the plays, but i don't know how tightly that can be tied in to the theme of the city.

the thing about the playhouses being outside of london could be interesting; adding an extra sense of separation and journey on the audience's part. i'm quite interested to look into the sense of escapism that the theatre had (and still has?) for the audience of the time; i'll give that mullaney book a look at.

the main issue i think is that we have to look at three texts. although it would be good to get variety in them, having too great a range will make it hard to unite the points of the argument.

i did initially have a thought about something like the transition from medieval morality plays to renaissance drama (i think via a few plays written for schools and universities), but that soon became too much of a nightmare vision. also, thanks everyone for the help, guidance and suggestions.